Wattie
Member
- Messages
- 8,640
It’s a really interesting balance. There are so many factors it’s mind boggling. I know lots of clever people doing so many modelling figures. There is no doubt that more lives have been negatively affected in many ways due to the lockdown than have died, but if we didn’t lockdown the loss of life and psychosocial fallout would have been catastrophic. Truly a no win situationI am a pretty empathetic and a decent but balanced person Phil but even for me in 2020 that just doesn't wash any more. It is so outdated and simplistic. How many lives are being cost due to the economic issues being created. It is not such a flat, simple or 2D issue.
Forget the simple upfront obvious economics. Are we in effect causing more death through secondary economic effects that we are saving in the first place?
I have no idea and just don't have the data or stats. Just makes you think a bit more than a silly quip of a picture. Controversial? Maybe.......but I don't think so. As most of our issues in 2020 many are not that simple or easy to work out.
That tells me they are either lying to us or they are too stupid to hold office in the first place
The problem, C, is that travelling to your second home in the country or inviting your mistress across town for tiffin is not a mistake, it's a conscious act by people who are paid to know better and who tell the government that such conduct should be forbidden for the public.Or, and here's a radical concept that besides being scientific experts, they are also humans and therefor prone to make mistakes.....
...or not.
C
I have an issue with scientific experts and government officials who tell us it is essential to lockdown to preserve life and help the NHS, and then flout the rules themselves. That tells me they are either lying to us or they are too stupid to hold office in the first place, and their judgement is highly questionable; either way they lose the public's trust. Likewise with government ministers who seem to think it's ok to make bland promises of support for the NHS and care workers then spectacularly fail to deliver on those promises.
We know that people are dying of the virus, we know that the economy is being drained, and imho the public perception is that the government is caught between a rock and a hard place. Whatever the government now decides, it is a time for considered and considerate action, not smoke and mirrors.
PH
Some are. Most are not.They appear to be maintaining 2m of distance? Are they not exercising?
C
I don’t get it tbh. I used to live over the road from a fairly large beach front. When I went on it I never passed anyone nearer than bloody 10m, never mind 2.Some are. Most are not.
View from my window just now. What lockdown??View attachment 69689
You got the Job Phil , when can you startI have an issue with scientific experts and government officials who tell us it is essential to lockdown to preserve life and help the NHS, and then flout the rules themselves. That tells me they are either lying to us or they are too stupid to hold office in the first place, and their judgement is highly questionable; either way they lose the public's trust. Likewise with government ministers who seem to think it's ok to make bland promises of support for the NHS and care workers then spectacularly fail to deliver on those promises.
We know that people are dying of the virus, we know that the economy is being drained, and imho the public perception is that the government is caught between a rock and a hard place. Whatever the government now decides, it is a time for considered and considerate action, not smoke and mirrors.
PH
The problem, C, is that travelling to your second home in the country or inviting your mistress across town for tiffin is not a mistake, it's a conscious act
PH