How the Hell Is This in Any Way, Shape or Form Proportional to the Actual Threat?
Corona isn't even any longer considered a "high consequence infectious disease"
On 23rd March, the British Government put the entire country on lockdown risking incalculable consequences that could bring:
- Economic meltdown
- The mother of all financial crashes
- Millions of job losses
- Thousands of businesses going to the wall
- Masses of people plunged into poverty
- A huge deterioration in the mental health of millions
- The potential deaths of thousands of old people left on their own with no carers (see the example of the Spanish care homes)
- Mass civil unrest
Such enormous risks can surely only be justified if they are proportionate to threat. Are they?
The most astonishing thing I have seen or heard over the last few days — and there’s a lot to choose from — is something that appears on the Government’s own website. There, it shows that on 19th March, four days before the lockdown announcement, a decision was taken to downgrade Covid-19 from a “High Consequence Infectious Disease”, which it had been listed as since January, basically because more information was now known about it and because:
“in particular, more information is available about mortality rates (low overall)”!
Frankly, I’m at a loss to understand this. The country put on lockdown risking incalculably High Consequences, four days after the virus in question was deemed not to be a High Consequence Infectious Disease and thus downgraded. Am I missing something? [Only that this wasn’t done in response to the actual threat but to ameliorate the hysterical media and social media that cowardly politicians are so attuned to.]