I think most of the criticisms I've seen directed at the Government over their handling of this crisis are well askew - whether criticisms from the "right" or from the "left". I know a lot of this a partisan passion that cannot be reasoned with, but it's worthwhile putting some skin in the game and attempting to explain what I mean. This will be long but hopefully interesting.
*FALSE CRITICISM #1: "The Government knew this was bad in January and did nothing til March!"
*REALITY: Based on prevailing circumstances, virtually no Western Government did anything til March or so, because they were under (bad) advice in January not to worry.
*FALSE SUB-CRITICISM #1.1.a: "Why didn't the Government implement a flight ban early on? Why aren't they doing a full ban now?"
*REALITY: Trump's flight ban was condemned as racist by people I know who are now complaining our Gov't did not do the same; it was politically untenable here and in many countries. A flight ban now, most experts *seem* to agree (but I am not an expert), would not make a big difference to spread.
*REAL CRITICISM #1: The normalization of trade relations with the PRC by the Western bloc as a whole, and the assumption that liberal democracy would follow liberal capitalism, have proven disastrous. In a very direct sense, tens of thousands of Chinese garment workers returning to North Italy after Lunar New Year - including many from Hubei - was very very likely a major factor in spread there. (This theme will recur.)
*REAL SUB-CRITICISM #1.1: The PRC engaging in world fora and being treated as a trustworthy partner in those fora directly led to the bad advice Western countries accepted. The PRC fixed the election of the present WHO chief, and the WHO's obviously corrupt behaviour during this crisis is now, I think, clear to all. We accepted the WHO's assurances on PRC's behalf in January; we should have instead have trusted the ROC, Japan, and South Korea, who began phasing in tests and travel limitations *from December*. They know how Commies are.
*REALITY: Based on prevailing circumstances, virtually no Western Government did anything til March or so, because they were under (bad) advice in January not to worry.
*FALSE SUB-CRITICISM #1.1.a: "Why didn't the Government implement a flight ban early on? Why aren't they doing a full ban now?"
*REALITY: Trump's flight ban was condemned as racist by people I know who are now complaining our Gov't did not do the same; it was politically untenable here and in many countries. A flight ban now, most experts *seem* to agree (but I am not an expert), would not make a big difference to spread.
*REAL CRITICISM #1: The normalization of trade relations with the PRC by the Western bloc as a whole, and the assumption that liberal democracy would follow liberal capitalism, have proven disastrous. In a very direct sense, tens of thousands of Chinese garment workers returning to North Italy after Lunar New Year - including many from Hubei - was very very likely a major factor in spread there. (This theme will recur.)
*REAL SUB-CRITICISM #1.1: The PRC engaging in world fora and being treated as a trustworthy partner in those fora directly led to the bad advice Western countries accepted. The PRC fixed the election of the present WHO chief, and the WHO's obviously corrupt behaviour during this crisis is now, I think, clear to all. We accepted the WHO's assurances on PRC's behalf in January; we should have instead have trusted the ROC, Japan, and South Korea, who began phasing in tests and travel limitations *from December*. They know how Commies are.
*FALSE CRITICISM #2: "The Government has done NOTHING about PPE. They're only just starting to order any. I read it in the Sunday Times!"
*REALITY: The Government had reasonable stockpiles due to Brexit No Deal planning, and did in fact engage private industry early in the crisis to ramp up production of PPE. This is of course a complex, time-consuming matter. Before WW2, Britain began organising industry months before Poland was invaded, and was still partly unprepared in September.
*REAL CRITICISM #2: Having allowed vital supply chains to fall into the PRC's hands, we first sent them valuable reserves, and then watched as they stopped shipments to us. We are still trapped by byzantine procurement rules which mean we are shipping to Continental countries which stopped vital shipments to us.
*REALITY: The Government had reasonable stockpiles due to Brexit No Deal planning, and did in fact engage private industry early in the crisis to ramp up production of PPE. This is of course a complex, time-consuming matter. Before WW2, Britain began organising industry months before Poland was invaded, and was still partly unprepared in September.
*REAL CRITICISM #2: Having allowed vital supply chains to fall into the PRC's hands, we first sent them valuable reserves, and then watched as they stopped shipments to us. We are still trapped by byzantine procurement rules which mean we are shipping to Continental countries which stopped vital shipments to us.
*FALSE CRITICISM #3: "Johnson was on holiday doing nothing when we should have been locking down!"
*REALITY: He had returned from holiday before lockdown was even on the table in most Western countries.
*FALSE CRITICISM #3.1: "We're not enforcing lockdown hard enough in this country!"
*REALITY: Rather, our measures have sometimes been ill-targeted, and overenforced in the wrong places (shopping baskets!). Our measures are similar to many Western countries.
*REAL CRITICISM #3: Though an earlier lockdown (i.e. most obviously a week earlier, when first rumoured) might have been unpopular, and indeed might not have stuck, it would likely have worked in seriously slowing transmission. This is hard to know; when lockdown was first rumoured in the circles of those who know, the suspicion was that the country wasn't psychologically prepared for it. But those who have lost loved ones as a result of higher transmission will prefer that we had taken that risk.
*REALITY: He had returned from holiday before lockdown was even on the table in most Western countries.
*FALSE CRITICISM #3.1: "We're not enforcing lockdown hard enough in this country!"
*REALITY: Rather, our measures have sometimes been ill-targeted, and overenforced in the wrong places (shopping baskets!). Our measures are similar to many Western countries.
*REAL CRITICISM #3: Though an earlier lockdown (i.e. most obviously a week earlier, when first rumoured) might have been unpopular, and indeed might not have stuck, it would likely have worked in seriously slowing transmission. This is hard to know; when lockdown was first rumoured in the circles of those who know, the suspicion was that the country wasn't psychologically prepared for it. But those who have lost loved ones as a result of higher transmission will prefer that we had taken that risk.
*FALSE CRITICISM #4: "Why haven't we gone down the Sweden route? They haven't shut down and they're doing fine!"
*REALITY: Sweden is not having a great time, and is demographically a very different country to ours. On the other hand, we can see - in their context - what a variolation-based herd immunity strategy does.
*REAL CRITICISM #4: We have (in part and only IMO) ill-targeted lockdown measures, as mentioned above. We probably could have finer-tuned measures which are less invasive.
*REALITY: Sweden is not having a great time, and is demographically a very different country to ours. On the other hand, we can see - in their context - what a variolation-based herd immunity strategy does.
*REAL CRITICISM #4: We have (in part and only IMO) ill-targeted lockdown measures, as mentioned above. We probably could have finer-tuned measures which are less invasive.
*FALSE CRITICISM #5: "We have such a terrible death rate - I saw we were fifth in the world per million! Johnson has blood on his hands!"
*REALITY: Excluding the real China and Iran stats, and meaningful stats from sub-Saharan Africa and much of S. America, does make such lists a bit moot. But in terms of what people mean by this - "white, civilised countries"
- we are doing worse than the mean. However, given the massively varying death recording methods, and the complex demographic differences between countries (age, air pollution, inter-gen communities, sub-communities, pop density, etc), I'd be cautious about trusting those stats as absolutes til this whole thing is over.
*REAL CRITICISM #6: Not really got one here. I think the stats are too incomplete to say anywhere near as much as people want to be able to say at this stage. General Doolittle believed his Raid had failed because all his planes crash-landed; it turned out to be one of the morale and technology victories of the war.
*REALITY: Excluding the real China and Iran stats, and meaningful stats from sub-Saharan Africa and much of S. America, does make such lists a bit moot. But in terms of what people mean by this - "white, civilised countries"
- we are doing worse than the mean. However, given the massively varying death recording methods, and the complex demographic differences between countries (age, air pollution, inter-gen communities, sub-communities, pop density, etc), I'd be cautious about trusting those stats as absolutes til this whole thing is over.*REAL CRITICISM #6: Not really got one here. I think the stats are too incomplete to say anywhere near as much as people want to be able to say at this stage. General Doolittle believed his Raid had failed because all his planes crash-landed; it turned out to be one of the morale and technology victories of the war.
*FALSE CRITICISM #6: "We're destroying the economy for the sake of people who were going to die soon anyway!"
*REALITY: Aside from the monstrosity of the sentiment, this is such a blunt instrument criticism. The economy will suffer from tens of thousands of sudden extra deaths either way, and the workforce includes hundreds of thousands or millions of vulnerable people. And those vulnerable people live with non-vulnerable people who would work anyway.
*REAL CRITICISM #6: Without a "NATO Credit Union" (forgive debt, group default on debt sold to China) or severe post-Corona austerity, this really is disastrous for the economy, and the sooner it can be eased with reasonable safety, the better.
*REALITY: Aside from the monstrosity of the sentiment, this is such a blunt instrument criticism. The economy will suffer from tens of thousands of sudden extra deaths either way, and the workforce includes hundreds of thousands or millions of vulnerable people. And those vulnerable people live with non-vulnerable people who would work anyway.
*REAL CRITICISM #6: Without a "NATO Credit Union" (forgive debt, group default on debt sold to China) or severe post-Corona austerity, this really is disastrous for the economy, and the sooner it can be eased with reasonable safety, the better.
*FALSE CRITICISM #7: "Our death rate is because we haven't tested more! Everywhere that tests more is fine!"
*REALITY: Test/trace/isolate might well help, though the second waves in East Asia suggest this isn't an open goal. It also involves an enormous amount of power given to gov't that hasn't happened here. There are costs to that strategy as well as gains. And our death rate will largely be about other factors, not this.
*REAL CRITICISM #7: Aside from the seeming upsides mentioned above, the biggest advantage this seems to present to me is a far better dataset - being able to better project ICU need and likely UK death rate based on our demographics.
*REALITY: Test/trace/isolate might well help, though the second waves in East Asia suggest this isn't an open goal. It also involves an enormous amount of power given to gov't that hasn't happened here. There are costs to that strategy as well as gains. And our death rate will largely be about other factors, not this.
*REAL CRITICISM #7: Aside from the seeming upsides mentioned above, the biggest advantage this seems to present to me is a far better dataset - being able to better project ICU need and likely UK death rate based on our demographics.
