Quizzes & Puzzles7 mins ago
Are You Pro Lock Down Or Against?
92 Answers
It seems that the country is divided.
On one side is those who say let's get things back to normal and the consequences of the devistation of the economy is not a price worth paying against the relatively small number of deaths (50000 out of a population of 67 million).
The other side says full lock down must continue until there are no deaths and we have a vaccine, ie lives are more important than the economy.
I am in the get things back to normal camp ASAP, as we are a lot better capable of treating the illness than we were before and its something we will just have to live with, like flu deaths.
What do others think?
On one side is those who say let's get things back to normal and the consequences of the devistation of the economy is not a price worth paying against the relatively small number of deaths (50000 out of a population of 67 million).
The other side says full lock down must continue until there are no deaths and we have a vaccine, ie lives are more important than the economy.
I am in the get things back to normal camp ASAP, as we are a lot better capable of treating the illness than we were before and its something we will just have to live with, like flu deaths.
What do others think?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by dave50. 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.
We’ve been on lockdown since early March, and with exceptions (the Ocado man not carrying the shopping past the front door, for example), we’re happy with it.
Doctors’ appointments by phone? What’s not to like?
Far fewer people banging on our door wanting this or that, cleaner air, less traffic noise, Heathrow down the road quiet. All good.
Capitalism slowed down to a less frantic pace.
Death and sickness, of course we don’t want, but most aspects of this quieter world suit us very well.
Doctors’ appointments by phone? What’s not to like?
Far fewer people banging on our door wanting this or that, cleaner air, less traffic noise, Heathrow down the road quiet. All good.
Capitalism slowed down to a less frantic pace.
Death and sickness, of course we don’t want, but most aspects of this quieter world suit us very well.
As to the original question, when ymb writes "If you are talking about right now then I am against lockdown," then I can't say I disagree with this (emphasis added). I'm not sure I understand the Government's strategy. For most of June and July, while the lockdown of April/May was being eased, I was expecting to see cases and maybe deaths start to rise. Not sure I ever said as much on AB, but it was pretty clear from my tone. I was pleased to see that, for the most part, they did not, and indeed ONS deaths data suggested that the death rate had returned to normal. Under those circumstances, wasn't that a sign that the Government's approach was working, and that my concerns of a rapid-onset "second peak" were overblown? I didn't say anything because I was waiting to see what the data showed, and they seemed to show that the worst was behind us and we could gradually re-open.
Now, of course, it was inevitable that re-opening would eventually lead to an uptick in case rate, because of course it would. But it still seems slow, linear growth at most for the last few weeks. But, even if it were something to be concerned about, I'd thought it was part of the Government's strategy to tolerate small increases as long as the NHS wasn't overwhelmed (or at least as long as there was no significant corresponding increase in hospitalisations and deaths). The announcement on Friday seems to directly go against that strategy.
Now, of course, it was inevitable that re-opening would eventually lead to an uptick in case rate, because of course it would. But it still seems slow, linear growth at most for the last few weeks. But, even if it were something to be concerned about, I'd thought it was part of the Government's strategy to tolerate small increases as long as the NHS wasn't overwhelmed (or at least as long as there was no significant corresponding increase in hospitalisations and deaths). The announcement on Friday seems to directly go against that strategy.
Naomi: I don't believe I've ever suggested anything like an end to "business generat[ing] your salary and investment provid[ing] your pension" -- or, for that matter, anything so concrete at all -- but something more like businesses and the economy adapting to the new circumstances. In so doing, we'd also be making sure that we are prepared to face something similar, and to never have to make a choice between people's lives and people's livelihoods.
For example, lockdown has necessitated a switch for many to working from home, and to business being conducted remotely. Even if you don't see that as desirable, it will presumably be no bad thing if this option were kept as a contingency, so that, when faced with the next pandemic, businesses (or as many as were able) would already have a Plan B to fall back on.
For example, lockdown has necessitated a switch for many to working from home, and to business being conducted remotely. Even if you don't see that as desirable, it will presumably be no bad thing if this option were kept as a contingency, so that, when faced with the next pandemic, businesses (or as many as were able) would already have a Plan B to fall back on.
I have been firmly against lockdown from the start. As has been mentioned earlier, we're going to have to live with it. I suspect that, in his heart of hearts, Boris Johnson is against lockdown as well, but he prefers the power of being PM than being kicked out by the majority of wimps in his party who want lockdown. This is lack of leadership and love of power. And it will ruin the economy.
After four months of lockdown, most people would expect that at least some lessons would have been learned, but the only way the govt has dealt with this pandemic is to tell everyone to head for the hills; stay in; don't mix with others; stay off work etc. In the end, the whole country will suffer from that lack of leadership.
