Thread: Coronavirus
View Single Post
Old 12-10-2020, 16:52   #81
OLD BOY
Rise above the players
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Wokingham
Services: 2 V6 with 360 software, ITVX, 4+, Prime, Netflix, Apple+, Disney+, Paramount+, Discovery+
Posts: 15,083
OLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronze
OLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronze
Re: Coronavirus
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman View Post
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?
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 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman View Post

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