I'm all for criticism and investigation. But it seems so early to make these kinds of definite proclamations. There is so much about the virus and how it's transmitted that we still don't understand. The UK government had no idea what they were doing, but really neither does anyone else. And until we are a little further along in successfully containing this epidemic, it's not going to be clear what the best course of action was.

Here are some of the most basic things no one seems to have figured out yet:

- As of today, there have been 23,953 deaths in England. Of those, exactly 33(!) involve someone <= age 40 without a co-morbidity. Across all ages, 95%(!) of deaths are people with a co-morbidity, typically diabetes (26%). Why does this disease attack so many diabetic people? What should we do to best treat or prevent it in that population? [1]

- Why is the transmission rate in London so low now (R = 0.4, < 25 infections a day) while still high everywhere else in the UK (R = 0.7 - 08)? Is that because the lockdown in London is somehow different or better or because some critical segment of the population is immune now and slowing down transmission? Or something else? [2]

- Why weren't the Nightingale Hospitals (field hospitals) needed? Were we just wrong about the need for ventilation? Was the lockdown super effective? Or something else?

- How many people are currently immune? Different studies in place the immunity rate in London anywhere from 10% (tests) to 29% (statistical models). Several studies suggest that there is significant cross-immunity with preexisting coronaviruses causing much slower spread, but it's too early to know for sure and that could be totally wrong.

- Why do some scientists think this will be a serious, on-going epidemic and others think the disease will "burn itself out" [3]? Is that based on science or wishful thinking? Because the difference in the best course of action would be significantly different if we knew the answer with a strong degree of certainty.

- Why do some places with lax lock downs have lower death rates than places with severe lock downs? Why aren't we seeing big upticks in deaths in the US where they are just willy nilly opening the economy? Is it just lagging indicators or are we not totally sure yet how this disease spreads in the community?

- How soon will we get an effective therapeutic? Will we really have a somewhat effective vaccine from Oxford in September or might we never have a vaccine? Will it matter anyway as immunity builds up in the population? How long are people immune?

- What is the actual cost of locking down in terms of lives lost as a side effect in the long term due to economic, social and psychological effects? Is it minuscule or significant?

Again, there will be plenty of time to bash the UK government after this is over. But it seems very early to be proclaiming that anyone has any idea what the right course of action was. This epidemic could totally vanish this year or it could go on for years. No one has any idea.

[1] https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas...

[2] https://www.mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk/now-casting/

[3] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/05/16/coronavirus-coul...