We can’t afford a second lockdown - Uk already heading for a double dip recession

73

Hold on, I'll ask Rishi....he says relax, it's fine.

Seriously, how many mnetters do you think know all the costings for all the variables for all the various covid measures? I tell you what I do know, it's not as simple as the expensive cost of a lockdown versus the cost free option of doing nothing.

Haven't you heard? The Magical Money Tree will keep on supporting everyone who's lost their jobs.

The health & the economy of the nation are linked. You can't look at one without the other.

The fact of the matter is this whole situation could have been mitigated by a decent test and trace system. Then we wouldn't have to have this endless debate about health vs the economy, because both could have been protected.

We couldn’t afford a first lockdown.

It's busy tonight on MN with these type of threads all started by people who've never posted before.

I'm not sure what purpose they bring? Is it to cause division or to sway people to not follow the restrictions?

Rishi Sunak is shitting himself over it and that's plenty enough to let us all know we're fucked.

We can’t afford it. We could not afford to continue funding the NHS for one thing.

There would also be enormous health issues and deaths caused by millions more job losses.

The world billionnaires have increased rgeir wealth by a third during this pandemic apparently. Im sure they could lend a bob or two to bail us out.

More seriously, i dont want a recession and fear it greatly. I cant get my head round whether 'lockdown ' is less of a recession than 'unchecked virus' recession. There isnt a 'no recession' option.

@MillieEpple

No one is proposing an ‘unchecked virus’.

There isnt a 'no recession' option.

Yes there is, it was called test and trace.

" The notion that there may be a trade-offs between health and the economy is broadly refused by most economic experts -disease containment is considered to be the best policy response to reduce both the human cost in terms of lives lost as well as to reduce the economic burden of the pandemic. "
Thiemo Fetzer, Associate Professor in the Economics department at the University of Warwick and Visiting Fellow at the London School of Economics.

But if we don't lockdown and hundreds of thousands of people die or end up disabled due to long covid, what kind of an economy will we have then? And what kind of society? It's fine if the old or those with "underlying health issues" die to protect the economy?

#Completmentfille - i sort of feel that moment passed? Is it still feasible to get on top of track and trace with the current number of cases. I hope so.

@Ecosse - no i suppose not. But i am still allowed to not know what is worse economically because I dont rrally understand economics.

i sort of feel that moment passed? Is it still feasible to get on top of track and trace with the current number of cases. I hope so

Of course it is, they just can't do it because they are completely incompetent.

That's the thing isn't it, the fucking shambles of a government have fucked up everything at every stage and have heaped even more misery on all of us because they are such an abysmal failure. I thought the past ten years if the bastards were enough of a race to the bottom but it really does seem to be 'how low can you go' with them.

Had they sorted out track and trace maybe it wouldn't be like this. The government have completely shat on democracy and have behaved like an authoritarian regime, parliament seems to be completely redundant. The powers to make it illegal to see family are overreaching in the extreme and go beyond what is proportionate. At the same time I don't believe in letting the virus run unchecked at all and realise what a disaster that could be too. It's a fucking mess because they are incompetent, and there's no good option. Brexit to look forward to as well!

How anyone elected the selfish, arrogant, and sexually incontinent arsehole that is Boris is beyond me.

@babychange12

‘Long COVID’ doesn’t exist so I’m not sure where the evidence is that ‘hundreds of thousands of people’ will be left Duda led by it.

There are a very small number of people (less than 1%) who do suffer after effects due to post viral syndrome from COVID. The vast majority of these will have no syndrome after 3 months.

The powers to make it illegal to see family are overreaching in the extreme and go beyond what is proportionate. At the same time I don't believe in letting the virus run unchecked at all and realise what a disaster that could be too.

Agreed. They've kind of played a blinder though, as people seem more furious about a family of four seeing their BIL, SIL and nephew (or whatever) indoors than they are at the government. It never needed to be like this.

Ofgs Ecosse Is there any topic in which you are in any doubt on any matter, without so much as a tenuous link to provide some veracity to the statement?

The finances around lockdown are insane. A conservative estimate of the cost is around £10billion a week. SAGE said a two week one would save 7000 lives. And bear in mind the average age of someone dying from Covid is over 84 - two more than the average age of death. £10billion is several entire new hospitals. The cost of lockdown is completely disproportionate to the lives saved. It’s madness.

@FourTeaFallOut

As a management consultant, I do have a good understanding of a wide range of issues.

I also have the critical thinking skills to be able to analyse statements put forward and challenge them.

This whole thing has become so toxic and poisonous. There's no nuance. In people's heads you are a kill-the-elderly, let-the-virus-run-unchecked, selfish covid denier, or you are a lockdown everything until a vaccine.

For me personally I don't want to go to the pub and I don't want to have parties with friends. I would like, however, to see my mum and sisters. I would choose to do that over having my DS in school.