CV19 - The State of the Nation

It’s so easy, as we have done for almost 2 years now, to focus solely on Cv19. 

But we should talk just as much about all the other things that the Cv19 policy response affects, and recognise that they will be responsible for the misery and/or premature deaths of millions in the coming years.

Economic stagnation with high tax low growth due to our colossal borrowing for Cv19. Along with Climate Change taxes & higher energy bills, this will shorten some people’s lives as well as making many more miserable.

Non-Cv19 physical health - cancer, heart disease and many other illnesses not diagnosed, or diagnosed too late. This will shorten some people’s lives as well as making many more miserable.

Mental health deterioration in many, especially among young adults and those with no family support, forced into isolation. This will shorten some people’s lives as well as making many more miserable.

The colossal NHS back-log created by the ‘all that matters is Cv19’ policies the NHS has been allowed to adopt. This will exacerbate the usual winter struggles of the NHS and will shorten some people’s lives as well as making many more miserable.

Educational disruption for tens of millions of children. This may not shorten lives, but it reduces the life chances of the poorest children in particular, thus making their lives worse than they could have been. 

Civil liberties cast aside as if they are mere whims, not rights earned over countless generations. Who knows where this will lead but nowhere good, we can be certain of that.

Do I feel very sorry for people who have had someone close to them lose their life due to Cv19? Of course! 

Do I feel very sorry for people who have been made seriously ill by Cv19? Of course!

But I also feel very sorry for all those who have and will lose their lives or are desperately ill because their illness was demoted & treated as of less importance long after the seriousness of Cv19 was known to be far less than originally feared.

I also care about the mental health deterioration to many and the educational harm to our children.

And I also care about how easily we have allowed ourselves to be convinced of the necessity of giving up our civil liberties and freedoms.

Policy affecting 68 million people has to be based on more than panic, hype & political expediency, especially when not backed-up by the reality on the ground. 

We have an Infection Fatality Rate of well under 1%, which was the case even before the vaccines, and an average age of death ‘with Cv19’ of 82 which again was the case before the vaccines.
This average age of death, by the way, means that Cv19 has been so devastating that it has had ZERO impact on the average life expectancy in the UK. 

We have overreacted, and this disproportionate response will come back to bite us in coming years, particularly if we repeat the mistakes.
That we overreacted initially is understandable; that we are even contemplating further lockdowns & vaccine passports (& worse!), even now we know that Cv19 is nowhere near as bad as feared, is inexcusable.

It’s very simple, really. Some people think that Cv19 has been a big enough problem to justify all the collateral damage I have listed above. 

I do not.
I believe that the collateral damage from our short-sighted, Cv19 only, policy response will be far worse than Cv19 itself.

I struggle to believe that those on the side of censoring debate, only allowing carefully selected & interpreted information to be released, using propaganda techniques to instil greater fear than warranted, mandating medical treatments & restrictions, harming the economy, harming mental health & non-Cv19 physical health, disrupting children’s education, using those children to shield adults, allowing the division of society into clean and unclean, good and evil, and curtailing civil liberties, is the side history will judge favourably. 

Although of course, as Orwell realised, they will just erase, re-write & interpret the history to suit themselves if given the chance.

The question for all of us as individuals is, ‘will I continue to aid and abet them?’

Covid-deniers and Anti-Vaxxers - What are they thinking?

Over many months, I’ve been listening and discussing Cv19 with various people on social media who have not taken the vaccines & are more sceptical about Cv19 generally. Here is what I believe is an accurate synthesis of their views.

Most that don't want this vaccination aren't anti-vaccinations or even necessarily anti THIS vaccination. They have all their other vaccinations with no issue.

They just want to wait until there are 3/4 years of data before deciding whether to take this one or not. 

After all, that's the usual timescale before a new vaccination is given a licence, because new treatments that seem to work prima facie, can have longer-term side-effects that may make the cure worse than the virus. 

Remember, we are not dealing with a virus akin to the Black Death here. If we were, we would have 25 -30 million dead from it in the UK alone by now. In reality, we have around 0.5% of that figure, and that is ‘with’ Cv19, not ‘of’ Cv19.

In fact, the average age of death 'with' Cv19 is 82, which is the normal average age of death in England & Wales.
Under 55, the ‘with’ Cv19 deaths is so small as to be statistically insignificant, very sad for those people & their families though it of course is. 
And even the over 75s who catch Cv19 have a 4 in 5 chance of surviving it.

So the claim is NOT that Cv19 is a hoax, or that the vaccinations are completely useless. 

It’s that the severity of Cv19 is exaggerated, and demonstrably so; that the efficacy of the vaccinations is exaggerated (you can still both catch & transmit it AND need boosters every 6 months) & with long-term consequences unknown; and that, because of these exaggerations, it is perfectly reasonable to want to wait for the normal long-term data on efficacy and side-effects to come in before taking the vaccination, particularly for the majority at almost no risk.

Moreover, the exaggeration of the Cv19 risk has caused policies to be brought in which cause far more societal damage, both short and long-term, than the virus itself. 

Just think of all the money we don’t have that’s been borrowed resulting in inflation and much higher tax levels; all the cancer and other non-Cv19 diagnoses and treatments missed with the consequent backlog of many millions of cases putting pressure on the NHS, the very thing we were supposed NOT to be doing; the mental health toll with, for example, an almost 50% increase in mental health referrals in the 15-19 year old population; the disruption to an entire generation’s education which always affects the poorest most; and the various civil liberties given-up with some at least, unlikely to be returned.

With a compliant media (both mainstream & social), we have been propagandised into believing that the Cv19 risk is magnitudes greater than it really is; that the vaccines are more useful than they really are, (particularly for the under 65s); and that the restrictive rules brought-in were far more necessary and useful than they really were. 

We have spent a colossal amount of money in the wrong way and far too many seem very happy to demonise anyone who asks perfectly reasonable and, frankly, obvious questions, as either stupid or evil or both. 

But Covid-deniers or anti-vaxxers, the vast majority of these people are not.

Covid 19: Thesis and Anti-Thesis

This is an attempt to explain why CV19 policies (and it applies to many other things), has become so tribal. There are broadly two camps, those that accept the mainstream line on Cv19 and those who don’t accept it. The former support the CV19 Thesis and the latter are Anti-thesis.

Covid 19 Thesis:

CV19 is believed to be a serious threat to public health many magnitudes greater than even a bad flu.

Promoted by the mainstream media; the main social media channels; most Governments; most opposition parties; global bodies e.g. WHO; large pharmaceutical companies

Those who differ in their opinion are characterised by those who promote the thesis as Covid-deniers; anti-vaxxers; conspiracy theorists and even by some as potential murderers (granny-killers).

