Fact: Most politicians know very little about Medical Science and Technology.
Fact: Politicians consult committees of experts to advise them on any complex subject.
Fact: Most of the members of a committee set up to advise on Medical Science are representatives of pharmaceutical companies.
Question: Are they going to advance the agenda of people like you and me or their agenda and that of their shareholders?
Pharma reps have tried it on a few times before with SARS, Bird ‘flu and Swine ‘flu. They did a pretty good job of terrifying the Blair/Bown government with Swine ‘flu and managed to con them into buying £1.2 Billion pounds worth of pointless vaccine but it didn’t take long before the jig was up. The public began to see through it and an embarrassed government quietly swept it under the carpet.
But, learning from their mistakes, the Pharma reps have done a much better job with Corona Virus/Covid 19.
1. They avoided the word ”flu’ – far too familiar
2. They recommended complete lockdown – a masterstroke, making people desperate to get on with their businesses, their lives and, of course, their holidays!
3. And then there’s the statistics!
To get the statistics into proportion, let’s compare Covid-19 to pneumonia.
Most people on their deathbeds are either in the 70+ age group or have compromised health conditions. These people are usually pushed over the edge by pneumonia or influenza and that is written on the death certificate as cause of death.
Do we then conclude that there is a pneumonia pandemic? No. Instead of going into a blind panic, we see the figures for what they are.
With impressive sleight of hand, the rather similar Covid figures have been INTERPRETED DIFFERENTLY. In cases where Covid-19 has precipitated the deaths of dying people, it has been interpreted that there is a PANDEMIC.
But it gets worse. Having been instructed by our terrified politicians that the global pandemic is ‘a fact’, the usually dependable Office of National Statistics gets caught up in the panic too.
I consulted them for some figures and screenshot twp paragraphs.
When I saw the first paragraph, I thought that maybe I’d got it wrong but THEN I read the truly shocking second paragraph. It tells us that:
In most cases, these highly trained and experienced doctors diagnosed that the patients died of PNEUMONIA OR INFLUENZA and NOT Covid 19! But then…
A civil servant at the ONS, who I am willing to bet good money was NOT present at any of those deaths, tells us that these doctors GOT IT WRONG!
He tells us that although influenza or pneumonia was entered on the death certificate as the cause of death, “COVID-19 was the UNDERLYINGcause of death…”
How could he possibly know this? He didn’t. This is a perfect TRIUMPH OF BELIEF OVER FACT.
Having ‘statistically proven’ that there is a pandemic, pharma companies have done their best to discredit the cheap, safe, tried and tested treatments which are outside of their licences, promoted new, expensive vaccines and laughed all the way to the bank.
The global economy has been shaken, innumerable people have lost their livelihoods and the pharmaceutical companies’ shareholders have never been happier.
And now vaccine passports? This will be a bonanza for tech companies but is a seriously dangerous precedent. It will be a loss of civil liberty which will increase over time. People will be forced into being vaccinated under threat of not being able to fly, work or socialise. It will be a GOVERNMENT SANCTION OF ASSAULT.
If people want to be vaccinated, let them.
But if they want not to be vaccinated, let them not.
Your hero, Winston Churchill ENDEDID. Cards after WW2. Please do not go down in history as the prime minister who not only brought them back but forced people to receive an incompletely tested vaccine against their will.
There must be no vaccine passports and no employer, airline or any other institution should be allowed to use non vaccination as a justification to refuse access.
Even the most ardent Remainers must be breathing a sigh of relief that the UK isn’t currently involved in the vaccine chaos engulfing Europe.
17 countries including Germany, France, Italy and Spain made the controversial decision to suspend the use of the AstraZeneca vaccination in the wake of reports that the vaccine could cause serious blood clots.
