Lockdown will claim 560,000 lives. Are lockdown fanatics are killing people.

[Billie18]

Worrying reports coming out indicating that Lockdowns will end up claiming the equivalent of more than 500,000 lives because of the health impact of the 'deep and prolonged recession that they will cause. It has been obvious that restrictive lock down measures will impact on the health of the whole population but concern has been shouted down by those in favor of lockdowns. But will those ignoring the dangers of lockdowns on the entire population be responsible for killing huge numbers of people. Killing far more people than any virus.

I get that, DameFanny but enjoying lockdown doesn't mean being unaware of the difficulties faced by others so I wouldn't feel guilty about it. I really like not having to see people or go anywhere and will find it weird and hard to adjust when we are back to 'normal'. Every day I wake and hug myself knowing that the day is mine. I have done some things to help others remotely though, there are plenty of opportunities if you want to.

However - I love it!

I wonder how many people are actually enjoying lockdown and am surprised there isn't a thread about that.

There have been a few, but unfortunately they've tended to be dominated by smug twats going about lecturing nonsense like, "Well we've had a perfectly lovely time reading books in the garden, swimming in the pool and taking the horses up on the moors, I really have no idea why other people are whinging about it being hard, it's not hard if you're used to making your own entertainment, they're obviously just spoiled snowflakes with no resilience who are used to being spoonfed entertainment."

Okay I'm exaggerating, but not by very much. Some people really do live in such a bubble of privilege they genuinely assume that everyone has a big house and enough money to fall back on, and that poverty means sending your child to the local grammar instead of Eton. And there are plenty of people who don't seem to be capable of appreciating their own good fortune without taking a pop at those who are less fortunate.

I got called "bitter" and "vindictive" in another thread just for politely asking people to stop attacking and using abusive language (like snowflake, no resilience, whiners) to describe people who were suffering due to living in shitty circumstances.

@Billie18

Worrying reports coming out indicating that Lockdowns will end up claiming the equivalent of more than 500,000 lives because of the health impact of the 'deep and prolonged recession that they will cause. It has been obvious that restrictive lock down measures will impact on the health of the whole population but concern has been shouted down by those in favor of lockdowns. But will those ignoring the dangers of lockdowns on the entire population be responsible for killing huge numbers of people. Killing far more people than any virus.

There's two answers to this:

1. Nobody has actually tested the economic impact of allowing the virus to run through a population with no mitigation (no, not even the US), but I imagine the economic impacts of that would be pretty bad too. You'd end up with lots of working age people dying, because hospitals had no capacity, and more incapacitated for long periods. People would be afraid and that isn't conducive to them going out and spending money.

2. Countries that stamped this out at the start are already seeing economic recoveries. If we'd gone for a zero covid strategy, we could be joining them.

3. Even if there is a recession, recessions do not have to kill people. Poverty does not have to kill people. We can actually mitigate the impacts of poverty, through the welfare state. That's what was done at the end of the second world war, and life expectancy drastically went up. The idea that poverty is necessarily a killer is flawed. However, the virus will definitely kill people.

"3) Even if there is a recession, recessions do not have to kill people. Poverty does not have to kill people. We can actually mitigate the impacts of poverty, through the welfare state. That's what was done at the end of the second world war, and life expectancy drastically went up. The idea that poverty is necessarily a killer is flawed. However, the virus will definitely kill people."

YES!

Poverty is a choice, made by governments. Pretending that the economy lives or dies by private companies succeeding (while shoveling tax breaks and subsidies at enormous companies and picking up the pieces of failed privatisations) is a political choice.

Let's stop letting them get away with it.

There has got to be a plan B other than repeated lockdowns but no one will discuss it.

How mean of them. Why don't you mention what it is and then we can all know.

Unless it's vaccinations. We all know that's the long term strategy because they keep mentioning that one.

What's the other secret one?

I got called "bitter" and "vindictive" in another thread just for politely asking people to stop attacking and using abusive language

Since personal attacks are disallowed on here I find it better to just report them
To be clear the decisions around what stands belong to HQ and not us, but while I can count my previous reports on the fingers of one hand it's several a day now

Overall it just seems a shame that some seem unable to discuss things without flinging insults

Nobody has actually tested the economic impact of allowing the virus to run through a population with no mitigation (no, not even the US), but I imagine the economic impacts of that would be pretty bad too. You'd end up with lots of working age people dying, because hospitals had no capacity, and more incapacitated for long periods

But then, we have statistics after statistics telling us that the virus has a low impact on the working age population. The fit, young & healthy have been identified as mainly asymptomatic or having milder symptoms. That's the majority of the working population. Where does that fit into the narrative?
Wrecking the economy and future earnings 1000's is madness, but here we are.

@Toptop498

There has got to be a plan B other than repeated lockdowns but no one will discuss it.

How mean of them. Why don't you mention what it is and then we can all know.

Unless it's vaccinations. We all know that's the long term strategy because they keep mentioning that one.

What's the other secret one?

The very basic point is that if there had been no vaccine, the government would have had to try something else. If a vaccine resistant strain takes hold, we may still have to. It’s legitimate to want to know what the government’s plan is in such a situation.

Or do you think we could afford to keep locking down like this in perpetuity every time rates start to increase?

@Fridget but what else
You and others talk of a mythical “other way” but I’ve never seen anyone state anything credible

“ Or do you think we could afford to keep locking down like this in perpetuity every time rates start to increase?”