The condensed view of the Covid 19 thesis believers is that lockdowns both work and are required; masks work and need to be mandated; vaccines are safe and should be mandated across most/all age ranges to protect both themselves & others; and vaccine passports should be mandated so that things can open-up faster and pressure people into getting vaccinated. In summary, heavy societal controls and restrictions are needed as CV19 is more dangerous than any downsides the restrictions bring.

CV19 Anti-thesis

CV19 is not sufficiently serious to warrant the level of response seen. It is barely more serious than a bad flu season and badly affects only the very elderly (average age of CV19 death is 82) or those with specific long-term conditions that make them generally more vulnerable to any and all viruses.

This idea is not promoted by any large mainstream or social media organisations but there are many individual scientists, doctors and others who can be found on social media who believe that the response to CV19 has been exaggerated, inappropriate & ultimately counter-productive. The differing approaches across the world with no correlation between cases/hospitalisations/death outcomes and the levels of restrictions or vaccinations imposed is cited as evidence.

Those who differ in their opinion to CV19 anti-thesis believers are characterised as Government shills; unthinking sheep; fear-mongers and selfish dictatorship enablers.

The condensed view of the Covid 19 anti-thesis believers is that lockdowns are not needed and don’t work; masks have so little efficacy as not to be worth wearing; vaccine passports are simply a way to divide society with no proven benefit; in the near future we can expect to see a scapegoating of the unvaccinated and that we are on the precipice of a slippery slope that leads to increasingly draconian biopolitical control measures, the grip of which is unlikely to release, even when the pandemic is over.

In summary, more societal damage (across the economy, non-CV19 health, mental health, education and civil liberties) is done by heavy restrictions than by Cv19 itself.

Can we find a way forward?

Both of the above perspectives have some validity.
However, in anything but the most simplistic of situations, extreme views are ALWAYS wrong to one extent or another because they attempt to simplify the complex in a way that misses crucial factors.

We all have lives to lead which take up a lot of our energy, both physical and mental. It’s a form of self-preservation to simplify things down so that we can integrate them into our lives with minimal effort. We want to reach a situation, and quickly, wherein we have decided what ‘the answer’ is, so that we can stop having to think about it.
Our natural reaction to anyone suggesting that our answer may be wring is usually to push-back and double-down. Any thinking we do tends to be simply justifying to ourselves why it’s ok to carry on believing as we already do.

Put simply, and for various psychological reasons, we hate having to change our minds, especially on important issues.

Now clearly, this is less than ideal in terms of being open-minded and being less susceptible to propaganda. But as long as we know and acknowledge that’s what we do, so that when serious complex issues arise, we are consciously aware of our over-simplified biases, we at least have a chance of discussing things open-mindedly, rather than taking the easy but divisive route of simply seeing anyone with a differing opinion as either stupid or evil.

Neither the thesis or anti-thesis view of Cv19, when held tribally and uncritically, is right, and we do ourselves no favours in the long-run by closed-mindedly choosing a side and refusing to consider reasonable questions and concerns from the ‘other’ side.

We need to be able to synthesise a reasonable way through this which doesn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater or end in one side feeling totally victorious and the other totally defeated. Becoming either a tyrant or a slave are not good options.

The problem is that there is no arena for a sensible, good-faith discussion.

It could be done by the mainstream or social media, but these organisations have nailed their colours to the mast and are actively censoring views and individuals that don’t agree with their chosen position.
Governments could do it but again, they don’t want to be seen as uncertain or vacillating, so they also tend to nail their colours to one mast or another.
Global quangos like the WHO or the UN could do it but sadly, they are so riven with internal & geo-politics and vested interests that it doesn’t happen there either.

So it is left to small independent thinkers like Jonathan Haidt or the you tube channel Rebel Wisdom, to try and bring some reasonable thinking into difficult areas.
All any individual can do is support these reasonable thinkers and do what we can on social media in our small way. We can also try to introduce other perspectives into conversations.

What is the kind of thinking we need to move forward collegiately?
Well in simple terms it means not insisting upon winning; not insisting on being right; being aware of the danger of all of our thinking being merely rationalising why it’s ok to go on believing what we already do without asking often obvious questions and genuinely trying to see the other point of view.
It requires, ‘yes, and..’ or ‘true but only partially’ or ‘ok, but what if…’ or ‘ok but perhaps we could consider this as well…’

Politically, it comes down to how we want to organise our society.
Do we want: 1. as much genuine democracy as possible? This requires high levels of openness and public discussion and involvement;
2. Occasional democracy interspersed by a virtual dictatorship? Where the elected Government gets to do basically whatever it likes until the next election;
Or 3. no democracy at all? Accepting that a ruling class know what’s best and the rest of us happily just do as we’re told – something foreseen by Aldous Huxley.

What we must have is genuine open and honest debates on vital societal issues. Otherwise, we will find that those with power and influence change our society without us having any meaningful say.

As well as books and you tube interviews by Jonathan Haidt and the Rebel Wisdom channel, I would suggest certain books to read. They are all available on kindle for well under £10 (actual books more expensive). They explain how we think and how easily we can be influenced:

Influence by Cialdini
Think Fast, Think Slow by Kahneman
Mistakes were made but not by me by Tarvis et al

Pragmatism must win over emotion

The 'we have to show our humanity by taking all these refugees' people don't seem to have thought through the practicalities.
It's all about the 'moral signal' that they want to give.

Most are comfortably off financially and believe that questions asking where we will get all the houses, hospitals, doctors, nurses, social-workers, teachers, jobs, etc to cope with an ever increasing population on our tiny over-crowded island, are somehow irrelevant or trivial or just an excuse for nastiness.

Whether this is moral naivety or wilful bad-faith and whether conscious or otherwise, who knows? But as long as I feel that I’m a ‘nice moral person', that’s all that seems to matter.
Sod the genuine practical social issues that large influxes of new people bring, or the poor already living here upon whom the extra costs and adverse consequences of rapid major societal change always falls hardest.

On this refugee issue, you either believe that we should prioritise helping the needy people of the UK, of whom there are plenty, or you believe in prioritising people from other parts of the world.
It’s pretty much as simple as that.

What we don’t have is the luxury of doing both, whether from a financial, skilled labour or geographical space viewpoint.
We will just end up doing both badly, which is indeed what we are doing.

You don’t have to give other people whatever they want to be a good decent person.
You don't need to take on guilt about things that you personally have had nothing to do with to be a good decent person.
You don’t have to take the problems of the world onto your own shoulders to be a good decent person.
Sort your own life, family and country out, then in your spare time, perhaps.....

One day we will realise that, for a host of reasons, life cannot be made totally fair for all people; which brings us back to the question, ‘do we focus on our own people in need, on our own poor, or those from other countries?’