Italy has admitted that the move to halt the use of the AstraZeneca vaccine was political and sputnik spoke with Michael Swadling from the Croydon Constitutionalists to find out just how damaging this move could prove to be in the fight against the pandemic and why this has is evidence that Brexit has been good for Great Britain.it. But surely, surely, the job of a nation, of a government, is to protect their people’s health. And in this case, put their differences behind them, and actually copy what Great Britain has done and get this vaccine out to people”
“isn’t that they won’t achieve the goal. In the end, it isn’t that they won’t get people vaccinated. But that slowness of the vaccine is just a window of opportunity for the virus to kill more people”
“Local decisions throughout life are always better than decisions in a far away bureaucracy.The closer decisions are made to the person the more suited they are to their needs. Britain had that opportunity as a nation to say what’s best for our interests. And our interests might be different from France’s interest. They might be different from Germany’s interests”
Boris Johnson hailed the plan as a “one-way road to freedom”
Sputnik spoke with Michael Swadling, from the Croydon Constitutionalists to hear his thoughts on Boris’s road map and what impact it will have on society.
“the government has done a great job in getting the vaccines out, you know, credit where credit’s due. Britain’s moving ahead of most countries, we really are getting people protected, but we’re not reaping the reward of that“
“The government seems to think people are still listening to them, people are not, you see it all around you, that the following of the rules is scant at best”
“Who the hell is Matt Hancock, Boris, or anyone in Parliament to tell us we can’t see our family, to tell us we can’t go outside our own homes to a public square. To tell us we can’t run our own businesses”
What We Can Learn From Sweden, South Korea and Japan For Fighting Covid In 2021
Opinion Piece by Josh L. Ascough
It is now roughly 9 months into the Coronavirus pandemic, and the United Kingdom has been placed into another national lockdown.
It seems to be the case that Einstein was right with his definition of insanity: “Doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results”; by that definition, it’s not just the UK to which insanity has overtaken; Italy, Spain, Germany, Australia and many other nations have taken the approach of trying to focus on cases, when this is a fool errand.
Due to the nature and the way in which Covid-19 spreads, everyone is going to get this virus at some point; just like how at some point, everyone is going to get the flu, a cold, chest infection, or any other form of virus that spreads person to person; but this does not mean everyone is at risk of dying from the virus, nor does it mean death from the virus is inevitable.
It is very similar to the boom/bust cycle and how the Keynesians wrongly view the bust as the problem, but ignore the boom; when it in fact is the artificial boom that should concern people, the bust is merely the inevitable effect; we’ve been trying to prevent the inevitable cases, to try and stop the preventable deaths; the way we should have been handling this virus, is to accept the inevitability of cases but have measures in place to prevent as many deaths as possible.
This does not mean people should actively seek to get the virus; unless they are not vulnerable and are looking to donate plasma, so further testing on anti-bodies can be done; but to not panic if cases rise or if you get this virus. Remember, we should be looking to reduce the preventable (deaths) not the inevitable (cases).
I want to address three countries in particular that have taken different approaches to fighting this virus compared to most “lockdown enthusiast” countries; namely Sweden (I can already hear the lockdown lovers screeching at that name), South Korea, and Japan. Before I get into that however, let us briefly go over what it is we, the United Kingdom did wrong.
Covid – What We Did Wrong.
On the 23rd of March 2020, the United Kingdom went into a national lockdown. In hindsight it was a terrible choice, but considering the healthcare system we have, it is understandable to have seen it as the only option on the table at the time. The purpose of the lockdown was simple (though it appears forgotten): We have a lockdown to spread out the cases and deaths, so as to not overwhelm the NHS to the point we have to make the choice of who lives via treatment, and who dies by neglect.
The UK currently, at the time of writing this on the 10th November 2020, has 1.23 million cases, and 49,770 deaths related to Covid-19 (key word being related. This has been a problem since the pandemic first began, where if someone contracts Covid-19 then dies from a car crash, they are marked as a Covid “related” death; not from, related). With a population of over 68 million and an elderly population close to 12 million, the case rate amounts to 1.8% of the population so far being infected, and out of the UK population 0.07% have Covid-19 “related” deaths, and out of the percentage that have been infected 4.04% have died; again, “related” to Covid-19.
