November 2, 2023 - 10:25am
The UK Covid inquiry heard extraordinary testimony this week from two of the chief architects of Covid lockdowns in Downing Street. Dominic Cummings, once Boris Johnson’s senior adviser, and Lee Cain, former director of communications at No. 10, provided a damning portrait of their former boss, with Cain claiming he was the “wrong prime minister” for the crisis.
A near-universal media narrative quickly emerged after the day’s political theatre, in outlets such as the Guardian, Independent and Financial Times. Namely, that Johnson’s toxic style of statecraft and chaotic indecision delayed much-needed lockdown measures in early 2020.
But behind the Boris-bashing, the testimony of Cummings and Cain should raise a critical, thus far neglected, question for the inquiry: what if Johnson’s political instincts to avoid lockdown were broadly correct — or, at least, the better of two bad options?
According to Cummings on Tuesday, the Government’s U-turn in March 2020 from mitigation (herd immunity) to suppression (lockdown) was implemented without a clear plan. While he argued that the entire British state, from Cobra to Sage to the Cabinet Office to ministers, was irredeemably incompetent (except for him, of course), he forgot to mention a key fact: lockdown was not in any Government pandemic plan — in the UK or even in official WHO guidelines.
Despite being the largest suspension of civil liberties since 1945, the inquiry appears most interested in why it was not implemented a few weeks earlier. More scrutiny should surely be placed on lockdown itself, the scientists and politicians who advocated for it and the collateral damage to society as a whole, not to mention the other alternatives available.
Both Cummings and Cain made plain that the decision to impose lockdown in 2020 was influenced by public opinion and fear. According to Cain, “the communications side drove a huge part of the Government machine during my entire time […] in Covid more than anything.”
Cain was a key architect of the “Stay at home, protect the NHS, save lives” campaign — one of the most successful in modern political history. In testimony this week, the only shortcoming he could find was that it “worked too well […] some behaviours were hard to move out of.” He dismissed the need for a greater focus on the most vulnerable, arguing that “this was about ensuring we had maximum compliance.”
In fact, we learned that media framing was instrumental in the mitigation-to-lockdown flip-flop. The public did not like the language of “herd immunity”, as the idea of “letting” a virus infect people seemed morally repulsive. And the modelling from Neil Ferguson and his colleagues played a pivotal role in discrediting the mitigation strategy, which up to that point was the Sage position. Johnson needed to “act”.
The then-Prime Minister was repeatedly concerned about the collateral damage of lockdown, but from March 2020 his aides clearly viewed other policies as, in the words of Cain, “morally and ethically a non-starter” and not something “a responsible government or a responsible PM would undertake”.
And yet we also learned how the lockdown experiment was itself chaotic. The decision, according to both Cummings and Cain, was undertaken on March 13, 2020, and took 10 days to implement. In this short period, a suppression plan had to be dreamed up, with the acknowledgement that it would be at least a year-long commitment. Asked about the plan for lockdown, Cummings stated the obvious: “that entire question [of how to address the harms of lockdown on society] was appallingly neglected by the entire planning system. There was definitely no plan, or even a plan to get a plan.”
Into this quagmire, those around Johnson sought to contain his lockdown concerns because they believed they were “following the science”. Yet the evidence about lockdown being effective for Covid was never as clear as many believe. In the autumn of 2020, when Johnson was curious about the Swedish approach and the Great Barrington Declaration, Cain again sought to redirect him, claiming that his concerns were “a position that conflicted with all the evidence available”.
Yet evidence about the harms of lockdown is growing daily, and so is public opinion. The Covid inquiry may soon become a laggard if it does not take more seriously what has become a taboo idea: perhaps Johnson’s political instinct to avoid lockdown was right.
The accusation that Johnson is a “trolley” is fair, but we could go further. His legacy will forever be linked with his removal from office because he could not follow his own Covid rules. With lockdown we could say this “libertarian” trolley not only tottered, but clearly fell off its track.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeJohnson’s initial instincts were absolutely correct but unfortunately he was pressured by the hysteria in the media and the elite circles to follow an incorrect path that was known to be wrong from over a century worth of studies. In addition, it didn’t help that he had a near death experience himself.
