Crosswords4 mins ago
Your Method Of Easing Lockdown
261 Answers
Some people here seem to be in a permanent state of confusion over what I think are quite simple guidelines for the gradual easing of lockdown and for getting people back to work….so here’s their opportunity to shine. If you were in charge, how would you do it?
Answers
Expanding on the OP slightly, I would be more adventurous. Since the A levels season is upon us (whether the exams are sat or not). Year 13 will not be in school/
12:13 Thu 14th May 2020
Spicerack:
https:/
It is a slight exaggeration -- probably you need to take into account six weeks of Covid-19 deaths rather than merely a month. But not much of one. Even worldwide the comparison holds up. It's generally estimated that between 300,000 and 650,000 people die a year either with or because of flu. Officially we have already passed that with Covid-19 deaths, and that's ignoring the likelihood that those deaths have been significantly under-reported in, for example, China, Iran, Russia, and a few other countries.
https:/
It is a slight exaggeration -- probably you need to take into account six weeks of Covid-19 deaths rather than merely a month. But not much of one. Even worldwide the comparison holds up. It's generally estimated that between 300,000 and 650,000 people die a year either with or because of flu. Officially we have already passed that with Covid-19 deaths, and that's ignoring the likelihood that those deaths have been significantly under-reported in, for example, China, Iran, Russia, and a few other countries.
//"We can't allow the cure to be worse than the disease" is becoming, a fear, a front to sacrifice more lives than are necessary.//
Claiming that a counter-argument is a 'front' is pretty disgraceful. It’s tantamount to an accusation of dishonesty.
No one wants to ‘sacrifice lives’, but rather than continue to ignore relevant information we do need to maintain - or in this instance recover - the perspective we’ve lost sight of, eg:
//How many people dying of Covid-19 is too many?//
I would suggest that far fewer are dying ‘of’ Covid-19 than are dying ‘with’ it.
We know that the vast majority of people who contract Covid-19 recover and those who don’t are overwhelming afflicted by a pre-existing condition. Those suffering terminal or life threatening illnesses, or even simply weakened by ailments common to old age or poor lifestyle frequently die because they succumb to pneumonia or infection of some sort, and this, in the main, is what is happening here. The only difference is that, unlike Covid-19, which we've allowed to obscure our rationality, contributing factors are usually acknowledged as just that - contributing factors rather than the main cause.
Prior to the introduction of a vaccine, large numbers died of flu but the world didn’t put life for everyone else on hold - ever. Countries didn’t risk destroying business and hence, imposing unemployment, poverty, and hardship upon their citizens by jeopardising the future for years to come. They carried on as normal and dealt with it.
Yes, caution in the beginning was warranted, and of course advice to the vulnerable must remain as it is now, but the simple fact is that for the health of the nation, in more ways than one, we must get business up and running again and allow people to join the many thousands who have continued, without misfortune, to work throughout this nightmare by returning to normal life.
This whole argument is reminiscent of the hysterical scaremongering that so negatively influenced Brexit for several years. Totally unwarranted.
Claiming that a counter-argument is a 'front' is pretty disgraceful. It’s tantamount to an accusation of dishonesty.
No one wants to ‘sacrifice lives’, but rather than continue to ignore relevant information we do need to maintain - or in this instance recover - the perspective we’ve lost sight of, eg:
//How many people dying of Covid-19 is too many?//
I would suggest that far fewer are dying ‘of’ Covid-19 than are dying ‘with’ it.
We know that the vast majority of people who contract Covid-19 recover and those who don’t are overwhelming afflicted by a pre-existing condition. Those suffering terminal or life threatening illnesses, or even simply weakened by ailments common to old age or poor lifestyle frequently die because they succumb to pneumonia or infection of some sort, and this, in the main, is what is happening here. The only difference is that, unlike Covid-19, which we've allowed to obscure our rationality, contributing factors are usually acknowledged as just that - contributing factors rather than the main cause.
Prior to the introduction of a vaccine, large numbers died of flu but the world didn’t put life for everyone else on hold - ever. Countries didn’t risk destroying business and hence, imposing unemployment, poverty, and hardship upon their citizens by jeopardising the future for years to come. They carried on as normal and dealt with it.
Yes, caution in the beginning was warranted, and of course advice to the vulnerable must remain as it is now, but the simple fact is that for the health of the nation, in more ways than one, we must get business up and running again and allow people to join the many thousands who have continued, without misfortune, to work throughout this nightmare by returning to normal life.
This whole argument is reminiscent of the hysterical scaremongering that so negatively influenced Brexit for several years. Totally unwarranted.
If you've seen some quotes emerging from the US you wouldn't be so quick to dismiss my suggestion about the intent behind the "cure worse than the disease.
