The prevailing wisdom reflected in the plans for dealing with a global pandemic never included extended lockdowns because it was assumed that the people would not accept it. There are three reasons it prevailed:
One - the media and big tech owned and controlled by Wall Street and Wall Street managing the assets of the billionaires that also own and control the major multinational corporations including big pharma… and all of this colluding with government bureaucrats who financially benefit… and all committed to leveraging the massive financial benefits from changing consumer habits that included destroying small independent producers that compete with large consolidated corporations.
Two - massive government deficit spending to convince consumers and business to go along.
Three - Trump Derangement Syndrome causing liberals to chew off their own arms and legs only to oppose everything they can be convinced opposes Trump and his supporters.
I agree with much that the author said and certainly the sight of politicians debating the minutia of what you could and couldn't do was idiocy. But who did Mr Woodhouse think should have been making the decisions? The forecasters? The chief medical officer? The head of our health service? I am a Brit and observed these people taking the most extreme positions on lockdowns.
Left to the committee of scientist advising government the UK lockdown would have gone on much longer than it did.
My guess is that Mr Woodhouse was a lone voice amongst the government advisers. He was right, but dumping the blame on the politicians is a false conclusion.
When the world goes mad the mad make the rules. I was stranded on a European island (Azores, Portugal) from March 2020 until early July 2020. They cancelled flights for what they said would be two weeks. lol
I listened to today's podcast episode, which I found fascinating (the world did and does seem to have gone mad!). However, although I'm no epidemiologist or even a trained historian, I do know a lot about Renaissance Venice due to my fiction writing. And there are many precedents from the past of what are essentially lockdowns (your guest said lockdowns had never been done before). In researching the Plague of 1575 for my next book just this afternoon, I came across this article:
Not only did Venice impose essentially lockdowns, their methods were thought to be effective and copied by other local governments. Moreover, the populace hated the restrictions and often rebelled.
The prevailing wisdom reflected in the plans for dealing with a global pandemic never included extended lockdowns because it was assumed that the people would not accept it. There are three reasons it prevailed:
One - the media and big tech owned and controlled by Wall Street and Wall Street managing the assets of the billionaires that also own and control the major multinational corporations including big pharma… and all of this colluding with government bureaucrats who financially benefit… and all committed to leveraging the massive financial benefits from changing consumer habits that included destroying small independent producers that compete with large consolidated corporations.
Two - massive government deficit spending to convince consumers and business to go along.
Three - Trump Derangement Syndrome causing liberals to chew off their own arms and legs only to oppose everything they can be convinced opposes Trump and his supporters.
I agree with much that the author said and certainly the sight of politicians debating the minutia of what you could and couldn't do was idiocy. But who did Mr Woodhouse think should have been making the decisions? The forecasters? The chief medical officer? The head of our health service? I am a Brit and observed these people taking the most extreme positions on lockdowns.
Left to the committee of scientist advising government the UK lockdown would have gone on much longer than it did.
My guess is that Mr Woodhouse was a lone voice amongst the government advisers. He was right, but dumping the blame on the politicians is a false conclusion.
When the world goes mad the mad make the rules. I was stranded on a European island (Azores, Portugal) from March 2020 until early July 2020. They cancelled flights for what they said would be two weeks. lol
I listened to today's podcast episode, which I found fascinating (the world did and does seem to have gone mad!). However, although I'm no epidemiologist or even a trained historian, I do know a lot about Renaissance Venice due to my fiction writing. And there are many precedents from the past of what are essentially lockdowns (your guest said lockdowns had never been done before). In researching the Plague of 1575 for my next book just this afternoon, I came across this article:
https://www.laphamsquarterly.org/roundtable/recovering-plague#:~:text=Venice's%20plague%20of%201575%E2%80%9377,winter%2C%20when%20the%20deaths%20subsided.
Not only did Venice impose essentially lockdowns, their methods were thought to be effective and copied by other local governments. Moreover, the populace hated the restrictions and often rebelled.
I wrote a blog article on it in February 2020: https://ginabu.com/2020/02/20/its-not-just-the-coronavirus-a-history-of-quarantining/
Just trying to make sure all the facts are there :) Thanks for all your thought-provoking work!
Great podcast! Time for lessons learned and this book seems like one of the good places to start.