View Single Post
Old 18-07-2020, 23:47   #4638
jfman
Architect of Ideas
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 11,146
jfman has a nice shiny star
jfman has a nice shiny star
Re: Coronavirus

Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY View Post
1. No, it's not hard to make an interim assessment, but plainly, that would be wildly inaccurate. Lockdowns slow the virus, but don't eliminate it. Further waves will push the numbers up throughout the world, and that's one of the reasons why it is too early to make proper judgements on which countries have got it right. I would also remind you that it is ridiculous to compare our numbers with other countries, since each of them set such different criteria as to what constitutes a covid death. The fact that other countries only count hospital deaths (not deaths in the community or in care homes) is all the evidence you need that comparisons at this stage are pretty pointless.
And once again I'd say they are not pointless - we can already make excess deaths comparisons as well as the official total. Again, I remind you, that you are simply trying to avoid an uncomfortable reality. However, I'm happy to revisit this in a couple of years time when I'm certain I'll be proven correct and those who claimed 'mild flu', 'it'll go away itself and the summer' and now 'it's too early to tell' will be proven wrong.

I'm uncertain why you persist in being proven wrong, when in actual fact the economy benefits from everyone accepting the reality than trying to hide from it.

Quote:
2. I agree that some countries are having some initial success. This time next year, I very much suspect the situation will look a lot different. I don't care where you got the dreamy idea from, but it's wrong. There are disagreements within Sage as to how to best deal with this.
If I am certain of anything it's that your suspicions about coronavirus are politically fuelled.

Quote:
3. Allowing the virus to run through the healthy population is exactly what needs to happen. It is the only practical way, and it is nature's way. But by protecting 'at risk' groups, we keep deaths to the minimum.
Needs to happen for what/who?

Quote:
4. What I said was you cannot pin all your hopes on a vaccine. You have no plan B, so if you were in charge, you would be locking everyone up forever - until the riots started, that is.
Plan A should have been aiming to eradicate the virus. Plan B a vaccine.

At no stage have I ever suggested locking everyone up forever. As ever, Old Boy, you present the straw man argument.

You continue to be under the flawed logic that no lockdown = economy working as normal. 100% wrong. While I advocated a longer, stronger lockdown, protecting incomes and businesses along the way to get everyone out the other side in much the same position as before.

You however present the incoherent economics of austerity to save us. People lost their jobs. People spend less. More people lose their jobs. More people spend less. Cycle continues. For years.

It's not my fault your ideology makes you incapable of bold thinking, of 'entrepreneurial spirit' I think you call it.

When all is said and done a coherent strategy of eradicating the virus through isolating everyone as much as possible, for as long as possible, while protecting incomes will be proven to be better for public health and the economy.
jfman is offline