Ironically Johnson comes over in this enquiry as the most levelheaded and thoughtful of the characters in the drama but who simply was not strong enough to stand up to the bullying hysteria of his advisors and the MSM to pursue the course his instincts told him was the right course. Unfortunately while his classical education may have given him a broader view than some of the PR obsessed advisers around him he lacked the ability to get proper advice to balance the alleged benefits of lockdown against the downsides and stick to the original plan. That said how many who complain of his weakness would in fact have been able to stand up to the sustained pro-lockdown pressure he was subjected to.
The failure to follow the strict rules of lockdown throughout the government and their advisors and indeed in the MSM highlights the fundamental lack of belief in the real efficacy of the lockdown rules which were inherently nonsensical.
The present course of the enquiry is little more than an irrelevant farce unless it were to lead to the setting up a unit staffed by a broad range of scientific, economic and socially educated advisors capable of looking at problems from a broad perspective rather than relying on single issue “experts”. The PM should have been able to draw on advice from a wider range than computer modellers and ex-journalists and PR strategists or even epidemiologists who would inevitably prioritise their own speciality expertise. Much more input from how Sweden managed the pandemic should be fed into the process rather this concentration on the biased tittle-tattle of Cummings, Cane and the like.
Remember the chants and accusations of “Granny Killers!”. Only a government with a real backbone could have stared down such an orchestrated assault. The BBC and all the usual media suspects fanned the fear and the demands for lockdown and then masks. Who orchestrated it? Who financed that attack?
There was an element in the MSM of wanting to attack Johnson whatever policy he chose to pursue. Had he dived in on day one to lock everything down and mandate face masks, ventilators etc no doubt the complaints would have remained of lack of preparedness and perhaps greater emphasis on the civil liberties angle. The left would have been happy to paint Johnson as a far right authoritarian overreacting and depriving the working man of his liberty. The tribal nature of politics tends to distort rational discussion.
Spot on.
The frenzy the media whipped up was an insurmountable problem for the government at the time – and the media are doing the same with this enquiry.
The PM’s words about the old dying anyway may have been crass – politicians usually side-step the truth – but these words were being thought and said all over the country.
I write this as someone who is very elderly with children and grand-children whose lives were irrevocably altered by the decision to lockdown society, interrupt education, ruin businesses and destroy the economy
Why is this never high-lighted?
I really don’t know, I only wish I did.
Since official investigations, commissions, etc. became increasingly used in the Victorian era, their purpose has been to exculpate the powerful of their wrongdoing and direct blame at those those with insufficient means or power to challenge it. The Covid Inquiry is the latest installment of this perversity of justice.
The Covid inquiry is touted at being “independent”. When the government that is to be scrutinised chooses what will be investigated, who will investigate them and the individual who will ultimately ascribe responsibility, no reasonable person would consider that to have any claim to be independent. It’s a fix.
Unlike past whitewashes, held in wood paneled, velvet curtained back rooms in Whitehall, with events relayed in the paper press, everyone can watch the proceedings live online.
Dr Carl Hannigan and Dr Tom Jefferson’s piece for the Daily Sceptic provides an excellent summary of the central questions that the Inquiry should be addressing, and which, if rigorously interrogated, would reveal the failures of individuals and institutions, the financial and scientific corruption, and in doing so, set Britain on the right course for dealing with a future threat to its people.
It’s a fix; it’s happening in plain sight; they are getting away with it again. The Opposition, the MSM, the public health authorities, the academics and the Left in general went full in behind the unprecedented disregard for the suspension and abuse of the basic rights of the British people. They facilitated the censorship of legitimate medical debate and became unquestioning allies of Big Pharma.
So here we are again. Despite the unprecedented public access to the Inquiry, those that are in a position to denounce it as the whitewash and change its course to let right be done, are so complicit in the wrongdoing they should be investigating and exposing, they will let injustice again prevail and sacrifice the future protection of the British people’s rights and health to protect themselves from censure.
The same could be said of teaching. Teachers are given very little control of what, how, and who they teach, yet are always blamed for slipping of standards. The best way to combat this is to minimize government involvement or limit it to operational funding.
Why not give every parent £ 6k for each child and let people set up schools. After all Winchester College was set up in 1380 and ran for hundreds of years without government influence. Education is run for and by the union officials of the education unions, academics and civil servants.
I’d give this ten upticks if i could.