It’s not about affording to or choosing to, it’s that it’s the least worst option (other than your secret world beating one obvs)

@BillMasen

“ Or do you think we could afford to keep locking down like this in perpetuity every time rates start to increase?”

It’s not about affording to or choosing to, it’s that it’s the least worst option (other than your secret world beating one obvs)

But why does lockdown have to be the other option?

"But then, we have statistics after statistics telling us that the virus has a low impact on the working age population. The fit, young & healthy have been identified as mainly asymptomatic or having milder symptoms. That's the majority of the working population. Where does that fit into the narrative?
Wrecking the economy and future earnings 1000's is madness, but here we are"

I think it's the narrative where people who aren't fit or working age are still considered valued members of society @Ylvamoon, even though they're not feeding the almighty economy. As you say, madness.

Nobody has actually tested the economic impact of allowing the virus to run through a population with no mitigation (no, not even the US)

This is true, though reports suggest that Florida at least have come pretty close - which begs the question of why it's being said that their cases are as bad as ours but no worse

I'm no more an economist than I am a virologist, but wonder if there'll be any lessons to learn from what they're doing as we go forward?

@BillMasen

I have stated numerous times on this thread that I support the current lockdown.

I’m not saying I know of another way, still less a “mythical” one. I’m saying the government should have been thinking what they would do in the event of no vaccine, or a vaccine resistant strain. My point isnt that I know what we should do, it’s that the government should be open about what they would plan to do in that eventuality, and people are entitled to have an opinion on that and at what point we move to that strategy.

I support lockdown but manage to do so without being a twat to the people who are concerned about it and wondering what the other options would be. These are matters of profound importance and it does no one any credit to try to stifle debate about what the least atrocious way of dealing with it is.

It’s not about affording to or choosing to, it’s that it’s the least worst option (other than your secret world beating one obvs

It’s a shame you cannot discuss things without being snarky. I agree lockdown is the least bad option now. But it is crippling the country. It is not going to work as a strategy if we are still getting waves in 5 years time. Or do you think we can lock down twice a year for the next 5 years or even more?

We can’t, so the government need to be thinking of contingency plans.

I think it's the narrative where people who aren't fit or working age are still considered valued members of society@Ylvamoon, even though they're not feeding the almighty economy. As you say, madness

But you do need the income from economy/ working age people to help out people who aren't fit or working age .
Poverty is real enough, people who are most affected when things are getting tough are people who are reliant on the state. (That is state pensions, continued health care and / or benefits.) When the cuts come in, it will be the groups we are "protecting " now, that will be suffering l9ng term. While the fit and healthy working age population will be able to move on in some form.
There must be a better, more effective way of dealing with this.

Thank you for putting it so much better than I did Fridget, and for identifying that while none of us have ideal answers, the "what if the vaccines are ineffective?" is surely a point worth discussing

Good luck trying to discuss it though ...

fridget

So this is a hypothetical plan that you wouldn't the government to actually carry out unless there was a vaccine resistant strain? Not a plan you think they should have been following up to now?

I think my post made it clear that I think a functioning t&t is needed in all circumstances.

Why discuss how you wouldn't be ok with future lockdowns if you're ok with this one? I'm not quite sure how credible your position is.

wouldn't want

But you do need the income from economy/ working age people to help out people who aren't fit or working age .

You do need to deal with a virus effectively so everyone doesn't fall into this category.

I’m saying the government should have been thinking what they would do in the event of no vaccine, or a vaccine resistant strain.

You are very late in making this particular point. This has been the subject of academic articles and the odd DM shock story for decades. Unfortunately we the electorate didn't make it clear to any political party that this was important to us as a nation, probably because it wasn't and we didn't want to pay for it-we bear collective responsibility.

@Toptop498

But you do need the income from economy/ working age people to help out people who aren't fit or working age .

You do need to deal with a virus effectively so everyone doesn't fall into this category.

We need to manage health well in order to benefit the economy. Chris Whitty is good on this.

Nobody has actually tested the economic impact of allowing the virus to run through a population with no mitigation (no, not even the US)

Please tell me this was not a suggestion.

Yes here, I agree.

@Fridget I apologise for being snarky. Lots of posters are anti lockdown with no credible suggestions, and dismissive of facts, but you’re right you were not.

It is a balancing act with three broad criteria:

1. Containing infection rates - maximum use of non pharmacological measures to reduce spread - ie controlling movement, PPE, hygiene, ventilation, test, trace and isolation (including making it statutory and making it doable and affordable) - maximising immune health, use of cheap already existing prophylactics.

This is by far the most significant criteria to get a grip of to avoid

1. Ensuring the health system is not overwhelmed - nothing good comes from this; and

1. Ensuring the economy continues to function - this is not the same as protecting profit but is about protecting livelihoods

In the west - the stock market is booming, house prices have increased but unemployment is rising, the health service is in crisis and the virus is uncontrolled.

Where does lockdown feature in this balancing act? Countries in lockdown have ignored the first criteria, exploited a pandemic to shift money to the already rich and are locking down because of imminent collapse of health systems. Bad optics.. If profits decreased as unemployment rose this wouldn't happen.

But because of batshit crazy cognitive dissonance some people are blaming lockdown on those that were in support of controlling the virus in the first place - even though there are actually existing examples of non-communist countries that did that and have the much touted freedoms that we have 'lost' - like social mixing, education, work etc.