| It seems the government was following this document at the start: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/... The reason it seemed they were doing nothing are these passages: ii. Minimise the potential impact of a pandemic on society and the economy by: • Supporting the continuity of essential services, including the supply of medicines,
and protecting critical national infrastructure as far as possible. • Supporting the continuation of everyday activities as far as practicable. • Upholding the rule of law and the democratic process. • Preparing to cope with the possibility of significant numbers of additional deaths. • Promoting a return to normality and the restoration of disrupted services at the
earliest opportunity. There's way more, but I've honestly not read it all. But there was a plan, drafted before this epidemic. Public opinion was turning against the government, but it actually kept course for some time. Something I was honestly impressed with. What made it drop the plan was Neil Ferguson's study. There are many reasons for criticising the plan. This article is pretty good. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/mar/29/uk-strategy... What really gets me is that if the lockdown was the correct decision, we arrived there for the wrong reasons. This paper had such an outsized impact that it should be held to a higher standard. And it's scary (but not really unexpected) that the government is making decisions of this magnitude based on such a shaky foundation. |