Your Method Of Easing Lockdown

[naomi24]

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?

[naomi24]

Jim, // In that case, what's all the "with" even about for you?//

I’ve explained it. Re-read what I said. I can’t put it any clearer.

//As long as is necessary, but no longer. And certainly no shorter. I appreciate that's vague ...//

Well at least you appreciate that. I'll put it another way. How long do you think the current situation may be viably sustained?

[fiction-factory]

> I can’t put it any clearer.
To be fair to Jim I can't work out what your point is either, Naomi. Are you not convinced that it's Excess Mortality that is the best measure?

[pixie374]

I don't honestly know, but I think we need to start easing it soon. I thought the main point was for people to catch it, but not all at the same time and overwhelm ICU. Lives should come first, so anyone obviously vulnerable should be shielded still, I think. But that won't always be obvious who.
Btw, naomi. You are quite happy to throw the word "disingenuous" about everywhere, so I don't see how you can claim accusations of dishonesty are "disgraceful". Same rule for everyone, surely?

[jim360]

As a follow-up to ff's question, when would the people who died of/with Covid have died if they had not had Covid-19? Is the increase in mortality merely because deaths that would likely have occurred within the next couple of years are being bunched up into a few weeks? How much longer can people have been expected to live without Covid-19?

I mean, obviously the answer to all of these is "I don't know", but they are essential to ask, and attempt to answer, if you are going to argue for the "with" Covid instead of "of" Covid.

[naomi24]

FF, //Naomi. Are you not convinced that it's Excess Mortality that is the best measure? //

I'm not sure what you mean. Yes, we are witnessing death tolls in excess of those expected under normal conditions, but nevertheless far lower than those projected with the arrival of this virus.

[jim360]

// How long do you think the current situation may be viably sustained? //

I also don't know the answer to this. A lot depends on trust in Government, I think. It's easier to sustain the current situation if people believe it's the correct thing to do and trust that the Government is doing what it feels it has to. But if you're speaking about economic factors then I simply have no idea where even to start answering that.

[fiction-factory]

>but nevertheless far lower than those projected with the arrival of this virus.

I don't see the relevance of that. If you mean the reasonable worst case figure of 500000 that was for this year i think and was without lockdown/shielding. But whether that projection had been 100000 or 1 million wouldn't make the actual 'excess mortality' figure any less dreadful. We may never know how accurate the 500000 figure was.

[naomi24]

Pixie, //Btw, naomi. You are quite happy to throw the word "disingenuous" about everywhere, so I don't see how you can claim accusations of dishonesty are "disgraceful". Same rule for everyone, surely?//

That makes no sense at all but, that said, claiming a counter-argument is a front is disgraceful.

[pixie374]

It makes perfect sense. You act insulted if it is said to you, but are quite happy to use it to others. All I can say, is that if I ever see you use the word "disingenuous" again in future, I will just think "hypocrite".

[naomi24]

Yes, Jim, I am speaking about economic factors. It's a question that requires an answer - urgently. An airy fairy 'for however long it takes' really doesn't cut this one. Belief doesn't bring home the bacon.

[naomi24]

Pixie, what you think is of no consequence whatsoever to me.

[jim360]

Comparing reality to early modelling is always going to make the early modelling look poor. But, as has been explained repeatedly, the 500k figure was based on no intervention. The Government intervened.

// ... claiming a counter-argument is a front is disgraceful. //

It would be if there were no motivation for doing so. Have you not followed the discussion on Covid-19 and appropriate responses elsewhere? Particularly in the US, it's become clear that some people are putting "the economy" ahead of lives, and using the "cure worse than the disease" phrase in order to justify that. There can be no disgrace in observing and reporting on what is actually happening.

[pixie374]

It may just be time for people to be making their own decisions... the biggest problem though, is that every decision is likely to affect others too. In general, though, I think people need to be able to start getting back to work.

[pixie374]

Of course, naomi :-)

[naomi24]

FF, //But whether that projection had been 100000 or 1 million wouldn't make the actual 'excess mortality' figure any less dreadful.//

I don't agree. We don't want anyone to die, but if people are going to die, as we know they will, lower figures have to be preferable. No?

[jim360]

Fewer deaths is of course preferable, but the point ff and I are making is that comparing to baseline average deaths is far more relevant than comparing to the worst predictions of a model, given that all models are flawed to some extent. Especially when that prediction was based on an alternative history, it makes the comparison more or less meaningless.

[naomi24]

Jim, my argument isn't a 'front' and I don't believe anyone else here is offering a similar argument as a 'front'. The argument against continuing this lockdown emanates, in the main I would say, from people who have experience in the world of business and understand exactly the disastrous impact that a continuing lockdown is likely to have on people's lives and on the economy for a very long time to come.

Don't know why you're smiling pixie. I'm absolutely serious.

[pixie374]

So was I, naomi... but as my view is irrelevant, there is no need to keep responding.

[jim360]

The lockdown has already had that impact. As soon as it started it was bound to have that impact. Being business-minded doesn't give anybody unique insight in that regard.

[jim360]

Although, that said, I'd suggest that maybe the lockdown can be seen as an opportunity to reassess what's important in life. If the economy is so easily wrecked then it was too fragile to start with.