Sign up to Gransnet Daily
Our free daily newsletter full of hot threads, competitions and discounts
Subscribe
Six multi-millionaires who bankrolled the Conservative party’s election victory last December have called for Boris Johnson to ease coronavirus lockdown restrictions.
The group of donors are seeking to put pressure on the Prime Minister as he returns to work on Monday, citing fears over the potential for further damage to the UK economy.
Financier Michael Spencer, who has donated over £5m to the Tories in the last few years, told The Sunday Times: “We should start loosening up the lockdown as soon as we reasonably can and allow the economy to start moving forward.
“We should really begin to offer a narrative of how and when it’s going to stop.”
Financier Michael Spencer is one of those putting pressure on the Prime Minister.
While Steve Morgan, the former boss of the housebuilder Redrow, who gave £1m to the Conservatives’ general election campaign, said: “We’re actually in danger that the medicine, if you want to call the lockdown that, is more harmful than the cure.”
Billionaire Peter Hargreaves, Phones4u founder John Caudwell, banker Sir Henry Angest and restaurateur Richard Caring - who donated over £2m to the election campaign between them - also called for an easing of the lockdown measures.
Despite originally setting a review date of April 13, Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab said on April 16 that the shutdown would be extended for at least three more weeks.
The situation will be reviewed again on May 7.
At the Downing Street briefing on Saturday, Home Secretary Priti Patel refused to comment on what the Government's exit strategy was, saying it would be "irresponsible" to get people's hopes up.
Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer has also stepped up pressure on the Government to set out an "exit strategy" for lifting the lockdown.
In a letter to Mr Johnson he said the UK was again in danger of falling behind other countries, which were already engaged in "adult" conversations with their citizens as to how the restrictions could be eased.
"The British public have made great sacrifices to make the lockdown work. They deserve to be part of an adult conversation about what comes next. If we want to take people with us and secure their consent, this is necessary now,” the letter reads.
The Government insists that the lockdown must continue, but some Britons have been tempted back outside to green spaces by days of constant sunshine.
uk.news.yahoo.com/coronavirus-tory-donors-lockdown-easing-boris-johnson-080731781.html
Does anyone really think that the money men who are now calling in favours actually care about who is or isn't getting treatment in the NHS? They don't care which of us lives or dies as long as they increase their wealth.
No. But that still doesnt mean that what they are proposing isnt better for everyone.
Just because they have selfish motives doesnt make it by default wrong.
They might want it lifted for greed. But lifting it will benefit cancer services:
scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2020/04/21/how-coronavirus-is-impacting-cancer-services-in-the-uk/
There hasn’t been a magic injection of nurses, PPE, ventilators. We come out of lockdown, 3 weeks later, 2nd peak. So then all those critical cases will be nursed in the middle of a C19 peak.
We need to stay in lockdown. Then maybe some of those other critical cases can receive some treatment.
I think we're being subjected to a lot of spin and PR about lifting lockdown from people with vested interests. Thankfully we don't appear to have too many of the loony groups which seem to have sprung up elsewhere, but there are definitely signs of them.
My feeling is that it's far too early to lift any restrictions. I would also feel far more confident if I felt that we were really were "following the science" and the advice being followed were truly independent.
I'm not convinced by the arguments which have been put forward so far. There's too much manipulation of statistics and too many cover ups. It's a balancing act and, as far as I'm concerned, the balance is still in favour of lockdown.
Strikes me, it isn’t science that’s being followed, but the almighty pound.
Well austerity kills too.
A long term lockdown will be killing people for years to come.
It needs to end soon. And signs are it probably will.
notan Cardiac rehabilitation could easily be done online. I've been through it and thought most of it was a waste of time. The "advice" given is available elsewhere. People could be issued with blood pressure monitors and followed up, if necessary. Exercises could be done via Zoom or some other online platform. I really, really hated being forced to go to cardiac rehabilitation "classes" every week for eight weeks just to be patronised by nurses and dieticians calling me "dear".
We need to stay in lockdown. Then maybe some of those other critical cases can receive some treatment.
It doesnt work that way. Waiting for people with other conditions to become emergencies or critical before diagnosis or treatment may put a bigger strain on the NHS than Covid ever did!
Youre thinking in false economies
People won't have the opportunity to be killed by austerity. They'll already be dead.
Small ops become big ops.
Treatable cancers become untreatable.
Mental illnesses become crises
Lockdown kills.
People won't have the opportunity to be killed by austerity. They'll already be dead.
People are dying at over double the usual rate from domestic violence because of lockdown!
You may well survive CV but youre not that likely to survive an attempted murder!
20,000 IN lockdown. Can you imagine the death count OUT of lockdown?
Lockdown has always been about flattening a curve.
A flattened curve does not = less cases.
Its the same amount of cases spread out over a longer time.
Lockdown was never about stopping CV. Just spreading them out
You're thinking in terms of killing thousands of people for unproven gains.
Some sections of the NHS need to get a grip. I've been affected by not having routine tests, but what I've experienced so far is gross inefficiency from my GP, which actually means they have less time to treat their patients. I spoke to the practice manager about it (eventually) and was told it couldn't be changed. it was "management". Doh!
I guess you've signed up to volunteer in your local ICU or a care home, notan. Well done!
something like that growstuff.
Countries with strict/early lockdowns are still getting hit. Just later
Countries with lesser lockdowns are now balancing out with similar longer term numbers to countries with similar densities who did strict lockdowns.
Lockdown puts people at risk of being more likely to have serious complications when they do get CV because their long term comorbidities arent being managed as well as they would be out of lockdown
People with heart problems cant access specialist supervised exercise because of lockdown. Meaning they are in worse shape to fight off CV when they get it!
Could you be specific with the countries you're referring to notana2?
Take your pick!
When you look at the numbers and compare that with density, the stricter lockdown ones arent doing all that much better than others that are comparable by density.
Lockdown postpones. It doesnt reduce. It hasnt "stopped" CV anywhere!
We're not preventing CV cases here. We're just spreading them out. And increasing deaths from other causes in the process.
Even Taiwan is looking like it'll have a big outbreak.
They held it back by focusing on boarder controls, but have had scares re people who might have slipped through the net already, and once that does inevitably happen (like with the scares theyve already had) it'll spread like wildfire because of their high density housing..
Similarly singapore, not only have their controls widened their already wide social divides, but it isnt looking good as a long term strategy. They were initially hailed as a success story, but that was a short term win. Long term its not looking so good.
Sweeden is looking like its having similar numbers to locked down countries with similar densities
America: low density states Vs high density states... degrees of lockdown seem less significant than density and affluence
I don't know what the answer is, I really don't. However, isolation and loneliness are eventually very damaging to a person's health. I currently haven't seen anyone at all for over 5 weeks and it is nearly 6 weeks since I went further than my bin. And there is talk of social distancing lasting all year. Sometimes I am managing ok, sometimes like this evening I don't know how I shall cope one more day. I am trying my very hardest to be well which considering my health history is no small task but I am really really trying. But if I continue seeing no one I don't know what state I will be in by the end of this year.
Flyingsolo
Notanan2, thank you
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join the discussion, watch threads and lots more.
Register now »Already registered? Log in with:
Gransnet »Get our top conversations, latest advice, fantastic competitions, and more, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter here.
