- T5 SE 180
I guess it shows that politicians can and should be guided by the science but it's still their job to make the judgements about society's priorities, on our behalf. I do wonder whether (at contingency planning stage) the public health professionals ever said to them "well you COULD make an effort to prepare to use heavy duty testing and contact tracing in an outbreak, which might work, BUT you'd have to invest £xxx millions in a UK-based test kit manufacturing capacity, which you'll probably never use, AND persuade the public to sharing their mobile phone contacts with the government, just in case."reading that plan I now feel quite depressed.
The blasé acceptance of socially and politically unacceptable levels of deaths and no mention of any of the actions that have been shown to be essential elsewhere. Up to now I actually thought that "being guided by the science" was a comfort and far better than being guided by political populism. I now find it quite unsettling.
If that option wasn't at least put to politicians, then the civil servants have failed us. If it was, but the politicians decided not to contemplate it, then we can blame them. But of course I've no idea what I'd have done, back then, if I'd had to decide.