[inops]

Why are you equating the response of the UK to Brazil or the USA? The UK locked down for months on end, and continues to lockdown areas depending on infection rates. To me, a Briton, the description of Johnson as "far right" is bizarre -- he's about as "far right" as Harold Macmillan.

[notreallytrue]

Because he is in the same ballpark of the other 3, denial of the covid dangers, a strong sentiment of economy over people lives and the call to sacrifice

Isn Boris Johnson who said “I must level with you, I must level with the British public, Many more families are going to lose loved ones before their time.” just to keep the business going?

I'm sorry but UK had it very bad under Johnson, it's an undeniable fact.

[chrisseaton]

> a strong sentiment of economy over people lives

Huh? No you've got it backwards - the argument at the moment is the Johnson is being too careful to protect people at the expense of the economy - the opposite of what you've claimed.

https://www.ft.com/content/7bb3e4b5-7dc7-464d-904d-aee5f7eb4...

> Isn Boris Johnson who said “I must level with you, I must level with the British public, Many more families are going to lose loved ones before their time.” ...

Yes. Isn't that just a fact? More people did lose their loved ones. That happened all over the world.

> ... just to keep the business going?

No, again you're confused here - that quote was about enforcing new restrictions to protect people - closing more businesses - the opposite of what you've claimed.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/12/uk-moves-to-de...

Both of the arguments you made there were fundamentally mistaken and are actually evidence for the opposite of what you're claiming.

[jlokier]

> the argument at the moment is the Johnson is being too careful to protect people at the expense of the economy

A variation on that argument, is that careful protection is only an option if the economy is simultaneously protected, by paying people and businesses cash, otherwise people desperate for income will not comply with lockdown directives.

We're seeing that being argued from Manchester right now: They want a national "circuit breaker" rather than local lockdown, because a national one is more likely to be accompanied by financial support, as well as a shorter "tier 3" lockdown in Manchester.

Not mentioned much, but hovering in the background, is a minority but significant number of people who aren't entitled to government financial support of any kind. Some as individuals (no recourse to public funds) and some as businesses (started business at a time that haven't shown figures yet by April, or were in an invest-and-spend phase so low/negative profit). In the absence of any government support, during lockdown they depend on volunteers for food and temporary non-eviction law to keep their homes, so they have a strong incentive to resist lockdown measures.

[romanoderoma]

> the argument at the moment is the Johnson is being too careful to protect people at the expense of the economy

He failed very hard at both then.

[inops]

I've not heard "denial", a la Trump, from Johnson.

That's the trade off every country is making: dangers of the virus Vs long term effects of response to the virus. It's a balancing act. What would you prefer, wanton destruction of everyone's livelihoods in overreaction? Not everyone is lucky enough to have a job that can be done from home, such as us on this site (typically). Every country is trying to avoid shuttering everything.

The quote from Johnson isn't talking about what you're inferring. It was a broad statement of what was going to happen (and it has, across the world): people will still die, in spite of the lockdown. It was a public address, not a policy statement.

It isn't purely the economics: I've had friends and relatives that have had significant effects to their health (including a death) because of being locked in their houses for months.

[romanoderoma]

> I've not heard "denial", a la Trump, from Johnson.

He literally said it himself when he recovered from COVID-19

> A few hours later, he received a positive test result, and the next day he made a video statement in which he said he was self-isolating, but would continue to work and lead Britain’s coronavirus response.

> But during the next nine days, as he worked in isolation in an apartment above his official Downing Street residence and office, his condition deteriorated, with persistent symptoms including a high temperature.

> Later, he said he had been in denial and continued to work despite feeling groggy and “pretty rough”, until doctors told him firmly to go to hospital.

Boris Johnson was forced to change attitude, but he didn't believe covid-19 was a life threatening disease.

> The quote from Johnson isn't talking about what you're inferring. It was a broad statement of what was going to happen

If he hadn't been in denial he could have acted sooner and save a lot of those people that instead died.

It's the PM responsibility and anybody else.

If we were talking about Italy, for example, I would tell you that 60% of the covid related deaths are a responsibility of Attilio Fontana, the president of Regional Council of Lombardy who left elderly to die in nursing homes while he was subcontracting the supply of medical equipment to his brother in law and when journalists found out he tried to repay the debt using his own money from a Swiss account (yes, he has secret money in Switzerland)

But in UK B.J. is the major responsible for the debacle.

[inops]

Nonsense. Nothing in your comment is "denial". The guy got progressively iller. He "felt rough" at one point, and then felt worse. He was commenting on his own state and his perception of it, not making some great statement of it being nothing. He self-isolated throughout during his illness, before going to hospital.

This was all against the background of the government shutting down the country's economy in response to the virus. A torturous definition of "denial" if I've heard one.

[romanoderoma]

The guy literally said "I was in denial"

I don't know what more I can say...

If you think it's not bad for you, you also think it's not bad for others

But maybe Johnson says things Johnson doesn't agree with.

[inops]

Thinking you wouldn't be badly affected (and by Johnson's demographic, statistically it was likely he wouldn't have been), doesn't mean you think it doesn't affect others badly.

I'm in my twenties and fit, and going by the vast majority of cases that means I'll have very mild symptoms. That doesn't prevent me being considerate how badly it affects others.

You're also completely ignoring the context that at that point the country had been locked down: you couldn't leave your house except to get supplies and 1 hour of exercise. Does that sound like the decision of a man that denied the gravity of Covid?