Lockdown effects now killing/harming more people than Covid

[DustyBin]

Exactly. We thought we'd never be mad enough to copy China's lockdowns, but we did, admittedly in a watered down form. But the opposition benches clamoured for months to go stronger and harder, with MPs even calling out people publicly and belittling them for (rightly) questioning the whole process (obviously this goes for both sides of the house though).

Currently many think we'd never be mad enough to copy China's social credit system. I'm really not so sure now. As you say, Climate could be the reason it starts to be brought in.

I honestly believe that the implementation of some kind of "green credit" system (social credit with an environmental twist!) is a realistic possibility. Project fear is already underway, and we know how important it is to "stay safe"....

 

[greyman42]

Furthermore it seems to be increasingly the consensus that the lockdowns were too severe and too prolonged, and have contributed towards the current economic situation, so I suspect that, unless the illness is significantly worse, we won't act in the same way in future - irrespective of who is in power.

The Conservatives will not admit that lockdowns were wrong because they implemented them, and Labour will not admit they were wrong because they called on them to be even more severe.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Oct 2022 ==

Realistically though how likely is another pandemic in the near future? Because honestly, I think Labour's position throughout the pandemic is irrelevant at this point, and the country can't afford another five years of Tory rule after the next election, so with Labour being the only credible alternative under our voting system, I don't believe that any potential pandemic responses should be considered. I say this as someone who was more heavily impacted by restrictions than by the virus itself as well.

In other words, we should just forget about Labours clamour for harsher restrictions and sweep it under the carpet? I for one will not forgive and forget unless Labour admits their stance was wrong.

 

[MikeWM]

I honestly believe that the implementation of some kind of "green credit" system (social credit with an environmental twist!) is a realistic possibility. Project fear is already underway, and we know how important it is to "stay safe"....

Probably not surprising to anyone that I agree this is very likely to be attempted - it won't be exactly like the Chinese system, but closely tied to climate change, at least to begin with. I fully expect attempts to limit where you can go and how often and by what mode of transport, how much meat you can eat, and how much you can heat/cool your home. We've seen enough 'nudging' stories in the media about all these things over the past few weeks alone. The fact that we have had slotted into place a Prime Minister who is very keen on Central Bank Digital Currencies, which in their 'programmable' form would be how all this could be implemented, is no doubt rather helpful to such attempts.

Covid turned into a trial run to see how compliant we were with being told what to do, even though it was often total nonsense. And we showed most of us would blindly obey, even if it was utterly ridiculous - putting a mask on when entering a pub, and taking it off 5 seconds later once we had sat down...

There is one key difference though - it will be hard to generate the same level of fear over climate change that they managed over covid, and that may make resistance rather more widespread. 'Global temperatures will be 1 degree higher than now in 40 years time, and the sea level will be rising a bit' is a rather harder sell to get people to agree to totally upend their lives than 'there's a deadly virus out there, and you may well be dead in 2 weeks if you don't do what we say'.

 

[nw1]

I will admit to laughing, grimly, at the Chinese state's concept of "social credit" when their leader is probably the second most evil person in the world today.

He is under extreme "social debt", yet doubtless will not have to pay the state billions personally. Similarly he's the so-called "communist" living a life of
luxury, doubtless paid for by the long-suffering Chinese people...

 

[bramling]

I agree that those who try to attribute the rise in excess deaths to vaccines are barking up the wrong tree, but I don't see any good evidence that it is Covid infections, rather than lockdowns, restrictions etc that have caused it.

For example I have suffered ill health due to the health service refusing to see me in a timely manner and taking almost a year for the right specialist to see me; once I saw the right person, they saw the problem simply by watching me walk for 30 seconds! I am far from alone in this.

Lack of access to health care has got to be a major thing, though I’m not sure how this would feed through to cardiovascular issues in seemingly healthy under-40s.

One does wonder about reduced activity during 2020 though. Despite being out & about a fair bit, I was surprised to look back through my phone records and find that I did significantly less exercise during 2020 compared to previous years, and only in 2022 has this recovered, 2021 being somewhere in between. I partly attribute this to no summer holidays in 2020 and during spring 2021, as we tend to normally be very active at these times. I suspect there will be significant disparities in exercise levels amongst the population, certainly I know someone who shielded for large parts of the two years and who must now be bordering on morbidly obese, which is hardly a good outcome.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Oct 2022 ==

Exactly. We thought we'd never be mad enough to copy China's lockdowns, but we did, admittedly in a watered down form. But the opposition benches clamoured for months to go stronger and harder, with MPs even calling out people publicly and belittling them for (rightly) questioning the whole process (obviously this goes for both sides of the house though).