The lockdown was never meant to stop deaths or cases, merely to spread out cases so we didn’t have to neglect saving people. The problem is we did neglect people.
When the lockdown first came about, cancer treatments, diabetes treatments, and many others were cancelled to save room for Covid patients, so the idea of not neglecting people was a complete lie. The NHS did neglect its patients; it neglected to allow cancer patients to choose whether they wanted to go through with their treatment, taking into consideration the risk of Covid; the choice was made for them, that Covid was more dangerous and more deadly than their cancer. Sky News insultingly reported that roughly 1 million breast cancer screenings had been “missed” because of the pandemic. No, 1 million women didn’t “miss” their screenings because of the pandemic; as if there was a choice, 1 million women had their cancer screenings cancelled for them; not by them, because the government decided it had the authority to decide which conditions were worth treatment…so we could save lives.
It is very anecdotal, but I’ve had many conversations on this subject, and the response is always, “well my uncle’s friend has cancer and he was okay with his treatment being cancelled”. My response to this is always: okay, but what if they weren’t? What if they were more scared of their untreated cancer progressing and killing them? What about the people who aren’t okay with their treatment being cancelled; whether it’s cancer, diabetes, arthritis, or heart transplants?
The typical rhetoric against attempting to rationally consider the positions taken and use critical thinking skills is often the following:
“Well you just want people to die. You’re selfish.”
To that I say fine, we can play that game.
In the UK, there is likely to be at least as many if not more preventable Cancer deaths than Covid-19 deaths, because of the diversion of resources into Covid. Richard Sullivan, Professor of Cancer and Global Health at King’s College London and Director for its Institute For Cancer Policy stated that:
“The number of deaths due to the disruption of cancer services is likely to outweigh the number of deaths from the Coronavirus itself. The cessation and delay of cancer care will cause considerable, avoidable suffering. Cancer screening services have stopped, which means we will miss our chance to catch many cancers when they are treatable and curable such as cervical, bowel and breast. When we do restart normal service delivery after the lockdown is lifted, the backlog of cases will be a huge challenge to the healthcare system.”
On the 6th October Matt Hancock stated:
“Cancer Patients may only be guaranteed treatment if Covid-19 stays under control.”
Even though the NHS was never overwhelmed, millions of cancer screenings were cancelled to “Protect the NHS” and to “Save Lives”. If this is the crowd that claims to care about people’s lives, and proclaim that sceptics of lockdowns are “selfish” and “want people to die”; I think it may be safe to say that pro lockdown individuals have some form of mental deficiency.
Let us turn to the countries I mentioned at the beginning; what exactly can we learn from them?
Let us first take a look at the now most hated country, Sweden.
Sweden holds a fairly small population of just over 10 million. Out of those 10 million, 162,000 have been infected with Covid-19, which equates at 1.6%, and out of the population 6057 have died, which is 0.05%; out of the percentage of people infected, 3.73% of those infected have died. This may still seem scary, but remember lockdowns only postpone current cases and don’t do anything to prevent deaths overall, and these are deaths and cases overall so far. But if we expand the perspective a bit and look at the rates and the directions they have been moving in, Sweden is doing pretty well for itself. Sweden hit its peak death rate on April 15th at 115 deaths in one day, and just recently hit its cases peak on November 5th at 4766. Yet since April 15th when it had its peak death rate, Sweden’s death rate has been drastically decreasing, and continues to do so, with its current death rate per day at the time of writing being 3, and it has been on low double digits to single digits; sometimes zero, since the 3rd July when it was at 8 deaths per day.
Sweden never had a lockdown, nor did it impose really any restrictions. The government took an advisory position for the elderly and other vulnerable people, with social and moral pressure for individual self-restraint and responsibility.
Japan is another success story.
Japan is home to a population of over 126 million people, and an elderly population of just over 36 million. Out of its population of 126 million, 110,000 people have been infected with Covid-19, which is 0.08%, and out of the population 1840 have died, equating to 0.001%; the percentage of people infected who have died is 1.6%.
Japan as well, never had a lockdown, though they took slightly stronger measures than Sweden did with regards to masks, and recommending shops close and vulnerable people isolate; these measures however apart from mandatory masks, were not legally punishable.
Japan hit its peak in cases back on the 3rd August when it reached 1,998 infections per day, and currently from the time of writing this, on the 10th November was at 899 infections per day. The death rate is equally impressive. Japan reached its peak death period on the 22nd April with 91 deaths per day; on the 10th November these deaths had dropped to 11 deaths, and has continued to stay at a stable, low double digit level since around mid-July.
The last success story to mention is South Korea, which is most probably the closest to home in terms of population size overall and in terms of elderly population.
South Korea is home to just over 51 million people, and holds an elderly population size of roughly just over 7.6 million.
Out of its population of 51 million; at the time of writing this on the 10th November, 27,799 have been infected, which is 0.05%, and out of the population 487 have died, equating to 0.0009%; the percentage of people infected who have died is 1.7%.
South Korea, like the others mentioned, never had a lockdown. The nation did however hold very local restrictions in terms of isolation if infected.
There are a few additional pieces of information to give context to South Korea. Due to the wounds from the SARS virus still in people’s minds, the general public was very cautious from the start of the pandemic. In addition South Korea has a predominantly private healthcare system, and so with the profit incentive being allowed to function, mass production of testing kits and ventilators were produced and sold; the market process quite literally saved lives.
South Korea hit its peak infection rate all the way back on the 1st March; where it was at 1062 cases per day. Since then it has seen a dramatic decrease in overall cases, where they dropped to double to single digits as early as April. It has since late August however seen a rise into triple digits, however this has been on a decline since the 1st September; the current case rate in South Korea; at the time of writing this, stands at 146 cases per day.
South Korea’s death rate has remained impressive. the nation reached its peak in deaths on the 23rd March at 9 deaths per day, and began to see a decrease in April; South Korea has never exceeded single digit deaths per day throughout the pandemic. The current death rate in South Korea from the time of writing this, on the 10th November, stands at 2 per day.
So what can we learn from these countries, and what can we do differently towards the coming new year?
These three nations; Sweden, South Korea and Japan have shown that it is not the case rate to be concerned with; it is the death rate. They have shown that lockdowns are ineffective and do nothing to curb overall deaths or cases, and merely postpone cases to a future time frame.
I’m sure there will be some mad raving lockdown loony, who will try to say I don’t take the virus seriously; to which I say I do take it seriously. I live with a vulnerable person, and funnily enough I’ve made choices that aren’t part of government “guidelines” which better suit my life and my circumstances; most of the time while travelling before the 2nd lockdown I took a taxi everywhere because it would limit who I had to interact with during my journey, meaning I could have better control of my situation.
What measures could be suggested that we take via influence from Sweden, Japan and South Korea? I believe the following would be the most pragmatic if we were to focus solely on preventing deaths rather than inevitable cases:
End the National Lockdown.
Localise decision making to local councils in terms of what restrictions they are to have in place based on demographics of age, medical vulnerability in relation to infection rate. For example if a local area has few elderly residents, few individuals who are medically vulnerable and a double digit infection rate, the local councils could set low restrictions. It would be similar to the tier system but on a much more localised scale, allowing local governments themselves to decide their own restrictions; not on their behalf by Whitehall.
Allow private establishments to choose whether to mandate mask wearing if they are capable of upholding social distancing.
Allow individuals who are consenting with one another to meet for gatherings unless they contradict with local measures.
Mandatory mask wearing in hospitals and care homes. These are vulnerable areas where people are seeking treatment.