Fascinating. I was always under the impression the goal was a two year lockdown/restrictions. My thinking was largely based on the legislation having that time span. The “two weeks to flatten the curve” always sounded more like a sound bite than actual policy.
I’m glad to hear that it really was just a lie to manipulate people. I’m not so glad to hear that no one will be held to account for this flagrant act of propaganda.
What I find really mystifying, particularly when viewing the reaction of the more liberal press, is that nobody other than Johnson apparently had any power, responsibility or accountability. Johnson is now discovering that there is no I in scapegoat.
And as much as I have little sympathy for him, he does appear to be about the only individual in government pondering the question that was obvious to anyone not suffering from hysterical knee jerk terror or on an authoritarian power trip that lockdown would have consequences and those consequences need weighing against potential benefits.
Agree entirely with the article. Reading the reports from the enquiry it comes over as if lockdowns are entirely accepted as the only and right thing to do, mainly by a bunch of people who seem to have an agenda and an axe to grind. Cummins is vile and Johnson should have ignored him.
Every day, more evidence that Boris’s instincts were correct. But with everyone against him, especially the MSM with their “Are you a mass murderer, Prime Minister?” questions at the daily No 10 pressers, lockdown became the only politically viable option.
I dispute that.
In WW2 we were not under 23 hour house arrest with one hour for exercise. We were not forbidden to travel more than five miles from home. We were not forbidden to socialise with anyone not in our household.
Your description doesn’t contradict the statement. The lockdowns remain the largest suspension of civil liberties since 1945. Being more Draconian is irrelevant to the point being made.
I thought he was implying that 39-45 was a worse infringement of liberty. Otherwise, he could have chosen any starting point for his comparison.
….Since 1945… Perhaps an odd starting point. But I agree with your sentiment, the lockdowns etc were a far greater infringement to civil liberties than any during WW2
Civilian conscription and rationing, ploughing up meadows, killing pets….
Oh, and censorship.
Bizarre comment. We were in an existential conflict! Rationing wasn’t an attack on civil liberties, but at a time when our supplies were heavily threatened by German U-Boats, a sensible way to ensure that everybody got enough and the rich didn’t hog the supplies.
But people were not then essentially told they could not travel or meet with other people.
Excellent article. Covid IMHO was a catastrophic global overreaction to a bad case of flu. Surely everyone realises by now that the long term costs of lockdown were far far greater than any benefits in terms of prolonging the lives of a few old people. Boris Johnson’s initial reactions were right – we should have taken the Swedish approach. I mainly blame the media, and to some extent the scientific community although part of the problem there is the atrocious reporting of scientific matters by the media. It is deeply depressing that the enquiry in this country appears to be going down completely the wrong path by focusing on attaching blame to individual politicians rather than trying to understand costs and benefits so that we can actually learn something for the next time. Once again, the mainstream media reporting of the enquiry itself is entirely irresponsible and sensationalist. I guess we’ve all become infantilised and deserve the government, media and international institutions we get.
As Prof Angus Dalgleish has said why are we still vaccinating people against a virus that no longer exists?
Eh? Of course the vaccine still exists, you’ve just got that wrong. It will be one of many respiratory viruses in circulation – which do tend to affect elderly people more.
Covid vaccines will be similar to flu vaccines, a sensible precaution for some people.
Thank you, Kevin, for writing this.
Looking in detail at the ins and outs in the way you have is far more helpful than other reports I have read. Far too much demonising Boris/scapegoating Boris for my liking.
Maybe I am trying to be fare as I reflect on what was a chaotic period, the world over. How on earth could any consensus be reached when no one had a game plan to follow.
I was passed a number of authoritative articles from the science/medical community (a friend was in the SAGE group) and the primary take from these was the fact none of the Professors etc had a clue! They were all playing with new info and trying desperately to make sense of a new paradigm.
Yes, they were trying to make their data fit into a narrative.
Your right none of the “Professors” had a clue. Whitty made the claim that Children had to be vaccinated to protect their grandparents.
In my book, States of Panic: COVID-19 and the New Medieval, written in late 2020, I observed this about the UK elite’s response to the SARS CoV 2 outbreak:
Let us pause for a moment and try to imagine the atmosphere that prevailed in those chambers of decision-making at that moment. Not only was this group seized by the genuine belief that a catastrophically virulent infection was rampant in the UK, but they saw proof of it every day as one after the other fell victim. It was a Black Death tableau with all the grim drama of a medieval court: medico-sorcerers, superstition, terrified and bewildered courtiers, all-night meetings and flights to the country to ensure family were safe. It was all there.