Currently many think we'd never be mad enough to copy China's social credit system. I'm really not so sure now. As you say, Climate could be the reason it starts to be brought in.

This is why I find it hard to see why Starmer is suddenly so popular. Whilst it’s undeniable that the Conservatives have been utterly abysmal over recent months, we have to remember that Labour have contributed to the current economic mess by their massive support for Covid restrictions. If the media were doing a half good job they would be making more of this.

 

[Sorcerer]

In other words, we should just forget about Labours clamour for harsher restrictions and sweep it under the carpet? I for one will not forgive and forget unless Labour admits their stance was wrong.

The alternative is another five years of the same Conservative Party that actively implemented the harsh restrictions that personally set me back a great deal in life and also harmed the economy on such a scale that even now we still haven't completely recovered from the fallout of the pandemic. Don't forget, Labour were also largely arguing from a position of hindsight, hence why Keir Starmer became known as Captain Hindsight. That's considerably easier when you aren't the ones who have to implement the policies in Westminster and therefore don't have to face the consequences or accountability of doing so.

The fact is, come the next election, COVID won't be an issue because we've pretty much reached the tail end of the pandemic by now, and the UK has sufficient immunity to enable us to live with it like we do other coronaviruses and the influenza viruses, and the chances of a new variant that evades all immunity or even a brand new virus igniting a new pandemic is highly unlikely to the point where I don't think Labour's hypothetical stances of the past are even worth considering compared to what another five years of the current Conservative government would bring for the country.

I would love for Labour to admit they were wrong as much as the next person, but at this point there are, and will be, much bigger problems for the country to consider at an election than the Labour Party's extreme virtue signalling of the past about a situation they never had to manage and will no longer be relevant come the next election, unless of course they either start talking about it once more, or circumstances drastically change between now and then.

 

[bramling]

The alternative is another five years of the same Conservative Party that actively implemented the harsh restrictions that personally set me back a great deal in life and also harmed the economy on such a scale that even now we still haven't completely recovered from the fallout of the pandemic. Don't forget, Labour were also largely arguing from a position of hindsight, hence why Keir Starmer became known as Captain Hindsight. That's considerably easier when you aren't the ones who have to implement the policies in Westminster and therefore don't have to face the consequences or accountability of doing so.

The fact is, come the next election, COVID won't be an issue because we've pretty much reached the tail end of the pandemic by now, and the UK has sufficient immunity to enable us to live with it like we do other coronaviruses and the influenza viruses, and the chances of a new variant that evades all immunity or even a brand new virus igniting a new pandemic is highly unlikely to the point where I don't think Labour's hypothetical stances of the past are even worth considering compared to what another five years of the current Conservative government would bring for the country.

I would love for Labour to admit they were wrong as much as the next person, but at this point there are, and will be, much bigger problems for the country to consider at an election than the Labour Party's extreme virtue signalling of the past about a situation they never had to manage and will no longer be relevant come the next election, unless of course they either start talking about it once more, or circumstances drastically change between now and then.

Both the main political parties don’t come out of this smelling of roses.

In the case of the Conservatives, Sunak, as with many of the backbenchers, clearly felt restrictions were dragging on too long, yet Johnson was running frit because he didn’t have the self-confidence to go beyond “follow the science”. The science was never going to take into account issues like the economic consequences. For their part, the likes of Sunak didn’t have the spine to force the issue by resigning, no doubt because he was busy eyeing up the right moment to launch his own leadership platform.

Meanwhile, Starmer and Labour continued to push for restrictions every step of the way, with no real evidence that they at any stage considered the wider consequences. Labour cannot duck away from this, especially with their role having been official opposition. In the same way they also have an indirect part to play in the whole current situation, namely because the quality of their (official opposition) opposition has been dire for many years.

Then there’s been the media scrutiny, which has also been absolutely dire.

Pretty much no one comes out of this looking good, but Labour can’t airbrush away their significant role in all this.

This all leaves a big problem, namely who on earth a substantial proportion of the population are going to vote for, and is one reason why a general election isn’t a good solution at this time. You can’t run an election when much of the population are politically homeless and don’t wish to vote for either of the two main parties, the result will be knee-jerk, and in the medium term that will be disastrous for public cohesion in a country which already has numerous major structural issues which have been festering since the 90s.