Allow for the expansion in private companies producing and selling testing kits and allow individuals to purchase these kits outside of the NHS for home use. Allow businesses such as Boots, local pharmacies and such to sell these testing kits and correlate positive tests back to local hospitals and GP practices.
Allow for the expansion of businesses producing and selling ventilators and leave the decision of whether to purchase or not to local governments in correlation with hospitals within their region, with regards to their demographics of age, medical vulnerability and infection rate. This will ensure that we are not focussed on preventing cases but have the means in the local areas where they are needed to prevent as many deaths as possible.
Do not imprison residence in care homes. If the residence and their families would feel safer leaving the care homes to live with family, allow them to do so; do not make the same mistake of imprisoning care home residence to simply wait for death. In addition do not imprison students at university; if the students feel safer in returning home or staying, the choice should be theirs to make with advice from the student bodies.
Offer financial incentive to people who have tested positive to donate plasma so an expansion in testing on anti-bodies can occur; this should especially be encouraged among young adults.
Allow private establishments to decide the maximum capacity in one group they will allow, in relation to whether they can uphold social distancing .
Allow businesses and business owners themselves to decide whether to open or close. It is immoral for the government to decide who is essential and who is not; your livelihood is essential to you, it doesn’t matter if a politician thinks otherwise.
Allow patients to decide whether they want to take the risk of cancer and other treatments during the pandemic. It is completely abhorrent to allow the government to decide whether people should have treatment; that choice is to be made between patient and doctor alone.
The essence of these suggestions boils down to more decisions being made at the local level based on demographics, not one-size-fits-all approaches that may be needed in one location but are overboard in another. This approach allows individuals to make their own judgements of what is best for their circumstances, and what risks; if any, they are willing to make, while local governments who know their constituents better than the central government in Westminster to make the political choices and work with hospitals and the private sector for producing ventilators and testing kits. We’ve done the one size approach, and it has failed, we’re trying it a second time, and it is still failing; the nations that didn’t take a national lockdown approach; whether they took small measures of restrictions or no restrictions, they are showing success by having an ever declining death rate.
It is inevitable there will be people who say I’m being selfish for wanting to socialise with loved ones; but man is a social animal, and we know the mental and emotional effects prolonged isolation can have on people. If we are to believe that self-interest and selfishness are evil, what is more evil is believing everyone apart from yourself has to take responsibility for your health; the number one person responsible for your health, is you; not the man who decides to go drinking with friends, not the woman who wants to open up her small business to provide for herself, not the grandparents who nearing the end of their lives want to see their family and not be forced into isolation, and it is certainly not the responsibility of young people who have their whole lives ahead of them; who’s progress we have halted by force; it is your health, your responsibility.
Life is about living, not simply existing and doing everything to remain “safe” so you can keep on simply existing. Yes, making choices to ensure you are safe from death is important; but the timeframe for living is very limited, and if you keep pushing that timeframe into a smaller and smaller margin, eventually it will expire, and sooner than you think.
Could we be on course for a second lockdown? According to the Government’s leading scientist, Patrick Valance, the UK faces 50,000 new Covid cases a day by mid-October if the current infection rate is not halted. But just how can this be stopped? What measures are the government considering to slow the spread of infection? – Sputnik Radio spoke with Mike Swadling on the UK’s Coronavirus response.
“Because the entire focus seems to be on COVID not the plethora of things that people die of and need health treatment for normally, the government’s completely taken their eye off the ball for what’s in the national good!”
“the curve hasn’t changed when we introduce marks or indeed, when we opened up pubs and it’s just carried on and the government unfortunately feels poised to think that they can make one more change and do something I don’t know why they think that I see no evidence of that. It they feel to me like the the communist dictators of the old Eastern Bloc”
“People are starting to see what an absolute farce this has been. I fear they won’t, the government will try to impose more but I hope that people have the good sense to just get back to normal and ignore these people that want to control us”
England has come under pressure to reconsider quarantine rules for Greece after Scotland and Wales introduced new restrictions for the country in a bid to slow a rise in coronavirus cases. Looking at this story in more detail, Sputnik spoke to the Analyst Michael Swadling from the Croydon Constitutionalists, in this interview.
