Boris reveals the cost of Union: TWO THOUSAND lives lost

In the Daily Telegraph today, something many of us have known for a long time – the UK’s death toll in the pandemic was the highest in Europe because of a failure to lockdown quickly and, in particular, save care home residents.

The suggestion that the PM ‘was let down by scientific advisers‘ is, of course, only partly true in that he and at least his chief political adviser, Dominic Cummings, were strongly predisposed to want the ‘business-friendly’ advice that the virus should be allowed to run through the population, creating herd immunity and as the PM famously said of any deaths, that we should ‘take it on the chin‘, in a Battle of Britain spirit:

In Scotland too, on the 16th March, the National Clinical Director seemed to be on board with same idea:

Leitch has since distanced himself from the notion and claimed that his words were ‘mangled.’ Judge for yourself.

Against that background of expert advice and the fact of devolved control of the pandemic response only being confirmed on the 1st April, 2020, any suggestion that the Scottish Government could have locked down earlier is fanciful:

As early as May 2020, researchers at Edinburgh University had estimated that an earlier lockdown might have prevented 2 000 deaths. Scotland’s media were quick to lay the blame at the door of the SNP administration, conveniently forgetting the facts, above.

Leaving that issue to one side, however, deaths in the second wave from the autumn of 2020 until the present can be fairly compared.

If we begin counting on the 1st of September 2020, Scotland had 2 554 deaths and now has 7 510, so in the second wave had 4 956 deaths. On the 1st September England had 36 936 deaths and now has 110 456, so in the second wave had 73 520.

England has 10 times the population so, all things being equal, adopting Scottish Government strategies, might have been expected to have 49 560 deaths but, tragically, it had 73 520, 48% higher.

This is a significant difference, statistically and in human terms.

Will Johnson fall on his sword? Of course not. New advisers please!

Will Scotland’s MSM tell the people of Scotland about this?

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is untitled-55.png

10 thoughts on “Boris reveals the cost of Union: TWO THOUSAND lives lost

  1. There’s a lot of politics and crookedness between the scientific advice and policy. As well as an administrative culture, and health and social care system, that has been ravaged by neo-liberalism. Scotland will only be able to choose a different path, if we are free to dictate our own laws and control all the levers of government. Though it would be best if our legal Establishment were not committed to denying biological reality (see GRA amendments), thereby signifying their commitment to privilege the will of man over biological reality. Which is precisely the same ideological lunacy adopted by English Torydum in response to covid-19.


  2. Alas, we live in Ukania, the mighty-Blighty superpower-on-Thames, where huge off-shore wealth is hidden from the widespread impoverishment of the population—impoverishment of “journalism” as well, whose role has been commandeered by Downing Street to exalt the myth and cult of Borisism, the Father of Lies as charmingly put by a French Ambassador.

    China, Russia, the EU–all tremble before the warships/armies/nukes of Super-Ukania, led by a giant of modern history, with his many wives, women and children, his fireside tales of perfidious Frogs, Krauts and the “extermination of verminous Scots”.
    Oh, how we laughed with our watermelon smiles, little piccaninnies by our sides, as the Great White Chief explained why the vaccine was reserved for Ukania-First.

    The many dead? All the fault of dodgy scientists, dont ye know?
    “My words at the time? Many and flexible, easily conjured into innocent conjecture by our staff at the BEEB”.

    Liked by 3 people

  3. John ,I don’t no if you heard Ross on the radio would not answer questions put to him,the one it interested me was about the London protest he said we should wait for the MH constabulary report in two weeks before anything happens a big change from him telling the FM to resign over MC before that report has been done.
    A right hypocrite he is .

    Liked by 5 people

  4. Having studied,worked and researched in Genetics before setting up a Land based business
    I am all too well aware of the politics of science and those who partake,They do after all suffer
    From the exact and same Human Condition
    as those in Politics
    Nazi Germany are a prime example with the eagerness of those espousing Eugenics who
    Rapidly climbed the Greasy Pole of perceived
    Success and career enhancement
    However I had the very great fortune of working under a Leading researcher who not only was so,but a wonderful enlightened Human who comprehended Mans abilities
    Both when right and wrong.
    So on that basis here is the scientific advise that would have been imparted to those in power and the good sense to inform them
    You now are in possession of the raw basic facts pertaining to this virus especially the stastical modeling
    But before deciding choose wrongly and you will lose big time,such is inescapable
    So here is a synopsis of the advice
    Covid 19 is a RNA template virus which means that in order to multiply and reproduce that it cannot proof read its genetic code,which in turn leads to many mutations shall arise,which again means that the more infections you have the more resultant mutations shall arise, which in turn
    Means variants shall arise that are more infectious,lethal and if we develop good vaccines then such fairly quickly shall become
    Pretty well ineffective resulting in the necessities of continual update and production of new vaccines
    Nature has designed Corona viruses to behave in such a manner and this has been the case for Eons, consequently whether you like or not Covid 19 is with the whole of humanity for ever,and quite simply we have to live with it, but given Human Ingenuity Time is our best friend but also our deadliest enemy should we now pursue the wrong course of actions
    Therfore in conclusion I am off the firmest of opinion, that in order to buy and afford ourselves more time to let science afford ourselves the time and opportunities to adapt and evolve our bio, eco,societal and economics to a new reality
    Lock Down Now HARD, close all borders,strict control of all In/ out of the country
    Develop as on a Wartime footing a simple
    But joined up Testing, Tracking and Isolation
    System all for the purpose of that once lock down has greatly reduced the prevalence of the virus in the population to such low numbers, that you can slowly but surely ease restrictions in a very controlled phased manner then let test/ track take over
    Never for a moment believe you can ever return to normal whether slowly or fast
    Not only have you been informed but warned
    Of the consequences of failing to take account of the very simple but powerful
    Life force of covid 19
    Trusting all this minuted and not only placed on public record , but shall be published freely
    Upon request, Because i shall stand full square with my judgement and action
    Tis you the Politicians who now have to make your own decisions but be prepared to be judged by them
    I now bid all a good day and in the hope that True Wisdom prevails