 

[takno]

This all leaves a big problem, namely who on earth a substantial proportion of the population are going to vote for, and is one reason why a general election isn’t a good solution at this time. You can’t run an election when much of the population are politically homeless and don’t wish to vote for either of the two main parties, the result will be knee-jerk, and in the medium term that will be disastrous for public cohesion in a country which already has numerous major structural issues which have been festering since the 90s.

Define "substantial" in this context. I'm a lot less politically homeless than I was when Corbyn was around, and we managed to have a couple of elections then.

 

[bramling]

Define "substantial" in this context. I'm a lot less politically homeless than I was when Corbyn was around, and we managed to have a couple of elections then.

In the first instance, Britain (especially England) is broadly centre or slightly centre-right, yet at the moment who in their right mind could want to vote Conservative? Meanwhile Labour have been so weak under Starmer, and in particular have been subject to so little scrutiny, that it’s hard to know what they actually stand for, and of course under the surface there’s still plenty of Corbynism present. Neither of the parties seem able to surface sufficient talent to fill key leadership positions, it’s like the tank has literally run dry.

My view that is there is no real appetite for either party, just a lot of protest vote directed towards Labour - which is fully understandable, but not particularly symptomatic of a healthy democracy.

 

[Sorcerer]

Both the main political parties don’t come out of this smelling of roses.

In the case of the Conservatives, Sunak, as with many of the backbenchers, clearly felt restrictions were dragging on too long, yet Johnson was running frit because he didn’t have the self-confidence to go beyond “follow the science”. The science was never going to take into account issues like the economic consequences. For their part, the likes of Sunak didn’t have the spine to force the issue by resigning, no doubt because he was busy eyeing up the right moment to launch his own leadership platform.

I don't particularly think Boris Johnson was focused on following the science but rather just wanted to look like he was doing something rather than actually doing something. Having missed five COBRA meetings and failing to enact any meaningful policies when it mattered most he put himself in a position he wasn't suited for. Lockdowns were only ever recommended by the WHO in situations where resources were overwhelmed and needed to be rebalanced or to help protect healthcare workers from exhaustion, yet in the UK they were treated as consistently viable options for containment rather than something more effective like an adequate contact tracing instead of the scandalous one that we ended up with. Had we taken a more professional and science-based approach from the start I feel like we wouldn't have even had to think about lockdowns as a policy, or at least not to the extent that the government treated them.

Meanwhile, Starmer and Labour continued to push for restrictions every step of the way, with no real evidence that they at any stage considered the wider consequences. Labour cannot duck away from this, especially with their role having been official opposition. In the same way they also have an indirect part to play in the whole current situation, namely because the quality of their (official opposition) opposition has been dire for many years.

Personally, I think there was a good chance that if Labour were in power that they wouldn't have acted in the way that they preached. As I've mentioned, it's easy to say something should happen when you don't have to do it, much like in the same way that those calling for lockdowns were least affected by them. It's largely speculative though seeing as if Labour were in power that would've meant Corbyn was Prime Minister from 2019, and truth be told I'm not really sure he would've performed better than Johnson. Starmer I believe may have been more open to practical science-based approaches from the start, but I won't be so bold as to say he would've done for sure. I just think in this case that Labour had it easy with being able to call for knee-jerk feel-good restrictions without dealing with the consequences or accountability. How they would act if they were actually in power could've been very different in my opinion.

This all leaves a big problem, namely who on earth a substantial proportion of the population are going to vote for, and is one reason why a general election isn’t a good solution at this time. You can’t run an election when much of the population are politically homeless and don’t wish to vote for either of the two main parties, the result will be knee-jerk, and in the medium term that will be disastrous for public cohesion in a country which already has numerous major structural issues which have been festering since the 90s.

Oh, but of course, and in this situation any vote for Labour from me will more likely be a vote against the Tories. In an ideal system of proportional representation I could afford to be more critical of the main parties. But in this case as someone who leans left of centre, I'm unfortunately in a position of picking the party that might have punched me in the face (Labour), or actually did punch me in the face resulting a broken nose and black eye (Conservative). Sad to say that's not such an extreme analogy because the face punching in this case refers to restrictions that negatively impacted my life more than the virus ever did.

 

[greyman42]

Pretty much no one comes out of this looking good, but Labour can’t airbrush away their significant role in all this.