“The great risk to this country is that we are not acting in a normal manner and anything, be it holidays, schooling, work, travel, shopping… that gets us away from normal and continues to spread that fear and dread“
“God knows, we need a break more than we would normally. Blanket bans destroy our travel industry, hurt those countries, hurt people who have saved hard and put away for a holiday and finally get that break their family needs. For what? For what risk? What’s the actual impact we’re seeing here?”
“If we had a government that had any courage, a government that was in any way ready to lead rather than just follow, Boris would do that but sadly, he’s really made a problem for himself because he’s never shown any signs of doing that certainly since this crisis began”
“we’ve now created an industry in government of dealing with the pandemic. The pandemic isn’t there in the same way anymore and they just need to find new things to do. Unfortunately, holidaymakers are the people being punished by that incessant need from government to find something else to do”
We are joined by Alasdair Stewart, the former Chairman of the Croydon Conservative Federation, for a discussion of Scottish politics. We discuss the SNP Government’s response to Covid, the Highers Results scandal, minimum drinks pricing and the new Scottish Hate Crime Bill. We then consider the new Scottish Tory leader, the demise of the Labour Party and the prospects for the 2021 Holyrood Elections and a potential IndyRef2.
Scientists at UCL and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine examined the possible implications of schools reopening in the UK coupled with broader reopening of society, such returning to workplaces and increased socialising within the community. Sputnik spoke to Michael Swadling from the Croydon Constitutionalists, about this.
“I feel the real reason for that though is it’s the scaremongering. This is coming from, of course public health authorities; and universities; and people who are in the business of worrying about major public health issues will say that something could happen. Almost anything could happen”
“What I really think we’re seeing here, is an industry that’s now sprung up around causing panic and planning for a future with COVID; and with this disease and other diseases and of course, the last thing they want is for us to get back to normal because that kind of ends their reasons for being”
“People aren’t going to hospital for cancer screening, people aren’t going to hospitals for a whole range of issues and of course, as unemployment rise, we know that always comes with a debt count. It’s not just about managing this one thing, what we need is a government actually governs and manages a whole range of things at once, not just looking at COVID but looking at the whole health and just getting this country back to normal whilst isolating the most at risk group”
“Rather than us looking for the silver bullet, we’ve got to look at how we live our lives with this….just get back to normal. Get us back, living with this but living and enjoying our lives, getting the economy going; rather than having to live in fear of something that actually isn’t going to affect most of us and is destroying our economy to boot”
Here we are week 10 of the UK Covid 19, lock-down! We find ourselves as a nation being restructured even as I type. Looking back we can see that social distancing was and is necessary to contain the spread of the virus. It is also clear the Government was too slow in introducing the necessary measures. We have had more deaths per million population than most other countries. Provided we’re sensible though we can now begin to get back to normal.
Looking around us:-
Sweden instituted a more blended strategy: instead of drastically closing all businesses except essential services, most businesses stayed open with social distancing measures in place. The most vulnerable over 70’s and those with underlying conditions protected. As a result, the majority of the population developed herd immunity, they still have a vibrant economy and seem to have survived not much worse than other countries.
Brazil has taken the view it is all a hoax and carried on as normal but they are now the only country with cases and deaths rising. They are very clearly on the wrong path and will have to change tack soon, the sooner the better.
Singapore never had a lock down but did a drastic trace and test policy from the start isolating anyone with the virus and anyone they had contact with. This definitely worked best for sustaining the economy and reducing cases and deaths and really also for maintaining civil liberties unless you happened to be one who either got the virus or had contact with such.
Lessons are being learnt.
Government is able to quickly impose quite drastic laws when there is a danger of a pandemic. It seems this one almost certainly came from Wuhan in China. What we don’t know is whether it was some tragic accident or whether it was actually created deliberately for some reason such as to create the need for totalitarianism and one world Government. At the very least we need to be alert to the possibility.
Certain groups such as BPAS have been opportunistic, using the pandemic as an excuse to introduce DIY abortions which they are lobbying to make a permanent fixture in UK law. Abortion centres were always going to be in a challenging position. Are they an essential service? We would say most certainly not. Faced with just being closed down they fought back and demanded abortion pills be allowed to be taken at home. Government said “no” at first but then caved in unprepared for the onslaught. Sad. But this battle raged all over the world during the virus lockdowns
The push for a one world Government and probably with it a one world religion is now bound to continue in earnest with interestingly people like Tony Blair and Gordon Brown at the forefront of trying to set it up. It is very dangerous for civil liberties.
What about the place of churches?
At the start of this pandemic most churches seemed to willingly give in to being closed down but was it necessary? The application of the Governments’ interpretation of essential activities lacks a holistic approach. I can go along with supermarkets and banks being essential services. This is taking care of our physical and financial needs, but what about our spiritual needs, especially at a potentially very distressing time such as this? If ever there was a necessity for individuals to stay connected to their faith, I think this would most definitely qualify as one of those occasions. Australia took a different approach and deemed houses of worship as essential activities, so churches were able to stay open applying social distancing. Individual States in the USA have made regional decisions on the matter. Of course, it is of no surprise that the more liberal states have taken a very harsh line on church activity and even arrested Pastors for supposedly violating state orders. Whilst States such as Texas have permitted church activity but with some restrictions.
Now it’s time to move on. We believe the process of moving on should have started much earlier. The CPA issued a press release on the 23rd April outlining a sensible strategy for the UK to reopen for business:
As the Coronavirus pandemic calms down in many areas and evidence comes to light the virus is most likely transmitted through the nose CPA calls for immediate action as follows: –
1. Compulsory wearing of masks in all areas where people come into contact with other members of the public like shops and shopping centres and places of work.
2. All shops allowed to re-open but applying social distancing rules.
3. All churches and other religious buildings allowed to re-open applying social distancing rules and reducing the maximum attendance to one third of the normal building capacity.
4. All offices allowed to re-open with everyone working from home where possible and office attendance to apply social distancing and no more than one third of normal capacity allowed inside office buildings.
5. Normal road travel allowed with care to be taken at petrol stations.
6. Social distancing to be applied on all public transport with capacity no more than one third of normal capacity on all buses and trains and flights.
This was only ever meant to be a first step with the next step being a test and tracing regime to be put in place so we can get back to normal. Even now though in retrospect this would have been a good move then for the economy on 23rd April and is unlikely to have altered the downward trend of cases provided people stay alert.
The government’s recent review of the situation is very puzzling to say the least; The diocese of Shrewsbury in a recent tweet put it in a nutshell – you can have an abortion but not a baptism, buy a car, but not a votive candle, go to the supermarket, but not a sanctuary, get a divorce, but not get married and break the law, but not receive absolution. It is time to re-open churches.
We can however through all this welcome the fact that families have spent more time together. We can welcome the fact that many businesses and Government institutions have been forced to adopt a home working model which will more than likely continue. Social media and video conferencing has come into its own, Zoom has become a household name overnight! The commercial properties market will have to become more creative as less commercial space will be required. High streets, already under pressure will look very different with much more residential space. The NHS has shown great resilience, the fallen heroes of which will not be forgotten. It will no doubt learn lessons from the stress it has been under. My greatest hope though is that our nation will return to its spiritual roots, we are a Christian nation and not forget that prayer has made all the difference in this global crisis much of it done on zoom. Long may the prayer continue! The church also is becoming a changed environment for the better.