[jfman]

Originally Posted by nffc

That may well be true.

But a fully open economy (with inherent risks of sickness absence as there always is with people actually going to work) has a much better chance of supporting those who are unable to work whilst ill or to fund the improvements needed in the NHS to improve capacity and cope with the 3-4 waves of covid admissions we will probably get (though this is ever decreasing in terms of severity to expected cases this year compared to last and 2020) usually whenever there's a variant which has significant immune escape for our 2020 vaccines which take no account at all of the virus having since mutated (so the new vaccines which are coming are probably a game changer themselves).

If updated vaccines are rolled out, and not two variants out of date by the time they are, then yes they do have the potential to be a game changer.
Sunak as Chancellor had already questioned the expenditure involved, raising the question of whether we genuinely mean learn to live with the virus and not just the pretend it’s 2019 approach. If we won’t even pay for that there’s going to be nothing in terms of improving ventilation in public buildings.

Certainly more so than closing places or restricting the way they trade by reducing their capacity or making people uncomfortable by having to wear masks, check in, install spying apps on their phones etc.

Spying apps? I must have missed those. Masks are fundamentally not a trading restriction, especially in non-optional settings like public transport, healthcare settings, etc.

There is obviously a reduction in trade in these places when such measures are introduced, after all. And it is things like travel (fuel duty), pubs/restaurants (alcohol duty) and having fun which bring in tax and which if they were not open would make this task harder, not easier - or you would need to completely plan again where and how you taxed people to get the required income.

Where and how you tax people is a legitimate point, and something that needs approached anyway with online trade killing off the high street. Similarly with the virus running unabated a sizeable proportion of the public either will not ever, or for the majority of the time, return to city centre offices. Something we are lagging behind our EU counterparts with. This impacts on the economy if they all take personal responsibility and hide away on Microsoft Teams with an entire service sector under threat - a situation exacerbated by the cost of living crisis.

"support those unemployed by the virus"? I'm assuming here you mean people who are unable to work due to being permanently incapacitated, as opposed to those who the virus response has meant their job no longer exists? In which case, what support do they need other than what incapacity benefits already exist?

More people joining that queue after every variant, multiple times per year costs more money. As does the coronavirus health service on a 52 week a year flu season.

Many of the fundamentals that underpinned “running hot” with delta infections to supplement vaccine immunity (e.g. lasting immunity) have been disproven. The rewards (economic growth relative to other approaches) unrealised.