Dear Prime Minister,
I am very pleased that you have recovered well from the
coronavirus.
Now that you are back at the helm, I’d be grateful if you
could answer a few questions regarding the lockdown: - We are told to stay at home to prevent the
spread of the virus and that this collective house arrest is making a
difference by limiting the number of people we have contact with. I can
understand why it’s a bad idea to go to the theatre or a nightclub but what is
the proven benefit of restricting people from enjoying their normal
leisure activities such as going for a swim in the sea, fishing, bird-watching,
playing golf/tennis or other non-team sports?
- People in London, including yourself, saw the
earliest rise in cases. This is probably due to substantially higher use of
crowded public transport compared to other cities and more rural areas. The
reduction in the number of Tube trains and consequent overcrowding and longer
platform waits looks like a huge tactical error. Do you agree that it would
have been better to keep as many trains and buses running as possible despite
the predicted fall in users when people were encouraged to work from home?
- Regarding public transport, do you agree that it’s
almost certain infections would have been reduced if we had a culture of
wearing face masks in crowded areas to reduce spread of the virus to other
people?
- On the subject of PPE, I think it’s very unfair
of the media to blame the government instead of NHS Supply Chain for difficulties
in obtaining and distributing PPE – still no one likes to criticize the NHS.
Nevertheless, is the government reluctance to recommend face masks in public
places mainly down to the limited supply available?
- South Korea appears to have managed the
coronavirus outbreak far more effectively than European countries, including
the UK. This has been achieved with far less intrusion on people’s freedom or
impact on their economy. They were better prepared because they had learnt from
their experience with SARS and MERS. Do you agree that we can learn from them and
avoid a similar lockdown in the future?
- During the lockdown, the police and local councils
have discouraged people from travelling to parks and open spaces for exercise.
This means that people have had to walk / cycle / run in closer proximity to
others than they might normally do. This appears to be counter-productive to
the aim of the restrictions, ie. to increase distance between people. There has
been a degree of correction in the advice given by the government but why are
people not being actively encouraged to move to open spaces to take their
exercise?
- On a similar note, why are people being
prevented from moving out of the cities into rural second homes or caravan
sites when this would help people to keep social distancing (less crowded in
rural areas and as people move out of the cities, it’s less crowded there too)? If the coronavirus was only a problem in one area, this might make sense, but
that is plainly not the situation as all parts of the country have cases – that
horse bolted weeks ago.
- As I write this, we’re coming to the end of the
5th week of lockdown. The vast majority of people have complied with
the rules and yet we’re still seeing quite a number of new confirmed cases. Much
of this is the increased testing going on. However, new infections have not
been eliminated and it’s extremely hard to see how anyone can catch it under
these circumstances, outside of hospitals, care homes, and possibly
supermarkets. What is the government doing about finding the root cause of
these new infections? – it would seem extremely useful to know not only who but
also how people were still catching this virus? - because that information
would enable a far more targeted response - instead of the scatter gun approach
of restricting everyone from nearly everything worthwhile.
- Information released this week showed that in
the week leading up to Easter, the number of deaths in the country more than
doubled compared to previous years. Less than half of these extra deaths were people
dying with coronavirus in hospital. There is clear evidence that the lockdown
itself is implicated in a large number of additional deaths. Can you confirm
that these extra non-coronavirus deaths are included in the modelling carried
out by the scientific advisors?
- I note that the new emergency “Nightingale”
hospitals are empty/near-empty. I do not understand why the NHS has not ensured
proper and complete segregation of coronavirus patients from other medical
departments. This has meant that huge numbers of routine operations and medical
procedures have had to be postponed. It has also put NHS staff (and their
families) who are not directly working in treating coronavirus patients, at
additional risk of catching coronavirus. I note the sad deaths of some. Surely
one of the fundamental principles of dealing with a pandemic is to separate the
virus-sufferers and the people treating them from others? Why are some hospitals
not being kept completely away from the virus to concentrate on other vital
work?
- Every week I see more and more businesses
failing, and huge amounts of taxpayers’ money being spent to try to limit the damage
to the economy; millions more people relying on furlough assistance and/or new Universal
Credit applications. We can’t afford for this to go on much longer and it’s
clear that the economy won’t bounce back immediately; people will be reluctant
to eat in restaurants, stay in hotels, drink in pubs etc. with all the fear
generated. Hospitality companies are going to have a hard time maintaining a
sustainable business. High street shops will be all but extinct. This has to
end as soon as possible. Yet the government seems to be continually moving the goalposts.
First it was about protecting the NHS (odd priority – I’d have expected saving
lives to have come first). Then it was about flattening the curve, then seeing
a downward curve. Now you have five tests, the first 3 achieved, but the 5th
one - “being sure any adjustments would not risk a second peak” – appears to be
completely subjective. Maybe I am wrong about this but perhaps you could
clarify this in objective terms?
- Finally, you can see a theme running through
most of my questions, ie. it’s hard to see the direct benefit arising from
several of the restrictions you have implemented. It is really sad that the
government felt the need to hurriedly legislate this instead of providing guidance
and relying on peer pressure to reinforce the message. People are getting
frustrated by the disconnect between this guidance and its supposed aim of
keeping people from passing on the virus. I trust that now the cabinet has had
5 weeks to think about it, the next phase will appear to have some common sense
attached to it, so that we can all continue to get behind it?
Yours sincerely,
Kevin Millican |
|