At What Point Does The Economy Take Precdence?

Avatar Image
Deskdiary | 21:59 Sat 04th Apr 2020 | News
77 Answers
Young people and new that otherwise healthy people in their 20s, 30s and 40s are succumbing is being reported because it's exceptional. They are the exception that proves the rule.

The fact is the vast vast majority of people will survive, some of whom may well only have mild symptoms, so (and I fully accept this is going to annoy people - and unlike many on on AB I'm not an expert!) at what point do we learn to accept the losses, get people out of the lockdown and focus on the economy?

If the lockdown continues for too long, if as a result of the lockdown people remain furloughed, and if companies start to go to the wall, at some point surely we need to run the risk and end the lockdown.

Frankly, if the economy becomes becomes fubarred, the issues people are currently facing will pale in comparison.


61 to 77 of 77rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3 4

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by Deskdiary. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Then tell me, because I’m genuinely at a loss where I’ve got any figures wrong.
Even if we only took into account confirmed cases with outcome, 80% of people recover. Throwing in all the cases that never come to the attention of authorities mean that this number is almost certain to rise. I think it's safe to say that the vast majority recover from Covid-19. The question is whether to focus on that or the continued rise in number of deaths per day.
Zacs, from the figures we know, the majority are surviving it.
As I understand it the aim of this government at least has not been to “eradicate” the virus through lockdown, but manage the spread so there is not a horrendous short lived peak that the NHS cannot deal with. When the hopefully more plateau-like peak has passed then they’ll start to lift the restrictions on the understanding that some may come back as the number of cases inevitably rises again. The problem with that approach is it is lengthy and hence the argument about the cost to the economy etc. It IS actually useful, as was originally stated by the chief scientist, that people get the virus. So that will get factored in too.
That was always going to be the case, pixie but you’re missing the point, which is ensuring that the NHS is able to cope.
That is my point, zacs. That is why we are trying to slow it down, even though it will last longer.
// At What Point Does The Economy Take Precedence? //

It doesn’t. It can’t halfway through. They could have done it at the beginning (and I suspect that was the original plan with herd immunity) but they quickly abandoned that. So the economy is now severely damaged, and will take years to recover. And changing tack now will not undo the damage or speed up the recovery.
That option went long ago.
There is no "herd immunity route" Herd immunity is what (hopefully) will happen over time anyway. Herd immunity was a factor in waht is happening, but the plan was never "lets just let everybody catch it all at once and see who survives"
Protecting the population is about the economy as well as the people.
// the plan was never "lets just let everybody catch it all at once and see who survives" //

It appeared that was exactly the plan at the beginning. The UK was one of the last in Europe to impose isolation Measures, and still is not properly testing or tracing contacts.

// For a few days, Britain stood alone. While continental Europeans were closing schools and putting soldiers on the streets to enforce strict quarantine rules, the British government’s official advice to its citizens was, essentially, just to keep calm and carry on. Schools, restaurants, theaters, clubs, and sporting venues remained open; only the over-70s and those with flu-like symptoms were advised to stay at home. The low-key British response was driven by a controversial theory embraced by the U.K. government’s top scientists: that the best way to ease the long-term consequences of the coronavirus pandemic was to allow the virus to spread naturally in order to build up the population’s herd immunity. //
I don’t know where that quote comes from but there’s no evidence to back it up.
All along, rightly or wrongly, the idea was to introduce measures in a staged approach.
The chief science officer happened to mention that “we want people to get the virus” because that spreads immunity” which is quite correct. This was taken to mean “we want to defeat it that way”. But that’s a long term aim.
Then the Imperial College report modelling deaths in the six figures spooked them into speeding things up.
Other science doesn’t necessarily agree even within the govt’s own advisers. One at least DOES seem to be advocating the “let us catch it” approach while at least another thinks the lockdown should continue indefinitely.
Total societal breakdown, I suppose. What do you think, Roy?

As you know I think the government handouts were bullcrap, something I would have expected from a Corbyn government.
Obviously doing what they did means the longer the virus lasts the more likely we will get a 'Total societal breakdown'

We are clearly not in this together.
... whereas leaving people penniless wouldn’t have?
I’m glad you aren’t running things ...
... whereas leaving people penniless wouldn’t have?

Who said that?
// This is a noVel experiment in isolating people to curtail a disease and it has never been attempted ////

nope complete AB crap of course = the usual . Someone above gave four example from history where isolation was used/ They were - quarantine, 1665 plague, leprosaria generally as examples of isolation before 2020.

I think he must said
o god damn it - I just wish people wouldnt write like this

because he tires easily of reading simple-to-refute boolloox on AB on a daily basis.
if you dont believe me - ask him

If something kills 30 people one day and the next 50
I think you can conclude that it is getting worse - I think you CAN'T conclude it is obviously getting better.

I am not sure if I understand people who say these figures are useless because they are 21 d old
they arent useless = it shows that 21 d ago things looked worse .....

but you know I am just a retired .... scientist
Two ignoramuses on one thread.
I see the the Pedant ( defining quality - cf ¬ ) can't let go.

I will be more explicit:

~// This is a noVel experiment in isolating people to curtail a disease and it has never been attempted //// ~

What is NEW ( = novel) and UNIQUE is that rules are being applied to an ENTIRE country ( many countries in fact ) in our times, with our societal structures/infrastructures/communication systems/transport systems/etc and this is the first time this has ever been done.

We are not living in the era of Defoe with The Great Plague.

"I am not sure if I understand people who say these figures are useless because they are 21 d old
they arent useless = it shows that 21 d ago things looked worse ....."

What figures ?? Is the Pedant using that old ruse of general condemnation with an *unspecific* accusation ?

Well let's get 'specific* about some peoples doubts: there seems little consistency in how different countries 'present' their statistics, and confusion in how the UK compiles its statistics, and a question of actual competency. ( we'll ignore that 'nasty!' talk of Truth, haste and 'The Fog of War )

"but you know I am just a retired .... scientist "

Well let's not let details interfere Pedant, what were the FOUR
"example from history where isolation was used".

Keep technocratically strong Peter.

I do believe there is a point that is fast approaching, where the governments of the world have to balance their lockdown measures, and the intended result of flattening the peak of the virus spread, against the long term economic damage being inflicted as a result.

To put it bluntly, can you have a lockdown to protect a section of the population, if the end result is economic oblivion, which means that everyone, those at risk, and those not, are all subject to the same unthinkable future, where we have saved the lives of some, at the future expense of the lives of everyone.

61 to 77 of 77rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3 4

Do you know the answer?

At What Point Does The Economy Take Precdence?

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.