Quote Originally Posted by Eric Cartman View Post
I think you are on the right tracks but not quite right.

The only point of locking down was to slow the virus down once it 'became apparent' that we were quickly heading towards a countrywide situation similar that region in Italy (i.e. bodies lying in corridors of hospitals because capacity was significantly breached).

Deaths would have likely been significantly higher if capacity had been breached because people who wouldn't have died with basic treatment, would have died in a corridor

Now, if we hadn't completely ****ed up the first lockdown then I doubt there would have been such a knee jerk reaction second time around. First lockdown was by a mile too slow and primarily that was because they were still deciding upon their strategy.. lockdown vs the absolute dumb**** leap of faith of bau 'natural immunity' to a virus we didn't understand, once it was sufficiently proven that our health service had been run down so much that business as usual was a ticket to a complete disaster they began to lock certain things down. But not all things were equal, I can remember thinking, and probably saying on here at the time, why are their hundreds of flights coming in per day from countries with severe outbreaks already?

Basically we made our strategy up as we went along (as has been proven since) and it meant that lockdowns were deeper than they probably needed to be.

As for the effect on kids, no shit Sherlock.
Do you honestly think it would have made a difference if we had locked down several days earlier? It was going to spread anyway, no? In multiple waves.

I think it was inevitable and the focus should have been on protecting the vulnerable.