Lives vs. livelihoods & a gutted UK economy

[Organ Morgan.]

The death rate from Covid 19 is significant, but as you always say is lower than a lot of other diseases.

What you never acknowledge is that the Covid 19 death rate has been massively suppressed by the social distancing measures, and if allowed to rip would be a lot higher (up to 10x higher depending on which model you prefer); it would overwhelm every health service in the world and ensure many more deaths for non Covid 19 reasons; it would have caused major economic and social disruption regardless of government responses.

You seem to be wedded to the 'herd immunity' response - just let it do its worst, and after 2-3 months many businesses may have coughed their way through the crisis and in the UK 250,000 mainly older people will have died.

That is a view considered and rejected by most policymakers and economic/health advisers around the world - even though they know full well the economic damage that lock-down causes. They have concluded that short term pain and protection of the vulnerable is the right thing to do. You seem to disagree partly on the grounds that the economic self-harm is too severe, but mainly because you want to see more evidence of a New World Order conspiracy playing out (with compliant media) into some depopulated, oligarch controlled, slave society that you have bought into.

The bit I highlighted: with all due respect you are merely repeating the line that government and corporate media have repeated ad infinitum which you have accepted as true.

Previous pandemics have been met with the same response, let it infect enough people for herd immunity to kick in. What we are getting this time, for the first time, is what appears to be a let's string out achieving herd immunity for as long as we can and with it wilfully crush small businesses and much of the service industry while we are at it.

You are of course are entitled to a different opinion to mine which is it makes no sense. I'm for allowing people to do what they wish; whether they choose to gather or not let them decide what they believe is best for themselves rather than by government diktat.

[jon1959]

The bit I highlighted: with all due respect you are merely repeating the line that government and corporate media have repeated ad infinitum which you have accepted as true.

Previous pandemics have been met with the same response, let it infect enough people for herd immunity to kick in. What we are getting this time, for the first time, is what appears to be a let's string out achieving herd immunity for as long as we can and with it wilfully crush small businesses and much of the service industry while we are at it.

You are of course are entitled to a different opinion to mine which is it makes no sense. I'm for allowing people to do what they wish; whether they choose to gather or not let them decide what they believe is best for themselves rather than by government diktat.

You are right - I have accepted that social distancing has reduced the virus spread and saved lives. I accept there could be a counter argument if those places that didn't introduce it (Sweden, Belarus... have they stuck with the herd strategy?) show no greater levels of infection than the rest of the world - but I don't think you have made that case.

Your third paragraph is basically an argument in favour of drink driving! Libertarianism at its' most selfish and dangerous.

[Organ Morgan.]

You are right - I have accepted that social distancing has reduced the virus spread and saved lives. I accept there could be a counter argument if those places that didn't introduce it (Sweden, Belarus... have they stuck with the herd strategy?) show no greater levels of infection than the rest of the world - but I don't think you have made that case.

Your third paragraph is basically an argument in favour of drink driving! Libertarianism at its' most selfish and dangerous.

I interpret your last line to mean that because Parliament recently passed legislation which made the breaking of social distancing measures an arrestable offence then to do so would be the equivalent of driving while sozzled. Jesus, have you lost your mind?

[jon1959]

I interpret your last line to mean that because Parliament recently passed legislation which made the breaking of social distancing measures an arrestable offence then to do so would be the equivalent of driving while sozzled. Jesus, have you lost your mind?

A bizarre interpretation! You said:

'I'm for allowing people to do what they wish; whether they choose to gather or not let them decide what they believe is best for themselves rather than by government diktat'.

Allowing people who may be highly infectious (may be asymptomatic or pre-sypmtomatic) to wander around as they wish because they think that is best for them - and by doing so putting many other people at risk of infection, serious illness, pain and maybe death - is the same mindset that finds no problem with drink driving. If they were only going to injure or kill themselves (leaving aside the cost and disruption of cleaning up and disposing of their mess) that is one thing - but they don't. It is selfish and dangerous!