ChatterBank0 min ago
What Excuse Will The Government Use When Daily Covid Deaths Are Zero?
Better to be safe? Protect the NHS? Their credibility is being pushed even now with deaths being negligible. Judging by the number of people out shopping and drinking yesterday it seems most are voting with their feet already. I dont think there is any way back to lock down now with all the promise of things going back to normal, even if infections rise, I would hope the people wouldn't stand for it, especially as all the elderly and vulnerable have had the jab.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by dave50. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
//What would you rather have.
A lockdown or rampant deaths happening?//
Neither, the first should not be required any more and the second simply wont happen (thats if Johnson has been telling the truth about vaccines. A big IF admittedly.
Dont worry Dave, they will find an excuse. Johnson wouldn't know the truth if it smacking square on the nose and they love the control too much.
A lockdown or rampant deaths happening?//
Neither, the first should not be required any more and the second simply wont happen (thats if Johnson has been telling the truth about vaccines. A big IF admittedly.
Dont worry Dave, they will find an excuse. Johnson wouldn't know the truth if it smacking square on the nose and they love the control too much.
It's pretty much certain that with cases on the rise again, and people mixing, deaths will also rise. but hopefully to a lesser degree.
People were "voting with their feet" as you put it because they were allowed to ... "by the government"
I'm not a fan either, but you have some people like yourself complaining about the restrictions and others claiming it's madness and we're all doomed. So it's difficult for them.
Some of the ideas being proposed for controlling things in the short to medium term I do agree seem daft, but there is no evidene yet that they will not be adhered to.
Most people seem to like the smack of firm lockdown, as they seemed to lap up austerity at the time.
People were "voting with their feet" as you put it because they were allowed to ... "by the government"
I'm not a fan either, but you have some people like yourself complaining about the restrictions and others claiming it's madness and we're all doomed. So it's difficult for them.
Some of the ideas being proposed for controlling things in the short to medium term I do agree seem daft, but there is no evidene yet that they will not be adhered to.
Most people seem to like the smack of firm lockdown, as they seemed to lap up austerity at the time.
//What Excuse Will The Government Use When Daily Covid Deaths Are Zero?//
Agree with Peter Pendants comment. If not dumb then its a flawed question if it means what excuse for lockdowns will they use- its a sort of 'when did you stop beating your wife' question.
They wont try to impose lockdowns if deaths are zero. Why would they if there lifting restrictions now when deaths are still happening. Theyve allready said well have to live with it like we live with flu. They wont impose national lockdowns even if deaths are say 200 a week. Infact anything less than 200 would be a good result if thats what we get when we get to the summer with most restrictions lifted and then maybe 400 a week in winter
Agree with Peter Pendants comment. If not dumb then its a flawed question if it means what excuse for lockdowns will they use- its a sort of 'when did you stop beating your wife' question.
They wont try to impose lockdowns if deaths are zero. Why would they if there lifting restrictions now when deaths are still happening. Theyve allready said well have to live with it like we live with flu. They wont impose national lockdowns even if deaths are say 200 a week. Infact anything less than 200 would be a good result if thats what we get when we get to the summer with most restrictions lifted and then maybe 400 a week in winter
//...numbers infectted and numbers er dead.//
In what quantities, Peter?
The 7 day infection rate is 2,300. On Monday the daily figure was 1,100. The number of deaths over a seven day average is now around 34. Yesterday and the day before the figures were 13 and 7 (out of a rough daily figure of 1,700 deaths from all causes).
However, here's a more succinct answer to dave's question:
"Boris Johnson has warned that the reduction in coronavirus infections, hospitalisations and deaths 'has not been achieved' by the rollout of COVID vaccines. The prime minister, speaking the day after the latest easing of lockdown restrictions, instead said it was the national shutdown that had been 'overwhelmingly important' in driving down COVID rates.
So really, no excuse needed. The vaccination programme has not been responsible for the decline in all the important measures (despite one of the scientists saying last week that it had). So by that reasoning we can all look forward to Lockdown v94, coming soon to a High Street near you because national shutdowns are the only thing that will work. It's just a question of what comes first - the death toll from non-Covid conditions that are left untreated becoming unacceptably high (and nobody will care anyway because it seems, apparently, it's a price we have to pay) or the country running out of money and borrowing ability.
