It’s easy to understand how the English government
has concluded that having hundreds of young people packed together in poorly ventilated
venues such as nightclubs while large numbers of people in the relevant age
group are still unvaccinated is not the most brilliant idea ever, although it’s a lot harder to understand why it
was not so obvious until hours after declaring that the clubs could open. How
exactly did something so blindingly obvious only become so after it had
happened? It’s also easy to understand how they concluded that taking steps to mitigate
the problem by only allowing in those who have been fully vaccinated is better
than doing nothing at all, once the original mistake has been committed. But I struggle to imagine the conversation around
this which led to the conclusion that the right thing to do was postpone the implementation
until after most of those concerned have been fully vaccinated. It’s a bit like
a committee running a stable full of horses which takes a decision to change
the lock after the first horse has bolted, but then decides to delay implementing
the decision until after the last horse has escaped. It might well be more
popular with the horses, but that’s rather losing sight of the original
objective.
1 comment:
I suspect that your simple analogy with horses and stables remains too complex for our bloated friend in London. ALL of his recent TV appearances have reinforced my opinion that the major influence on his thought processes is that character Vicky Pollard from Little Britain. It is said that the BBC has withdrawn that series from public access (via iPlayer possibly). Did they do that to prevent more people coming to the same conclusion ?
Post a Comment