Ok, but just because you say it, doesn't mean it's true.

Throughput this discussion I've provides dates and evidence around the timeline of events. You've responded saying I'm thick and then provide little the no evidence itself around anything you are saying.

Saying things like "but sage members were also advising at the beginning of march" doesn't mean much. Sage is a community of scientists and even if one or two were in disagreement it doesn't mean policy should be set on the outliers. And even then, im not sure what source you are referring too? The ft article I linked to explicitly says:

---

Minutes from March 13 noted that “SAGE was unanimous that measures seeking to completely suppress spread of Covid-19 will cause a second peak. SAGE advises that it is a near certainty that countries such as China, where heavy suppression is under way, will experience a second peak once measures are relaxed.” They also noted that while Singapore had had an effective contain phase new cases had since appeared.

On March 16, the SPI-M-O subgroup agreed “a combination of case isolation, household isolation and social distancing of vulnerable groups” was “very unlikely” to prevent critical care facilities being overwhelmed. They also agreed it was unclear whether adding general social distancing measures would curtail the epidemic enough. It was also agreed that a policy of alternating between periods of more and less strict social distancing measures could plausibly be effective at keeping the number of critical care cases within capacity but that “these would need to be in pace for at least most of a year,”
--

I know it's fun to bash the Tory's, but I'll repeat just because you think it doesn't make it true.

I do agree that our testing capacity was poor before all this started - like basically everyone outside of the countries that were impacted by Sars. The speed at which that's been rectified is immense though.

Anyway, I think I'll leave it there, I don't think you are interested in looking up facts & data to support your viewpoint, so I dont think the discussion is valuable for either of us.

Posted By: CommonSensePolice, Sep 10, 19:29:54