
Lockdowns are the measure of first resort for many countries in the battle against Covid-19, but had we properly looked at their devastating side effects, governments would not be so keen on them.
After months of trials and painstaking inquiry into questions of efficacy and safety, December saw two vaccines approved by regulators in the UK - first, one made by Pfizer and BioNTech and a second, developed by Oxford University and AstraZeneca. There will continue to be great scrutiny of these vaccines to make sure there are few serious side effects and that they work properly.
But as people across the UK are told to stay at home, what would happen if the same process were applied to lockdowns and other restrictions - part of a group of measures properly known as 'non-pharmaceutical interventions'? If we followed the same template as for vaccines and drugs, we would ask (a) do they work and (b) do the side effects outweigh the benefits? Yet it seems that, in the rush to keep Covid at bay, politicians seem unwilling to seriously consider a proper assessment.












Comment: See also:
- Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer calls for emergency legislation to PROSECUTE every lockdown protester
- Scotland extends TOTAL lockdown into whole month of January despite no rise in hospital admissions
- NHS had 15% LESS patients this December compared to 2019 - Any crisis is due to budget cuts, staff shortages and excessive measures
And check out SOTT radio's: