Former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson has belatedly admitted that he “doesn't know” whether the strict lockdown measures imposed by the British government during the coronavirus outbreak in China were effective in stopping the spread of the virus.
In an excerpt from his forthcoming memoir published in daily mailMr Johnson appeared to sensationally admit that he had been caught up in the Wuhan virus panic. reveal He said he was considering literally invading the Netherlands to obtain new vaccines that have been blocked by the EU, and also acknowledged growing doubts about the effectiveness of the lockdown regime imposed on the British public.
The former prime minister was reportedly initially in favor of taking a liberal approach to the virus, before personally experiencing a bout of severe illness, and later issued a stay-at-home order. imposed the most severe restrictions of any Western leader, including These include banning households from mixing, urging people not to engage in casual sex, introducing domestic health passports, and monitoring and censoring critics.
Now, more than four years after the first lockdown was imposed, Mr Johnson suggests the restrictions may not have really been necessary after all.
The former Prime Minister wrote:
“It wasn’t until much later that I began to notice the curve of the pandemic around the world, a double hump that seems to rise and fall regardless of the approach taken by governments. There have always been two waves, whether it was China with its implementation or Sweden with its more voluntary approach.
Looking back, I wonder if King Canute was right all along when he set up his throne on the banks of the Thames and asked his courtiers to watch as he futilely ordered the tide to retreat. Perhaps there are limits to human independence. Just as it is impossible to turn back the tides of the River Thames, it may be impossible for government action to turn back waves of highly contagious disease.
I'm not saying the lockdown achieved nothing. I think it certainly had a certain effect. But did they play a decisive role in fighting off the disease and containing its waves? All I can say is I'm not sure anymore. ”
Mr Johnson's admission comes as Britain's Chief Medical Officer Chris Whitty, one of the chief architects of the country's lockdown regulations, said earlier this week that Downing Street may have “overreached” in its response to the China virus. This was done after acknowledging that.
Whitty said during the coronavirus survey. admitted: “I was worried at first. Actually, looking back, I'm still worried about whether my level of concern was appropriate.”
“Either we've oversold something so that people are incredibly afraid of it, when in reality the actuarial risk is low, or we've undersold it enough that people don't understand the risks they face. Either I didn't notice it or not.
“I think it's a really difficult balance to strike and some people would probably say we did too much, let alone less.” [at] The beginning. ”
According to calculation According to the Center for Economics and Business Research (CEBR), at least £118bn of UK GDP was lost as a result of lockdown last year. Meanwhile, the House of Commons Library estimated that taxpayers had funded between £310bn and £410bn in lockdown-related government spending.
A study published last year by the Institute of Economic Affairs found that countries with strict lockdown measures, such as Sweden, where citizens are widely trusted to make their own health decisions, are more free from the respiratory virus. It turns out that most countries are better off than countries with a laissez-faire attitude. .
The study, a meta-analysis of 19,646 studies on coronavirus responses around the world, found that lockdown measures were only effective in reducing mortality rates by 3.2% during the initial wave of the virus.
The authors of this study state: The data is here. The number of lives saved was a drop in the bucket compared to the staggering collateral costs imposed. ”