I take no pleasure in seeing how accurate was my portrayal written three years ago. Nor in the fact that my estimate of global Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) three years ago was 0.13 (subsequent seroprevalence testing has indisputably put it at 0.15) nor that I estimated then that between 36% and 40% of all so-called COVID-19 linked deaths had nothing to with the virus at all.
The gravamen of the book was that diagnostic and reporting criteria by the major public health organisations, particularly the WHO and CDC, were serially changed with the effect that case and fatality numbers were hugely inflated, thus driving un unnecessary panic, a Medieval one.
I have submitted a synopsis of my book to the Public Inquiry for consideration with the caution that one cannot determine whether preventative pandemic measures were effective without first establishing whether there was a pandemic. I have the fullest confidence my submission was promptly filed “shredder”.
Thanks for that contribution. It sounds like a thoughtful book worth a read.It is indeed depressing that our response to novel biological threats has, as you suggest, not advanced much since Medieval times.
I’m only seeing the headlines about this supposed Covid enquiry going on, but it’s already clear it’s merely a farcical circus with all players mainly trying to protect their reputations.
Of course the reponse to Covid wasn’t perfect and many mistakes were made. That was always going to happen. But it doesn’t mean that most of those involved weren’t acting with malign motives or incompetent. At least in the public presentation of the response (initially at least) the daily press conferences did seem clear and sober.
It really does feel like the participants are now claiming that there was no team, consensus or collective responsibility – and little desire to reach any new insights into the lessons.
I’m not convinced by the stories coming out of the enquiry about how universally awful the government response was. Nor that Johnson’s response was as poor as claimed. Nor that the Civil Service were as competent as they would have us believe.
Never mind the who to blame for the debacle of lockdown, Science is still getting wrong now. The Government ploughs on with the experimental vaccine technology but one of our top Scientists Prof Angus Dalgleish with over 30 years experience in virology as well as being a top oncologist has shown that repeated boosters actually shuts down our immune system as he found with his Cancer patients. He is a very clever man and what he has to say about Whitty, Valance as well as Sage is unprintable. He also said without Quarantine, Lockdown was next to useless against an airborne virus. It is people like him that should be advising policy but he blotted his copy book when he told the “Science” that the virus was created in a Lab with technical detail.
Cain was a key architect of the “Stay at home, protect the NHS, save lives” campaign
Apparently it is the responsibility of the citizenry to protect the state, not the state to protect the citizenry.
What surprises me most is that, looking into official data, I wasn’t able to find even one hospital that went beyond its capacity throughout two years of the pandemic, neither in the UK, nor in the USA or Poland. Indeed, the temporary hospitals, erected hastily in each major city in Poland stood, according to the recent report by the Polish Supreme Chamber of Control, not only empty, but also their costs amounted to billions of Euros.
Fergusson’s erroneous modelling aside, according to one SAGE’s models, in the peak of COVID-19 there would be 90 000 hospital beds with ventilators needed, while in reality the number was closer to c. 2500 and not all of them were used for COVID-19 patients.
I haven’t heard any lockdown supporter addressing these issues, or the overall debacle of grossly exaggerated mathematical models – which, by the way, are still used as a pro-lockdown argument, not as a warning not to base sweeping social measures on them.
Why does anyone take Dominic Cummings seriously? Have I missed some glittering track record of brilliance?
Cummings was not alone on lockdowns. Rishi Sunak also favoured their extension after the critical infection period of March-April 2000. Hancock also backed national and regional lockdowns and devolution of identical decision-making to Scotland and Wales because like all of the above he was too young and/or unaccountable to make such huge and destructive biopolitical calls.
Too young? Is there a minimum age for incompetence?
