bojo lockdown
I have never been quite sure why so many people thought that lockdown would be implemented for three weeks — a time apparently necessary to "flatten the curve". I knew at the time that this was never going to be the case, for reasons explained below, and furthermore I knew it was a gross deception waged on the British people, as I hope to show.

Let's just begin with looking at where the claim originally came from. It was made by the Prime Minister, in the speech he made to the nation on 23rd March, just hours before the country went into lockdown. Here is what he said:
"I can assure you that we will keep these restrictions under constant review. We will look again in three weeks, and relax them if the evidence shows we are able to."
It is well known that the decision by the Government to implement lockdown was based to a large degree on the model produced by Imperial College. This model, also known as the Neil Ferguson model, was published in their "Report 9: Impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to reduce COVID-19 mortality and healthcare demand", which you can find here.

But what did the report actually say about timelines for lockdowns and the easing of them? Although the report only uses the word lockdown once, it refers to suppressions and mitigation strategies, which include household quarantine, case isolation, social distancing, and school and university closure. These terms are therefore basically synonymous with lockdown, and here are some key quotes, with the most crucial parts highlighted in bold:
"When examining mitigation strategies, we assume policies are in force for 3 months, other than social distancing of those over the age of 70 which is assumed to remain in place for one month longer." (p.6)
"Suppression strategies are assumed to be in place for 5 months or longer." (p.6)
"Given suppression policies may need to be maintained for many months" (p.11)
"This means it is difficult to be definitive about the likely initial duration of measures which will be required, except that it will be several months." (p.15)
"The major challenge of suppression is that this type of intensive intervention package - or something equivalently effective at reducing transmission - will need to be maintained until a vaccine becomes available (potentially 18 months or more)" (p.2)
"The main challenge of this approach is that NPIs need to be maintained ... for as long as the virus is circulating in the human population, or until a vaccine becomes available. In the case of Covid-19, it will be at least a 12-18 months before a vaccine is available."
You get the picture. These quotes make it crystal clear that Imperial College assumed lockdown would be in place for many months — perhaps 12-18 months or even more. Furthermore, since this model and the strategy it suggested was the basis for the Government's decision to put the country under lockdown, it is utterly inconceivable that Mr Johnson and his Government did not know at the time that these policies would be in place for months, perhaps years.

In which case, what can we say of Mr Johnson's assurance to the British people that, "we will look again in three weeks, and relax them if the evidence shows we are able to." Since he knew what the model said about how long the policies would need to be in place, it was an assurance he knew full well was utterly misleading. At the very least, he gave absolutely no hint that these policies would need to be in place for months or years.

As I mentioned at the start, I was aware of this at the time of his speech, as I had looked at the Ferguson report when it was released. However, I would guess that it might come as a surprise to the British people, particularly as these measures, which were sold to them on an essentially false basis, have set us on a path of social, economic, legal, psychological, and I would add constitutional collapse.

Just one more thing. Here is another extraordinarily interesting nugget from the Ferguson report:
"Once interventions are relaxed (in the example in Figure 3, from September onwards), infections begin to rise, resulting in a predicted peak epidemic later in the year. The more successful a strategy is at temporary suppression, the larger the later epidemic is predicted to be in the absence of vaccination, due to lesser build-up of herd immunity." (p.10)
Read it again and again and ask yourself this: did they put us under lockdown knowing full well that it would reduce immunity in the population, and that they would then implement another lockdown later in the year? If you look at the graphs on page 10 of their report, and see the recent suggestions of a second lockdown coming our way, the answer appears to be unequivocally yes. So not three weeks after all.