    Liked by 1 person

  5. When I suggested earlier that ‘our’ legal Establishment appear commitment to privileging the will of man over biological reality, it would have been better if I’d suggested they appear committed to privileging man’s will over biological security, and the potential for social sustainability. Despite selling their ideology as progressive.


  6. O/T I note use in this thread, and in prior ones, of the phrase: “GRA amendments”. We may know the topic being referred to but IMHO the phrase is nevertheless open to misunderstanding of both process and present status of legislative change.

    I set out my understanding of the specifics below. Glad to learn from anyone more clued-up on the legislative details here if I’ve got any of this wrong!

    Strictly the Scottish Government is engaging (only, at present) in a Pre-Legislative Consultation process. Firstly this was in order to review the Gender Recognition Act 2004, a piece of UK legislation (see end note). This review was prompted by criticism of the current procedures by for example the Women and Equalities Committee at Westminster. In a report published in January 2016, it said that “The Gender Recognition Act 2004 was pioneering but is now dated. Its medicalised approach pathologises trans identities and runs contrary to the dignity and personal autonomy of applicants. The Government must update the Act, in line with the principle of gender self-declaration.”

    Following the completion of its first consultation, the Scottish Government drafted a bill – the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill – and continued the pre-legislative process by conducting a second public consultation, now on this draft. The results of this consultation are not yet known.

    So my understanding is that as the process to reform the Gender Recognition Act 2004 in Scotland remains at a pre-legislative stage, any bill may be some way off from formal submission and from triggering Stage 1 of the legislative scrutiny process. And if a bill is formally submitted – more or less altered from the draft that is being consulted upon – then following assessment and approval (or not) of ‘general principles’ in Stage 1, two stages (2 and 3) of detailed scrutiny by MSPs, plus the option of lodging amendments (now using the formal meaning of the term) plus various parliamentary votes all lie ahead BEFORE any new Act would emerge.

    Not only is any gender recognition reform in Scotland still some way off, the final form of the legislation – if indeed (any) change does find support in Parliament – cannot be known in detail at present. This will only emerge – to repeat – AFTER multiple layers of consultation, layers of detailed scrutiny, submission of amendment/s and multiple parliamentary votes.

    (Background: Westminster’s Gender Recognition Act 2004 Act was accepted by the Scottish Executive and Parliament in 2005 through the passing of a Sewell Motion – in present terms, a Legislative Consent Motion.

    There was criticism from some MSPs of the Executive at the time for severely limiting Holyrood’s ability to scrutinise this important area of legislation by opting for the Sewell Motion route. In other words, the Executive opted for taking what Westminster had done rather than develop legislation within Scotland through the full legislative procedures available to Holyrood.)

    Liked by 1 person

  7. “…the UK’s death toll in the pandemic was the highest in Europe because of a failure to lockdown quickly and, in particular, save care home residents”
    I suggest history will show it was MUCH more than simply a delayed decision over lockdown, what we have witnessed under the pandemic has been a systematic abuse of power by those “born to rule” with no clue how to do so, and dismissing expert advice with not a care for the population at large unless a riot was imminent.
    To these “elites” the thousands of lives lost are mere “collateral damage” readily smudged to the background via a compliant media, sacrifices to the greater good/god of the wealthy.

    However, as the true death toll for the UK is uncovered from Gove’s figure fiddling, it will exceed their previous world record.
    It doesn’t take a genius to figure out why Patel’s new Police powers are being rushed through parliament, Summer barbecues and riots ?

    Liked by 1 person

  8. It’s a very good point that often seems to be forgotten by both opponents and supporters of the Scottish Government – Scotland did not have any legal powers to lockdown until the (UK Parliament) Coronavirus Act 2020 was passed late on 25th March 2020 –

    Prior to that, England and Wales had power to lockdown but Scotland did not – The first few days of lockdown 1, which were actually only advisory in Scotland until after the Coronavirus Act 2020 passed, probably only worked in Scotland because the rest of the UK had locked down and there was consistent stay at home messages across the UK at that point.

    This is a key point when discussing Scotland’s death rate in the pandemic compared to other countries because by late March 2020, when Scotland got the powers to lockdown (or 23 March 2020 when advisory lockdown became possible), the vast majority of the deaths/cases in the first wave were already baked in. Even though the lockdown got the reproduction number down across the UK, the very high baseline of cases at that point meant that no matter what policies the Scottish Government adopted, almost all the cases/deaths were already baked in by that point, probably until around start of June.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.