It’s not a case of not caring, or not being a nice person.
It’s being practical & realistic about what is possible and about how much we can do, without destroying what we’ve already got; as opposed to being a self-righteous emotion-driven utopian idealist.

The thing with self-righteous utopian idealists is that it costs them very little to pontificate on social media or walk down a street waving a placard and shouting slogans, while potentially costing everyone else an awful lot if their ill-thought-through impractical emotional blackmail wins out.

Selfishness: some thoughts

Humans are innately selfish. It is a built-in part of our evolutionary survival instinct.
Whether individuals plough their own furrow or cooperate within some form of group, it's because they judge it to be in their own personal interest to do so.
If we can acknowledge this, we would, both on an individual and societal level, make better decisions by being more sceptical of authority.

“Oh, but I know people who often do things for others with no benefit to themselves. I even do things like that myself”, you may say.
I understand what you mean, of course. And on a small-scale personal level, it can happen.
But I would gently point out that even then, whether hoping for a favour in return in the future, or even just the glow of self-righteousness you get from performing the act can be construed as, if not outright selfishness, then gaining some form of benefit.

Certainly, when you move away from small interpersonal interactions, the idea that something may be bad for us personally but best for the majority in society is one we understand in concept but can rarely bring ourselves to act out.
Rather, we spend a lot of mental effort rationalising why what is bad for us personally is bad for wider society and what is good for us personally is good for wider society.
Life is just so much easier that way, isn’t it?

No-one champions, let alone votes for, a system or a societal change which they believe will make their own life materially or meaningfully worse. And I use these words deliberately.

We are sometimes prepared to live with minor inconvenience to 'do the right thing'; to appear, both to ourselves and others, as virtuous, but nothing major, nothing meaningful, nothing material.

For example, people who are comfortably off financially may be prepared to advocate for a rise in tax rates such that they too would have a bit less disposable income.
However, if the tax increases being suggested were of a magnitude that meant they would struggle to maintain their current lifestyle, their support for the idea would disappear faster than water in a sieve.

If someone is advocating for something, it is either because they believe they already do, or will in the future, directly benefit from it - or, at the very least, that there will be no meaningful downside for them or their immediate family.

The consequences of our views for other folk are either something we can claim credit for if good, or unfortunate but necessary collateral damage, if bad.
But the primary driver is always ‘what’s in it for me?’
It might be money, it might be fame, it may be praise, it may be future benefits. But one way or another, we only do it if we believe that in some way, we benefit personally.

Our belief may prove to be wrong of course; but cultivating wisdom is a different and much more difficult discussion.

Elites de-couple themselves from the Plebs

In all societies throughout history, the elite classes have set themselves apart from the unwashed and, however much we may think ourselves enlightened, we are no different. 

For example, the Kick it Out campaign has been incredibly successful in removing racism from football, both inside the game and on the terraces, over the last 30 or more years.
Indeed, football is now so racist that the majority of Premier League players are both ‘ethnic minorities’ and multi-millionaires.

Many footballers, of whatever ethnic background, have almost no educational attainment behind them. To make it to the top, you have to devote your life to it from a young age, so that’s not a criticism, other than perhaps of football itself.

But what it does show is that, not only does our society happily allow ‘black’ people to benefit from social mobility, but that it also allows those with little educational attainment, irrespective of ethnicity, to do so as well; and football is by no means the only example.

Just like you will never end sexism or homophobia completely, you will never end racism completely and it’s perverse and naïve to believe otherwise.

Perfection is often the enemy of mere excellence.

There are too many human individuals to eradicate any bad behaviour completely. Just look at how many murders, stabbings, etc take place each year, yet no-one would be so naïve as to believe that these can be totally eradicated.
The best we can do, and we have done so, is marginalise racism and make it unacceptable within the vast majority of society.
But the law of diminishing returns applies, wherein you can end up causing more harm than good in trying to get to a wholly unattainable zero point.
And don’t forget that ethnic minorities are just as capable as 'whites' of racism, since it is a Human trait, not an exclusively ‘white Human’ trait.
There are those within ethnic minorities who despise those of other ethnic minorities, tribes or religions, as well as ‘white’ people.

The remnants of aggressive/violent racism are largely confined to the inner cities and occurs across all racial groups.
Too often now, racism is simply used as a stick to beat white people with; a stick often wielded by other white folk desperate to show their ‘progressive’ credentials, no matter who or what they throw under a bus in doing so.

Those England football fans booing their team taking a knee might be racist, but it is just as likely that they are a) not supportive of the avowedly Marxist BLM movement (as opposed to the simple statement ‘black lives matter’ which is indisputable) and b) tired of being lectured by multi-millionaire footballers who know no more (and often less) about the history and intricacies of the socio-economic issues of our country than anyone else.

And remember, the recent report by the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities, published in March 2021, found some racism yes, of course, but not systemic racism; and that there are many other important reasons why some ethnic minority communities do very well and some do less well; it’s just we aren’t allowed to talk about them. Why? Because they don't fit a certain simplistic political narrative. 

When not wanting to hurt some people’s feelings comes ahead of telling the truth, we are in big trouble as a society; so I'm afraid we ARE in BIG trouble because we are in that position on a number of important issues, not just racism.

And finally, what does it gain the (mainly) A, B & C1 upper class self-styled ‘progressive’ elites to continue to wag their fingers at the ‘stupid, bigoted, racist etc’ lower classes?
It gains nothing but things they don’t want, e.g. Brexit and a huge Tory majority.
But it seems to make some people feel so good about themselves that, counter-productive though it is, even though it brings outcomes they don’t want, they just can’t stop themselves.

And of course, it’s just as bigoted to call other people 'bigots', rather than trying to understand their viewpoint but, hey-ho, one rule for those at the top of society and another for those at the bottom; 'twas ever thus.

I forget who said, ‘the self-righteous forgive themselves everything’ but it's an accurate observation and something we must all actively guard against. 

NHS Staff - a special case?

Recently I got embroiled in a discussion, on social media about NHS staff and pay rises.
Well, I was discussing, others were simply yelling emotion-driven abuse.

You may not be aware of this but there seem to be people out there who genuinely believe the following things:

a) that if you work in the NHS you are a better person than those who don't;

b) that those of us who don't work in the NHS would not be prepared to do what they do; we’d be too scared or it would be too much like hard work;

c)  that, far from being equal, there are different classes of citizen in our country. There are those who work in the NHS (and some might be good enough to add Police, Fire & Ambulance Service as well), then there are other Public sector workers and finally, at the bottom of the worthiness list, all those that work in the Private sector. 

I KID YOU NOT, THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY THINK THIS!

This is a quite remarkable, dangerous & worrying way to think.

Firstly, let’s remember how money flows in terms of the Public and Private sectors. Put simply, the Private sector generates taxation via corporation tax, worker income tax, and employer & employee National Insurance.
These revenues go to the Government. The Government uses this money to pay for the Public sector, including the salaries of all those that work in it.
Yes, I know that all of those Public sector workers pay tax & NI, but as the wages they get has come from the Private sector (via the Government), any tax they pay is merely returning a proportion of that back. It’s not NEW tax revenue.

The point is that the Public sector does not create wealth, rather it consumes the wealth generated by the Private sector & distributed by the Government.

Now this isn't a problem as long as we all remember that without the Private sector being successful (which is not just successful companies paying taxation but unemployment being low such that all the Private sector workers are paying tax not receiving benefits), there would be no money to pay the NHS staff or the Fire Service, the Police service or the Ambulance service or the people that come and take away your rubbish every week etc, etc. 

Once we allow ourselves to think of any part of the Public sector as uncriticisable, like a cult/religion, we have lost our objectivity.

We all need to agree that we will not pursue any idea that certain people doing certain jobs or working in certain parts of our society are more deserving, better people, than others.
That’s divisive, which we have enough of already at the moment!

Importantly, and I can only speak for myself here, I would have been perfectly happy to work in the NHS if that’s the way my life had gone.
Indeed my mother, an aunt, and several cousins did/do work in the NHS.
The risks of being on the front-line of patient care would probably not even have occurred to me.
Like joining the armed services, it’s a risk you are aware of and accept when you choose that career.
Anyway, I suspect that people choose to work in the NHS for positive reasons and are not constantly weighing-up any dangers there may be over and above other jobs.

Also, when you look at the groups most vulnerable, not to catching CV19, but to being really badly affected by it, very few will be working in the NHS.

By far the most vulnerable group, the over 70s, are retired, and those with long-term existing susceptible conditions are likewise less likely to be working in the NHS, and if they are, they should have been self-isolating.

So, while CV19 patient doctors & nurses in the NHS may be of greater risk of catching CV19, they were, in reality, at no greater risk of serious illness or dying from CV19 than anyone else in the low-risk groups.
Of course I feel very sorry for the exceptions but they are such a small number compared to the total that they prove the rule.

Remember also that only a certain proportion of NHS staff come into direct contact with CV19 patients; under half, by no means ALL NHS staff as is implied by many.

Additionally, not only is it impossible for everybody outside the Public sector to work within it, but neither is it desirable that they should; remember where the money comes from.

Without the Private sector there would be no NHS.

And it certainly isn’t the case that everyone should WANT to work in the Public sector in some bizarre attempt at symbolising what a ‘good’ person they are, which really appears to be the view of some strange people on social media.

So, while I am sure that we are all very grateful to those who do work in the NHS, that gratitude simply cannot overflow into cult status, hero worship & special treatment.  

When so many people in the Private sector have, and over the next 12 months even more will, lose their jobs; and when even more will receive no pay rise of any kind, it seems rather strange to be singling out people that work in the NHS as if they are the only people who have had a difficult time in the last 12 months. They are not; not by a long chalk.

What I suspect is that a lot of the fuss and noise around wanting to treat the NHS staff better than everybody else, is generated by the usual suspects: certain politicians, certain parts of the media, trade unions, those who generally favour the Public sector over the Private sector, and those who just never think about where the money comes from to give Public sector workers pay increases. 

I was going to say that I wonder, should there be an anonymous poll of NHS staff, how many of them would be happy to claim that they are better people and more deserving than their fellow citizens.
However, I am confident that the vast majority of people working within the NHS would NOT describe themselves in such an arrogant narcissistic and entitled way.

I agree with them.

They do a great job; they do a very necessary job, and we are grateful.
But they do benefit from almost 100% job security which is worth a lot at the moment, and I for one am not SO grateful that I'm prepared to pretend that they are literally better people and more deserving of special treatment than the rest of us.

The NHS

The NHS was conceived toward the end of the Churchill wartime government. It came into being in 1948.
The population of the United Kingdom in 1948 was 49.8 million. The average life expectancy for women was around 70; the average life expectancy for men was around 66.

The population of the United Kingdom now is approximately 68.2 million. The average life expectancy for women is 83; the average life expectancy for men is 79.

If those making the decisions in 1948 had been able to predict this level of growth in population combined with increase in life expectancy, they may have paused for thought before proceeding.

There is something which is very important in the context of the NHS's position within our society that doesn't get discussed.
Namely, that not only is our overall population much larger and growing but the proportion of our population that is elderly is far higher than in 1948 and very importantly, there has been a vast increase in the number of people being kept alive by modern medicine yet who are not very healthy.

Thus, not only is the total number of people using expensive NHS resources much higher than at its inception, but the proportion of the population needing to use expensive NHS resources on a regular or permanent ongoing basis has increased hugely.

So, the original decision to go ahead with the NHS all those years ago, which was always based more on social factors than a robust financial case, is rapidly becoming untenable.

Put simply, it's Pyramid Scheme. 

Not just a reducing proportion of healthy/young paying for the increasing proportion of unhealthy/old but Private sector paying for the increasingly costly Public sector.

It’s surely obvious to anyone with an even vaguely open mind on the subject that the Public sector in general and the NHS in particular is becoming, if it has not already become, unaffordable; unaffordable bearing in mind all the other things that are in the Public sector.
Unimportant things like education & law & order for example.

Even if we think we can get away with it for a few more decades, our children will find it a burden that is simply not sustainable by the time they get to my age, unless significant changes are made.

Let’s remember how money flows in terms of the Public and Private sectors. Put simply, the Private sector generates taxation via corporation tax, worker income tax, and employer & employee National Insurance.
These revenues go to the government. The government uses this money to pay for the Public sector, including the salaries of all those that work in it.

Yes, I know that all of those Public sector workers pay tax, but as the wages they get has come from the Private sector via the Government, any tax they pay is merely returning a proportion of that back.

It's not NEW or EXTRA money in the economy!

The point is that the Public sector does not create wealth, rather it consumes the wealth generated by the Private sector & distributed by the government.

I know that so many people don't want to hear this and don't want to even think about it.

90% of people alive today have known nothing else but the NHS.
They think of it as a ‘Right’.
The whys and wherefores of how it is run, organised and paid for are, to many, irrelevant.
They want it, they will always want it, and the only way in which they want it changed is for yet more money to be put into it so that it does exactly what it does now but faster, with more capacity and, yes, more staff.

The only way that we can stop the Public sector and specifically the NHS consuming more and more to the point of bankrupting the Nation is through innovation.

I strongly recommend Matt Ridley's book How innovation works. 

Innovation, far more often than not, is stifled by State intervention. Scientific innovation generally, but medical innovation in particular, is being slowed massively by bureaucracy and the desire for medicines and products that are 100% safe.
The length of time it takes to get new products to market is enormous.
So enormous, that it often puts companies off bothering to the detriment of many potential beneficiaries.

