elbows
Well-Known Member
Have done so, but as I said when it first appeared, for me, this is the key quote:-
I don't sentimentalize these things. I can accept hard-headed calculations for not building shelters, both pre-WW2 and in the Cold War. In both cases, it would've been a massive undertaking of dubious value (the "bomber will always get through" thinking of the '30s had planners convinced that air raids would be apocalyptic; and even with Swiss levels of shelter provisions, how viable would survival be after a nuclear assault?).
I still see the crucial difference lying in the government doing everything in its power to avert the calamity it was ill-prepared for. When it came, in WW2, policy did shift, however sluggishly: after taking matters into their own hands, Londoners were allowed into the Tube, and deep shelters were eventually built (I've been in one, and it's an awesome undertaking).
I'd feel very differently if everything had been thrown at containment and it'd failed. But it wasn't.
Probably what would help would be to find stuff that would enable the study of UK establishment responses to previous pandemics, epidemics and public health emergencies. I've mostly only had time and brain space to go on about a couple of specific aspects of the 2009 swine flu pandemic response, and I'm unlikely to find time during this pandemic to investigate other examples, although I have name-dropped BSE in the past, and the infected blood scandal. But I would be surprised if there were not penty of other candidates out there that would give more than a glimpse of cold calculations applied directly to public health and epidemics.