The author misses the basic point, surprisingly, since it’s been rammed home again and again by scientists, civil servants and politicians during the enquiry. The point is that had Boris acted quickly and in line with the urgent scientific advice that was coming his way, and instigated meaningful border controls, test and trace, cocooning of vulnerable people, care homes, etc. then fewer and less draconian lockdowns would have been necessary. Countries that did this had spectacularly fewer deaths and much lower social/economic disruption than we did. Severe lockdowns represented a failure of earlier policy, and were forced on us by that failure. It’s no good talking about Boris’ political instincts to avoid lockdown: if you want to avoid lockdowns then you have to have policies in place to achieve that. Boris sitting on his hands and looking the other way isn’t a policy.
“The inquiry appears most interested in why (lockdown) was not implemented a few weeks earlier. More scrutiny should surely be placed on lockdown itself, the scientists and politicians who advocated for it and the collateral damage to society as a whole, not to mention the other alternatives available.”
The same attitude prevails in the United States (where we aren’t even pretending to have an inquiry), even while the enduring damage done by lockdowns and mandates becomes ever more obvious. Any analysis coalesces around the idea that we didn’t do all the wrong things soon enough.
I have no hope that the same short-sighted, fear- (and pharmaceutical profit-) driven policies won’t prevail the next time this situation arises, with the same grievous and lasting collateral harms.
We no longer have a ruling class who has had to make life or death decisions when others have collapsed from fear or exhaustion. The days when The Ruling Class comprised former eighteen year old officers leading the men over the top, boarding a ship, flying a plane in combat, are long gone. The days are long gone when a leader had to make a decision as to who would die, not whether people will die, are long gone.
The Cruel Sea (1953) Depth Charge Scene – YouTube
In Rogue Heroes, Squadron Sergeant Major Seekings states he had to leave wounded soldiers behind, only those fit enough to fight, would he take. All those left behind died.
The question is do we want people with the experience of having made life or death decisions, in charge ?
No one ever mentions the Johnson vaccine, the first successful one to be produced, after Trump’s. Why was this written out of history?
The decision-making challenge was different between Lockdown 1 and 2. Clearly more unknowns for LD1 and thus perhaps a bit more sympathy for those grappling with v difficult choices at that time. We’ll see how Inquiry concludes.
But whatever advice Bojo was or was not getting he’s in charge and makes the final decision. He also appointed all these SPAD and semi civil servant clowns. He appointed all the other Cabinet clowns.
Going to be intriguing how he responds when in front of the Cmtee himself. Will he blame others, or accept the responsibility of the job he always wanted proved beyond him when it came to it?
Once the circus element has finished we need the Inquiry to get back to the crucial bits – what worked, what didn’t, what would we do next time (other than make sure we haven’t elected a clown to be PM as we know that already).
Sadly, I doubt the enquiry will tell us anything new.
I think you overstate Johnson’s responsibilities in suggesting that he micromanaged down to appointing every last civil servant and Spad. Surely, most of those were already in place – that seems to be at the core of Cumming’s case against the Civil Service – that they could not be changed or removed ! Few of us would claim that Johnson was a micromanager or detail person (more of a crisis manager really). Nor was that what people voted for in electing him. In terms of general direction and leadership and assembling a strong team (at least the newer players like Kate Bingham), I don’t think he performed badly. And I’d like to hear who would have done better in those circumstances.
Kate Bingham/Vaccine rollout – good decision – capable of picking the right people and innovating under pressure
Lockdowns – not convinced – but almost every other country did it and all other politicians supported it – hope we’d never have to do those again
Press conferences and PR – good in parts – “Protect the NHS” message was nonsense though – the NHS should protect us
There – you’ve made me look like a Johnson supporter. I’m really not ! I just don’t do the cartoon history.
If only they had implemented the recommendations of many Scientists about using Vitamin D. People in the UK are seriously deplete of this important vitamin. But the Science ignored it. In effect the recommendations of the NHS fall well below the amount required to maintain an efficient immune system. Studies in Spain found that people who had a level of below 30 nanograms/mol had a 77% chance of dying from Covid. Those who had a a level over 75 nanograms/mol only had a 2% chance of dying. But it was ignored by the likes of Chris Whitty and his ilk.
I think you exaggerated my point there a bit PB – I did not state all civil servants and clearly that would be ridiculous, although I ‘get’ the point you were making. But pretty much all those who’ve been before the Inquiry last week are senior positions where the PM holds the appointment decision and patronage. If the PM delegates that they still need to retain accountability.