Also, we've been over the with/of debate: on what basis are you suggesting that it is more "with" than "of", beyond speculation? If you had stuck to your more customary "we don't know" it would have been more accurate, but even then the argument still have to overcome the difficulty of explaining a massive increase in weekly deaths across the world. Not to mention the need to dismiss more or less the entire community of those studying this or on the front-line in combatting it.
Moreover, there's a certain level of hypocrisy in crying foul at calling an argument "a front", and in the next breath suggesting that people who disagree with you have allowed their rationality to become obscured, or that this is all emerging from some scaremongering tactics.
Also, we've been over the with/of debate: on what basis are you suggesting that it is more "with" than "of", beyond speculation? If you had stuck to your more customary "we don't know" it would have been more accurate, but even then the argument still have to overcome the difficulty of explaining a massive increase in weekly deaths across the world. Not to mention the need to dismiss more or less the entire community of those studying this or on the front-line in combatting it.
Moreover, there's a certain level of hypocrisy in crying foul at calling an argument "a front", and in the next breath suggesting that people who disagree with you have allowed their rationality to become obscured, or that this is all emerging from some scaremongering tactics.
The scaremongering thing is particularly flawed. I don't wish to revisit Brexit too much, but since you brought it up first, it's worth pointing out that any such "scaremongering" was about what could happen in the future but hasn't yet. By contrast, Covid-19 and its clear, obvious and significant cost in human lives is happening now, and will continue to happen for some time to come. Under exactly what definition of "scaremongering" can pointing out reality be so described?
Finally, for now, let me so this: If I've understood your arguments correctly, your basic message is that we have to end lockdown as soon as possible, and that we can't go on like this indefinitely. I agree. The only disagreement is *when*, and it should be clear that it would be too soon to relax the lockdown if doing so undermined the purpose of having one in the first place. The economic cost of being lockdown for far too long would be dear, but relaxing and then having to revert to lockdown when deaths spike again would be, if anything, even more damaging.
Finally, for now, let me so this: If I've understood your arguments correctly, your basic message is that we have to end lockdown as soon as possible, and that we can't go on like this indefinitely. I agree. The only disagreement is *when*, and it should be clear that it would be too soon to relax the lockdown if doing so undermined the purpose of having one in the first place. The economic cost of being lockdown for far too long would be dear, but relaxing and then having to revert to lockdown when deaths spike again would be, if anything, even more damaging.
//If you had stuck to your more customary "we don't know" it would have been more accurate,//
Oh, of course. You're right and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong. I should have known. Doubtless a failure on my part to point out the obvious discrepancies in the argument for trashing the world economy would have been more convenient to you, Jim, but it isn't going to happen.
Oh, of course. You're right and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong. I should have known. Doubtless a failure on my part to point out the obvious discrepancies in the argument for trashing the world economy would have been more convenient to you, Jim, but it isn't going to happen.
I have. The majority of victims are surviving - in fact thousands have continued working throughout without being affected at all. Overwhelmingly those dying aren't dying 'of' the virus - they're dying 'with' it in the same way that people with terminal/life threatening/age/lifestyle related conditions die 'with' infection rather than 'of' infection.
// The majority of victims are surviving - in fact thousands have continued working throughout without being affected at all. //
This isn't a flaw in my argument because at no point have I ever suggested otherwise.
The second is a matter that will take a long time to sort out, but there's plenty of evidence to suggest that Covid-19 has real health effects even amongst those who survive, so the idea that it is either incidental to death or confined in its scope only to accelerating the deaths of those who were going this year anyway is speculative at best. Maybe in a year or two, more data will support that argument, but at the moment such data simply isn't there, and a competing hypothesis with less evidence isn't a "flaw".
This isn't a flaw in my argument because at no point have I ever suggested otherwise.
The second is a matter that will take a long time to sort out, but there's plenty of evidence to suggest that Covid-19 has real health effects even amongst those who survive, so the idea that it is either incidental to death or confined in its scope only to accelerating the deaths of those who were going this year anyway is speculative at best. Maybe in a year or two, more data will support that argument, but at the moment such data simply isn't there, and a competing hypothesis with less evidence isn't a "flaw".
Despite weeks and weeks of discussions some seem to keep making the flu comparisons even though Covid is many times more serious in its impact despite lockdown and of the covid/with covid discussions even though the excess mortality figures are what ultimately matter. You must be very patient jim to have to keep going over the same ground
Jim, //there's plenty of evidence to suggest that Covid-19 has real health effects even amongst those who survive//
Amongst some who survive. Others have the virus without even realising it.
//the idea that it is either incidental to death or confined in its scope only to accelerating the deaths of those who were going this year anyway is speculative at best.//
I didn’t say that.