This is not how we will reduce cost while improving outcomes for all.

We see what can be done with the covid vaccines.
They have been created, essentially, from a standing start, and were ready to give people in around nine months. And the vast majority of people are more than happy to take it, even though they are aware that, simply by definition, they cannot possibly have gone through anything other than short term safety trials.
Indeed the clinical trials for the current vaccines are not officially due to end until well into 2023.

What this proves is that if State bureaucracies stopped the cult of ‘safteyism’ and adopted a light touch approach to innovations in medicine, the improvements we need on both the medical outcome and the cost sides can happen and can happen quite fast.

This does not mean a free for all with no testing & trials done for safety.
It does mean slimming the approval process down, so it doesn’t take 70 months to approve the use of a new pacemaker as it did in Europe recently.

The only way to stop the Public sector and particularly the NHS becoming a financial burden that cannot be overcome for our children and grandchildren is through innovation.

It’s through making it worthwhile for those in science generally and medical science particularly to put a lot of time and effort into new ideas and new concepts many of which will fail. But the ones that don't, can make a significant difference.

In simple terms we have to get out of the way of medical science & technology as much as is reasonably possible because we need them to find ways not just of keeping more and more people alive but keeping them alive and healthy.
The healthy for longer, thus requiring less NHS resources part, is how the NHS remains affordable long term while at the same time allowing more people to live longer in good health. 

It may not affect me too much, but it will certainly affect my children and their children if we don't realise this.

The Media: Friend or Foe?

 Most of us feel much more comfortable chatting & discussing things with those who entirely or largely agree with us. It’s much more relaxing, very easy and makes us feel good about ourselves.

Who enjoys conflict? Very few.

We recognise this on social media because, either fed by their algorithms, or by making it easy to block anyone who doesn’t agree with us, it is obvious that we get bound into bubbles of confirmation bias. These partly imposed, partly self-created opinion bubbles mean that many people, even those who spend a lot of time on numerous social media platforms, often end up never hearing any alternative view.

This can easily lead to thinking either that alternative views don’t exist or that an alternative view does exist but is so obviously wrong, it can be legitimately ignored.

There are two psychological consequences from this immersion in confirmation bias which are desperately bad for our society:

One seems to be the number of people who feel threatened by alternative views, i.e. they develop a fragility that sees alternative views as a form of violence against them.
Here, the psychological safety response is either to close their minds and refuse to engage with any possibility that those with an alternative view may have perfectly valid points worth considering OR to adopt a war footing and launch vituperative personal attacks on anyone disagreeing with them.
Hence the sort of polarisation of views witnessed in the USA where social media was born and has most effect.

The other consequence, which is becoming more common all the time, is the development of an authoritarian response akin to a fundamentalist religion, wherein anyone who doesn’t affirm the ‘righteous’ view, (embodied by what I think of course), should be treated as a heretic or evil-doer to the extent that it’s not just acceptable, but morally correct to do all that’s possible to silence them, coerce them into obedience, or even seek to ruin their lives by for example, contacting their employer and demanding they be sacked.

While these traits are obvious within social media, they are perhaps less so in the traditional media; possibly because this behaviour has become the norm over many decades and thus, not being new, it goes unnoticed.
However, many newspapers and TV news stations have seen their regular audience fall in recent years which is causing concern to their owners.

Whether newspapers or TV news, as your regular audience declines, you have two choices. Make changes that widen your appeal by expanding the range of views on offer, or become more insular by narrowing the range of views down and simply reflecting what you believe your core audience wants to hear, and hoping that this will stabilise your audience numbers at an acceptable level.

In newspapers, the tabloids, both Left & Right, have been doing the insular & myopic ‘just feed them what they want’ model for a long time, but it has become the case that the broadsheets, or what some choose to call the ‘quality’ press, are also doing this now.
TV news channels also now present far from balanced news coverage (but of course you have realise this!)

While wrong, this should not come as a surprise. Media tycoons & TV executives aren’t known for their humility after all.

So, we now have a situation where across all forms of mainstream media, whether social or traditional, we have very little cross-fertilisation of ideas; very little calm and reasonable discussion of the moral & ethical issues of the day; and no genuine good-faith searching for the truth as opposed to striving for the victory of our existing views.

We are fed a dangerous and untruthful diet consisting of confirmation of our own righteousness with a large side-dish of condemnation of the evil ones who dare to disagree.

The only people who will stop this is us, the consumers of this poisonous diet, refusing to eat it anymore.

Of course, it takes time, effort, and courage to break out of unthreatening environments; to do your own research; to deliberately listen to the views of those who disagree; to take one foot out of safe order and place it into uncomfortable chaos.

Do we have the wisdom to recognise the need and the courage to actually do it? 

If not, I fear it will lead either to violent revolution or a supposedly benevolent but suffocating dictatorship.

Should we be sceptical of the official Covid narratives?

Flu used to kill huge numbers world-wide until vaccines came along; I had my flu jab in December.
Covid is serious because it’s a new & highly contagious respiratory virus which, until recently, we had no vaccine for.
However, and with every empathy and respect for those who have died from it, it is not particularly deadly. Ebola for example, kills 90% of those it infects; fortunately it's nothing like as infectious as Covid-19.
Covid-19 kills less than 1% on the evidence of the first 12 months.

But back to the vaccines; don’t get carried away with euphoria. 

The new Covid vaccines aren’t effective for 2 -3 weeks after you have them; they don’t, strictly speaking, stop you catching Covid, they just reduce the severity of most (not all) people's reaction to it; it appears you CAN pass it on after being vaccinated; and there hasn’t been time for long-term safety trials.
[Indeed, the currrent mass vaccination programme IS  in effect the long-term safety trial!]  

It's also intersting that the German regulators are refusing to allow the AstraZeneca vaccine to be used on the over 65s at the moment citing insufficient data. So have we jumped the gun or are they beoing over-cautious? Only time will tell.

With more time, Covid vaccines will improve in both effectiveness and long-term safety, which is great news for all, especially the most vulnerable groups but I won't be rushing to have mine for a few months yet.

Covid numbers

Moving away from vaccines, by the NHS’s own admission, 15-20% of those counted in their Covid case statistics caught Covid IN HOSPITAL.

So, the percentage of patients going to hospital for non-Covid reasons & showing no symptoms who then test positive for Covid after they’ve been admitted is 15-20%. They are then automatically counted as Covid cases and, should they die, Covid deaths, irrespective of the actual or main cause.

The WHO have recently changed their guidance on the PCR test, saying that weak positive results ALWAYS need follow-up tests because they know that if no symptoms are apparent, they are likely to be a false positive. [The German scientist on you tube getting a positive result from a kiwi fruit should make anyone think].

