ADDED (26 April): The Financial Times is clear: it was the Vaccine wot done it. Not Lockdown. Sorry Boris.
My flabber was well and truly gasted when I saw this from Boris, this morning:
But it is very, very important for everybody to understand that the reduction in these numbers - in hospitalisations and in deaths and infections - has not been achieved by the vaccination programme. People don't, I think, appreciate that it's the lockdown that has been overwhelmingly important in delivering this improvement
Add to the "things I don't get". [ADDED: Kate Andrews takes apart Boris's "strange statement" here. "What's behind [his] playing down of vaccines? Is it because of data-driven concern about new variants? Or concern that people will start taking their lives back into their own hands? Either way the government needs to be open and transparent about these issues, not muddy the waters as it's doing" (or words to that effect. My summary)].
I've shown elsewhere that there is no correlation between strictness of lockdown and the severity of the virus. And also the vaccines have been shown to be around 95% effective, which pretty well accounts for the 95% drop in infections and deaths.
My own view: if this is meant to ensure people don't relax too much, then I think it's a bad tactic, as it'll damage faith in the vaccines. And let's not forget that vaccines have been held out as the magic bullet for the virus, and so far that's been true.
Boris is disappointing hugely. Not rising to the occasion but snivelly and grovelly to the lowest denominator in the SAGE committee. He's become more like a high rank bureaucrat than a leader.
From Isabel Hardman:
Wos it lockdown wot won it?
A strange comment from Boris Johnson today as the NHS celebrates beating its target to offer vaccinations to everyone in the top nine priority groups. The Prime Minister told reporters that it was lockdown, not the vaccine, that had caused the fall in cases and deaths. He said: 'The numbers are down - of infections and hospitalisations and deaths. But it is very, very important for everybody to understand that the reduction in these numbers - in hospitalisations and in deaths and infections - has not been achieved by the vaccination programme. People don't, I think, appreciate that it's the lockdown that has been overwhelmingly important in delivering this improvement in the pandemic and in the figures that we're seeing.'
This is a surprising line to take, given Johnson has been palpably relieved by the success of the vaccine programme and the way in which it has turned around his government's fortunes in the pandemic. More than that: he and his ministers have regularly held out the vaccine programme as the saviour of our liberty. On our Coffee House Shots podcast, Katy and I suggest that it may well be a calculation from the Prime Minister that people are likely to relax too much about the restrictions that are still in place, and that it is better for him to emphasise the importance of those restrictions. No. 10 sources warn against the danger of people thinking it's already all over when it isn't. Johnson also made the point that as these restrictions ease, there will be a rise in the number of cases and deaths, and preparing people for this is another important element in his approach to this.
But it will frustrate Conservative MPs who feel that the goalposts just keep shifting on what constitutes a safe situation. Remember that at one stage they had demanded the majority of restrictions be lifted in February: now, they are watching Johnson praise the successful rollout of the scheme across vulnerable groups while also telling people to hold on into the spring and early summer.
Not helping (as ever) is Nicola Sturgeon, who today accelerated the lifting of some rules in Scotland. She declared that the virus was 'in retreat' and said that from Friday up to six adults from six households can meet outdoors, that the 'stay local' instruction will be lifted, and that people can travel to and from island communities with greater ease. Some Tory MPs will be arguing that if the Scottish government can be flexible with its approach, why can't Westminster politicians?
