We should be able to impose our own form of lockdown – this government hasn’t got a clue

Isn’t it time that the public were allowed to think for themselves by choosing which of the two scientific views to follow? Janet Street-Porter certainly thinks so

How much longer can we be expected to tolerate lockdowns, particularly when the science is divided? (Getty)

Lockdowns no longer work. With infection rates rising in almost every area they’ve been imposed, we’re threatened with further local restrictions in the midlands and the north of England, which the government claim will be “nuanced”. No wonder mutiny is in the air. A huge part of Scotland is more or less shut as of yesterday, as Nicola Sturgeon attempts to stem the rising infection rate in the central belt.  

Our lives are in the hands of politicians deeply concerned about their image, about sounding statesmanlike and APPEARING to have a plan – although that plan involves numerous U-turns and last-minute directives. Throughout, they’ve seemed reticent to share details of the science guiding the decisions which severely impact our daily lives. This behaviour wouldn’t wash in the boardroom at somewhere like Tesco – so why should it be acceptable in public life?  

What’s behind this shocking lack of transparency, which has left council leaders and mayors like Andy Burnham enraged and the public distrustful and mutinous? This week we learned that “listening to the science” (as the government claims to do) offers two radically different ways of going forward.