Yet single weak positive tests have always been and continue to be automatically counted in the Covid figures and importantly are not removed should a subsequent test show negative!

Anyone who has tested positive for Covid in the month before they died is counted as a Covid death. Even if they were run over by a bus; or committed suicide; or died when they would have anyway due to cancer, for example. 

Doctors have not been ordered but been encouraged to put Covid on death certificates as at least a contributing factor if they have even a suspicion of Covid being present.
Any such mention of Covid is automatically counted in the Covid death statistics.

So, to me, there is no doubt that the Covid case and death figures have been knowingly manipulated upwards, presumably in an attempt to play it safe and convince as many people as possible to be obedient to the restrictions.

We can’t know by exactly how much they've been manipulated upwards, but it’s likely to be significant.

Lockdowns

Remember, we are told by Government, SAGE, the Opposition Parties and Mainstream-Media that none of the problems caused by lockdowns are as important as ‘beating’ Covid. Indeed lockdown-caused problems are barely mentioned & certainly not used to critique the lockdown policy itself.
No, we’re told unequivocally that lockdowns are the correct policy; in fact, harder lockdowns would be preferable to many. 

The fact that, despite the restricitons and lockdowns, Covid is having exactly the effect on health that you would expect moving from Winter to Summer and back into Winter again seems to be seen as irrelevant. 

Any optimism in the figures is all down to the lockdown & restrictions policy, but if figures go in the wrong direction it’s solely down to idiot people not doing what they’re told. Hmm....

This is how the pattern of announcements seems to go:

1. This is a catastrophe; be afraid, be VERY afraid; we’re locking down or putting in important restricitons; then

2. ‘Oh you’re doing well, thanks'; then

3. ‘restrictions might ease soon, keep it up’, followed by 

4. ‘nope, some of you have been bad, look at how bad it is because of YOU’ then 

5. ‘more restrictions/lockdowns required and it’s all YOUR fault’. 

Fear, praise, hope, criticise, punish; fear, praise, hope, criticise, punish – and repeat.

So what's happening?

And no, I'm not a consiracy theorist.
I see a combination of silo-thinking, simple politics and incompetence, not some Machiavellian world order takeover. 

We seem to be playing an ‘out of sight, out of mind’ game and focussing solely on Covid.

Does the death and suffering caused by non-Covid health issues, both physical & mental not matter?

Does the soaring unemployment rate, which will rise even higher once Government salary support is removed, and will devastate the lives of many for years if not decades to come not matter?

Does the educational deficit for our children, particularly from the poorest backgrounds, not matter?

Does the uncontested removal of civil liberties we thought we had secured centuries ago, not matter? 

Well, the answer is of course, YES for those who have been directly affected by any of these things but as that’s not yet the majority, too many just go along with it all, presumably because they can ‘feel’ Covid all around them but not these other problems. 

Either that or they simply choose to believe the official catastrophe narrative.

The attitude seems to be ‘focus solely on the immediate problem and the future will just have to sort itself out as best it can’.
Oh, great! That's what we want from our politicians, head in the sand short-termism!

If Covid, like the Black Death, was killing 30 to 40% of the population or even 2 to 3% of the population as the Spanish flu did immediately after the First World War, then I could understand this focus on Covid to the exclusion of all other important societal issues.
But since, one year on from the first suspected cases, 0.15% of the population have died from Covid according to the official figures [which you will recall are exaggerated], I don't understand the ‘only Covid matters’ policy. 

Now, I am willing to believe that there may be very good reasons for ignoring all the other vital societal issues being negatively impacted by the lockdown & restrictions policy. However, any such reasons are not being volunteered and no politician or member of the media even seems to be asking these questions. 

Why almost no one with any power or influence is asking questions about the trade-off between the assumed but hard to quantify benefits of focusing solely on Covid and the known but hard to quantify disbenefits of focusing solely on Covid, is a question I would love to know the answer to.
But the University of Bristol estimated late last year that the equivalent of 560,000 extra deaths would occur due to the lockdowns, so I am very concerned.

Scepticism

Finally, but very importantly, it’s never wrong to look more deeply into what those who have power & influence over you are telling you.
We’d all like to believe that we can relax, sit back, and rely on those with power to do what’s best for us at all times, but that’s wishful thinking; no-one’s quite that naive are they?

There will always be political biases and agendas as well as well-intentioned error in what those with power & influence say and do, and if you don’t identify what they are, you can’t properly judge the extent to which you agree or disagree, can you?

We don't simply decide whether we like the Party in Government or not and then just accept or dismiss whatever they say, do we? I mean, that would be stupid wouldn't it? 😉

After all, and with the Covid figures being an exemplar, if they don’t trust the people enough to be 100% honest so we can make our own minds up, why should the people 100% trust them?

My advice

Do your own research & thinking on ALL important issues.

Honest, open-minded scepticism of those with power & influence is not just acceptable, I think we should consider it our duty as citizens of a free & democratic country - that is, if we want it to stay that way!

Lockdown arguments miss a crucial point

There are various discussions/arguments on social media about the need for and effectiveness of the lockdowns we have had. 
With a few exceptions, they run along expected self-interest lines.

Those who support lockdowns come into one or more of these categories:

1. those who have lost someone close to them from Covid;

2. those in a vulnerable category themselves and are fearful;

3.  those who have a secure income (pension or high job security) such that lockdowns have no effect on their ability to pay mortgages/rent etc;

4. those who unquestioningly accept the government and media narrative and believe they are being selfless or good citizens by supporting lockdowns

Those against lockdowns are:

1. those who know no-one that has died or even hospitalized from Covid;

2.  those who neither themselves nor a family member are in a vulnerable category;

3.  those who have lost their job or business, or fear they will and hence are highly stressed about paying mortgages/rents etc;

4. those who believe the adverse consequences of lockdowns are causing more harm overall than Covid itself;

As I said, the first three points are largely understandable natural reactions.

Point 4 is the topic of real interest to me, however, I think a crucial point is being missed:

WE HAVE HAD NO LOCKDOWNS!!

The Chinese had a lockdown of Wuhan Province. In that, the army were on the streets distributing basic food & water supplies but more importantly ensuring that, with a few exceptions, no-one set foot outside their doors!

In the UK, TENS OF MILLIONS of people have continued, at least to some extent, to mingle with others.

Our society could not function without the NHS, Ambulance & Police, for example.
Also, food producers, distributors and retailers.
Also, workers that keep our electricity, gas and water supplies maintained.  
Also, teachers for in-class teaching of these key worker’s children. 
And I’m sure I’ve missed some.

In addition, we were ALL allowed to go to the food shops whenever we liked (no checks were made) in which there was, in reality, almost zero social distancing.

