Boris is right a second lockdown could cripple UK economy.

[Juggy777]

Anthony Costello (ex who expert) has sensationally claimed that there’re 38k cases of covid infections taking place daily in UK, and there have been claims about lack of testing too. It is due to these claims that Chief Medical Officer for England Chris Whitty is pushing for a 2 week strict lockdown, but Boris is resisting this and like it or not I feel that he’s taking the correct decision at this stage. While I understand that covid effects are dangerous, but UK’s economy currently is fragile, and shutting it now could completely cripple whatever is left of their economy, hence I support Boris call that UK should not do a fresh lockdown.

Ex-WHO expert Anthony Costello tweeted: "I’m hearing from a well-connected person that government now thinks, in absence of testing, there are 38,000 infections per day.

"Chris Whitty is advising PM for a two week national lockdown."

Source:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/chief-medical-adviser-chris-whitty-22696770#source=breaking-news

[jackg]

But it's fine for the Cumbrics (Manchester and Yorkshire) to have to go through a month of a lockdown?.

Nimby (not in my back yard) culture has returned then apparently....

So their intent was just to cripple the North... Nice!

Phasing in and out of lockdown might be possible for reducing spread. A month of people socialising like normal followed by a 2 week lockdown (or even people socialising like normal and isolating for 3 days afterwards)...

[AjithBtc]

UK has got around 38K covid-19 cases on regular basis. With this Boris coming up with the statement of lockdown crippling the economy is true. Already governments suffer a lot to recover from the economic downfall. In my country we've got more than 80k covid-19 cases regularly. Our Prime Minister is clear on his decision, there is no more lockdown anymore. Upon this I don't find the statement of Boris a big thing.

[audaciousbeing]

Anthony Costello (ex who expert) has sensationally claimed that there’re 38k cases of covid infections taking place daily in UK, and there have been claims about lack of testing too. It is due to these claims that Chief Medical Officer for England Chris Whitty is pushing for a 2 week strict lockdown, but Boris is resisting this and like it or not I feel that he’s taking the correct decision at this stage. While I understand that covid effects are dangerous, but UK’s economy currently is fragile, and shutting it now could completely cripple whatever is left of their economy, hence I support Boris call that UK should not do a fresh lockdown.

Ex-WHO expert Anthony Costello tweeted: "I’m hearing from a well-connected person that government now thinks, in absence of testing, there are 38,000 infections per day.

"Chris Whitty is advising PM for a two week national lockdown."

Source:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/chief-medical-adviser-chris-whitty-22696770#source=breaking-news

Eventually, the UK authorities will have to take a decision and choose which one they are going to save. The economy is very important at this point and its not the fault of the PM to take that stand eventually if the economy should collapse a lot of lives might be further lost that goes beyond the people that would be infected by COVID-19. The PM thoughts goes beyond health but the impact on every sector on the country should the lockdown happened again.

[mu_enrico]

I bet after the second lockdown (if implemented), there will be the third, fourth, and so on. Lockdown doesn't work except the military strictly disallows people to get out or get shot on sight. And after all the hassle and obvious massive economic problems, it takes only one zombie to infect the people.

I think Boris's decision wasn't mainly motivated by the economy, but just common sense and for liberty reason.

[dimonstration]

UK has got around 38K covid-19 cases on regular basis. With this Boris coming up with the statement of lockdown crippling the economy is true. Already governments suffer a lot to recover from the economic downfall. In my country we've got more than 80k covid-19 cases regularly. Our Prime Minister is clear on his decision, there is no more lockdown anymore. Upon this I don't find the statement of Boris a big thing.

80k is big there is a need for lockdown if it happens regularly, the econmony can soon to survive but the lives of the people mlatters at these Time, but if the people will not still follow any protocols or observed their self and surroundings to keep them safe then better not do it and prioritize recovering the economy.
Boris may come up to the idea of lockdown to flatten or atleast lower the number of people infected but it will only be useless if it will not be implemented stricter that before or make it more stricter so the virus will not spread fast.

