A temporary lockdown would have

stopped the rise in its tracks and given them time to sort out track and trace.

It's easier to track and trace with lower numbers of infections. It gets harder and harder when numbers are so high.

I'm pretty sure Whitty said right at the very beginning it might be necessary to have a series of short lockdowns to keep it under control and stop a damaging second / third / fourth wave.

If you fail to keep numbers within reasonable limits then the economic pain, and the effect of people suffering from cancer, heart disease etc because of the strain on the NHS, will be FAR worse than a series of short, properly funded lockdowns.

Posted By: jamesward, Oct 29, 09:37:45