Read on Twitter
At each and every point in the pandemic, the policy mistake seems to have been very similar.
Step 1: watch case numbers rise, fail to lockdown because of the perception, or concern about others' perception, of this being a 'cost', of needing to weigh that cost against deaths and disability.
Step 2: watch case numbers rise further. Finally lockdown, by more and for longer than would have otherwise been necessary, because what they knew woud come to pass has come to pass.
Step 3: reverse of Step 1 mistake : relax lockdown too much [even have negative lockdown with subsidies for risky things], because of a perception that deaths saved have to be weighed against the £ from relaxing the lockdown.
Step 4: go back to step 1.
The latest mistake was the most stupid, as it was made in the shadow of the certainty of the vaccine, in fact, in its latter stages while one arm of govt was actually pumping it into our arms.
Obvs the more certain and close up the vaccine is, the more a death from covid postponed is actually one avoided entirely.
The peversity of the mistakes can't be overstated. 'I don't want to make this up front investment in better health and a virus free economy and normal spending, so I will wait until later, when the up front investment is much more expensive.'
And, perhaps making this mistake was explicable the first time. But not the second. And even less, the third.
The 2nd and 3rd cycles seemed to get punctuated with a pop at the opposition for suggesting they do what the government later succumbs to doing. Revision: 'Step 1: refuse to lockdown and sneer at opposition for suggesting they should.'
The tragic irony here is that there should not be a trade-off between £ and health if anti-virus policy is done determinedly and seen through. But in doing it badly, and bending to those who falsely think there is one, they actually risk creating exactly this trade off!
Oh actually I forgot it should be 'Step X: refuse to lockdown; sneer at opposition for suggesting you should; threaten legal action against schools that try to pre-empt what you will tell them to do anyway later'.