[jacafbiz]

I can tell you that if testing is romped up these expert will still tell you that we need another lock down. Most of these so called expert have never experience limelight like this before and they are enjoying it because people are talk their opinion serious, once this is over they are forgotten. Boris should resist this and wait for vaccine or herd immunity take over

[abhiseshakana]

Eventually, the UK authorities will have to take a decision and choose which one they are going to save. The economy is very important at this point and its not the fault of the PM to take that stand eventually if the economy should collapse a lot of lives might be further lost that goes beyond the people that would be infected by COVID-19. The PM thoughts goes beyond health but the impact on every sector on the country should the lockdown happened again.

There are two reasons Johnson is taking steps to lean more towards the economy than on health. This is due to his overconfidence in the discovery of the vaccine and in fact, Johnson is a supporter of herd immunity. Not much different from Trump, who initially considered that a pandemic is a natural selection, in the end it is the strong who can survive. According to Johnson, freedom creates happiness which eventually becomes antibodies to fight the virus. Learning from China, Taiwan, Vietnam, New Zealand, the keys to handling a pandemic are experience, leadership, management & technology.

[Mauser]

Anthony Costello (ex who expert) has sensationally claimed that there’re 38k cases of covid infections taking place daily in UK, and there have been claims about lack of testing too. It is due to these claims that Chief Medical Officer for England Chris Whitty is pushing for a 2 week strict lockdown, but Boris is resisting this and like it or not I feel that he’s taking the correct decision at this stage. While I understand that covid effects are dangerous, but UK’s economy currently is fragile, and shutting it now could completely cripple whatever is left of their economy, hence I support Boris call that UK should not do a fresh lockdown.

Ex-WHO expert Anthony Costello tweeted: "I’m hearing from a well-connected person that government now thinks, in absence of testing, there are 38,000 infections per day.

"Chris Whitty is advising PM for a two week national lockdown."

Source:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/chief-medical-adviser-chris-whitty-22696770#source=breaking-news

I think another lockdown would cripple any country, not only the UK. Almost every country will have a negative growth in GDP this year due to corona and lock downs. We saw drops in all major countries between 7-30%, which is massive. We just can't afford another lock down. There needs to be a trade off between saving lifes and stabilising the economy. I believe we should be taking good care of high risk people and elderly people, but closing down the hole country for everyone is just too much. We still don't know how long corona will be around so it's better to adapt to a life with corona.

[fiulpro]

Crippling the economy is different and Saving people is another.

-lockdown is essential!!
-the jobs have to be shifted virtually
-jobs needs to be created in a bigger number now
-the wages have to be above a certain minimum
-people should be provided with less interest rates
-EMI and such things should be halted for a while
-It is needed to do more tests
-Vaccination will take a while thus I do believe we are in here for like 2 years

Lock down is essential but complete lockdown is very unnecessary , what we need is adaptive lockdown.

[exstasie]

In the US, I'd say don't even bother. It won't work. Half the country will ignore all the rules, enforcement will be nonexistent just like the first time around, and the economy will be bludgeoned to death for little to no benefit.

But in the UK, maybe? It worked the first time around, didn't it?

Spain and France look even worse than the UK:



...although death rates are better this time around. If we do see another round of lockdowns, it'll shake the markets hard. It would be a great catalyst for a selloff in stock markets, and therefore also in BTC.

[Renampun]

The new lockdown will only worsen the economy of the city or state...
Not only that, of course, the new Lockdown will also only turn citizens against the government because there is no certainty that the Lockdown is effective. Boris made the right decision.

[Lucius]

We have all seen what a complete lockdown means, and I think it should be avoided if at all possible - and what needs to be implemented are intensified measures in cities or regions where there are a large number of infected. These measures must include the mandatory wearing of protective masks in all enclosed spaces, the mandatory disinfection of hands and the maintenance of social contact - and a limited number of persons at all public gatherings.

What I see at the moment as a big problem are young people who behave completely irresponsibly because they know that the consequences of the infection are very small for them - so they are allowed to live an almost normal life that spreads the infection among the elderly population.

Some have not yet figured out exactly what this is all about and refuse to change their lifestyle even though we are very close to 1 million victims of this virus only in the first wave. For some countries, there may be no choice but to lockdown - otherwise we could watch scenes from some cataclysmic movies where the army goes from house to house and collects dead people.

[inoes]

it would not be possible to completely lock it. there are definitely some companies still operating that are sustaining life in the country. surely the country is implementing policies that can still make the economy survive. because Hancock said that the lockdown was a last resort. and he convincingly said that the government will do whatever it takes to contain the coronavirus ...

