Earlier when asked about why the govt didn't act earlier the PM said “I think we were told about the new variant and the way it was taking off on 18th December and we went into T4 across the vast bulk of the country pretty much in the next 24 hours.”

This isn't entirely correct.

The new variant was identified in early December after genome data was paired with a curiosity that the rates of infection in Kent were not falling despite national restrictions and then T3.
So there was indicative sense that the variant may be playing its part as early as that and perhaps sport greater transmissibility.

On December 14th Matt Hancock informed the Commons, saying the new variant was in at least 60 local authorities already.

https://t.co/cZ2gg7tSYz
He told MPs in that over that week, there had been sharp, exponential rises in coronavirus infections across London, Kent, parts of Essex and Hertfordshire.

He said they couldn't be sure whether that was due to the new variant but that caution was required.
As a result, London and several other places in the South East were moved to T3.

On 18th December NERVTAG reported that they believed the new variant was indeed more transmissible.

On the 19th, the govt acted. This is the action I assume the PM referred to today.
The government introduced a new tier, tier 4 and extended it to much of the south east.

But as you can see, it certainly didn't include "the vast bulk" of the country

Indeed- areas just adjacent to T4, in East Anglia, were still in T2
Then on December 23rd, the govt acted again- extending T4 to all of the south east of England. But swathes of the country were still in T2 and much more in T3.

We know during this time the new variant was seeded elsewhere- but some of those areas still had lighter restrictions.
It wasn't until December 30th that the government put most of the country into T3/4. And only this week that we had a full lockdown.
So it's not true as the PM said "we went into T4 across the vast bulk of the country pretty much in the next 24 hours" on December 19th. That would take until 30th and arguably not until this year.
Two other things to remember 1) given govt was aware the new variant might have greater transmissibility before NERVTAG reported, some argue it should have shown greater caution before this date in any event 2) some public health experts say that even without...
...the new variant, the tiers as was, wouldn't have been enough (especially with planned Xmas relaxation) to prevent significant pressure on the NHS in January- (though prob not the appalling situation we now have)
Given those winter pressures and how bad things now are and will become, the workings of the tiers and their timing are of no less public importance than the timing of the March lockdown. Indeed, I suspect they'll come to be scrutinised just as heavily in the years to come.
PS massive credit as ever to the peerless @ElectionMapsUK for the gfx

More from Lewis Goodall

Some quick thoughts on what we just saw

Firstly hardly a unique insight but hard to overstimate the difference between the two last inaugurals. America has meandered sharply along its political arc.

Biden's rhetoric reached high. Every sentence seemed purposefully...


...constructed to negate every political and personal characteristic of his predecessor.

And insofar as he's not Trump, that he does accept, cherish and understand democratic norms, institutions and conventions in a way that Trump never could, Biden will make a real difference.

He will change the tone and tenor of politics, not only in America but across the West. As I've said before, just replacing Trump is a substantial victory for him and will earn him praise from historians.

But that aura will disappear quickly. A governing project it will not make

But how much praise he receives and stature conferred by posterity will depend on what happens next.

Because the big overarching question for me, watching this, is which of those two inaugurals, Trump or Biden's, is going to seem unusual in the future.

The relief that many are feeling is predicated on a type of politics ending. But it is at least as possible that it is Biden ..not Trump who is the last gasp of something. Is it Trump who is the dying embers of a dying, increasingly powerless old white America...

More from Government

I don't normally do threads like this but I did want to provide some deeper thoughts on the below and why having a video game based on a real world war crime from the same people that received CIA funding isn't the best idea.

This will go pretty in depth FYI.


The core reason why I'm doing this thread is because:

1. It's clear the developers are marketing the game a certain way.

2. This is based on something that actually happened, a war crime no less. I don't have issues with shooter games in general ofc.

Firstly, It's important to acknowledge that the Iraq war was an illegal war, based on lies, a desire for regime change and control of resources in the region.

These were lies that people believed and still believe to this day.

It's also important to mention that the action taken by these aggressors is the reason there was a battle in Fallujah in the first place. People became resistance fighters because they were left with nothing but death and destruction all around them after the illegal invasion.

This is where one of the first red flags comes up.

The game is very much from an American point of view, as shown in the description.

When it mentions Iraqi civilians, it doesn't talk about them as victims, but mentions them as being pro US, fighting alongside them.

You May Also Like