Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh
But you have consistently, and persistently, been against lockdowns in the UK because of this "logic".
But in reality, because we locked down, we delayed the infections enough to get working vaccines, which have avoided/prevented greater numbers of deaths, infections, and hospitalisations in the UK.
|
Not quite, Hugh. I resisted the first lockdown because at that time, we had no defence against it and there was great pessimism about ever getting a vaccine. The point was made that scientists had been working on this for decades but no effective vaccine had been found. In those circumstances, lockdowns would simply ruin the economy without preventing deaths. Mortality is simply spread over a longer period.
There are some, even today, who think lockdowns will actually get rid of the virus. They don’t.
My position on this changed when, to everyone’s astonishment, the scientists actually came up with a vaccine, and that changed everything. So I went along with the lockdown idea for a while, until the immunisation programme was well under way. However, I was of the strong opinion that all measures needed to be relaxed by 1 April, given that all the vulnerable groups had been vaccinated by then and further restrictions would continue to cripple the economy.
Even now, people are unwilling to cast aside their masks and want nightclubs shut down again despite falling numbers and the school summer holidays getting underway. Some are still arguing for another lockdown and think there will be a winter Covid crisis despite all common sense dictating that the opposite will happen.
---------- Post added at 13:28 ---------- Previous post was at 13:27 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees
Don't, this gives credence to OB's theory that the quantity of people infected would remain the same, only the time period over which they became infected would change. Which, is of course, utter gibberish.
|
No, it’s not. How do lockdowns do anything but delay infections?