GoSeigen wrote:Putting the metaphors to the side, lockdown is not the only tool available, it is just the most draconian and needless at this time. I remember right back in March when the first lockdown happened and I asked in all seriousness "What exactly is the lockdown for" I got an "Oh FFS!!" in response as if it was blindingly obvious to all but a complete fool -- yet here we are eight months later with a second lockdown. Now you say it is to save a few lives. Really? That's what I reluctantly concluded about the first lockdown based on the following premises:
1. We were utterly unprepared either socially or in the NHS to deal with the pandemic.
2. It had just been discovered and practically nothing was known about it.
3. It was spreading at an alarming rate, still in its exponential phase and it was practically impossible to tell how many people were already infected or would be infected.
4. It was almost completely unknown how deadly the virus was.
5. The data so far indicated that it could potentially be very deadly.
However, none of those 5 points is true any more. The first lockdown had a decent chance of saving many lives especially if Covid was as bad as feared. So I gritted my teeth and supported it despite the atrocious attack on personal liberty that it represented.
Seems more or less accurate. But completely disagree with that "atrocious attack on personal liberty
". This is another matter - but generally I'm a "circumstances alter cases
GoSeigen wrote:Given none of the above are true what exactly is there to justify this lockdown? Don't say to save a few lives.
I'd like to suggest it is to try to "save a few lives".
1. By preventing the spread of COVID-19 and so directly "save a few lives".
2. By preventing COVID-19 patients flooding hospitals and thereby to indirectly "save a few lives" among others.
GoSeigen wrote:There is no strong argument to show that will be the case, just supposition, and besides, there are many ways to save a few lives -- from suicide, from heart disease, cancer etc as well as CV -- why don't SD and the other (baby-boomer) lockdown supporters focus on those?
Perhaps they are? See above. And who are these "other people"? Are you saying only "baby-boomers" get COVID-19? Or that "baby-boomers" don't suffer from "suicide, heart disease, cancer etc"? (You forgot "strokes")
GoSeigen wrote:The fact is, over the months since the first lockdown a huge amount of learning has taken place and there are many effective ways to tackle the remainder of this pandemic that don't involve trampling all over other people's liberties.
Yes. But they seemed not to be working adequately.
GoSeigen wrote:There's a lot of not seeing the wood for the trees on these Coronavirus threads. Some, like Clitheroekid get it. Others are so busy studying the minutiae and avoiding even reading opposing views for bizarre reasons like "it's in the wrong newspaper" or "it's put forward by someone I don't respect" that they have completely lost sight of the big picture.
Have they? I cannot speak for them but, for myself, I can say that yes, I do need to be able to respect the source, and the individual who is the source, of information. Do you automatically believe any clown on the Internet who claims 'definite proof' that the Moon landings didn't happen etc. etc? Seems to me there are far too many who do.
GoSeigen wrote: One example is a poster who is creating fancy little models which at the start of Nov predicted 10,000 deaths per week by the end of Nov from a "second wave" while the actual figure is likely to be a quarter as much. So he is basing his view on this virus on a model which in two months suggests between ten and twenty times as many deaths as is actually going to be the case!
If only we knew then what we know now, huh? Me? I'd have bought the winning lottery ticket for a start! Obviously I have 'failed' because I didn't.
But this matter has, I see, already been addressed in another post.
GoSeigen wrote:The big picture is this: The virus is not nearly as deadly as appeared at first, there was only one wave, which is now dying out, the high death rate initially was likely caused by policy errors, complete ignorance about the virus and its treatment, and harvesting; the virus now is just one of many similarly serious ailments which deserve to be treated on a par with CV; far too much of our focus is going on this thing that will be forgotten in a couple of years, while we might have to live for years or decades with the consequences of stuff we are ignoring, like Brexit (which promises to be a nightmare in the new year, in the absence of some sort of diplomatic miracle) and the disastrous effect this nonsense is having on our children's development and education.
The question is still unanswered in my mind: what was this lockdown for in specific detail? "Oh FFS!" is not an answer...
I can only refer you to what I say above.
My intuition is that this is not a binary issue: We either sort COVID-19 OR
we look after the other issues.
IMO, the best solution to COVID-19 is/would have been(!) the best thing for the other matters. So... we may have managed to get BOTH wrong.