In what quantities, Peter?
The 7 day infection rate is 2,300. On Monday the daily figure was 1,100. The number of deaths over a seven day average is now around 34. Yesterday and the day before the figures were 13 and 7 (out of a rough daily figure of 1,700 deaths from all causes).
However, here's a more succinct answer to dave's question:
"Boris Johnson has warned that the reduction in coronavirus infections, hospitalisations and deaths 'has not been achieved' by the rollout of COVID vaccines. The prime minister, speaking the day after the latest easing of lockdown restrictions, instead said it was the national shutdown that had been 'overwhelmingly important' in driving down COVID rates.
So really, no excuse needed. The vaccination programme has not been responsible for the decline in all the important measures (despite one of the scientists saying last week that it had). So by that reasoning we can all look forward to Lockdown v94, coming soon to a High Street near you because national shutdowns are the only thing that will work. It's just a question of what comes first - the death toll from non-Covid conditions that are left untreated becoming unacceptably high (and nobody will care anyway because it seems, apparently, it's a price we have to pay) or the country running out of money and borrowing ability.
I don't think the government is in the business of excuses - it has no need to offer excuses, as we are all living in unprecedented times with little if any experience of dealing with a global pandemic on this scale.
I don't see why the government's 'credibility' is being pushed anywhere except upwards, with their highly successful vaccination programme continuing to reap benefits for the nation.
And why you would hope that people wouldn't 'stand for' a further lockdown in the highly unlikely case where it was needed - protection of the populace has to overcome any reaction to confinement, that's how lives are saved.
I don't see why the government's 'credibility' is being pushed anywhere except upwards, with their highly successful vaccination programme continuing to reap benefits for the nation.
And why you would hope that people wouldn't 'stand for' a further lockdown in the highly unlikely case where it was needed - protection of the populace has to overcome any reaction to confinement, that's how lives are saved.
//...with their highly successful vaccination programme continuing to reap benefits for the nation.//
Not according to Mr Johnson it isn't (see above).
//And why you would hope that people wouldn't 'stand for' a further lockdown...//
People have no option but to stand for whatever restrictions are put in place. The personal restrictions involving gatherings or leaving home are only enforceable by consent. Many people don't give their consent and so don't comply. A few who transgress are fined. But the principle victims of lockdowns are businesses and their customers. Short of a mass revolt by businesses (most unlikely) such businesses and their clients will continue to suffer from any future lockdowns whether "people will stand for it" or not. People have become torpid as far as lockdowns are concerned. What amazed me yesterday was the amount of people who were available to fill the High Streets. Vast swathes of the population are not at work. They are either on furlough, allegedly working from home or unemployed. I don't really know for how long they think their collective lethargy can be sustained.
Not according to Mr Johnson it isn't (see above).
//And why you would hope that people wouldn't 'stand for' a further lockdown...//
People have no option but to stand for whatever restrictions are put in place. The personal restrictions involving gatherings or leaving home are only enforceable by consent. Many people don't give their consent and so don't comply. A few who transgress are fined. But the principle victims of lockdowns are businesses and their customers. Short of a mass revolt by businesses (most unlikely) such businesses and their clients will continue to suffer from any future lockdowns whether "people will stand for it" or not. People have become torpid as far as lockdowns are concerned. What amazed me yesterday was the amount of people who were available to fill the High Streets. Vast swathes of the population are not at work. They are either on furlough, allegedly working from home or unemployed. I don't really know for how long they think their collective lethargy can be sustained.
//Boris said success was mainly due to lockdown.//
Yes, as I pointed out above. The question is, how does he know that? This is especially pertinent when a study published only a few days ago found that vaccinations had broken the link between infections and deaths (and presumably serious illness and hospitalisations in between).
https:/
It seems to me that the PM has decided that only lockdowns work, despite his assertion that he would "follow the science."
Yes, as I pointed out above. The question is, how does he know that? This is especially pertinent when a study published only a few days ago found that vaccinations had broken the link between infections and deaths (and presumably serious illness and hospitalisations in between).
https:/
It seems to me that the PM has decided that only lockdowns work, despite his assertion that he would "follow the science."
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.