So, along with the evidence on the usefulness of masks being mixed at best, the reality in the UK is that we’ve never had a real lockdown or frankly, anything even close.

There has been massive and continuous mingling which in turn means we've created a lot of economic, non-covid medical, social and educational stress & damage that could not possibly achieve anything more than a partial slowing-down of Covid spread, at best.

There’s been a lot of wishful thinking behind most of the restrictions we’ve been subjected to, including our partial-lockdowns, with very little evidence of their effectiveness,  but the government had to be seen to be doing something.

As with all respiratory viruses, most of the increases and decreases in Covid deaths can be explained by the simple changing of the seasons.
In winter, respiratory viruses affect far more people than in the summer; thus a second wave was inevitable.

Due to the reality of continuous mingling, there is no direct evidence that the pretend-lockdowns have made more than a marginal difference.
  
For example, in this study, https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2020-opinion-coronavirus-europe-lockdown-excess-deaths-recession/ it found no correlation between the strictness of lockdown measures and the spread of the virus. It also notes that the countries with the most severe restrictions are suffering the most economically which will play out over the next few years – no surprise there.

So why then has the Government and its medical/scientific advisers taken the steps they have and continued with them, rather than any alternative policies?

Well, I don’t think we need to look too much further than initial panic followed by a pragmatic retreat into political & reputational expediency.
 
They simply weren’t prepared to do what Sweden did, (i.e. almost nothing).
  
If taking that route had resulted in far higher numbers of deaths per thousand than other European countries who had taken more drastic action, that would have been the end of Johnson’s government for sure. 

'Murderous complacency' would have been the cry.

Much safer politically to adopt similar policies to almost everyone else in Europe, whatever the final outcome.
In essence, safety in numbers or political camouflage.

The BEST DECISION the Government made was to go it alone on acquiring vaccinations rather than go in with the EU scheme. This is why we are so far ahead on vaccinations.
Even Germany gave up and went it alone recently as the EU centralised system was quite literally not delivering the goods.

What we don't know is how long they stay effective for, if you can still catch Covid after vaccination and/or if you can still pass it on to others.
The current mass vaccination programme IS the long-term clinical trial that there wasn't time to do.

The WORST DECISION the Government made is more difficult but 
I think there are two tied for first place, and they were both made in the summer months.
  
The first was to rely solely on rushed vaccines being available in time for winter and not using the summer to create and train a Volunteer Medical Service that could staff the Nightingale hospitals from November/December onwards thus taking pressure off the main NHS which always struggles in winter, even without Covid;

[Putting as many Covid patients into the Nightingale Hospitals as possible from November would also have reduced the in-hospital catching of Covid by non-Covid patients which the NHS estimates at between 15-20% of Covid cases].

The second error was not to make any attempt to make special provision for the winter such that the most vulnerable, say aged 80+ and those with certain existing conditions, could be shielded along with their carers within defined bubbles, allowing everyone else (and therefore the economy) to carry on largely as normal.

These lacks of foresight made a winter lockdown, whether effective or otherwise, a political necessity as hospitals filled-up.

What we can't yet know is whether the negative impacts from these various partial lockdowns will be seen by history as having done more damage overall than the Covid virus itself. 

However, that the Government have done no such cost/benefit analysis, or if they have, not published it, is very poor indeed and probably tells its own story.

We do have one such analysis from Bristol University suggesting that the adverse effects of lockdowns will mean the equivalent of 560,000 extra deaths. And that was based solely on the economic repercussions, not the non-Covid medical, societal and educational repercussions as well.

Still, it's the done thing to just accept what we're being told by the Government backed-up by generally supportive opposition Parties and a totally compliant media.

The only question the Government is being asked by these institutions that should be holding it to account is, 'why aren't you locking down harder and arresting or fining anyone not complying?' 

Even the most obvious and reasonable questions about the effectiveness of certain policies and the amount of longer term damage as a result of them, are simply not allowed it seems.

So much for our democracy! SIGH!!

Life isn’t simple, in fact it can be darned complicated!

Deciding national policies that affect nearly 70 million people is REALLY complicated.
Which means that getting it perfectly right is essentially impossible and will almost never involve simplistic solutions. Any decision made by Government has a myriad of knock-on effects, many unforeseen (at least by the decision makers).

We have to be able to hold multiple ideas in our heads and find a path through them that doesn’t involve simply believing what it suits us to believe, and then pretending that it's ok for any opposing thought or idea to be ignored or closed-down.

For example, it’s possible to believe that Trump was the President most dangerously unfit for that office ever, while also believing that the self-righteous censorship of woke social justice corporations like Google, Twitter & Facebook, needs to be opposed.
 
It’s possible to believe that Covid is a new and dangerous virus that needs to be tamed and the vulnerable groups shielded, while also believing that the economic, medical and social downsides of these lockdowns will be seen in the future to have done more damage overall than Covid itself.

Things which are portrayed by panicky incompetent politicians and ideological journalists as simplistic, i.e. this thing good, that thing bad, are rarely that simple.
They are not all or nothing, mutually exclusive choices.

We don’t have to pick one or the other and then see who can shout loudest or enforce their view on others in the most draconian way.
We have to deal simultaneously with two, and often more, difficult issues and find a path that maximises the best and avoids the worst outcomes of them all.

We also have to judge whether the imperative needs of today outweigh or are outweighed by the less tangible but equally important needs of tomorrow, or next year, or next decade.
And that can be the hardest judgement of all.

It doesn’t matter whether we are young or old.
Together we are a continuous living conduit between the past and the future and we need to treat each other, as well as previous generations and future generations, with the respect that this realisation demands.
 
Self-righteous ideological warfare will not achieve anything good because those on the side that wins become tyrants and those on the side that loses become slaves.
 
We can do better than that; but we have to want to, and then be bothered to make the effort, because it won’t be easy.

A divergence in socio-political view between two Christians

 

Context

A polite and friendly conversation between two British Christians:

One, a Non-conformist Protestant in their mid-50s; highly educated; top 25% in terms of financial income/assets; two children between 14 and under 23.

The other, a Church of England (C of E) Protestant, also mid-50s; well-educated (but not to the extent of the first) and around the 50% mark in terms of financial income/assets; two children between 14 and under 23.

Many similarities it would therefore seem, yet differing outlooks.

The discussion centred around this statement: ‘young people feel the older generations are selfish because we should all be locked-down together. Only old people go to church and they’re still open whereas Universities and schools are closed.

So, there are two topics here which, although interwoven in the discussion, I will take separately in an attempt not to confuse the issues.

[NB. I am speaking from my knowledge of Christianity in the UK. I make no claims to be speaking for anyone else or to be encompassing any other religions within my views].