[mindrust]

I bet after the second lockdown (if implemented), there will be the third, fourth, and so on. Lockdown doesn't work except the military strictly disallows people to get out or get shot on sight. And after all the hassle and obvious massive economic problems, it takes only one zombie to infect the people.

I think Boris's decision wasn't mainly motivated by the economy, but just common sense and for liberty reason.

That's exactly how a lockdown should be enforced.

This infection doesn't like half measures.

This is how China fights Covid19:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfsdJGj3-jM

I didn't believe their low case numbers before but after watching this video above, it started to make sense.

[exstasie]

What I see at the moment as a big problem are young people who behave completely irresponsibly because they know that the consequences of the infection are very small for them - so they are allowed to live an almost normal life that spreads the infection among the elderly population.

Some have not yet figured out exactly what this is all about and refuse to change their lifestyle even though we are very close to 1 million victims of this virus only in the first wave.

Whether some people in their 20s infect each other doesn't matter all that much. The irresponsible part is where people coming into contact with elderly populations don't take precautions, or where elderly people themselves throw caution to the wind. I don't know how we address this exactly.

The bottom line is older and more vulnerable populations need to segregate themselves from the population. That is where the emphasis needs to be. Putting unbearable restrictions on movement of the entire population not only destroys the economy, but younger people will find it irrational and they won't abide. They will even start protesting, as we saw last time.

I bet after the second lockdown (if implemented), there will be the third, fourth, and so on. Lockdown doesn't work except the military strictly disallows people to get out or get shot on sight. And after all the hassle and obvious massive economic problems, it takes only one zombie to infect the people.

I think Boris's decision wasn't mainly motivated by the economy, but just common sense and for liberty reason.

That's exactly how a lockdown should be enforced.

This infection doesn't like half measures.

This is how China fights Covid19:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfsdJGj3-jM

I didn't believe their low case numbers before but after watching this video above, it started to make sense.

How do you feel about that, morally?

[mindrust]

I bet after the second lockdown (if implemented), there will be the third, fourth, and so on. Lockdown doesn't work except the military strictly disallows people to get out or get shot on sight. And after all the hassle and obvious massive economic problems, it takes only one zombie to infect the people.

I think Boris's decision wasn't mainly motivated by the economy, but just common sense and for liberty reason.

That's exactly how a lockdown should be enforced.

This infection doesn't like half measures.

This is how China fights Covid19:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfsdJGj3-jM

I didn't believe their low case numbers before but after watching this video above, it started to make sense.

How do you feel about that, morally?

Morally? Is there something to feel bad about shooting people down during a lockdown? Because that's how lockdowns work.

Not saying lockdown is the only way to get rid of the virus but it damn sure would slow it down. (I'd prefer a medicine)

If people don't want to comply, make them comply. I don't know about you but I  liked the way how the Chinese dealt with the virus.

How is that working for the US where half of the population refuse to wear masks?

[South Park]

Anthony Costello (ex who expert) has sensationally claimed that there’re 38k cases of covid infections taking place daily in UK, and there have been claims about lack of testing too. It is due to these claims that Chief Medical Officer for England Chris Whitty is pushing for a 2 week strict lockdown, but Boris is resisting this and like it or not I feel that he’s taking the correct decision at this stage. While I understand that covid effects are dangerous, but UK’s economy currently is fragile, and shutting it now could completely cripple whatever is left of their economy, hence I support Boris call that UK should not do a fresh lockdown.

Ex-WHO expert Anthony Costello tweeted: "I’m hearing from a well-connected person that government now thinks, in absence of testing, there are 38,000 infections per day.

"Chris Whitty is advising PM for a two week national lockdown."

Source:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/chief-medical-adviser-chris-whitty-22696770#source=breaking-news

I think that lockdowns are not really the way forward what we need to do is to enforce more strictly the use of all the measures needed to prevent the spread of the virus, for example in most cities you can see everyone with face masks but many are wearing them incorrectly and while everyone knows that it is uncomfortable to wear the face masks correctly if you are in pubic you must do so in order to protect yourself and others, small things like that could help curb the advance of the virus with lockdowns being the last resort.