This all leaves a big problem, namely who on earth a substantial proportion of the population are going to vote for, and is one reason why a general election isn’t a good solution at this time.

Spot on.

 

[Eyersey468]

This is where some people are complacent in my opinion. What we saw was more than just a botched pandemic response; it marked a fundamental change in the relationship between the state and the populace. As Neil Ferguson (in)famously said:



I believe it's more likely than not that another "crisis" will come along (climate change being the odds-on favourite) which will "necessitate" an authoritarian response, and unfortunately the precedent has been set.

Completely agree

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Oct 2022 ==

The Conservatives will not admit that lockdowns were wrong because they implemented them, and Labour will not admit they were wrong because they called on them to be even more severe.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Oct 2022 ==


In other words, we should just forget about Labours clamour for harsher restrictions and sweep it under the carpet? I for one will not forgive and forget unless Labour admits their stance was wrong.

I will not forgive and forget either

 

[nw1]

This is why I find it hard to see why Starmer is suddenly so popular. Whilst it’s undeniable that the Conservatives have been utterly abysmal over recent months, we have to remember that Labour have contributed to the current economic mess by their massive support for Covid restrictions. If the media were doing a half good job they would be making more of this.

Except Covid, or any pandemic, is unlikely to be an issue by the time of the next election, even if that is sooner rather than later. People's minds are now on things besides Covid, including how Boris and Truss have made a complete mess of things in their own individual ways. Not to mention the Conservative Party are traditionally the party of austerity, which will not help people's personal wellbeing now (and I'd say Sunak is more of an austeritarian than either Truss or Boris).

I'm more concerned about 20 years of the Conservative Party and shutting out other points of view for two decades than I am about what Labour might do if we're really unlucky and another severe pandemic comes along soon.

 

[bramling]

Except Covid, or any pandemic, is unlikely to be an issue by the time of the next election, even if that is sooner rather than later. People's minds are now on things besides Covid, including how Boris and Truss have made a complete mess of things in their own individual ways. Not to mention the Conservative Party are traditionally the party of austerity, which will not help people's personal wellbeing now (and I'd say Sunak is more of an austeritarian than either Truss or Boris).

I'm more concerned about 20 years of the Conservative Party and shutting out other points of view for two decades than I am about what Labour might do if we're really unlucky and another severe pandemic comes along soon.

That’s all well and good, however I find it impossible to reconcile Labour’s pro-restriction stance, especially the way it carried on pretty much indefinitely. Indeed, unless I’ve missed something Starmer hasn’t even acknowledged that Johnson actually got it right in ending restrictions last summer (even if it was done in a very messy way).

On this basis Starmer cannot credibly criticise the current “cost of living” situation nor austerity, when he was personally advocating measures which played a significant contribution to the situation we’re in now. Much as I don’t like him and think he was spineless, at least Sunak does seem to have recognised that the continuance of restrictions was completely unsustainable.

I do agree that the population are unlikely to vote based on Covid restrictions, however they are likely to vote on economic competence, and it just doesn’t square up to overlook Labour’s role on this, especially Labour’s front bench is largely made up of the same people, not least Starmer himself.

To be fair, I’d seriously consider voting Labour at this point based on all the grubby sleazy Conservative goings on, and as punishment for us as a country being let down by Johnson’s premiership, but on economic competence it’s a much closer call, and that’s saying something after the Truss debacle. We also have to consider Labour’s record in other parts of the U.K., namely some of Drakeford’s measures which also dragged on way too long.

I’m afraid Labour come out of this just as bad, and I don’t think we should be overlooking that simply because of our usual political allegiances. I would normally vote Conservative, however I’m not going to attempt to defend the sewage show we’ve seen in recent months and beyond. Likewise Labour shouldn’t be off the hook either.

 

[greyman42]

I'm more concerned about 20 years of the Conservative Party and shutting out other points of view for two decades than I am about what Labour might do if we're really unlucky and another severe pandemic comes along soon.

I will tell you what they will do; they will put us into severe lockdown. Nothing Starmer has or has not said since the pandemic suggests otherwise.

 

[bramling]

I will tell you what they will do; they will put us into severe lockdown. Nothing Starmer has or has not said since the pandemic suggests otherwise.

Indeed if we look at Wales, where Labour *did* have powers of implementation, it isn’t a pretty sight.

I haven’t forgotten summer 2021 when hotel websites were begging the Welsh assembly to let them open again. Was it also not Wales who were at one point fining businesses who didn’t bring in working from home?