After four months of lockdown, most people would expect that at least some lessons would have been learned, but the only way the govt has dealt with this pandemic is to tell everyone to head for the hills; stay in; don't mix with others; stay off work etc. In the end, the whole country will suffer from that lack of leadership.
Jim, your post at 01:26 Mon is quite extraordinary. When you say …// Not sure I ever said as much on AB, but it was pretty clear from my tone……I didn't say anything because I was waiting to see what the data showed// …one could be forgiven for assuming you think more than one here awaits your pronouncements with bated breath.
Your post at 01:35 Mon makes no sense whatsoever. Very few are able to work from home - which is what the furlough scheme is all about - and to maintain that in any viable way whatsoever, we need to have a tax-paying workforce. Additionally, you neglect to take into consideration the knock-on effects involved. People working from home results in other businesses suffering, not least pubs/restaurants, cleaning and maintenance companies, furnishers, builders, and public transport - which means all those involved in any industry destroyed by a vital section of the workforce working from home are out of business or unemployed, hence paying no taxes into government coffers, and more to the point, without government support, struggling to survive. Shops closed … okay, the simple solution is to shop on-line … but Amazon cannot exist without the physical presence of a workforce to process, pack and deliver our orders. Furthermore, you neglect to consider the devastating impact that the absence of social interaction would have on the psychological well-being of the nation. Your suggestion is ill-considered in the extreme. Its implementation would result not only in economic suicide but in social suicide too.
Allen, //Capitalism slowed down to a less frantic pace.//
Does the above sound good to your dear old Marxist heart?
Your post at 01:35 Mon makes no sense whatsoever. Very few are able to work from home - which is what the furlough scheme is all about - and to maintain that in any viable way whatsoever, we need to have a tax-paying workforce. Additionally, you neglect to take into consideration the knock-on effects involved. People working from home results in other businesses suffering, not least pubs/restaurants, cleaning and maintenance companies, furnishers, builders, and public transport - which means all those involved in any industry destroyed by a vital section of the workforce working from home are out of business or unemployed, hence paying no taxes into government coffers, and more to the point, without government support, struggling to survive. Shops closed … okay, the simple solution is to shop on-line … but Amazon cannot exist without the physical presence of a workforce to process, pack and deliver our orders. Furthermore, you neglect to consider the devastating impact that the absence of social interaction would have on the psychological well-being of the nation. Your suggestion is ill-considered in the extreme. Its implementation would result not only in economic suicide but in social suicide too.
Allen, //Capitalism slowed down to a less frantic pace.//
Does the above sound good to your dear old Marxist heart?
// when faced with the next pandemic, businesses (or as many as were able) would already have a Plan B to fall back on. //
that's fine, up to a point and pre-supposes the government of the day are willing and/or able to sustain the economy, if not single handedly then in the greater part.
take public transport. it continued to operate at reduced levels all through the emergency and is now operating at about 75% of capability. not capacity, mind, because social distancing means 25% or less available space. on the railways it's been able to do that because franchises have been suspended and the train operators are being paid concessions to run the trains. this is costing an insane amount of money and even though there are more people travelling (particularly at weekends) these are leisure journeys and not the business travel on which the industry relies for its major income. at some point somebody (probably us, the taxpayer) is going to have to start paying for this. or we accept that in the "new normal" there can be no public transport.
the government are providing subsidies of various kinds to many other industries, including furlough, payment holidays and in some cases, straight bail-outs. this is unsustainable and cannot be the basis for a "new normal" business model. somebody has to pay, and in order for that, somebody has to be earning.
that's fine, up to a point and pre-supposes the government of the day are willing and/or able to sustain the economy, if not single handedly then in the greater part.
take public transport. it continued to operate at reduced levels all through the emergency and is now operating at about 75% of capability. not capacity, mind, because social distancing means 25% or less available space. on the railways it's been able to do that because franchises have been suspended and the train operators are being paid concessions to run the trains. this is costing an insane amount of money and even though there are more people travelling (particularly at weekends) these are leisure journeys and not the business travel on which the industry relies for its major income. at some point somebody (probably us, the taxpayer) is going to have to start paying for this. or we accept that in the "new normal" there can be no public transport.
the government are providing subsidies of various kinds to many other industries, including furlough, payment holidays and in some cases, straight bail-outs. this is unsustainable and cannot be the basis for a "new normal" business model. somebody has to pay, and in order for that, somebody has to be earning.
// Jim, your post at 01:26 Mon is quite extraordinary. When you say …// Not sure I ever said as much on AB, but it was pretty clear from my tone……I didn't say anything because I was waiting to see what the data showed// …one could be forgiven for assuming you think more than one here awaits your pronouncements with bated breath. //
It's difficult to know how to respond to this first point. I'm merely explaining my position, and at no point was it necessary for me to assume that anyone cared about it beyond the fact that, presumably, some people *do* read what I write. What, then, is your point?
