Lockdown ‘panic policy’ was disproportionate
Regarding your article ‘Sunak warns of recession like no other’ (May 28). Why on earth is Rishi Sunak warning us of a recession like no other as a result of the lockdown?
Perhaps he had better listen to his own words as it was he and the cabinet that took the reckless and unnecessary action to send our economy over the cliff edge. The ‘panic policy’ of lockdown was completely disproportionate and irrational.
Imperial modelling was guesswork dressed up as science, and it is the job of government to test the evidence and to make sure sense prevails and balance the priorities of lives lost against livelihoods destroyed.
There is no evidence that shutting down an economy will save any lives, just a presupposition. Otherwise, countries such as Sweden and Japan would be top of the death charts per million.
Professor Ferguson has now admitted the Swedish authorities “got a long way to the same effect” without a full lockdown and Camilla Stoltenberg, director of Norway’s public health agency, also concedes.
We only needed to shield the vulnerable. We should have tried to keep our businesses open to limit the damage. Why quarantine the mass healthy?
They have done a fine job too of scaring the nation and they use the abstract R rate to justify their continued actions.
Whether the UK recovers remains to be seen, but the daily debt levels of £2.4bn raids future generations of good public services, with lower expectations and a poorer NHS, one that could not provide PPE at the best of times.
We live in a dystopian world of silly made-up rules of social distancing and muzzles until they admit their mistake that they cried ‘wolf’.
An independent enquiry led by Lord Sumption is needed for full accountability and to avoid costly mistakes in the future.
Name and address supplied
Stick to professional opinion
I read your article ‘Advisers warn of consequences from contingent charging ban’ (June 5) and I am very dismayed at the reaction from advisers to a contingent charging ban.
As usual, the advisers take the higher moral ground, claiming that most potential clients will not be able to afford advice. If that is the case, these advisers must be working for free when they advise a client not to transfer, and also, if a client cannot afford to pay for advice, surely they should not be contemplating giving up a secure defined benefit income.
At my company, we moved away from contingent charging a long time ago and, while not all clients agree with the outcome of our investigations into their DB schemes, we charge for our time and stick to our professional opinions.
Name and address supplied