I read Dr Leeâs article (thanks for sharing Wimbo) - it certainly does raise so many issues but nearly all of them are either unintentional or unfortunately omitted. And no surprise that it was The Spectator that chose to publish it.
I have no doubt that there are very valid arguments about the identification of, and reporting of, death rates. Implicit in Dr Leeâs argument is the exact severity of Covid19 and the extent to which Governmentsâ response should be to restrict freedom. But I also think there are significant truths about this virus that Dr Lee has chosen to, shall I say, understate, or omit.
Yesterday, Amged El-Hawrani, a 55yr old ENT consultant, and Adil El Tayar, a 63yr old organ transplant specialist, became the first UK health workers to die from Covid19. But of course this pattern of deaths began with the first Wuhan doctors who tried in vain to simultaneously whistle blow and fight the initial outbreak. Four days ago, 41 Italian health workers had died from exposure to Covid19 - that figure will have already risen.
Dr El Tayar had spent the last few days volunteering to fight the outbreak in an A+E dept in the West Midlands. Iâd like to think that Dr Lee, with all that experience and knowledge might be doing just the same, and for all I know, he is or will be one of the many retired health professionals who are/will be returning to help fight this pandemic. After all, he claims â...we have yet to see any statistical evidence for excess deaths, in any part of the worldâ. I wonder how that observation has gone down with the families of all the recently departed Health workers in the world, and those that are showing the bravery to don what little protective equipment there appears to be when working with infected patients on a daily basis?
Yes, most of those infected will recover fully, many will be asymptomatic, and so on. But the uncomfortable truth about Covid19 is that it can be a vicious and random killer, and not just of the elderly and those with âunderlying healthâ conditions.
Iâd suggest The Spectator has welcomed such an article from a respectable source because it suggests some degree of overreaction on the part of this and other Governments around the world.
The Spectatorâs agenda is one of Freedom - that is the freedom to trade and acquire wealth and privilege and to oppose what it sees as unnecessary regulation, control, taxation and god forbid, state intervention or control. Indeed, it was until so recently so pleased with itself, having catapulted its very own darling of contributors, Mr B Johnson, into Downing Street armed with a massive majority. It was one of the so called respectable periodicals that so enjoyed sticking the boot into âexpertsâ, the civil service, the judiciary, the BBC, MPs who opposed Brexit and a variety of former prime ministers and senior figures, promoted the demonisation of migrant workers, so many of whom have understandably left the NHS or care services and returned home.
So imagine its horror when its hero announced to the nation last week that serious restrictions on liberty were to be introduced. The Telegraph further distinguished itself by announcing âEnd of Freedomâ. Worse, policies of state intervention and expenditure, far more radical than those of the devil himself, one Jeremy Corbyn, were to be immediately introduced. Experts were now not only back in fashion, they were revered and their very word was driving Government policy and intervention. Civil servants were in fact now marvellous, as were all public servants, and so on. And as for the NHS, mere deification was selling it short.
So much is still unknown about Covid19. But there is one salient uncomfortable truth - it is spread by people. Consequently, if you restrict movement and contact, the virus cannot spread further. It is as simple as that. Not a cure of course, but simply a reduction in transmission. I for one have no problem in conforming with that reality because I fear for more vulnerable members of our society, including my son who suffers from CF, and I judge that consequences of our incarceration to be worth it in the short term because it will inevitably reduce the numbers of cases arriving at hospitals, and consequently the numbers of deaths of both patients and NHS workers. To this end, I for one wholly support a certain Mr Johnson (solely on this issue!)
Many have expressed valid concerns about the trade off between lock down and economic damage. To a lesser extent, the Entitled are taking to the airwaves to express their horror about not being allowed to go the pub, the Lake District and so on. My concern about Dr Leeâs article, and the intentions of the publisher, is that it seeks to slightly undermine the current cohesion around isolation and distancing.
On a related matter, I was astonished to learn that those returning to the UK at Heathrow yesterday were neither tested on entry nor required to isolate for a given period. The flight in question was from New York which I believe to has a a significant number of infected residents. Is it me?