Oppose the Second National Lockdown; Letter Template for your MP | Ewell Gregoor


When asking my toddler son what he wanted to dress up as on Saturday night as we celebrated Hallowe’en, I gave him the standard options: ghost; witch; zombie; Frankenstein – all the things a toddler grows up scared of. It turns out, the only thing he had to fear on Old Hallows Evening was the entity possessing the once liberal Prime Minister. It was an ironic night for the announcement, the Zombie Prime Minister accompanied by the two Grim Reapers: Whitty and Valance, who carefully presented their bewitching figures, hoping to hypnotise a nation into believing the impending doom is mere mercy.
Its not the zombies and ghosts the children of today should be frightened of; with national debt levels at 103% of GDP and the prospect of further lockdowns over the next two years, it will be the children of today who suffer the consequences of the impetuous actions of this supposed Conservative Government.

What is worse, it was the Government themselves who have told us how damaging this lockdown will be. Boris Johnson, Dominic Raab and Michael Gove have all gone on record saying how ‘damaging’ any further lockdown would be, since the Labour Party called for a second national lockdown following the advice from SAGE. The Times reported this morning that the forecasted drop in GDP will be between 5-8% for the month of November. A reminder that Bristol University Research in April stated that a drop in GDP of 6.4% would cause as many poverty related deaths as deaths from Covid-19. This following a record 20% GDP drop in the summer. Through what perspective anyone can suggest lives are been saved via a lockdown, I do not know.

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

At present, we still live in some version of a democracy, no matter how dystopian it looks. If you, like me, are concerned by the measures and want to oppose the measures, you should write to your MP in advance of the vote in the Commons.

Below are two letter templates, one if you live in a Tory seat, one if you live in another seat. I implore you to send this to your MP (just be sure to change the parts of the letter in brackets).


IF YOUR MP IS A CONSERVATIVE

Dear [enter MPs name]

I am extremely concerned about the fate of the economically insecure people within our community, and nationally, as a result of lockdown policies that have been implemented and are to be made stringent on Thursday pending parliamentary vote.

I fear that the immediate case, hospitalisation and death figures relating to Covid-19 are being viewed and presented somewhat in isolation from, and elevated above, the wider effect of the policies on people’s immediate mental and physical health and the effect on the livelihoods of those worse off in particular. The subsequent poverty from the drop in Gross Domestic Produce and joblessness negates any potential life saving from the lockdown. In April, Bristol University published research stating that a drop in GDP by 6.4% would be balancing point between lives lost to Covid-19 vs lives lost to poverty. That is without consideration of undiagnosed cancer as a result of fewer screenings, which experts say will cause 50,000 – 70,000 excess cancer deaths.

I am also dismayed that the vulnerable (not just the two million who were sent the letters at the start of the first lockdown) – those over 60; those with underlying health conditions – have not been considered as a group that required much more serious intervention both in terms of physical and financial support, and a requirement to shield in some manner, all the way through from release of the first lockdown until present.
The epidemic is having the most serious effect on these people and it is these people who are now being hospitalised and dying, yet they have been effectively treated in the same way as healthy 20 year olds without being given additional support/advice to protect them. I note the rules to be implemented on Thursday only suggest that the “extremely clinically vulnerable” rather than the wider vulnerable group, should not be attending work and who are able to receive meagre support.

This clearly falls way short of what is required to protect the wider vulnerable group and to prevent the NHS from being overwhelmed for the benefit of wider society; if that is the aim of the lockdown. I also note that the over 60s are the most economically inactive adult group so it is not clear why the first measures taken do not recognise either their express vulnerability or the smaller economic effect of this group not working. The rolling un-targeted lockdowns are taking a massive toll on wider society, without providing the support needed for the most vulnerable, or a sustainable future for living with Covid-19.

I am shocked that a Conservative Government is acting so impetuous. With national debt levels at 103% of GDP, the Conservative Party are rightfully losing their reputation for being the Party sensible fiscal policies. For the past 10 years, Tory Governments have been critical of Labour Government of 1997-2010 for reckless economic policies that our ‘grandchildren’ will have to pay for. How can you both simultaneously hold this opinion and plunder the country into economic oblivion?

I would ask you to consider your support ahead of the vote in the commons this week. I implore you to question the scientific basis for the lockdown policies, critically assess the effect of such policies on the economy and the wider health of the country and invite diverse scientific views to inform the debate on the most appropriate way forward.

Many Thanks.


IF YOUR MP NOT A CONSERVATIVE

Dear [enter MPs name]

I am extremely concerned about the fate of the economically insecure people within our community, and nationally, as a result of lockdown policies that have been implemented and are to be made stringent on Thursday pending parliamentary vote.

I fear that the immediate case, hospitalisation and death figures relating to Covid-19 are being viewed and presented somewhat in isolation from, and elevated above, the wider effect of the policies on people’s immediate mental and physical health and the effect on the livelihoods of those worse off in particular. The subsequent poverty from the drop in Gross Domestic Produce and joblessness negates any potential life saving from the lockdown. In April, Bristol University published research stating that a drop in GDP by 6.4% would be balancing point between lives lost to Covid-19 vs lives lost to poverty. That is without consideration of undiagnosed cancer as a result of fewer screenings, which experts say will cause 50,000 – 70,000 excess cancer deaths.

I am also dismayed that the vulnerable (not just the two million who were sent the letters at the start of the first lockdown) – those over 60; those with underlying health conditions – have not been considered as a group that required much more serious intervention both in terms of physical and financial support, and a requirement to shield in some manner, all the way through from release of the first lockdown until present.
The epidemic is having the most serious effect on these people and it is these people who are now being hospitalised and dying, yet they have been effectively treated in the same way as healthy 20 year olds without being given additional support/advice to protect them. I note the rules to be implemented on Thursday only suggest that the “extremely clinically vulnerable” rather than the wider vulnerable group, should not be attending work and who are able to receive meagre support.

This clearly falls way short of what is required to protect the wider vulnerable group and to prevent the NHS from being overwhelmed for the benefit of wider society; if that is the aim of the lockdown. I also note that the over 60s are the most economically inactive adult group so it is not clear why the first measures taken do not recognise either their express vulnerability or the smaller economic effect of this group not working. The rolling un-targeted lockdowns are taking a massive toll on wider society, without providing the support needed for the most vulnerable, or a sustainable future for living with Covid-19.

I am shocked that the [PARTY NAME] would offer unconditional support to the Government regarding a second national lockdown without first seeking assurances on the economic settlement, both now and in future. With national debt at 103% of GDP and unemployment forecasted to soar to four million by 2023, the [PARTY NAME] are putting the most vulnerable in society at long term risk. I would have expected any [PARTY NAME] support to come with assurances that a period of austerity will not follow. That a Universal Basic Income will be rolled out to support those who have suffered. Only through an increasingly narrow prism could you argue that the NHS and other public services are being protected with debt levels rising to record levels. This will only serve to take much needed money away from the NHS in the future.

I would ask the [PARTY NAME] to reconsider support for the governments lockdown. I implore the [PARTY NAME] to question the scientific basis for the lockdown policies, critically assess the effect of such policies on the economy and the wider health of the country and invite diverse scientific views to inform the debate on the most appropriate way forward.

Many Thanks,


Photo Credit.

You may also like...

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *