Skip to main content

Coronavirus: What went wrong?

There will be many investigations of what went wrong with the UK response to Coronavirus (COVID19).

The answer is straightforward: the UK failed to control its borders.

As early as the first week in February some people who had been skiing in France brought back COVID19.  This was the start of the UK epidemic.

Other countries were imposing border controls but the UK Government left our borders wide open and imported 20,000 cases of COVID19 before the lockdown.  These 20,000 cases created at least 50,000 further infections. A third of all UK COVID19 cases (over 200,000 by May) were imported or infected by new arrivals right at the beginning of the epidemic in February and March.

The initial UK epidemic was fueled by millions of travellers from overseas.  In evidence to the Health and Social Care Committee Patrick Vallance said many of the cases came from the “high level of travel into the UK”. “One of the things that it looks like very clear is that early in March the UK got many, many different imports of virus from many different places,” "Those places were particularly from European countries with outbreaks. So we see a big influx of cases probably from Italy and Spain looking at the genomics of the virus in early March, seeded right the way across the country. Whether that was people returning from half-term, business travellers or not, we don’t know. But a lot of the cases in the UK didn’t come from China and didn’t come from the place you might have expected, they came from European imports and the high level of travel into the UK at that time.”

It is now apparent that the unrestricted influx of people into the UK prior to the lockdown included  20,000 people who had COVID 19 infection.  The data is fairly clear that the severity of the COVID19 epidemic depends on the number of cases present in the country before lockdown:

Financial Times

The UK guaranteed a large epidemic by a combination of allowing continuing huge inflows of infection and a late lockdown. Countries such as Austria tackled both inflow and timely lockdown which saved them from being ravaged by COVID19.


Despite as much as a third of the whole UK epidemic being composed of people who entered the country and those they immediately infected, the scientific advice was that these would have little effect.  The advice was clearly wrong.  Why was it given?

From the press coverage we can see that the advice would have been the same were it given today.  The broadcast media are so keen to get rid of borders that they are describing the problem as "late lockdown" but the lockdown would always have been too late because the UK allowed such a huge number of infected people into the country.  It takes two weeks for infected people to die so by the time the death toll was rising it was too late.  I sympathise with the government who were facing a media that in March were busy telling everyone that COVID was no worse than flu so making an early lockdown politically impossible.  The media coverage meant that the UK Government had to show that there were bodies before reacting properly.

According to the Withdrawal Agreement the UK is still obliged to obey the rules regarding EU Free Movement of People until 2021.  The EU only amended these rules on 30th March.   The UK has always been a sucker for obeying EU regulations.  Another factor is that the scientists giving the advice on the outbreak make their reputations and careers from international conferences and meetings, they are not independent advisors.  The scientific advisors also tend to be pro-EU (for instance Patrick Vallance, the Chief Scientific Advisor is firmly against a No Deal Brexit because he believes it will affect scientists adversely).

The role of the EU in the failure to close borders explains why the Remain press are finding it hard to quickly and clearly point the finger of blame.  The desire to keep borders open is the reason that the EU allowed the spread of the disease.


Once the government had been advised that closing borders was not an option it was left with "herd immunity", as Lord Bethell put it on 26th February: "Creating some kind of herd immunity, whereby a large proportion of the population has had the virus and is therefore inoculated, is clearly the objective." (Hansard). Patrick Vallance, the Government's scientific advisor, also planned herd immunity (Guardian 13th March.

We are now left in the crazy position of a severe and continuing epidemic when countries that closed their borders such as S.Korea, China, Austria, Thailand, Australia, New Zealand etc.have stopped COVID19 in its tracks.

It is interesting to compare the EU countries that defied the EU and closed their borders with the rest of the EU. Czech Republic, Cyprus, Denmark, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia all closed their borders in a timely fashion (See EU Observer).  Germany and Spain closed borders after severe outbreaks.  The number of new cases on 7th May in the countries that closed their borders are: Czech Republic 3, Cyprus 6, Denmark 145, Hungary 39, Latvia 9, Lithuania 5, Poland 307, Slovakia 16.  These are new cases per day, not deaths, and the numbers are small enough to allow testing and tracing of contacts to take over from lockdowns.

We must not let the pro-EU press and broadcasters recast the history of COVID 19 as anything other than the truth: it was open borders with the EU that killed so many of us.

If we do not eradicate COVID 19 from the UK we will be a pariah state and we will be unable to travel to most of the world which will have removed COVID 19 entirely.  It is ironic that the dearest wish of the "experts", that they should be allowed to continue their international careers, is looking unlikely to be achieved if we obey their "herd immunity" strategy and do not eradicate COVID 19 from the country.

8/5/2020


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Falklands have always been Argentine - Las Malvinas son Argentinas

"The Falklands have always been Argentine" is taught to every Argentine child as a matter of faith.  What was Argentina during the time when it "always" possessed Las Malvinas?  In this article I will trace the history of Argentina in the context of its physical and political relationship with "Las Malvinas", the Falkland Islands.  The Argentine claim to the Falkland Islands dates from a brief episode in 1831-32 so it is like Canada claiming the USA despite two centuries of separate development. This might sound like ancient history but Argentina has gone to war for this ancient claim so the following article is well worth reading. For a summary of the legal case see: Las Malvinas: The Legal Case Argentina traces its origins to Spanish South America when it was part of the Viceroyalty of the Rio del Plata.  The Falklands lay off the Viceroyalty of Peru, controlled by the Captain General of Chile.  In 1810 the Falklands were far from the geographical b

Practical Idealism by Richard Nicolaus Coudenhove-Kalergi

Coudenhove-Kalergi was a pioneer of European integration. He was the founder and President for 49 years of the Paneuropean Union. His parents were Heinrich von Coudenhove-Kalergi, an Austro-Hungarian diplomat, and Mitsuko Aoyama, the daughter of an oil merchant, antiques-dealer, and huge landowner family in Tokyo. His "Pan-Europa" was published in 1923 and contained a membership form for the Pan-Europa movement. Coudenhove-Kalergi's movement held its first Congress in Vienna in 1926. In 1927 the French Prime Minister, Aristide Briand was elected honorary president.  Personalities attending included: Albert Einstein, Thomas Mann and Sigmund Freud. Figures who later became central to founding the EU, such as Konrad Adenauer became members . His basic idea was that democracy was a transitional stage that leads to rule by a new aristocracy that is largely taken from the Jewish "master race" (Kalergi's terminology). His movement was reviled by Hitler and H

Membership of the EU: pros and cons

5th December 2013, update May 2016 Nigel Lawson, ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer,  recently criticised the UK membership of the EU , the media has covered his mainstream view as if he is a bad boy starting a fight in the school playground, but is he right about the EU? What has changed that makes EU membership a burning issue?  What has changed is that the 19 countries of the Eurozone are now seeking political union to escape their financial problems.   Seven further EU countries have signed up to join the Euro but the British and Danish have opted out.  The EU is rapidly becoming two blocks - the 26 and Britain and Denmark.   Lawson's fear was that if Britain stays in the EU it will be isolated and dominated by a Eurozone bloc that uses "unified representation of the euro area" , so acting like a single country which controls 90% of the vote in the EU with no vetoes available to the UK in most decisions.  The full plans for Eurozone political union ( EMU Stage