to not understand what Sue Perkins is referring to?

[avrilpoissons]

"I see Britain’s third best eugenicist has been using the crayons again...."

WTF is she on about? It's obviously something super intelligent but it's beyond me.

Your arguments are both ideological and rhetorical.

My argument is that the intervention will cost more lives than it saves, and do long-term economic and cultural damage.

That's not rhetorical.

"Let's experiment on poor countries' is rhetorical.

It is not rhetorical to suggest we will collect useful data from poor countries on uncontrolled transmission, though, is it? It’s a fact.

Your argument, however, is as yet unproven. You may be right, who knows?

Firstly that is completely irrelevant to anything I've said, and secondly, I think this conversation has well and truly run its course.

What is irrelevant to anything you have said? You said my statement of fact was rhetorical? But yes, I agree this has run its course.

Actually, sorry, that was inflammatory of me. I should not have said experiment.

One problem is that the Gov is 'forced' into positions due to screaming headlines in the tabloids and Social Media - followed by screaming members of the public demanding action on whatever it is - the something must be done attitude.
Hence we get action - when perhaps inaction would have been better, or in many cases, measured action when the true facts were known and evaluated. But unfortunately Social Media rules and we get things like funding for Mermaids, individuals sacked when many were to blame.

It is where we are at and the anger TY's article generated is evidence of that, we can't turn the clock back.

I don’t think tabloid headlines are forcing this Government’s hands, I think international pressure is. This is a worldwide issue and countries are reliant on worldwide approval for trade.

Agree with @HennyPenny4

Also agree with HennyPenny4.

Identity politics is so much easier for many though. Critical thinking takes effort and independence of mind.

If lots of other countries in the world said, “save the world economy by going back to work and getting this virus over with as quickly as possible by letting it run its course unchecked,” then I’m sure this Government would be happy to jump on that bandwagon.

Saying that the Economy must be protected over and above people's health is ridiculous. The economy is the economy, a reflection of what's being spent and saved. The economy will need to change, and hopefully it will move to a basis less likely to reward disaster capitalists and the gamblers of the stock exchange. A basis on which it is deployed to serve the needs of the population would be ideal.

For too long the economy seems to have occupied the headspace that religion used to - some sort of ineffable being from which all good flows, which must be bowed to and the basic principles of which must not be questioned.

Bollocks.

Recent events remind us once again that corporations aren't altruistic, that job creation isn't a pure benefit, that the most important jobs don't always attract the largest salary, and that, actually, people have needs the free market won't meet.

So let's stop assuming the Economy must be preserved in its current state of managed dysfunction. Let's plan for a future where the economy reflects and supports a population's needs.