1.    Places of Worship should be closed to show support for the secular authorities.

The rather flippant but sadly true first response is that so few people go to church these days that it hardly matters.
Nevertheless, that very fact means that churches are among the safest indoor spaces you can find. No social distancing problems here!
And when you add the fact that most churches are quite draughty due to single-glazed stained-glass windows and ill-fitting old doors, it’s like being outside anyway!
So the probability of people catching or passing on Covid in churches is way below that of being in a supermarket or hospital or care-home or office.

With sensible rules on numbers, social distancing and suitable hand-sanitising etc there is no real medical reason to close churches down.

My second thought is this.
Surely the church’s mission has to be far more than simply falling in line with whatever the secular authorities want.
As the Historian & writer Tom Holland said recently, the Church of England has missed an opportunity to differentiate itself from the secular; to provide spiritual leadership and places of calm & solace in these troubled times. 
He said that by merely parroting the offical Government line, the C of E leadership has become an unimportant sub-department of the Welfare State.

This should come as no surprise.

In terms of our political parties, the C of E leadership’s occasional forays into politics in the media or the House of Lords show them to be, not the Tory party at prayer as they were once described, but the Liberal Democrat Party at prayer.
Left wing but in a rather supercilious, head-in-the-clouds, financially secure, safe and socially conformist way. Conformist in that, whatever, the left of centre secular cause of the moment, they’re for it!
In terms of their outlook on life, they are ‘of the elite’, not ‘of the people’. Tim Farron must be chuffed.

2.    Young people feel that older generations are selfish

Again, my first flippant response is that you couldn’t find a larger irony than young people (especially those of the comfortable middle-classes) accusing others of selfishness.
A more pampered, self-righteous, narcissistic yet fragile generation I doubt there has ever been!
That’s what increasing prosperity does; it increases the size of the middle-classes; that is, it increases the number who feel comfortable, safe and secure, which over time drifts into decadence.
Gratitude & responsibility decreases with security while entitlement & navel-gazing increases.

Secondly, on what basis does any young person look at older people with such disdain?

The young will find that making the right decisions to make the world a better place while working and raising a family is not as easy in the real world as it looks from their cosy bedrooms or Uni digs – both paid for by a combination of mum & dad as well as the taxes of those older folk they scorn.

I think you need to stand on your own two feet and actually contribute something meaningful to society before giving yourself the right to be judgemental of older folk.

We are not separate. We are a continuous fluid link between the past and the future which should be treated with the grace and respect that such an awesome responsibility requires, not with self-righteousness and arrogance.

What do you think?

Covid is real! Government policy is questionable!

 

COVID IS REAL!!

COVID IS SERIOUS!!

Every death matters, whether from Covid or not.

Of course I want the NHS to be able to cope with the winter surge in hospitalisations!

Questioning the specific policies of the Government is NOT Covid denialism or being anti-vaxxer or not caring about the seriously ill or dismissing the NHS staff or any other of the ridiculous strawman mischaracterisations that anyone who dares to ask awkward questions about Government policy are usually accused of.

The NHS always struggles hugely in the winter months and with Covid, yes, special measures were required.

I’ve been saying for months that this should have been organised in the summer by building more Nightingale Hospitals and calling for volunteers from retired doctors/nurses & final year medical and nursing students for autumn training specifically on Covid. A Volunteer Medical Reserve like the TA.
They would then have been on stand-by to staff the Nightingale Hospitals over the winter which were, after all, built for the exact purpose of taking the strain off the main NHS hospitals. 

Instead, seemingly all eggs were put in the vaccine basket that was never going to be ready & tested by the beginning of December. 

Even those vaccines now available take 3 weeks or more after inoculation to become fully effective; and are at best effective for 75% of people on crrent information. We also don't have sufficient data yet to know if vaccinated poeple can still carry & pass the virus on.

How can we know? 

Vaccines developed in 6 months cannot have been tested sufficiently to answer these longer-term questions. 

Simple prima facie safety for most (not all) people is all there has been time to do clinical trials for.
Some people think that so much money has been thrown at the vaccines that it has been possible to condense years of clinical trials into a few months.
Nonsense!
Obviously, clinical trials to evaluate long term effects need to be conducted over the long term; money has nothing to do with it!

The current mass vaccinations are actually the clinical trial to find out these longer term answers.
Fingers crossed that we get the answers we want, eh?

Are the vaccines better than nothing?
Of course they are but ‘nothing’ is a pretty low bar to have to beat isn’t it?
These vaccines may not turn out to be the panacea that many, out of fear & desperation, seem to believe.

Even if the vaccines are highly effective, like flu, Covid will be back each year in differing forms and we will have to live with it well into the future. 

The future. Yes, that’s the problem isn’t it?

I understood the first lockdown.
Owing to the disgraceful behaviour of China, in cahoots with the WHO, trying to play the problem down, we couldn't be sure in March whether we were dealing with the Black Death or something closer to flu in terms of mortality rates.
But with what we know now, that huge swathes of the UK’s economy have been closed down again instead of focussing on shielding as best possible the vulnerable and preparing the Nightingale Hospitals to take Covid patients from the start of December is the issue that ministers, PHE, SAGE & the NHS leadership need to be scrutinised over. 

At some point, the lockdown cure will do more damage than the disease. 
At some point the disbenefits of lockdowns (economic, medical and social) must outweigh any benefits. Many think that point has been and gone!

This can’t be a controversial view as it’s plain common-sense but it’s not being discussed; or at least not by politicians or the mainstream media.

Is the job of Government simply to look at the immediate problem and solve that at whatever price for the future?

Well, if Covid was killing as many people as the Black Death (30-40% of the population) or even the Spanish Flu of 100 years ago (2-3%), perhaps you could make a case for that.
But as the fatality rate is less than 0.2% of the population, surely Government’s job is to make special arrangements for those known to be particularly vulnerable, vaccinate the NHS staff and carers, get as many Covid patients into Nightingale Hospitals as possible, but then to do what’s best for the economic and social well-being of the country, not just right now, but for future years; and yet this doesn’t appear to be be happening.

Lockdowns are NOT what’s best for the economic and social well-being of the country for future years. They are a short-term panic measure that doesn't really work but gives the impression of doing something useful.

All lockdowns can do is slightly delay the spread.
They can't stop the spread because too many people MUST work to keep society functioning.
So, many people have to continue mixing to some extent with others that spread is inevitable, lockdown or not.

Neither proper leadership, nor bravery in the face of pressure, nor transparency & honesty with data are exactly to the fore with this Government.
(In this they are no diffrent to any other).
We are only told the information they think will bolster the case for their chosen policies, not everything we need and are entilted to know.

But since the opposition parties and most of the media companies (both mainstream & social), seem to have fallen into line, the Government have no pressure being put on them to improve either their honesty or transparency, sadly.

And without honesty or transparency, there will be no pressure and therefore no incentive for Government to make better decisions.