Why it’s still worth asking questions on lockdown

Rishi Sunak’s interview in last week’s magazine has inspired a lot of comment. Two this week: Lee Cain, ex-No. 10 spin chief, in The Spectator and Robert Shrimsley in the Financial Times, warns about the promotion of betrayal ‘lockdown fables’ promoted by ‘mythmakers’ and ‘lockdown sceptics trying to rewrite history’. He and I discussed this on Twitter yesterday. I’m a big admirer of Shrimsley and think he deserves a more considered response than whatever can be squeezed into 280 characters.

Cain:

‘Opponents still say lockdown was a mistake. What do these critics think would have happened to transmission rates – rising exponentially – if we had failed to lockdown? What would they have done instead? Mr Sunak says he’d have had ‘a grown up conversation with the public.’ But what does this mean in policy terms? Do lockdown sceptics believe people would have voluntarily stayed at home and avoided social contacts, as in Sweden, so restrictions were not needed?’

Shrimsley:

‘More dishonest is to discount the deaths that would have come both from failing to lock down and the consequent overwhelming of the NHS.