Micromanagement was not what was needed. Some good leadership and grip would have done us. The fact just about every witness to date has flagged to varying degrees he lacked what was needed cannot be dismissed. Of course some have axes to grind too and all conscious of the historical record that will be concluded here. The problem for Bojo was the Virus wasn’t apt to be handled with bluff and counter bluff where his political skills lay.
On Kate Bingham – a Vallance decision. Not a decision he made but one he didn’t stop but to be fair if he cops for all the bad then he should get some credit for this. That said let’s not forget the superb UK research-industrial partnership she then drove has dissipated to her great regret under first Bojo and then his successors.
I think LD1 understandable. Hospitals were being overwhelmed (I worked in one and never want to face that again). Would we have acted voluntarily? Possibly and we need to learn/assess that for the next time. Subsequent LD 2 & 3 I think the criticism holds much more weight.
I agree the circus bit of a distraction, albeit one suspects alot of politicians taking it in and learning some lessons for the future. The openness is probably helpful as regards that.
Are you suggesting that Boris should have replaced the in-place CMO and CSA when he became PM in July 2019? Or, at the start of Covid? On what basis could he decide that and how would he know who to appoint in their place?
Did Boris appoint the Cab Sec or Assistant Cab Sec?
It was certainly a mistake to appoint Cummings but evidence is now emerging the Gove had a lot of influence over Johnson’s choice of appointees, with a view to undermining him.
Basic fees for Eton are £49,998 per annum. Fifty grand. A quarter of a million in total. Boris Johnson thought that he could kill Covid-19 by blowing a hairdryer up his nose. You are no more shocked at that than I am, and the same goes for the confirmation that on no day did Downing Street adhere to the Covid-19 regulations.
On 3rd March 2020, in what was then Johnson’s fanzine, since it had gone downhill since my day, Jeremy Warner wrote that, “Not to put too fine a point on it, from an entirely disinterested economic perspective, the Covid-19 might even prove mildly beneficial in the long term by disproportionately culling elderly dependents.”
It is no wonder that Matt Hancock wants immunity from prosecution. He and Johnson should be arrested tonight.
Thank goodness Johnson listened to Cain before things got out of hand, because had he gone down the ridiculous Great Barrington route that he was wrestling with then tens of thousands more people would have needlessly died, just as was seen in Sweden but on a smaller scale.
Robbie, you are completely off-base with your facts here. Sweden was ultimately a great success and they have the lowest excess death rate in Europe. They messed up initially with the nursing homes, just as we did in the UK and NYC did under Cuomo, by moving infected people out of hospitals into the nursing homes. But rest assured there is no mitigation measure that can be applied successfully for any influenza-like respiratory illness, ILI (including Covid which is no different from any of the others caused by a multitude of viruses). You might succeed in broadening the peaks but the area under the curve always remains the same; i.e. exactly the same number of people always end up dying. And in the case of Covid that was largely the over 80s with multiple co-morbidities whose life expectancy was already very low and would likely have succumbed from any ILI. The only real impact of non-pharmaceutical mitigation measures was therefore simply to prolong the agony. A complete and total miscalculation. And the tragedy is that all this was known prior which is exactly why lockdowns, masking, etc. etc.. was never in the ILI pandemic preparedness plans.
The only sensible measure that needed to be taken is that anybody with an ILI (whether Covid, influenza or a simple cold) should stay home. and that’s exactly what usually happens naturally if you have a severe ILI.
Lockdown sceptics have somehow convinced themselves that Sweden’s approach was successful, yet they had 3 to 4 times higher covid deaths than their comparable neighbours. No tinkering with spreadsheets or data will being those people back to life. A similar approach in the UK would have been catastrophic beyond measure.
Again your facts are wrong. Over the entire course of the pandemic, as opposed to just the first year, they did as well or better than their neighbours. The very notion of lockdown is misguided because all it does is transfer transmission from the work place to the home.
The only thing that was required is the common sense approach of asking people to stay home while symptomatically suffering from an ILI. The notion that Covid was being spread by infected but asymptomatic individuals (the rational for masking) was always nonsense and known to be nonsense.
Why do you continually ignore the point that Sweden’s excess all-cause mortality rates are among the lowest in Europe, including its neighbours?
Because he’s not interested in facts. He’s a troll, please don’t feed him.
The data disagrees with you.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1111779/coronavirus-death-rate-europe-by-country/