[palle11]

Another round of locking the UK is going to go heavy negatively to the economy that has really been hit already by covid-19. This is about choosing the best evil. As for the economy, their should be what will sustain people after the end of covid-19 and shutting down totally has not helped many economy.

[exstasie]

That's exactly how a lockdown should be enforced.

This infection doesn't like half measures.

This is how China fights Covid19:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfsdJGj3-jM

I didn't believe their low case numbers before but after watching this video above, it started to make sense.

How do you feel about that, morally?

Morally? Is there something to feel bad about shooting people down during a lockdown?

Yes. I'm a libertarian. I believe in unequivocal freedom of movement. Not letting people outside and not letting people work, particularly when the virus does not transmit well outside and where people can maintain social distance, is incredibly authoritarian. Shooting people over it? Insanity!

How is that working for the US where half of the population refuse to wear masks?

It doesn't seem that bad, honestly. At this point, the initial lockdown appears to have been complete overkill, crippling the economy for little benefit. Masks are pretty ubiquitous now and infections are consistently dropping in the US. Clearly masks are the answer, not lockdowns.

People are rational. When they realized the virus was not particularly dangerous, and that lockdowns threatened their livelihood and ability to feed their families and keep a roof over their head, they rationally decided that lockdowns were unacceptable. I honestly don't blame them. It's really messed up for governments to pick who gets to work and who doesn't, who has to burn through all their savings and who doesn't, who ends up broke and homeless and who doesn't. There are no bailouts for the poor, for renters. They have no choice. It's easy for middle class homeowners working from home or collecting $2,400 extra a month on unemployment while deferring their mortgage payments, to pass judgment on poor people who can't afford to stay locked down. It must be nice to get bailed out by the government!

[Cnut237]

Chief Medical Officer for England Chris Whitty is pushing for a 2 week strict lockdown, but Boris is resisting this and like it or not I feel that he’s taking the correct decision at this stage.

I think it's the wrong decision. Johnson has zero sense of moral responsibility and zero concern for the wellbeing of the population. He couldn't care less how many people die, so long as the economy keeps running smoothly. Indeed herd immunity was his initial strategy, and I suspect that the reason he eventually backtracked and implemented lockdown was that he realised that thousands of deaths might cost him some votes. Johnson appears to be a fool, and this coupled with his egotism makes him dangerous - the parallels with Trump are striking.

The main problem is the endemic short-termism in modern politics, and this is another reason why lockdowns are implemented too late. They wait until cases are really high, and then decide to act. That's not the way to respond to a problem that has exponential growth. It was a dereliction of duty back in March to not bring in early restrictions and quarantining of new entrants to the country. If he'd done that, we likely could have avoided full lockdown altogether. It was a dereliction of duty the first time. But to then repeat the same behaviour later in the year is not just inept, it borders on the criminal.

I think Boris's decision wasn't mainly motivated by the economy, but just common sense and for liberty reason.

I might agree on the liberty point, but disagree profoundly on the other two. Exponential progression is not a difficult thing to understand, but Johnson has either failed to do so, or simply doesn't care. I would argue that the only sense he possesses is self-interest.

[Lucius]

Whether some people in their 20s infect each other doesn't matter all that much. The irresponsible part is where people coming into contact with elderly populations don't take precautions, or where elderly people themselves throw caution to the wind. I don't know how we address this exactly.

I would not agree that it does not matter that the infection is spreading among the younger population - because the more young people are infected, the greater the chances that those people who are in risk categories will be infected. The problem is that today's young people (the vast majority) do not want to give up their way of life, even at the cost of transmitting the infection to their parents, grandparents.

In my country, the infection has almost completely stopped - but when nightclubs opened and the tourist season started, it all went to hell - and that could only have been avoided if nightclubs had been banned. It is necessary to find the right balance between some human freedoms and the prevention of the spread of the virus, but this is much more difficult than it seems at first glance.

[mindrust]

It doesn't seem that bad, honestly.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries

Does that really look "not bad" to you?

At this point, the initial lockdown appears to have been complete overkill, crippling the economy for little benefit. Masks are pretty ubiquitous now and infections are consistently dropping in the US. Clearly masks are the answer, not lockdowns.

This depends. Masks are definitely a necessity and whoever refuses to wear one, deserves a kick in the head. Lockdowns may or may not be the answer however. Like I said, depends. Since the numbers are climbing higher and higher, a lockdown as a solution is starting to weight more. Apparently, masks are not working well... enough.

People are rational. When they realized the virus was not particularly dangerous,

You clearly aren't the rational one with this sentence. The virus is dangerous. There is no question about that. It fucks people up, even the healthy ones. The ones who went through it describe this sickness like x5 heavier than the bird flu. Yes there are many people who show no symptoms but that doesn't mean it is not dangerous.

and that lockdowns threatened their livelihood and ability to feed their families and keep a roof over their head, they rationally decided that lockdowns were unacceptable.

Again. Depends. It is either die from the virus or from the hunger. I know I know, both options suck. I cannot say lockdowns are unacceptable though. Depends on the situation.

It's really messed up for governments to pick who gets to work and who doesn't, who has to burn through all their savings and who doesn't, who ends up broke and homeless and who doesn't. There are no bailouts for the poor, for renters. They have no choice. It's easy for middle class homeowners working from home or collecting $2,400 extra a month on unemployment while deferring their mortgage payments, to pass judgment on poor people who can't afford to stay locked down. It must be nice to get bailed out by the government!

The president can easily solve this by printing more money and giving it to the people. Brrrrrrrrrrrrrr

[RealMalatesta]

Which one is more important, to have a crippled economy or basically letting people die so that UK would continue to churn up profit for companies?

I can guarantee you that a proper government should be strong enough to actually get all the money they can from taxes from all the new income these huge corporations made, and with that money allow people to stay at home by paying them a fair amount, it wouldn't be huge amount because it would be just for survival, something like 1000 pound per month, not enough obviously but could be at least a base to work on for many people.

If they can't do that I am sorry but we are talking about not making any progress as a nation and just allowing people to die, that is unacceptable and I am not going to just agree because economists says so.

[target]

Whichever they choose economy will always be affected. Not everyone will die because if for a short period of time their body can adapt to the virus, they can go on just as we can see how much people had recovered compared to the no. of deaths.  Nature is always about survival of the fittest.

They wouldn't however know how much lives will be saved though if they are going to lockdown.

[Kez1817]

I think not only the UK economy are suffering economic downfall but most of the country that has a huge number of covid patients and always implement lockdowns. If there is a strict total lockdown, there is a possibility of slow virus spreading but the economy will suffer most and for sure the government can't support the needs of the people. Here in our country, there is no more lockdowns even there are still huge number of covid cases everyday but if you can see the street ,it's like a normal day ,it's like there is no pandemic, no covid virus. Well, I believe that if it is your turn then you have nothing to do about it...You can't add even a second to your breathe.

[pokeronlinestatus]

Right now I am also in support that there shouldn’t be any other lockdown.
Yes, the coronavirus is bad, but still a lockdown seems like it’s even going to do something more worse than what the coronavirus is going to do.

And about the testing issue, it has been the same thing for where I live, nobody is talking about the coronavirus any longer and we know that we are also not ready for another lockdown, because the last one was very bad for us, and a lot of were not in support of it. The lockdown caused an increase in the price of foodstuffs and people were not even to afford anything.

[Febo]

Which one is more important, to have a crippled economy or basically letting people die so that UK would continue to churn up profit for companies?

Sweden let economy open and it dont look that bad right now. Yes things can change in upcoming months but it all seems they will be a winners at the end. They will have same % of dead as other countries, just that they had them early while others will have them evenly distributed over year.

Here is a picture of dead after covid-19 in Sweden.

[exstasie]

Does that really look "not bad" to you?

It looks like a typical flu season. In fact, it looks like a light flu season. And the more we learn about and test for COVID-19, the lower the mortality rate appears to be: https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/view/covid-19-has-mortality-rate-declined

I don't mean to downplay these deaths, but we need to keep them in perspective regarding the total population size and the necessity for people to work.

At this point, the initial lockdown appears to have been complete overkill, crippling the economy for little benefit. Masks are pretty ubiquitous now and infections are consistently dropping in the US. Clearly masks are the answer, not lockdowns.

This depends. Masks are definitely a necessity and whoever refuses to wear one, deserves a kick in the head. Lockdowns may or may not be the answer however. Like I said, depends. Since the numbers are climbing higher and higher, a lockdown as a solution is starting to weight more. Apparently, masks are not working well... enough.

