f*** the Govt Time to Let Some Fans In

[Ronnie Hotdogs]

GROW UP
ACCEPT WHERE WE ARE
GET ON WITH LIFE

might just work as the governments next yellow and green three liner.

[George M]

I would support that catchy message at least.

[A Pedant]

In March we were told that there was a danger that we would all become infected at the same time and over run the NHS.

Not all, just too many at the same time. The latter, yes.

The lockdown at the time successfully prevented that happening. The lockdown was not in place to stop us all becoming infected. It was in place to slow the infection down.

Correct.

What are the reasons for a lockdown now.

Exactly the same. Keep the number of infections down so that the NHS isn't overwhelmed over the winter.

So we close everything again. Then what ?
We open up again in the spring / summer and it starts all over again.

What happens after the numbers of infections are brought back down depends on the decisions of the government. Maybe they'll come up with different measures to control the virus than this summer, maybe a rapid test will be developed alongside much better tracking, tracing and isolating, maybe there will even be an effective vaccine.

And in the meantime we crash the economy irreversibly , plunge millions into unemployment and poverty, and destroy the prospects of the young.

That entirely depends on what the government decides to do to support the economy. While the government debt is high in recent terms, in historic terms it's nowhere near the post-Second World War level of debt to GDP ratio.

More people will die as a direct result of these pointless policies than will die of Covid.

And you have forecasts of numbers to back up that claim?

[Disoriented]

Still waiting for Spen to apologise for his insistence that crowds would be let in from September.

[George M]

Pedant. Nice review. The last lockdown was to prevent overwhelming the NHS in the spring / summer. This time it is to protect the NHS in the winter. What will it be next time.
I don’t have your faith in the government to come up with another or better plan next time. The war debt was to fund the war. People still worked. And as far as I am aware , it took 60 years to repay.
I didn’t mention government debt or their ability to pay it back.
I pointed out that crashing the economy irreversibly will have a much bigger impact on our ability to recover.

[A Pedant]

I don’t have your faith in the government to come up with another or better plan next time.

Who said I did? I'm merely stating possibilities to answer your "then what?".

The war debt was to fund the war. People still worked. And as far as I am aware , it took 60 years to repay.
I didn’t mention government debt or their ability to pay it back.
I pointed out that crashing the economy irreversibly will have a much bigger impact on our ability to recover.

War debt was to fund war to protect this country, so now there's COVID debt to protect this country again. Yes it will take a very long time to pay back, but having spent so much thus far on boosting NHS capability, the Job Retention Scheme, Self-Employment Income Support Scheme, Eat Out To Help Out, and what's to come with the Job Support Scheme, etc., it would be a monumental waste not to press on.

The point is that the government has the tools available, as it can borrow at record low rates, to prevent the irreversible crash to the economy you speak of.

[George M]

We don’t need to protect the country from Covid in such a drastic fashion. 40,000 deaths is hardly comparable with the numbers lost in the war. It’s also a tiny percentage of our 70 million population.
We know who the vulnerable are , so protect them.

As I said previously, and this sounds as though it applies to you.

GROW UP
ACCEPT WHERE WE ARE
GET ON WITH LIFE.

[Disoriented]

We don’t need to protect the country from Covid in such a drastic fashion. 40,000 deaths is hardly comparable with the numbers lost in the war. It’s also a tiny percentage of our 70 million population.
We know who the vulnerable are , so protect them.

As I said previously, and this sounds as though it applies to you.

GROW UP
ACCEPT WHERE WE ARE
GET ON WITH LIFE.

Are you for real, or simply another WUM alias?

Genuine question.

[BoniO]

We don’t need to protect the country from Covid in such a drastic fashion. 40,000 deaths is hardly comparable with the numbers lost in the war. It’s also a tiny percentage of our 70 million population.
We know who the vulnerable are , so protect them.

As I said previously, and this sounds as though it applies to you.

GROW UP
ACCEPT WHERE WE ARE
GET ON WITH LIFE.

Please explain what you mean by "protect the vulnerable", and how can we do that?

[aylesburyos]

We don’t need to protect the country from Covid in such a drastic fashion. 40,000 deaths is hardly comparable with the numbers lost in the war. It’s also a tiny percentage of our 70 million population.
We know who the vulnerable are , so protect them.

As I said previously, and this sounds as though it applies to you.

GROW UP
ACCEPT WHERE WE ARE
GET ON WITH LIFE.

Agree George. Far more will suffer from depression, mental health, Suicide, divorce if we do not just get on with life

[A Pedant]

We don’t need to protect the country from Covid in such a drastic fashion. 40,000 deaths is hardly comparable with the numbers lost in the war. It’s also a tiny percentage of our 70 million population.
We know who the vulnerable are , so protect them.

As I said previously, and this sounds as though it applies to you.

GROW UP
ACCEPT WHERE WE ARE
GET ON WITH LIFE.

Wow. Brushing off 40,000+ deaths as nothing much. Forgive me if I don't take your shouty capitals instructions.

[George M]

Pedant. When did I brush of 40,000 deaths. I simply said you cannot make comparisons with the World Wars.
In answer to the Protect the vulnerable question....It’s easy. The vulnerable should be shielding.
Anyone young , fit , healthy should be getting on with life.

