Top aide claims women lost lives in pandemic as macho No10 focused on shooting and hunting

Poor people were generally more likely to chafe and be badly effected by restrictions than the middle classes. The people most happy with restrictions were people with their own homes and gardens who could work from home because they were in desk or admin type jobs.

What would you have? A civil service that took decisions against the wishes of their ministers?

Civil servants are there to advise and deliver what the government of the day wants. As part of that, they give the pros and cons. If a minister wants to go ahead and the civil servant thinks it is a bad idea, so what.

The minister decides, civil servants advise. Who wants a bunch of unelected people making critical decisions.

This is why it matters who you elect. If those people aren't up to it, then the civil service will advise, but it leads to the minister to decide.

The inquiry is about blaming everyone else.

The problematic thing is that many officials did certain things knowing full well that there would be an inquiry. They made decisions at the time, not because it was right, but because they could avoid liability in the inevitable inquiry.

What is clear is that people are blaming the elected officials (and their employees), essentially blaming the public for voting for them and blaming the public for the pandemic, whilst stating how lovely the civil servants are because they aren't elected.

Exactly.

Those of us who said it would be this outcome got shouted down

I hope people look at how they behaved, but they probably won’t.

I'm glad this is being discussed by the enquiry. Hopefully it will stop people bleating on about hindsight whenever the issue is raised. It was bleeding obvious in March 2020 precisely what impact this was going to have on DV and women in general. If people think it was better than the alternative, fine, but the pretence is grotesque.

I have at no stage said I don't completely see how dreadful the effect of closing private nurseries was for women. I totally get that.

Nobody is being blinkered about that.

Aside from all the other points and situations mentioned, I really think that the things that pregnant women and new mothers had to experience during the pandemic betrays a total lack of thought let alone concern.

Really?

You go on about sure start centres from years ago but can’t see how private nurseries closing in a pandemic when women are driven to near break down from the stress of it?

Why so blinkered here. It’s too much.

Tory policy permanently closed around 3,600 Sure Start Childrens Centres. Of course policy matters.

I agree with this that people are now saying lockdowns were unnecessary and that they didn't follow the rules anyway.
I can still remember the feeling of personal and mass anxiety when the pandemic first hit as it wasn't clear how it was spread, there were no widespread testing procedures, there was no cure or vaccines and lots and lots of people were very ill and dying and hospitals were overwhelmed.
How do these people think the NHS would have coped without lockdowns? Or do they think that it wouldn't have mattered because it would be 'other people' who would suffer?

@TempestTost - now why things were done is the right question.

The evidence we are getting is not encouraging. The decision making seems superficial and press reactive. Why that was exactly is hard to know.

I do think that COVID was akin to a war in terms of impact, and perhaps worse because of the social isolation that was enabled, the academic destruction for children, and the mass of society being locked up. We all know from this week that the rules (which were in most cases not law but guidance) were for the general public and not the top of society. Was that in part because of the man at the top? Yes. He did not lead. He followed. And we all paid the price on that.

@TempestTost entirely agree particularly with this

It's also the case that the accepted wisdom in public health was that you could really only get people to obey restrictions and such, in a useful way, for a very limited time. And these timelines were short, like three weeks or a month. That it was possible, with the support of the media, to scare people into changing behaviour longer was a big change in thinking, but not many seemed to stop and think what the long term consequences of that would be on the population.

Policies matter obviously

Whether a private nursery takes dc in a pandemic is entirely relevant to working women

@EasternStandard I'm not talking about policies. I'm talking about culture.
But whilst we're on the subject it could be argued that in the past 13 years the Tories have systematically eroded women's rights, opportunities and quality of life through their policies and austerity generally.

How do you explain Sturgeon bringing in policies that harmed women more?

@SeaPool 👏👏👏

I think that's totally fair, but I also think people need to ask why things went the way they did.

It is important to note that BJ's initial instinct was to follow the pandemic planning. The media, and the public, and I think to some extent the political opposition, were characterizing that as "let it rip" and not caring that people died. Which is completely untrue really, the reason pandemic planning took that approach was because it understood that there are consequences to taking extreme measures, and only limited benefits.

It's also the case that the accepted wisdom in public health was that you could really only get people to obey restrictions and such, in a useful way, for a very limited time. And these timelines were short, like three weeks or a month. That it was possible, with the support of the media, to scare people into changing behaviour longer was a big change in thinking, but not many seemed to stop and think what the long term consequences of that would be on the population.

And the UK, and England in particular, was a lot more conservative about going down that road than many other countries. They seemed to try and mitigate it before a lot of others did, Scotland, Canada, Wales, NZ, Australia, all were under similar pressures and were more draconian in their restrictions and requirements. NZ actually prevented citizens from entering the country.

I don't think the answer will be found entirely in national politics.

And I recall Scotland going further. My friends and I so glad we had private nurseries open where working women in Scotland did not. Anyone who had to work without childcare knows that impact.

Any idea Sturgeon as a female helped out women there is for the birds.

Ignoring the impact on women and children wasn’t a public school thing it was public demand

Including this site, predominantly women.

All documented showing why those in that list suffered as they did and nearly everyone demanded more restrictions

Is this a public school thing?

Yes. Public schooling was pretty much designed to produce a class of boys (and girls) who would rule the empire and have no qualms about treading rough shod over (or cutting the hands off) the little people who stood in their way.

Those same schools are now producing the exact same brand of boys and girls with the same sense of superiority, of entitlement and an ability to see themselves as a thing apart, above and outside of the normal rules that apply to others. What is it that Jacob Rees Mogg calls people 'below' his class? Ah yes, Pot Plants.

Nick names, bullying, a way of dressing you'd never see on a plumber, a duchess for a mother in law - all straight outta Harrow.

Eton and Oxford and a thousand acres of Somerset and BINGO, you're in the Tory cabinet. No greater proof of the 'huddle' of these boys can be found in the disdain they show for 'others'. The Matt Hancocks who aren't quite 'top drawer and the Allegra Strattens (no penis) are those who take the fall when things go wrong whilst the huddle bunches tighter and probably hand around a few knighthoods.

These people float to the top of government and the armed forces like scum on the rivers the Tory party is polluting. That culture of status, breeding, bullying and ownership of women (I'm talking to you Red Arrows) runs through society because of these people and their style of education.

His original stance was based on the pandemic planning that was in place, which was the whole point of having such a plan. And it wasn't developed by politicians, it was developed by experts, including public health experts who pre-pandemic seemed to be aware that such plans had to be approached holistically, and that there were all kinds of human considerations, and limits to shaping behaviour.

Public pressure did play a huge part in causing him, and others, to abandon such plans, and people have speculated about whay that happened, but I don't think there's any doubt at this point that what happened is that political leaders and the media did panic and completely forget about the effects these policies would have on people apart from (maybe) limiting covid.

It was a national emergency; in such situations the Government holds unique power over the ordinary citizen. I would not feel guilty. The Government had near total control of communications, resources, and allocation of money to resolve this crisis. It was not the responsibility of ordinary citizens to hold them to account. That is the prerogative of real leadership by a Prime Minister who is given huge power to disregard usual democratic protocol; perhaps people should give themselves a break.

I have no doubt it was very toxic. I think there is something wrong with Cummings, although he clearly has a brain, it's often used for evil.

I tend to see Johnston's main failing as personal weakness, which doesn't do the hard thing when required.