Letter: Lockdown is Trashing the Younger Generation’s Future

Published on: 28 May, 2020
Updated on: 27 May, 2020

From John Perkins

Lockdown was first announced on March 23 and was to be reviewed every three weeks at most, giving the impression that it might only last that long. It’s been more than nine weeks and the government is showing great reluctance to lift it.

People are quite prepared to accept there may be good reasons for continuing the policy, but in the absence of any real information, many are suspicious. The government deliberately redacts the information it relies upon when it, reluctantly, publishes the relevant papers.

There are reports that nearly half of the population is now ignoring the rules, while others seem prepared to hide in bunkers for ever and demand everyone else do the same.

The computer model developed by Imperial College gave worst-case scenarios of more than 500,000 deaths if nothing was done (which was never going to be the case) and 250,000 if the government carried on as it was doing and didn’t implement a lockdown. It was highly influential in the decision.

To be scrupulously fair the model would have had best-case numbers too, though, as with the models used in the past, they would have been low enough that almost any scenario would fit within the spread.

However, the model wasn’t the only influence; at least one senior government advisor is thought to be exceptionally in favour. That same person is thought to be behind the absurd new quarantine rules.

It appears that people were frightened into accepting a situation which is unarguably destroying the economy whilst nobody knows if it offers much, or any, protection from the virus.

Whitehall always seems to take things to extremes if it’s given the chance. The World Health Organisation (WHO) suggests one-metre distancing is enough and the notoriously cautious Germans extend it to 1.5 meters.

Only here and a few other places is it two-metres. The Government’s chief scientific advisor tells us that the risk at one metre is 10-30 times higher than at two, but, as he doesn’t tell us what the probability is for either, it’s meaningless. If the risk at one metre is low then that at two is infinitesimal. Out of doors, the risk at one metre is practically zero.

It’s understandable that mistakes were made at the start, but there is a lot more information now and there can be no excuse for persisting with old policies that were driven by fear of the unknown.

Young people should be incensed – their future is being trashed.

Share This Post