[BoniO]

Pedant. When did I brush of 40,000 deaths. I simply said you cannot make comparisons with the World Wars.
In answer to the Protect the vulnerable question....It’s easy. The vulnerable should be shielding.
Anyone young , fit , healthy should be getting on with life.

"The vulnerable should be shielding" - so clearly this would also involve all the care workers who look after them and all their families. I guess the over 65's are more vulnerable as well or do they just "take their chances?". If the over 65's need to shield then there's all the people who look after them who'd need to lockdown as well, oh and all their families too. Ah, but many of those families who have carers in would likely have kids as well. Right so their kids couldn't risk going to school and coming home with the virus so they'd have to lockdown too. It's not that easy at all when you start to think about it is it?

You're probably another tedious WUM and I know I'm probably wasting my time but hey-ho, I'm not overly busy at the moment.

[Story of O]

If was in my 80's I would rather live my life than shield. At that age every day is a bonus and you could die at anytime.

[tuffers#1]

If was in my 80's I would rather live my life than shield. At that age every day is a bonus and you could die at anytime.

You could also live another 20 years & raise £30+ million for charities
when you are a few.months short of your 100th birthday .
Dont know how many of the " YOUNG" will EVER ACHIEVE SUCH A REMARKABLE FEAT.

[George M]

BoniO. I have my opinions on this. You are entitled to yours. My main point is that the measures we are currently employing are pointless. The virus is showing no signs of going away and any lockdown measures , local or national either need to be strict and permanent, or not at all.
The social and economic implications of these current policies will be far reaching and damaging.

Mental health issues , deaths from undetected cancers , suicides , domestic violence, mass unemployment , civil unrest , irreversible damage to the economy. Make your choice.

Probably best come back in 6 months and discuss again.

[BoniO]

BoniO. I have my opinions on this. You are entitled to yours. My main point is that the measures we are currently employing are pointless. The virus is showing no signs of going away and any lockdown measures , local or national either need to be strict and permanent, or not at all.
The social and economic implications of these current policies will be far reaching and damaging.

Mental health issues , deaths from undetected cancers , suicides , domestic violence, mass unemployment , civil unrest , irreversible damage to the economy. Make your choice.

Probably best come back in 6 months and discuss again.

I have no problem with you having a different opinion. I am also concerned about the effects of any restrictions on "normal" life.

I do differ about how long any new lockdown needs to be though. Why does it need to be permanent? That makes no sense. A short 2 week lockdown with high compliance would radically slow down the virus spread.

And as mentioned above. How can we simply isolate/lockdown the vulnerable without doing the same with millions more care-workers and their extended families?

[PoliticOs]

If your concern is not living in a country with mental health issues, suicides, domestic violence, mass unemployment and civil unrest and ensuring we keep away from those sort of policies, I'll wager you moved to the UK in around February and didn't do any research?

[Story of O]

We had a long lockdown at the start of this and numbers came down. Restrictions were eased and slowly we have got to where are now and so another lockdown is being spoken about. What's to say if we lockdown now the same thing won't happen again. We can't go on like this for much longer without serious damage to the economy and the unseen damage to peoples mental health could be huge. We have to eventually learn to live with Covid.

[BoniO]

If your concern is not living in a country with mental health issues, suicides, domestic violence, mass unemployment and civil unrest and ensuring we keep away from those sort of policies, I'll wager you moved to the UK in around February and didn't do any research?

Sorry, not sure if that's aimed at me but it makes no sense at all.

[George M]

PoliticOs
You are bright enough to add more/higher to those categories. I think most understood.
For the record , I am 62 , born in London, and have worked through 3 awful recessions .
This recession could be the most damaging of all.

[PoliticOs]

If your concern is not living in a country with mental health issues, suicides, domestic violence, mass unemployment and civil unrest and ensuring we keep away from those sort of policies, I'll wager you moved to the UK in around February and didn't do any research?

Sorry, not sure if that's aimed at me but it makes no sense at all.

It's not, it was aimed at George. My point being we are using 'what about mental health!'' as if it is the vital reason to not lockdown, when we've had a mental health crisis in this country for a long time without strong enough public opinion to ever change it. Feels like a trojan horse reason.

[PoliticOs]

PoliticOs
You are bright enough to add more/higher to those categories. I think most understood.
For the record , I am 62 , born in London, and have worked through 3 awful recessions .
This recession could be the most damaging of all.

It probably will be! And the death rates causes from those previous crises are not to be underestimated, nor the austerity that followed. But none of those issues were, literally, airborne.

[George M]

PoliticOs
Who was underestimating. I take your point about historic problems with mental health and the other issues.
Let’s resume in 6 months when I may be judged as being overly pessimistic.
If so I will gladly apologise

[BoniO]

PoliticOs
You are bright enough to add more/higher to those categories. I think most understood.
For the record , I am 62 , born in London, and have worked through 3 awful recessions .
This recession could be the most damaging of all.

Well I'm even older at 65 and I also worked through recessions and every other up/down of the economy (so did many millions of others I believe). I really am worried about the economic impact over the next years, and for many years after I guess. I'm mostly worried on the impact on my children and their offspring. It's going to be a very rough ride.

I'm not ignoring the effects on the economy of any further lockdowns or other restrictions. I just don't believe we can "simply" isolate the vulnerable and let everyone else crack on as normal. It can't work like that because of the numbers of people (plus their families) who support the vulnerable (to include the old).