If you're calling for schools to go back, restrictions to be relaxed...

[GrumpiestOldWoman]

...were you also in the group shouting for a lockdown a month ago?

People seem to be as desperate to open things back up now as they were to lockdown a month ago, yet we're still not over the peak.

It's hard not to conclude that the novelty has worn off.

Why are the press giving more airtime to 'relax restrictions' messages rather than 'UK worst in Europe' which we clearly are when care home deaths are added to the hospital deaths numbers? When other countries were reporting the death numbers we have today the UK was screaming for lockdown, but now it doesn't seem to be newsworthy

I don't get it?

[Everyexitisanentrance]

Found it 👷‍♀️

[Thripp]

were you also in the group shouting for a lockdown a month ago?

No, I wasn't. I was completely opposed to lockdown. I remain opposed to it (though am going along with it, with very bad grace). I was opposed to schools shutting. I want them to open again, and for life to return to normal, asap.

I have lost my income, and my teenagers, who should be taking GCSEs and A levels, stand to lose their home. I really want as much normality as possible to be restored.

[MigginsMs]

Yes let’s all go back to our normal lives and sod the people who die from this virus. As long as we’re making money and can shop til we drop to boost the coffers of the millionaires. Excellent plan. Ffs.

What’s the solution then?

[OhTheRoses]

And whilst the dinner ladies get their acts together presumably dc of working parents can take a packed lunch.

School cleaning won't take long. Most schools are filthy anyway and most heads think they aren't. DD's HT swore the lavatories didn't smell and arranged 8.30am visits for f overnors after parents' complained. Had to collect dd when she was ill once at 4pm. The lavatories stank of stale pee once the bleach aroma wore off. So either filthy, a liar or both.

[Cherrycee]

But the lockdown, in forcibly shutting down the vast majority of economic activity, is a hugely significant reason for the meltdown. How could it not be?

It's there to prevent a much bigger societal, as well as financial meltdown. How do you think the economy would perform in the scenario I outlined in my post?

Bear in mind the UK economy does not exist in its own bubble, it is impacted by global factors and the whole world is grappling with this crisis. There's a reason why the vast majority of countries have adopted some form of lockdown.

[StatisticallyChallenged]

Lockdown has forced businesses which were still trading fine in spite of the virus to close completely - ours is one of them. The virus had an impact on the economy but lockdown is a whole new ballgame as swathes of businesses are unable to earn a single penny.

To me this first lockdown was mostly about getting capacity increased in the NHS - getting past flu season, rearranging hospitals, increasing ICU, buying vents/cpaps, increasing staffing, building the nightingales. We were at risk of the virus growing too fast and overrunning.

That's still a risk, but we now have increased capacity. We also have a population who are used to lockdown and more likely to accept intrusion in order to be able to actually work, let alone anything else.

I think they will wait another few weeks to bring the case numbers down a decent amount, then gradually start lifting. This will probably be combined with the mobile phone app (and faster/more available testing), continued household quarantine, limitations on social contact, requests to still WFH where possible, probably continued shielding, and so on. The goal won't be to stop spread entirely, just to slow it to try and keep the level below NHS capacity.

There may well be a subsequent lockdown to allow a second peak, and maybe further repeats. But it might not be necessary, and the school summer holidays might help to pull things down a little too.

[lljkk]

So.. 35% plunge in GDP = 12 weeks lockdown.

Suppose we have 2 more 6 week lockdowns before end of 2020.

Does that mean 70% plunge in GDP for 2020?

What about 2021, if we had 4 x 6 week lockdowns then. 70% plunge, too?

What does 70% plunge in GDP mean? Does anyone know?

Feck it pains me to be on Xenia's side. But here I am. sigh

[Student133]

It is worth noting that this isn't simply a case of preventing covid deaths vs money, rather preventing covid deaths vs 1/3 of economic activity and secondary deaths caused by the lockdown. For example there will be many in their 20s who will currently have undiagnosed cancer not being screened, and as a result will die, just as there are many who are being saved thanks to the lockdown.

In other words, many will die whichever route policymakers take, while wouldn't have died if the pandemic never occurred. It should also be noted that the only reason we enjoy the NHS is because of a functional economy, so government will lift the lockdown as soon as they can. Also given that essentially the entire non emergency health system has stopped, it does appear that hopefully capacity won't be breached. But again, governments must measure this against procedures bit being undertaken, which will also have fatal consequences.

[LucheroTena]

We should have done Germany or Sweden. Instead we practised a kind of no mans land. I didn’t want a lockdown or school closure but the time to have done that (plus mass screening and containment) would have been around the time we failed to stop planes from Wuhan landing. I would like to see the well young back to work and school soon. The vulnerable should have been told to shield much earlier and will need to do so until best treatment is understood.

[LaurieMarlow]

It's there to prevent a much bigger societal, as well as financial meltdown

In the short term it did that. In the longer term the cure looks more harmful than the disease.

