clear communication about the ultimate aim of restrictions

When we originally entered lockdown the aim was to spread out the number of infections over a longer period so that the NHS would not be overwhelmed. The framework document states "the longer we leave lockdown in place the fewer people will be infected with the virus". Terms such as keeping the virus "under control" or "suppressed" are also being used regularly. The goal posts therefore seemed to have shifted but without any clear explanation or transparency over the underlying science/date/models/policy which is guiding that. Are we now trying to eradicate the virus? Is this scientifically possible/likely? Are we now saying less people will become infected because we are going to have restrictions in place until there is a vaccine or you can implement a track/trace/isolate policy? What if there is isn't a vaccine? What if a track/trace/isolate policy simply isn't workable? There is a lot of mention of "second spike". Is this not inevitable when restrictions are removed? What is the scientific evidence on this? Surely it is preferable for this to happen in the summer rather than autumn/winter.

Why the contribution is important

The goal posts for the restrictions appear to have changed without any clear communication about the change in approach/ultimate aim. We are entitled to understand the detailed and technical basis for the change in policy given the exceptional interference with our civil liberties imposed by the restrictions.

by Kgal on May 11, 2020 at 09:10PM

Current Rating

Average rating: 4.0
Based on: 3 votes