We DID have a sensible Covid plan...but copied a police state instead
SUPPORTERS of strangling the country always demand ‘What would you have done?’ if I dare to criticise the Government’s wild, unprecedented policy for dealing with Covid. They assume, as backers of crazy policies always do, that there is no alternative to mass house arrest, enormous police powers, Maoist travel bans and the crippling of large parts of the economy.
Well, there is an alternative. Sitting in the Government archives is a 70-page document called UK Influenza Pandemic Preparedness Strategy 2011. Don’t be put off by that ‘influenza’. The plan could easily be adapted to deal with a coronavirus or any similar threat.
Agreed by all four governments of the UK, it was revised after the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic. It is typical of careful, commonsense UK state planning before the hysteria outbreak of March 23, 2020. But it was ditched in a moment of madness. As the noted Government adviser Neil Ferguson explained, the spectacle of a health crisis in Italy persuaded British authorities to follow the Chinese model instead.
He described how Sage, the Government’s scientific advisory group, had watched as China’s despots embarked on an unheard-of form of disease control by shutting down an entire province. ‘They claimed to have flattened the curve. I was sceptical at first. I thought it was a massive cover-up by the Chinese. But as the data accrued, it became clear it was an effective policy.’
Then, observing the crisis in Italy, Sage asked itself whether such ferocious methods could be applied here. ‘It’s a Communist one-party state, we said. We couldn’t get away with it in Europe, we thought… And then Italy did it. And we realised we could.’
What he meant by ‘get away with it’, I am not quite sure. But the document, which can be found on the internet, to which I provide a link on the Peter Hitchens Blog and on my Twitter feed @ClarkeMicah, has many interesting things to say.
It is very concerned with maintaining freedom and keeping society open, listing as objectives: ‘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.’ It stresses ‘Proportionality: the response to a pandemic should be no more and no less than that necessary in relation to the known risks.’
It relies on centuries of experience and good practice, planning to quarantine the sick rather than the healthy. It recommends simple hygiene. It supports school closures in some circumstances but this is because influenza seriously affects the young and is known to be spread through schools. And it has interesting things to say about masks: ‘Although there is a perception that the wearing of facemasks by the public in the community and household setting may be beneficial, there is in fact very little evidence of widespread benefit from their use in this setting.’
ON THE closing of borders and restricting travel, it says: ‘Modelling suggests imposing a 90 per cent restriction on all air travel to the UK at the point a pandemic emerges would only delay the peak of a pandemic wave by one to two weeks. Even a 99.9 per cent travel restriction might delay a pandemic wave by only two months.
‘During 2009 it became clear the pandemic virus had already spread widely before international authorities were alerted, suggesting that in any case the point of pandemic emergence had been missed by several weeks. The economic, political and social consequences of border closures would also be very substantial.’
On the banning of public gatherings, it says: ‘There is very limited evidence that restrictions on mass gatherings will have any significant effect on influenza virus transmission. Large public gatherings or crowded events where people may be in close proximity are an important indicator of “normality” and may help maintain public morale during a pandemic.’
It adds: ‘There is also a lack of scientific evidence on the impact of internal travel restrictions on transmission, and attempts to impose such restrictions would have wide-reaching implications for business and welfare. For these reasons, the working presumption will be that Government will not impose any such restrictions. The emphasis will instead be on encouraging all those who have symptoms to follow the advice to stay at home and avoid spreading their illness.’
These thoughtful plans existed and were over-ridden. Instead we copied the Chinese police state which silences dissent, imprisons ethnic minorities in tyrannical labour camps and has recently insulted us by vaporising the freedoms we left behind in Hong Kong and which it promised to maintain at least until 2047. There was an alternative. There still is. It can hardly be claimed that the repressive panic policy which we have followed has been a great success.
LAST week, the Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust proudly announced that, as part of a new policy designed to address ‘health inequalities’ for ‘marginalised and disadvantaged groups’, use of the word ‘mother’ is to be replaced by more ‘inclusive’ terminology.
Thus its maternity services will henceforth be known as ‘perinatal’, pregnant women are to be referred to as ‘birthing parents’, breast-feeding is now ‘chest-feeding’ and breast milk is either ‘chestmilk’ or ‘milk from the feeding parent’.
Of course, the ability to bear children is not what defines a woman. There are plenty of childless women who are proof of that. But the biology itself is unique to the female of the species. Pregnancy and childbirth are women’s experiences. Breastfeeding is a woman’s experience. So is menstruation. Like it or not, these are biological characteristics which are nontransferrable.
To acknowledge this is not an act of bigotry, it is simply a fact, like observing that snow is cold.
It also does not mean that someone is hostile to the existence of trans people or to their right to be treated fairly.
AND yet in the lexicon of modern trans terminology, even to think such thoughts, let alone say them out loud or in print, is considered a hate crime. Any woman who dares question the new orthodoxy is instantly demonised as a Terf – Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist – and set in the metaphorical stocks.
Shutting down dissent in this way is – as the experiences of women like JK Rowling (cancelled for objecting to the term ‘people who menstruate’) and Suzanne Moore (pushed out of her job at the Guardian by colleagues scared of being tarred with the same brush) prove – a very effective way of neutralising opposition to dogma.
Bullies and rigid ideologues understand that most people are easily scared, and when handed a pitchfork will generally run with it if it means they themselves won’t end up on a spike.
It’s a tactic used not just by radical trans activists, but also by BLM and the environment lobby. Bend the knee if you know what’s good for you, or suffer the consequences.
As George Orwell so skilfully expressed, once you can persuade people, through fear, to believe things that are patently not true, you have won.
As Winston says in Nineteen Eighty-Four: ‘In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it.’
I fear this is the situation millions of women face. Unless we agree that we no longer exist, that our biology no longer belongs to us, unless we willingly deny the physical reality of what it means to be female, we face being vilified by the armies of the woke who will accept no other truth save that which they have themselves devised.
This is wrong. Of course trans people should be made to feel welcome in the context of maternity services (indeed, all services). But not to the point where their rights begin to eclipse all others.
And this is the key. In trying to accommodate the needs of a small group of complex individuals we run the risk of obliterating those of the majority.
Women haven’t traditionally owned much in this world. Like the trans community itself, we’ve had to fight hard for our rights, and too many still are denied them. But pregnancy and childbirth, that’s always been uniquely ours, our one superpower no one can take away.
So, you see, you can’t just park your tanks in our maternity hospitals and expect us to surrender. You can’t tell us we’re not mothers, or tell us we can’t breastfeed. If that makes me a Terf so be it. Rather that than a liar and a coward.
● AND now for the moment you’ve all been waiting for: an update on last week’s item about lemon drizzle cake. Turns out that there IS a recipe for lemon cake in Mrs Beeton’s. It contains no fewer than ten eggs and a fiendishly complicated method – but sadly no drizzle. She does however recommend enhancing the flavour with the addition of her lemon brandy, pouring it over the cake while it is still warm. That’ll do for me.