Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman
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.
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.
|
Excess deaths is a blunt instrument at best. You forget that people are also dying owing to the fact that they could not get their illnesses diagnosed and treated during the lockdown.
The 'mild flu' jibe - you must be getting desperate now. For most people, they either do not know they've had it or only experience mild symptoms. For those 'at risk' groups and others with an underlying health condition it can, of course, be deadly, and there is a likelihood that continual exposure to infected people can make it worse. I accept that the virus does not seem to go away during the summertime as was first speculated, although as people spend less time confined indoors in crowded areas during the summer, the number of infections may well decline for that reason.
I'm glad that we agree the objective of Plan 'A'. Of course you do realise that the only plan to eradicate the virus in the absence of a vaccine is herd immunity. It seems that the government is going for the half-way house solution at the moment with track and trace and local lockdowns. I suppose that is worth a try, but this will send us all on a merry old dance for years to come.
As far as your comments about a longer, stronger lockdown, do come off it - do you think the public would tolerate that? They were already pretty fed up with it when the government started to ease restrictions. I did not present your favourite 'straw man' argument. I have surely already made clear that however long and strong the lockdown, the virus will just attack us again on the eventual release. It only took one super-spreader to set this all off in the UK, remember that?
Austerity, jfman, is what would happen if we were all in the 'longer, stronger' lockdown you advocate. I'd stop arguing if I were you, your plan is falling apart before your eyes. If you're looking, that is.
---------- Post added at 14:35 ---------- Previous post was at 14:31 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre
|
I am not really that surprised. The virus is not readily passed on between people outside. It is crowded indoor spaces which are the real worry, hence why the health specialists are concerned about the autumn/winter months.