The 'tolerable number of deaths' thing is about politicians thinking that they're being grown up and making tough decisions. But the thing is that the tolerable number of deaths should be 'as few as possible' not 'as few as convenient'.

We could have had a 'tolerable number of deaths' by locking down sooner and better. By not opening up so early in December. By not muddying the message to ensure Dominic Cummings was right.

I get the logic. By not reducing the speed limit everywhere to 20mph, you accept that more people will die. There's a balance of risk and progress.

I read a graphic novel called Plutocracy yesterday, which made the point that, statistically, we know a certain number of people will die through accidents while railway tunnels are made. But it's important enough that it continues.

And that feels like a big, grown-up point that politicians like Esther McVey can use to feel like they're making the tough decisions that show why they're leaders. The rest of us are too emotional.

But talking about the flu as an example of how we get it right, when this last year has pointed out that we could handle that a LOT better, is where the flaw comes in.

We're way past a tolerable number right now. This is not a passing grade for this government. And the last thing they should be doing is trying to tell us they're actually right.