Or there is a distinct possibility that infection numbers will wax and wane for some time. Corona virus death and new case rates have been dropping for months in the US. The opposite is now true in Europe, despite a far better initial response. Given that disparity, I am no longer confident that another lockdown justifies the economic costs.

People are rational. When they realized the virus was not particularly dangerous,

You clearly aren't the rational one with this sentence. The virus is dangerous. There is no question about that. It fucks people up, even the healthy ones. The ones who went through it describe this sickness like x5 heavier than the bird flu. Yes there are many people who show no symptoms but that doesn't mean it is not dangerous.

I guess you missed the word particularly. At a ~0.6-0.65% mortality rate, I think it's perfectly rational for people to decide working is more important. You're expecting people to destroy their savings, lose their homes, lose their small businesses, end up with no health insurance and possibly homeless......so they can avoid getting COVID-19? When protections like masks and social distancing are in place, no less?

Unless you're paying everyone else's rent and bills, good luck convincing them this is a good idea.

It's really messed up for governments to pick who gets to work and who doesn't, who has to burn through all their savings and who doesn't, who ends up broke and homeless and who doesn't. There are no bailouts for the poor, for renters. They have no choice. It's easy for middle class homeowners working from home or collecting $2,400 extra a month on unemployment while deferring their mortgage payments, to pass judgment on poor people who can't afford to stay locked down. It must be nice to get bailed out by the government!

The president can easily solve this by printing more money and giving it to the people. Brrrrrrrrrrrrrr

It's the Fed who can print money, and they are only interested in bailing out the markets. That primarily means keeping homeowners out of foreclosure and buying corporate bonds to keep big companies from collapsing, which in turn props up the housing and stock markets. If you're not a mortgage holder or a bank or a company trying to raise money on the bond market, you don't benefit from that, and in the end you'll get a significantly devalued dollar.

Since they only print money to give to people who already have it, I'd rather just see it all collapse. I'm hedged and am positioned to buy blood in the streets after all. Unfortunately, the Fed will never let that happen. They'll just keep on bailing out zombie corporations who can't get debt funding, and swallowing mortgage debt on the repo market until there is no supply left.

[jaysabi]

I bet after the second lockdown (if implemented), there will be the third, fourth, and so on. Lockdown doesn't work except the military strictly disallows people to get out or get shot on sight. And after all the hassle and obvious massive economic problems, it takes only one zombie to infect the people.

I think Boris's decision wasn't mainly motivated by the economy, but just common sense and for liberty reason.

Cuz apparently you can't have "freedom" if you're not free to go out and infect people with communicable diseases! /s  We have the same problem in the United States.  People crying about how their freedoms are being infringed with mask mandates.  Meanwhile, those same people don't believe in the freedom of other people not to be infected by ignoramuses who deny that masks greatly reduce the spread of the virus.  The idea of total freedom is a fiction.  Your actions have consequences on others.  As it happens, the people who are crying about freedom are really crying about their lack of freedom to do what they want without consequences for their actions.  I don't have sympathy for them.  They're the reason things are as bad as they are.

[barbara44]

Young people do die from the infection as well, I do not understand this logic that only a small portion of them die compared to older generation so it is fine. I rather not have a virus that could potentially kill me 0.000001% chance, I do not want any virus that has a "chance" to kill me, I do not want to have common flu as well, that could kill me too, why would anyone want to have a virus that could kill you?

Obviously there is precautions and medicine and prevention vaccines etc etc for common flu so the world continues like nothing happened because you recover from it with certain methods but this doesn't have any of that yet, the medications that help you are the ones from other sickness and not specific to this but figured it helps, and vaccination is brand new and still testing on humans.

[Salauddin1994]

Ahead of the lockdown british prime minister boris johnson said it would benefit local businesses as well as the country's economy if the corona outbreak increases after the sanctions are relaxed the economy will deteriorate. After the lockdown if everyone moves consciously and maintains social distance the situation will be more normal and the economy will not be affected too otherwise the economy will go down a lot and the world will turn into poverty.