Labour *cannot* expect to airbrush all this from history, especially when we’re now suffering the consequences of what they were advocating, and are going to do so for some time to come.

 

[nw1]

That’s all well and good, however I find it impossible to reconcile Labour’s pro-restriction stance, especially the way it carried on pretty much indefinitely. Indeed, unless I’ve missed something Starmer hasn’t even acknowledged that Johnson actually got it right in ending restrictions last summer (even if it was done in a very messy way).

On this basis Starmer cannot credibly criticise the current “cost of living” situation nor austerity, when he was personally advocating measures which played a significant contribution to the situation we’re in now. Much as I don’t like him and think he was spineless, at least Sunak does seem to have recognised that the continuance of restrictions was completely unsustainable.

I do agree that the population are unlikely to vote based on Covid restrictions, however they are likely to vote on economic competence, and it just doesn’t square up to overlook Labour’s role on this, especially Labour’s front bench is largely made up of the same people, not least Starmer himself.

I see what you're saying but remember the lockdown was actually implemented by the Conservatives, and the Conservatives prolonged both major lockdowns until well beyond Covid incidence had dropped. Indeed in early summer 2020, we were still in lockdown when most of the continent had started re-opening. I will accept that Boris himself was not a strong pro-restrictionist, but there certainly were others that (in my opinion) were, including that smarmy hypocrite Matt Hancock, and the reliably-authoritarian Priti "snitch on your neighbours" Patel. Hunt also, though admittedly he isn't part of the right-wing clique which has dominated the Tories since 2019.

 

[Philip]

Indeed if we look at Wales, where Labour *did* have powers of implementation, it isn’t a pretty sight.

I haven’t forgotten summer 2021 when hotel websites were begging the Welsh assembly to let them open again. Was it also not Wales who were at one point fining businesses who didn’t bring in working from home?

Labour *cannot* expect to airbrush all this from history, especially when we’re now suffering the consequences of what they were advocating, and are going to do so for some time to come.

Not all of Labour was so sympathetic towards lockdowns; Tony Blair seemed fairly against them, because of the effect they were having on the economy.

 

[bramling]

I see what you're saying but remember the lockdown was actually implemented by the Conservatives, and the Conservatives prolonged both major lockdowns until well beyond Covid incidence had dropped. Indeed in early summer 2020, we were still in lockdown when most of the continent had started re-opening. I will accept that Boris himself was not a strong pro-restrictionist, but there certainly were others that (in my opinion) were, including that smarmy hypocrite Matt Hancock, and the reliably-authoritarian Priti "snitch on your neighbours" Patel. Hunt also, though admittedly he isn't part of the right-wing clique which has dominated the Tories since 2019.

I don’t disagree with any of this, the Conservatives are far from blameless. However Labour were elected as HM’s opposition, so their role was to scrutinise all this. They completely failed in that role, instead all they did was essentially shout “more more more”, which I’m sure was partly because that was the easiest line of attack. Given the situation we now face is partly a direct consequence of this, in my view this amounts to a dereliction of their duty. In consequence they have no right to criticise cost of living. I suspect this will become a more salient issue to people as this continues to bite, and people realise that it simply won’t be realistic to expect some kind of government scheme to pay energy bills indefinitely, or subsidise mortgage repayments.

Labour’s only solution to all this seems to be a windfall tax on energy firms.

 

[greyman42]

Not all of Labour was so sympathetic towards lockdowns;

So why didn't they make this known instead of saying nothing? The Conservative MPs who were against lockdowns soon made their feelings known.

 

[VauxhallandI]

So why didn't they make this known instead of saying nothing? The Conservative MPs who were against lockdowns soon made their feelings known.

Exactly this, they either agreed or were too spineless to say anything. Too busy protecting their own jobs at the expenses of something so importan. Is there any greater sign of their self service than this?

 

[bramling]

Exactly this, they either agreed or were too spineless to say anything. Too busy protecting their own jobs at the expenses of something so importan. Is there any greater sign of their self service than this?

Much as I detest the Conservatives at the moment, at least a good number of their backbenchers *were* prepared to challenge the Covid consensus. All Labour contributed to the whole affair was to hurl cheap shots, which is rather remiss in their role as elected official opposition.

It really doesn’t feel *that* long ago that we had Wes Streeting all over the TV screens begging for more restrictions.

