Starmer’s main focus during PMQs has been that the government has been late or too slow in its actions; definitely looking at things in the past.
The 'Hindsight' accusation can only really be applied when it's too late to change course, and new information has emerged that couldn't possibly have been known at the time when the decision was made. I would argue that neither of these conditions have existed since the start of the crisis, we have always been able to watch and learn from other countries' experience.
I wouldn't say that Starmer and the Unions have the same position, but I would agree that the union position of requiring complete risk removal is unrealistic. Fundamentally I think that anyone's position on how to handle the situation boils down to how one weighs up the human cost against the health of the economy, and ultimately we all choose a position somewhere on the continuum that extends from"Let them die, we need to make money" to "We're not going anywhere until you can prove it's 100% safe".
My view is simple and straightforward. The UK must realise that despite the cult of exceptionalism we really aren't as good at handling things as for example Germany. I would simply ask their guidance, in secret if necessary, and do what they do. Their track record has been far better than ours, we have over 49 deaths per 100,000 people, they have 9.3, a variance so great that it can't be down to just differences in reporting methodologies.
https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/cases-2019-ncov-eueea
