Hansard

I wish to speak against motions S5M-23910 and S5M-23911. With only a couple of minutes allocated to explain my objections, I start by saying that my concerns in no way dismiss the dangers of the Covid virus, nor do they suggest that decision makers do not care or are not trying to do their best.

However, on examining a wide range of available data and analysis on the impact of the Covid virus and approaches to suppressing the virus, particularly the clinical papers that have been produced by doctors, scientists and virologists across the world, I am concerned that a swathe of evidence has not been given adequate consideration in the decision-making process. Studies carried out at Stanford University have examined the work by Imperial College London that has underpinned the recommendations that inform the use of lockdown and restrictions. The studies by Stanford—alongside a host of studies that have appeared in respected publications, such as the BMJ and the European Journal of Clinical Investigation—point to the conclusion that non-pharmaceutical restrictions, such as lockdown, do not show a strong statistical relationship between lockdown policies and the desired solution of relatively low Covid deaths or the suppression of the spread of the virus. In short, lockdowns do not do what is claimed of them. Worse still, there is growing evidence of the medium and long-term consequences for the health and economic wellbeing of society that are appearing as a direct result of the lockdowns.

After months of restrictions, school closures, heightened fear and worry, young people are now reporting the highest-ever levels of mental health issues. Preventing young people from having face-to-face social interaction with family and friends—by limiting gatherings to two people from two households, as well as removing access to organised exercise—will further exacerbate the isolation and hopelessness that those young people are feeling, particularly at this time of year, when meeting outside is often not practical. Removing the right, which is enshrined in law, to attend worship, particularly when houses of prayer have taken every care to ensure the safety of their flocks, only adds to the stress that many people are experiencing and removes the support and reassurance that many people value. Having searched through the evidence that the Government has referenced, I could not identify any substantive evidence that suggests that attending worship creates an unacceptable risk.

For those reasons, I cannot support the two SSIs. I urge the Scottish Government and my fellow members to consider carefully whether the instruments make a difference to the war on Covid, or whether they unnecessarily add to the collateral damage that efforts to suppress the virus are having.