‘People Will Die’ if They Spend Christmas Together, Says Disgraced Fmr UK Govt Scientist

Grandmother and children baking Christmas cookies at fire place and Xmas tree. Kids and gr
Getty Images
Victoria Friedman

The disgraced former British government scientist who was forced to leave his post after breaking his own lockdown rules has said that “people will die” if social distancing regulations are suspended, and families are allowed to spend Christmas day together.

With all parts of the United Kingdom under some form of social distancing rules which limits gatherings, media has reported that the public fears not being able to spend time with loved ones this Christmas.

Asked on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme on Saturday what would be the consequences of relaxing social distancing rules on December 25th, epidemiologist Professor Neil Ferguson said: “It risks some transmission, and there will be consequences of that.

“Some people will die because of getting infected on that day. But if it’s only one or two days, the impact is likely to be limited. So that is really a political judgement about the cost versus the benefits.”

Professor Ferguson, of Imperial College London, formerly consulted for the Conservative government on its coronavirus strategy and his modelling was instrumental in the design of the United Kingdom’s March coronavirus lockdown. He resigned his role as senior scientific advisor to the government in May after he was caught twice allowing his married lover to come to his home despite her being in quarantine with her family, breaking the professor’s own lockdown rules.

While British police were overzealously investigating the average Briton for perceived infringement of lockdown laws, London’s Metropolitan Police Service said it would not be charging the epidemiologist, only saying that it saw the incident as “disappointing”.

A 104-year-old great-grandmother’s plea to be allowed to see her family went viral on social media this week after she begged the Scottish government: “I must see my kids. Time’s getting on for me. I must see my children and make things like they used to be. Please help me, help me. Please, please help.”

Another Yorkshire grandmother was blunt in her criticism of the government’s strategy, telling the BBC: “I’m 83. I don’t give a sod. I look at it this way: I’ve not got all that many years left of me, and I’m not going to be fastened in a house when the government have got it all wrong.”

Sweden has taken an alternative approach to dealing with the pandemic by avoiding imposed lockdowns. While the rest of Europe is reimposing restrictions, Sweden announced on Thursday that it would be allowing seniors and those in other “special risk groups” to come out of social distancing measures, citing lower coronavirus infection rates and the impact on mental health.

“Daily life cannot be as it was before the pandemic,” Swedish health minister Lena Hallengren said, however, added: “But there are many ways of living that are not just surviving.”

The British government’s restrictions have come under growing scrutiny with dozens of reports pointing to excess deaths and medical conditions going untreated because of restricted access to the National Health Service.

An analysis of over 100 studies by journals, charities, and medical professionals claimed that since restrictions, every aspect of health care have been affected. According to the reports, there had been a rise in excess deaths at home, with a small proportion being due to coronavirus. Other impacts on health services include some 50,000 children’s surgeries being cancelled. Deaths on transplant waiting lists almost doubled. The rate of depression and anxiety doubled, with one-in-five people having suicidal thoughts in the first month of lockdown.

Responding to the analysis, University of Buckingham cancer specialist Professor Karol Sikora told the Daily Mail: “If lockdown were a drug, you’d need to consider the side effects, and yet we’re not – even though we seem to be diving headlong into another one.

“People sometimes claim it’s a question of health versus the economy, but it’s not – it’s health versus health.”

COMMENTS

Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.