Re: Coronavirus
 

Are you suggesting no restrictions and no Nightingales?

Re: Coronavirus
 

You're making the flawed assumption that letting the virus pass through is an option.

Other countries have successfully plotted a different course and remained committed to it. They've been willing to invest in the public health infrastructure to test, trace and isolate.

What is inevitable is without one we face further restrictions. I have harped on for months about these being inevitable - with many in denial - yet here we are. There is no viable alternative to lockdown that involves letting the virus go.

You yourself don't want to catch the virus, but expect the rest of the population to do it for herd immunity at a cost of hundreds of thousands of deaths. The NHS will be the Coronavirus health service for this period - no cancer treatments, no screenings, nothing. For what? Half a percentage point on GDP?

---------- Post added at 15:13 ---------- Previous post was at 15:12 ----------

He's still following the flawed view that the health and economic responses are seperate.

Re: Coronavirus
 

More signs that such a view is little more than a pipedream come from the fact that even with the current restrictions, infection is creeping up into older age groups.
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavir...roups-12102505

Re: Coronavirus
 

Where did I suggest that?

Certainly, there should be no mandatory restrictions. The public should be advised on how to behave during the pandemic and to stay away from vulnerable friends and relatives, and vulnerable people should be advised to shield. Care homes in particular should be much better protected against people potentially bringing the virus into these establishments.

This strategy, as I said, will achieve herd immunity with fewer deaths because it will tend to spread through the healthy population, the vast majority of whom won’t know they’ve had it. The fact that the vulnerable are protected in this way should ensure fewer deaths, despite the lack of a mandatory lockdown.

Of course we should have the Nightingales. What I am pointing out is that we may not have enough NHS staff to man them.

Re: Coronavirus
 

According to the latest figures Coronavirus hospital numbers in England are up 40% over the last week.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Of course it is an option. We have already had a lockdown which has ruined the summer months for many. As we can see from Liverpool and elsewhere in the north and in London, that did a fat lot of good because now it is back again. How many times do we have to impose lockdowns before you finally concede that you are not going to get a different result at the end of it?

You keep incorrectly pointing out that I want to see more deaths, which shows how little of my argument you have grasped. Are you not aware of what the lockdown has done to people? It has meant that cancer monitoring has not taken place for those susceptible to it, operations have been cancelled, people have been left in agony because they couldn’t get dental treatment, it has been almost impossible to get GP appointments and mental illness has resulted from isolation and people losing their jobs and businesses. The lockdown itself has caused untold deaths and misery, which you appear to find acceptable.

Your reference to the NHS is laughable. We’ve had next to no service from them for months (unless you have COVID symptoms, that is).

---------- Post added at 16:52 ---------- Previous post was at 16:48 ----------

You, a self-styled economist, believe that the economy is irrelevant when considering options, which is hilarious.

I suppose plunging everyone into poverty and collapsing the NHS and other services due to lack of money is a price worth paying in your book.

We need to take a sensible approach, which is not something you have to offer.

Re: Coronavirus
 

No one said he was any good at it;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Even top economists get their sums wrong...;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

That’s mainly in the north, Midlands and London. I’m sure it’s only a matter of time before it gets to other southern regions, though. Then we have another lockdown to reduce the numbers of infected people. Then the lockdown will be lifted. Then the infections will start to increase, and the merry-go-round continues.

---------- Post added at 18:40 ---------- Previous post was at 18:38 ----------

You’re in a very charitable mood today, Den. I will try to learn from you. :)

Re: Coronavirus
 

As many as it takes - you heard Boris. Letting it go isn't an option.

We are the fifth richest economy in the world Old Boy. I'm sure we can tax some rich people to fund a solution. :)

The good news OB is I've seen nothing from Government to suggest your pipe dream fantasy of the old economy returning and sacrificing lives to expedite it is any closer to fruition.

Back to the drawing board. Just a flu, go away in the summer, get out there and stop being scared. I look forward to your next piece of insight on this subject.

Re: Coronavirus
 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-54505193 @18:21

I think he meant "ethically" rather than "ethnically"...

Update - he did (it must be a typo on the BBC website).

https://www.masslive.com/coronavirus...oblematic.html

Re: Coronavirus
 

And what about the lives and well being of people who are subject to lockdown after lockdown? What about their jobs and businesses? What about the lives that will be lost when the NHS collapses because everyone thought jfman’s rhetoric about the economy not being of concern sounded a great idea and didn’t believe the money would ever run out to sustain it?

The stupidity of this approach is so obvious, it is clear you are taking the piss, so I will leave you to amuse yourself with these absurd ideas.

I suppose you can always blame it on the ‘experts’ when you are eventually proved wrong, as you will be. Unless you are an expert yourself, jfman, in which case you have nowhere to run! :p:

---------- Post added at 19:14 ---------- Previous post was at 19:12 ----------

No wonder President Trump has pulled out of the WHO. Trust them to bring equalities into it!

Re: Coronavirus
 

What about the lives of people subject to lockdown after lockdown? Are they better off with the virus running rampant, for a questionable level of immunity, to have no health service of note AND an economy tanking?

I doubt it.

Jobs and businesses need protected - that's where borrowing and taxation come in to plug the gap and an effective test, trace, isolate system are essential.

The Swedish economy is in decline, so it's absolutely false to pretend that not controlling the virus is an economic solution. Isolating the vulnerable, and those who choose to be selective, reduces demand in the economy. Businesses are going to fail either way, you either support them financially or you don't.

I fail to see how I will be proven wrong not a single country of any note is taking your approach seriously.

Re: Coronavirus
 

They didn’t - as I said, it was a typo by the BBC.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Sorry, Hugh, my mistake!