Of course a second national lockdown will be hugely destructive, but how much more destructive would it be not having a national lockdown and keeping the country open as Covid-19 cases soar and death rates climb?
The Government was slow to act the first time — its intransigence cost many lives and led the UK to having one of the highest death tolls in Europe. If it had bowed to business heads once again and continued to turn a deaf ear to its own scientists who were screaming out for a national lockdown, it would be unforgivable.
Chancellor Rishi Sunak has proved there is an inexhaustible money supply to bail out struggling companies in this crisis: businesses can be revived but lives cannot. Citing low mortality figures amongst the young, again, is cherry picking and ignoring those who have survived but for whom the disease has been life-changing.
Dave Degen
Editor’s reply
Dear Dave
I agree with your sentiments but do occasionally pause to wonder whether a national lockdown is too blunt an instrument. I think the Prime Minister had no option, in order to secure sufficient compliance with the rules. Too many people are assessing their own risk, judging it (mistakenly, perhaps, to be low) and continuing with life as normal. Each of us needs to act responsibly to protect the more vulnerable, even if our own risk of illness or death is low.
Ross Lydall, Health Editor
Ignoring Covid advice costs lives
Boris Johnson was advised in September that a lockdown should take place. This Government’s approach is entirely subjective — imagine the mess we would have been in the Second World War if this had been the attitude. Because of these baseless decisions people have died who might otherwise have survived.
Richard Kimble
