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.


1 to 20 of 77rss feed

1 2 3 4 Next Last

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.
‘ The fact is the vast vast majority of people will survive’

And what expert knowledge have you based that on?
Question Author
^^^err, the worldwide statistics.
Show me
Question Author
Come on mate, keep up, the majority are surviving. Surely you don't need me to post a link to that fact do you?
The economy doesn't take precedence, hence there will be a recession after all of this is over.
There will be so many Companies that say to themselves "Hang on, we have managed to survive with skeleton staff so why don`t we try to continue on like that?" Plus, they will have managed to survive with a percentage of their workers working from home so they will realise that they don`t actually need that large building that they work from and all of the associated staff that work there (cleaners etc) The working world will be quite different when this is all over
Yes I do. Otherwise you’re talking cobblers as per. J
I posted a link.
Naomi, that proves the diametric opposite. Thanks.
Just for interest
"The new figures also reveal the age groups of those who have died to date. More than half of the patients (52%) who have died with coronavirus were over 80 years of age. Most of the other deaths (40%) were among patients aged between 60 and 79. A further 7% of deaths occurred in those aged between 40 and 5"

Because you’ve just shown stats that prove that young people with zero underlying conditions are dying. How the hell does that show that the vast majority people will survive?
//‘ The fact is the vast vast majority of people will survive’ //

You questioned that^ statement, Zacs. I've given you the evidence you requested to confirm that statement is accurate.
No you haven’t . You’ve just made an unfounded claim. Just like the OP.
I agree with you desktop. I think the economy must very soon take precedence. Allow young, fit people to carry on their normal lives whilst the elderly and vulnerable continue to isolate.
You're not good at sums then, zacs. Okay.
Question Author
You're being wilfully obtuse Zacs-master.

The majority of people are surviving. That is an absolutely undeniable fact. To argue otherwise is idiocy.

But the question is, when does the economy take precedence?
The only part of the OP which is accurate is ‘ the issues people are currently facing will pale in comparison‘

Buckle up. It’s gonna be a bumpy ride.
I would expect that countries will relax restrictions only bit-by-bit, and possibly also only when there's some level of confidence about who is safe from the dangers. Open up too soon and the virus explodes again; open up too late and, yes, there may be other risks from prolonged shutdown.

Statistics around Covid-19 paint a confusing picture right now, but the best estimates of the overall fatality rate seem to be honing in on the 0.5%-1% range, which, given its reach and ability to spread, is still a lot. It seems to be more dangerous than seasonal flu, for example, and certainly faster-spreading. Therefore, the fact that most people who get it recover is neither here nor there: if we allowed Coronavirus to spread across the country the death toll would be tremendously high, almost certainly in the hundreds of thousands, and on top of the background death rate at that.

It's difficult to weigh that against the effects of long-term shutdown. Hopefully there's a place to find a balance. I'd have thought that the UK Government's hope is to be able to certify people healthy (either immune or virus-free) so that economic activity could start to resume, although whether that will be achievable and how long it would take is anyone's guess.

Otherwise the only endgame is to hope that a vaccine is developed and mass-produced in record time, and that the virus doesn't mutate as frequently as flu.

1 to 20 of 77rss feed

1 2 3 4 Next Last

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.