[mindrust]

It looks like a typical flu season. In fact, it looks like a light flu season. And the more we learn about and test for COVID-19, the lower the mortality rate appears to be: https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/view/covid-19-has-mortality-rate-declined

I don't mean to downplay these deaths, but we need to keep them in perspective regarding the total population size and the necessity for people to work.

It doesn't look like a typical flu season let alone a light flu season. (not even close)

A typical flu season in the US has only 61k deaths annually.

CDC estimates that influenza has resulted in between 9 million – 45 million illnesses, between 140,000 – 810,000 hospitalizations and between 12,000 – 61,000 deaths annually since 2010.

Source: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/index.html

Total deaths from Covid19 in the US is 200k+ after 9 months. Source: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

You do the rest of the math.

Or there is a distinct possibility that infection numbers will wax and wane for some time. Corona virus death and new case rates have been dropping for months in the US. The opposite is now true in Europe, despite a far better initial response. Given that disparity, I am no longer confident that another lockdown justifies the economic costs.

As long as there is even one person left that carries the virus, it will keep spreading and everything will go back to where it is now.

I guess you missed the word particularly. At a ~0.6-0.65% mortality rate,

That's also manipulated (didn't want to say wrong) information. The mortality rate can change depending on how you calculate it.

Worldometer says the death rate is %4.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

I think it's perfectly rational for people to decide working is more important. You're expecting people to destroy their savings, lose their homes, lose their small businesses, end up with no health insurance and possibly homeless......so they can avoid getting COVID-19? When protections like masks and social distancing are in place, no less?

Unless you're paying everyone else's rent and bills, good luck convincing them this is a good idea.

I don't expect people to destroy their savings. If they took a 30 year mortgage, well... they shouldn't have done it. Now you mentioned it, I realized, it is the debt you are scared of so much. Even more than covid19 which explains a lot.

If people saved their cash and gold instead of taking mortgages, nobody would give a damn about the lockdowns now. You can blame the central banks here for lowering the interest rates to zero (or even negative) but on the other hand there are also people like me. I still have no mortgages on me when they were giving if nearly for free few months ago in where I live. Fuck debt.

It's the Fed who can print money, and they are only interested in bailing out the markets.

The Fed will do whatever Trump says. They did it before. There is no reason for them to not do it again.

That primarily means keeping homeowners out of foreclosure and buying corporate bonds to keep big companies from collapsing, which in turn props up the housing and stock markets. If you're not a mortgage holder or a bank or a company trying to raise money on the bond market, you don't benefit from that, and in the end you'll get a significantly devalued dollar.

Since they only print money to give to people who already have it, I'd rather just see it all collapse. I'm hedged and am positioned to buy blood in the streets after all. Unfortunately, the Fed will never let that happen. They'll just keep on bailing out zombie corporations who can't get debt funding, and swallowing mortgage debt on the repo market until there is no supply left.

Again with the mortgages. Yawn. I say just let them burn. Maybe that'll smarten them up a bit or their kids at least.

[coolcoinz]

If we have about 50 million people in the UK and 38k cases a day, it's going to take just 4 years before every single person gets it at this rate, but we have to assume that the more cases there are overall, the more new daily cases there will be, so I'd say 2 years tops and it's over.

Isn't this good news? Always try to find positives

On the other hand the official statistics show just 400k total cases in the UK, so with almost 40k a day this number should be much higher.

[bryant.coleman]

Sweden let economy open and it dont look that bad right now. Yes things can change in upcoming months but it all seems they will be a winners at the end. They will have same % of dead as other countries, just that they had them early while others will have them evenly distributed over year.

Here is a picture of dead after covid-19 in Sweden.

A few months back, many of us were making fun of Sweden. They were having on average more than 100 deaths per day, while the neighboring countries such as Norway and Denmark were reporting deaths in single digits. Sweden was the first country to propose the "herd immunity" theory. This was ridiculed by most of the experts in the beginning. But now from the data it looks as if they were right about it.

[Chrystora123]

not all countries are compatible with the LOCKDOWN policy, there are also many that even though LOCKDOWN still experience an increase in positive patients COVID 19 like India..  for me, the decision taken by Boris was right (not re-enacting LOCKDOWN) even though many UK residents also think it's not right..