Lockdown for months on end was never on the cards though. It’s totally unworkable. From a societal, individual and economic POV.

[StatisticallyChallenged]

lljkk - it's probably not straight additive but sustained lockdowns will be crippling

What does 70% plunge in GDP mean? Does anyone know?
Fucked. That's what it means - utterly fucked. Bugger all money in tax revenues, huge civil problems. And it won't be saving lives either.

[Student133]

The economy wouldn't necessarily continue to shrink at that linear rate, instead we would more likely see industries such as restaurants heavily hit, as they would be unable to function in such an environment.

[Cherrycee]

I think the people claiming that lockdown is worse than the virus are probably the same people who downplayed covid-19 as 'just a flu' only a few weeks ago. Maybe it's because we've lived in relative peace and stability for many decades, but there is a real failure to grasp the severity of a global pandemic, and the scale of utter chaos it will bring if it's allowed to spread through the population.

[MeadowHay]

Lockdown will end when the government feel confident that NHS won't soon exceed it's capacity with covid patients, I think. I imagine some measures will remain in place though as it's not an all or nothing approach necessarily.

[Everydayishistorytomorrow]

Finances and the economy will take priority over the health of the nation every single time. The sicker we are as a nation, the better it is for GDP. Sad but true.

[LaurieMarlow]

What does 70% plunge in GDP mean? Does anyone know?

I’m sure this is very simplistic, but think of a 70% cut in all essential services, nhs, education, social, law and order.

At a time when people are starving and homeless in their droves.

It’s carnage beyond anything we can imagine.

[HarveySchlumpfenburger]

Not to mention cancer screening being put on hold which will cause deaths later down the line.

And that situation will get a thousand times worse if we end lockdown before we hit peak. The most likely outcome for the mitigation only model I.e. encouraging the vulnerable to stay at home and everyone else carrying on is 500,000-600,000 deaths from covid between now and August. That’s the entire number of deaths for the U.K. in a year condensed into 3-4 months. That’s a catastrophic death rate that will cause the entire health system to collapse very quickly. And that model doesn’t include the numbers that will die due to the health service collapsing. Not only will ‘routine’ non urgent treatment be put off but it will have an effect on urgent care as well.

There aren’t easy answers here. But for the moment lockdown is our least worst answer.

Russell. I’m sorry about your friend. It is utterly shit for cancer patients at the moment. There’s an awful balance between needing the chemo, but the chemo leaving them much more susceptible to covid and potentially being riskier than not having the chemo.

[StatisticallyChallenged]

Nope, no failure to grasp CherryCee. Just an understanding of why you can't just press pause on huge swathes of business for months or even years on end without creating horrendous consequences.

[Frompcat]

I think the people claiming that lockdown is worse than the virus are probably the same people who downplayed covid-19 as 'just a flu' only a few weeks ago.

Not me, I've been worried about it since January.

[Student133]

@Everydayishistorytomorrow
That isn't true at all. The two are absolutely linked. Unfortunately this isnt simply a case of picking lockdown for health, or Laissez faire for economy, rather finding a balance. If we have no economy, we have no NHS.

[Student133]

@RafaIsTheKingOfClay
Absolutely, I think at this point it's the the only thing we can do. Hopefully governments will be able to make more informed destinations about how to lift lockdown, as more data comes in.

[Sosadandempty]

the virus will be there after lockdown. And that your kids going back to school DOESNT mean it’s all over, and it’s safe now. In fact it’s quite the opposite but the nhs might have room for you at that point.

@Bimbleboo I agree and it is chilling

[Sakura7]

I want them to open again, and for life to return to normal, asap.

I'm sorry but the normal we knew before is gone. I know that's a lot for people to get their heads around, but it's the truth. We are in the midst of the biggest global crisis since the Second World War, and we will be dealing with it for some time to come. We'll get through it eventually but life will look different as we adapt to a new normal.

[Bluntness100]

No, but it can last until 31 May

What’s so special about this date? The lock down won’t be lifted till we are over the peak, and that’s very likely to be in three weeks. Waiting an extra three weeks isn’t going to change anything.

Oh wait, it will. Because thousands of people are dying now from other causes, so by waiting another three weeks that number goes into the tens of thousands.

It’s not just the economy op. It’s the thousands and thousands of people now dying from other causes. From the person who doesn’t get their operation, to the alcoholic who can’t get help, to the manic depressive who can’t see a counsellor. And yes through to the abused victim killed by their partner when on lock down.

Thousands of them op. And the longer this goes on, the higher that death toll will be. And when people lose their jobs, their homes, their businesses, the cost of life will be beyond anything corona did.

So I repeat the question, what’s so special about the 31 of may that is worth sacrificing all those thousands of people for?

[Frompcat]

I'm sorry but the normal we knew before is gone

And what was the normal I knew, out of interest?