Don’t cancel Christmas, give us real public debate on wisdom of new lockdown

It is with some horror – and no little despair – that I witness the ever-increasing restric - tions being imposed on the UK population, and those of other developed nations in their efforts to tackle Covid-19. Indeed, it is now looking likely that there will be a national lockdown (or close to it) and the removal or severe curtailment of the joys and national uplift of the Christmas and New Year season.

These are unprecedented actions that have serious implications from which the UK and the rest of the world may never properly recover. And yet the rationale behind the decisions are never properly relayed to the public, who have to suffer the emotional and financial repercussions.

We are just told that this is“absolutely necessary” because Covid is a “killer disease” that is a “serious threat” to public health. And yet, having spent my working lifetime dealing with mortality and morbidity statistics, I do not see this. Yes, there have been hospitalisations and deaths – and I fully appreciate that each one is tragic in its own way and would ideally have been avoided – but, to put them in perspective, and despite what the Governments and media say, the total numbers have not been much worse than a bad outbreak of flu. Nor are they likely to become much worse in the future, based on the evidence I have seen.

One policy, in particular, that I feel is totally misplaced is the blanket lockdowns on millions of people in cities, regions and even countries, when a very small number (0.05 per cent) of cases – not deaths or hospitalisations – arise. The Governments and their advisers see lockdowns as the only method for handling the disease, but far from improving public health, they carry all sorts of situations that worsen it, such as the mental, physical and emotional stresses, the curtailment of operations for other, more serious diseases, the disastrous effects on the economy etc etc – not to mention the wellbeing brought about by normal things such as theatres, crowds, holidays etc. Not only that, lockdowns prevent immunity building up and merely delay the spread rather than stop it, and, as soon as the conditions are relaxed, the number of cases goes up again and the whole miserable process starts once more.

Given the immense impact that these measures are having on people and the economy (none of which the public mandated the Governments to do), I feel that the time has come for an urgent public debate in which the Governments and their advisers share the reasons they are taking such drastic action, and outline the models they have used and the assumptions they have made in reaching their decisions.

Only then can the public, and the many eminent experts who are already voicing their opposition to these moves, examine the rationale and decide if they are reasonable and appropriate, or whether there is a better strategy, for example, the herd immunity approach that is much more successfully being followed by Sweden.

ANDY SCOTT Newhalls Road South Queensferry