//Can I ask, by the way, if even starting the lockdown was a mistake, in your opinion?//
I’ve already addressed that. No, it wasn’t a mistake - and neither was the preparation of now defunct facilities that were made available to deal with what we now know to have been false expectations.
FF, //You must be very patient jim to have to keep going over the same ground//
He doesn’t ‘have’ to keep going over old ground. On the mistaken assumption that those who disagree with him are simply wrong, he chooses to.
Amongst some who survive. Others have the virus without even realising it.
//the idea that it is either incidental to death or confined in its scope only to accelerating the deaths of those who were going this year anyway is speculative at best.//
I didn’t say that.
//Can I ask, by the way, if even starting the lockdown was a mistake, in your opinion?//
I’ve already addressed that. No, it wasn’t a mistake - and neither was the preparation of now defunct facilities that were made available to deal with what we now know to have been false expectations.
FF, //You must be very patient jim to have to keep going over the same ground//
He doesn’t ‘have’ to keep going over old ground. On the mistaken assumption that those who disagree with him are simply wrong, he chooses to.
// "the idea that it is either incidental to death or confined in its scope only to accelerating the deaths of those who were going this year anyway is speculative at best."
I didn’t say that. //
If people are merely dying "with" Covid-19, then it presumably stands to reason that they would have died very soon anyway. Otherwise it's a general contributing factor and they have died "of" it. Yes there are clearly issues of co-morbidity, and disentangling that will always be tricky, but it is still true that the number and scale of recent deaths cannot be easily explained unless Covid-19 is a significant and causal factor.
I didn’t say that. //
If people are merely dying "with" Covid-19, then it presumably stands to reason that they would have died very soon anyway. Otherwise it's a general contributing factor and they have died "of" it. Yes there are clearly issues of co-morbidity, and disentangling that will always be tricky, but it is still true that the number and scale of recent deaths cannot be easily explained unless Covid-19 is a significant and causal factor.
"Your Method Of Easing Lockdown"
Here we go:
From the current position we're in, I would have kept things are for another 7 days. I would have then initiated a similar step 1 as the gov did.. Not many other options. Then give that 3 weeks to seee the impact. Then another three weeks. Maybe another? Then depending on the results, step back or step forward.
Next step for me would be pub gardens with strict social distancing measures, restaurants with the same with a max capacity of a small number. Same with hair dressers etc..
I would not open retail at this point, but maybe allow a collection service
I'm not sure really lol it is hard, our gov has a lot of advisers etc.. and they have info that we don't. They're probably doing the best they can.
Here we go:
From the current position we're in, I would have kept things are for another 7 days. I would have then initiated a similar step 1 as the gov did.. Not many other options. Then give that 3 weeks to seee the impact. Then another three weeks. Maybe another? Then depending on the results, step back or step forward.
Next step for me would be pub gardens with strict social distancing measures, restaurants with the same with a max capacity of a small number. Same with hair dressers etc..
I would not open retail at this point, but maybe allow a collection service
I'm not sure really lol it is hard, our gov has a lot of advisers etc.. and they have info that we don't. They're probably doing the best they can.
// //If people are merely dying "with" Covid-19, then it presumably stands to reason that they would have died very soon anyway.//
I didn’t say that either. //
In that case, what's all the "with" even about for you? It either hastens their death, in which case it is, to all intents and purposes, "dying of Covid", or it doesn't hasten their death significantly enough to matter, in which case that's how I'd understand "with". Otherwise it strikes me as more or less meaningless to contrast "with" and "of".
// How long would you like the country to remain in this situation? //
As long as is necessary, but no longer. And certainly no shorter. I appreciate that's vague but I could hardly put a more precise date on it. Perhaps it's better to define a target, in which case I'd say that daily deaths should have dropped to below 100, and daily new cases below 1,000 before I personally would consider serious easing.
I didn’t say that either. //
In that case, what's all the "with" even about for you? It either hastens their death, in which case it is, to all intents and purposes, "dying of Covid", or it doesn't hasten their death significantly enough to matter, in which case that's how I'd understand "with". Otherwise it strikes me as more or less meaningless to contrast "with" and "of".
// How long would you like the country to remain in this situation? //
As long as is necessary, but no longer. And certainly no shorter. I appreciate that's vague but I could hardly put a more precise date on it. Perhaps it's better to define a target, in which case I'd say that daily deaths should have dropped to below 100, and daily new cases below 1,000 before I personally would consider serious easing.
Latest Posts
Where Does My Neighbour Stand?
Property4 mins ago
What's Eton Musk Really Up To ?.
News6 mins ago
Crosswords6 mins ago
Why Were The Edinburgh New Year...
News7 mins ago
Crosswords7 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.