Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman
There’s no clear definition of “vulnerable” for the virus. Yes, there are higher at risk groups but there are also those outwith having severe health impacts, and ultimately deaths.
Shutting down the economy can easily be sustained, repeated and enforced if that’s the most cost effective way of dealing with the virus.
You can continue to stand by statements all you like however when they are flawed and against all known evidence then it simply discredits your arguments.
Again based on the flawed belief that human behaviour returns to normal or that businesses can survive on reduced demand in the economy. For many they cannot - and when they scale back and put people on the dole the outcome is inevitable. An entrenched long term recession that will be harder to get out of and cost the public purse more in the long run.
Unless the Government intends to stimulate demand in the economy - but that goes against your ideology and defeats your original intent which is to keep the state out of it.
How would the numbers be lower by “protecting the vulnerable”. We protected the vulnerable, and everyone else while we were at it, and still had devastating figures.
It’s a flawed logic, ignores reality and distracts from the steps that we, and all other countries, must take if there’s to be any meaningful return to normal for the foreseeable future.
---------- Post added at 12:50 ---------- Previous post was at 12:49 ----------
Which is why elimination should have been the obvious choice. While it’s a high short term cost, it has the greatest long term gains.
|
Now you are just arguing for the sake of it. We do know who the high risk groups are, and 'vulnerable' people have underlying health conditions. By isolating them, most deaths can be avoided.
Shutting down the economy has a dreadful impact on businesses, creating unemployment on potentially a massive scale. For some perverse reason, you may not care about that, but there are many, many parents with children for whom this would be their worst nightmare, taking them from financial security and throwing them into poverty. Your answer to the crisis would simply kill the goose that lays golden eggs.
You reference my quote relating to second waves and statistics from other countries as being 'flawed and against all known evidence'. Really, jfman, what planet are you on? Regarding second waves, unless you are completely cut off from the news, you must have heard the scientists talking about that (and indeed further waves), which the likes of China and Germany are already experiencing - and during the hot summer months, too). This highly infectious disease has not gone away, so what do you expect? Anyone who has not yet had the virus will ultimately get it until such time as we acquire the herd immunity you hate talking about or the virus comes to the end of its life for some natural reason and dies out by itself. That, however, is wishful thinking, but scientists do think that might happen.
As for the statistics from other countries, do come off it! You may wish, for your own reasons, to show the UK in a bad light, but can you really not see that each country has its own way of compiling these figures? You are not comparing like for like when we include all known Covid deaths and some countries are only recording deaths in hospitals. If we did that, current figures for the UK would be about 26,000 deaths. How do I know that? Well, because the government's own figures show that 62% of deaths have been in hospitals.
Going back to 'protecting the vulnerable', we did not do a good job on that. Had we done so, we would not have allowed our care homes to be infected with the virus as we did, would we?
I'm sorry, jfman, but it is your arguments that are flawed, not mine. The only way this virus will be defeated is if we (a) let it run through the community while protecting the vulnerable and 'at risk' groups, with tight security in care homes; (b) finding, testing, mass manufacturing and then inoculating everyone against the virus, which will take years; or (c) the virus gives up the ghost by itself. The contact and trace systems out there will slow down the virus, but it will not be eliminated by this method.
I cannot see any other practical alternatives. Some countries with lower figures may be a little too quick to be congratulating themselves now, before further waves strike them.