Labour simply cannot credibly claim not to have had a role in creating the current situation, and nor can anyone who is anti-Conservative.

 

[nw1]

Labour simply cannot credibly claim not to have had a role in creating the current situation, and nor can anyone who is anti-Conservative.

Not sure I understand this, is this implying that all non-Tories were advocates of prolonged and harsh lockdowns?

I don't think that's true.

 

[Mojo]

The counter to this is that deaths overall were measurably not really prevented, and the price was paid very directly and by everybody. Even when they are illusory, the positive impact of general health and safety measures can be visualised, and more importantly the cost is usually borne by businesses rather than individual people.

Whilst you are correct, the truth doesn't actually matter, what matters is what people think is the truth. And I would suspect that the overwhelming majority of people believe, aided and abetted by the mainstream media and its selective reporting, that lockdowns in this country did save lives.

 

[Eyersey468]

Whilst you are correct, the truth doesn't actually matter, what matters is what people think is the truth. And I would suspect that the overwhelming majority of people believe, aided and abetted by the mainstream media and its selective reporting, that lockdowns in this country did save lives.

I agree

 

[Richard Scott]

Whilst you are correct, the truth doesn't actually matter, what matters is what people think is the truth. And I would suspect that the overwhelming majority of people believe, aided and abetted by the mainstream media and its selective reporting, that lockdowns in this country did save lives.

There are a number who still believe this narrative (one I met a couple of weeks ago said he had figures to prove it but wouldn't accept all his figures were fatally flawed).

 

[bramling]

Not sure I understand this, is this implying that all non-Tories were advocates of prolonged and harsh lockdowns?

I don't think that's true.

What I’m attempting to say is that the current so-called swing towards Labour is as bizarre as it is illogical. I’m not saying all non-Conservatives (indeed the Lib Dems stayed rather quiet on the matter but *seem* to have been somewhat sceptical of lockdowns), but equally I think it’s fair to say that Labour as a party were heavily pro-lockdown, and perhaps more importantly seemed to want all this to continue way longer than it even did under Johnson. This is evidenced both by Starmer and his front bench, and further by the highly draconian policies continued by Drakeford in Wales.

Not forgetting the elected mayors of course, with special mention for a certain Sadiq Khan in London; Burnham seems more nuanced and seems to have treated it more as a placard to make points about the north being victimised (which to be fair may well not be entirely unfounded).

I don’t think anyone can seriously say that there wasn’t very much less anti-restriction sentiment in Labour versus the Conservatives, especially during 2021 which is where the damage was really cemented in.

I don’t have a solution to all this as to be frank I’d rather have my stomach eaten by maggots than vote for Labour or the Conservatives at the moment, however voting Labour really doesn’t seem like the solution. Indeed if I’m honest I have to say I’m a little suspicious at the motives behind people advocating either a general election and/or voting Labour, as it seems more of an attempt to exploit the situation to boost what would normally be their own preferred political persuasion, rather than a pragmatic solution to a serious problem.

 

[Eyersey468]

There are a number who still believe this narrative (one I met a couple of weeks ago said he had figures to prove it but wouldn't accept all his figures were fatally flawed).

Just shows how effective the brainwashing by the media was

 

[bramling]

Just shows how effective the brainwashing by the media was

Yes the media certainly have a lot to answer for, as well as the politicians. In fact, the media’s role is worse in a way because there was and is essentially very little scrutiny of what they were putting out.

 

[Razorblades]

Yes the media certainly have a lot to answer for, as well as the politicians. In fact, the media’s role is worse in a way because there was and is essentially very little scrutiny of what they were putting out.

Laura Dodsworth's reflections on this in her very readable, and disturbing, book 'A State Of Fear,' are very perceptive/ insightful.

A State of Fear

This is a book about fear. Fear of a virus. Fear of death. Fear of losing our jobs, our democracy, our human connections, our health and our minds. It's also about how the government weaponised our fear against us – supposedly in our best interests – until we were one of the most frightened...

www.google.co.uk

\

This is a book about fear. Fear of a virus. Fear of death. Fear of losing our jobs, our democracy, our human connections, our health and our minds. It's also about how the government weaponised our fear against us – supposedly in our best interests – until we were one of the most frightened countries in the world.

But why did the government deliberately frighten us? How has this affected us as individuals and as a country? Who is involved in the decision-making that affects our lives? How are behavioural science and nudge theory being used to subliminally manipulate us? How does the media leverage fear? What are the real risks to our wellbeing?