It's difficult to know how to respond to this first point. I'm merely explaining my position, and at no point was it necessary for me to assume that anyone cared about it beyond the fact that, presumably, some people *do* read what I write. What, then, is your point?
12.02 I can't really disagree with what you say. But lets just go back to pre pandemic, while accepting that the government have borrowed, it just go's to show that they could have splashed the cash when the NHS, needed more funds, and we needed more police,the home care being ignored, the list is more or less endless of what they could have done, but didn't. I'm sure others can think of a lot more that they could have invested into, considering the billions they have been able to find now
// Additionally, you neglect to take into consideration the knock-on effects involved. //
It's not so much that I neglected it, although granted I didn't talk about this. I don't have an answer to that, at the moment (or possibly ever). Still, it's a bit much to talk about "economic suicide", because:
1. I had thought the "as many as were able" part covered this point. If a business is incapable, by nature, of switching to remote working then something else will have to do.
2. I also thought that I was making clear that this was about establishing a contingency when it becomes necessary, rather than the day-to-day routine. The biggest flaw that Covid-19 has exposed is that there is no back-up system for when things need to change rapidly.
In this last, at least, I'd have thought there is no argument: the lockdown response was devastating because businesses were asked to change to a new system that didn't yet exist. But the change was necessary, or judged to be necessary, because the alternative was (or appeared to be) that many tens of thousands would die in order for the economy to function "normally". Of course even that is a fallacy, because if so many people are sick or dying at once then the economy merely gets broken in a different way and over a longer period.
It may be that I don't have the answer, I'm happy to accept that point, but can you not agree that the question is valid? Is the only way an economy can function genuinely one that requires, or demands, that a deadly disease is simply ignored? Is it "economic suicide" to develop contingencies that ensure such a choice need never be made in future?
It's not so much that I neglected it, although granted I didn't talk about this. I don't have an answer to that, at the moment (or possibly ever). Still, it's a bit much to talk about "economic suicide", because:
1. I had thought the "as many as were able" part covered this point. If a business is incapable, by nature, of switching to remote working then something else will have to do.
2. I also thought that I was making clear that this was about establishing a contingency when it becomes necessary, rather than the day-to-day routine. The biggest flaw that Covid-19 has exposed is that there is no back-up system for when things need to change rapidly.
In this last, at least, I'd have thought there is no argument: the lockdown response was devastating because businesses were asked to change to a new system that didn't yet exist. But the change was necessary, or judged to be necessary, because the alternative was (or appeared to be) that many tens of thousands would die in order for the economy to function "normally". Of course even that is a fallacy, because if so many people are sick or dying at once then the economy merely gets broken in a different way and over a longer period.
It may be that I don't have the answer, I'm happy to accept that point, but can you not agree that the question is valid? Is the only way an economy can function genuinely one that requires, or demands, that a deadly disease is simply ignored? Is it "economic suicide" to develop contingencies that ensure such a choice need never be made in future?
// they could have splashed the cash when the NHS, needed more funds, and we needed more police, the home care being ignored, the list is more or less endless of what they could have done, but didn't. //
if the government had gone on a borrowing spree and done just that, would they have been able, later, to have borrowed an equivalent amount of billions to service the pandemic? if not and the economy had been left to its own devices, where would we be now? how many of the services that have proved to be essential would still be operating? how many would have died if the supply chain had failed leading to mass starvations?
if the government had gone on a borrowing spree and done just that, would they have been able, later, to have borrowed an equivalent amount of billions to service the pandemic? if not and the economy had been left to its own devices, where would we be now? how many of the services that have proved to be essential would still be operating? how many would have died if the supply chain had failed leading to mass starvations?
It goes beyond contingency schemes as well. Again I'd like to draw attention to the difference between the value society has placed on certain essential workers and the salary they receive. Particularly when it comes to nurses and other NHS staff, it's safe to say that they have been vital in keeping the damage in check. It's a small step, but is it really the best society can do as a reward for their work to (a) clap weekly, and (b) offer them a medal? Not just NHS workers, either: essential/key workers across the economic spectrum have been asked to step up during the lockdown. It doesn't strike me as unreasonable to argue that recognising their import means more than just praise, but providing them with a salary to match.
And just to add to my post, Boris and is gang promised new hospitals, what I didn't realise at the time I voted for him was that Boris's idea of a new hospital, is one that is repaired, that's a bit like me saying I'm going to have a new living room, and just slapping some new wall paper on. Very deceitful !!
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles18 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles75 mins ago
New Revelation (Decently Long)
Family & Relationships146 mins ago
Which Outfit For The Gig Tonight?
Shopping & Style190 mins ago
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.