Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth
What's your conclusion, Jon? Mine would be to err on the side of caution given the outward spread of the variant. I would have thought that in these circumstances, at least 70% double dosed population would provide the cover needed to lift restrictions. I suspect that was always the plan/hope, let down by vaccine availability.
|
Yeah, it depends whether you go innocent until proven guilty or guilty until proven innocent. My feeling is that we are just on the wrong side of knowing for sure if the conditions can be met due to the vaccination programme. It's an unpopular view but lets vaccinate a few more and get some good data and hold for a bit. The longer we wait for better data, the more people will be vaccinated at the same time and the safer we will be.
Or, to put it another way (and I am repeating myself a bit here) what is the cost of getting it wrong? If we open too early, the cost will be lives. If we wait a little longer unnecessarily, the cost will be broadly economic. That's the decision that the government needs to make. They have been slammed in the past to not making tough decisions quick enough, and potentially people died due to the slow movement of lockdowns, closing borders,
etc. Then there's the value judgement of what value you put on lives over the economy.
Glad I am not the one making those decisions!