[20kevin20]

not all countries are compatible with the LOCKDOWN policy, there are also many that even though LOCKDOWN still experience an increase in positive patients COVID 19 like India..  for me, the decision taken by Boris was right (not re-enacting LOCKDOWN) even though many UK residents also think it's not right..

The economical repercussions are just way too harsh for another lockdown. I am quite afraid of what's to come from an economical perspective. This is basically deciding between having to "fight against the virus" without lockdowns and fighting against it by increasing the power of the incoming economical crisis (through locking down countries again). I'd rather continue with the existing measures for a few more months than make a lot of people starve and lose jobs within a matter of months/years. I'm afraid the option of having new waves of lockdowns would end up way worse than continuing the current measures.

[Harlot]

Obviously this is true and I don't think there should be an argument about this one any kind of event where it will stop some kind of industry in their economy may it be in agriculture or tech will hurt the economy but the real question here is will a 2 week lockdown period give more pros than cons in the future of UK? Before they consider another lockdown they must have exhausted most options like contact tracing, mass testing, as well as strict enforcement of their own pandemic guidelines and an improvement thereof, If nothing can be improve to what they are doing then they don't have any choice but to do another lockdown in the hopes that it will flatten the curve.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

UK is not my country and not my battle, but I'd be against another lockdown if it were my country.  Hell, I don't even think we need to keep wearing face masks anymore--and a lot of people in the US have stopped doing that and have stopped keeping physical distance from one another, too.

COVID-19 is nowhere near as deadly as it's being made out to be, and I think the entire world has overreacted in the extreme to the outbreak (except for the at-risk population).  Are we going to shut down our economy every time there's a new virus that causes X number of deaths?  I don't think that's a wise course of action in any country.  There are thousands of risks we take every day just doing everyday stuff, and people die of infectious diseases other than COVID-19 every day, all over the world.

Sweden was the first country to propose the "herd immunity" theory. This was ridiculed by most of the experts in the beginning. But now from the data it looks as if they were right about it.

It's stupid to ridicule herd immunity, since it's a well-known principle in epidemiology that keeps people safe.

[abhiseshakana]

If people saved their cash and gold instead of taking mortgages, nobody would give a damn about the lockdowns now. You can blame the central banks here for lowering the interest rates to zero (or even negative) but on the other hand there are also people like me. I still have no mortgages on me when they were giving if nearly for free few months ago in where I live. Fuck debt.

Agree with your opinion, many people think that debt is a solution to economic problems, even though debt, especially those that have interest, is adding to the burden on your life according to the period of debt you take. Debt makes a person dare to speculate and make decisions based on a picture of the future, which in reality is not necessarily what we expect. With debt, humans force the ability to buy and become very consumptive to buy what they want, not buy what they need.

The option to save money in the form of cash, gold and bitcoin is very good, but it is wiser if we also invest in the real sector so that the economy rotates, apart from banks with interest practices, the money market is one of the causes for speculative action and money accumulates in a group of people, so the economy doesn't spin. The more people save and hoard assets, the less investment, the slower the economy rotates.

[exstasie]

A typical flu season in the US has only 61k deaths annually.

CDC estimates that influenza has resulted in between 9 million – 45 million illnesses, between 140,000 – 810,000 hospitalizations and between 12,000 – 61,000 deaths annually since 2010.

Source: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/index.html

Total deaths from Covid19 in the US is 200k+ after 9 months. Source: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

You do the rest of the math.

Fair enough, I was mixing up the US and world statistics on flu deaths. Still, the initial estimates of mortality risk and anticipated deaths that justified the initial lockdowns were significantly overestimated.

The lockdowns were also implemented without accounting for how mask usage and social distancing would affect the trajectory of the disease. That's something we really need to consider when you compare the American vs. European experiences. In the US, the lockdown did not work. Cases only plateaued and then kept rising. For the last two months cases have been falling as all the lockdown measures were gradually relaxed but mask usage was mandated.

Or there is a distinct possibility that infection numbers will wax and wane for some time. Corona virus death and new case rates have been dropping for months in the US. The opposite is now true in Europe, despite a far better initial response. Given that disparity, I am no longer confident that another lockdown justifies the economic costs.

As long as there is even one person left that carries the virus, it will keep spreading and everything will go back to where it is now.

The idea that you could completely eradicate it through quarantine at this point is ridiculous. That will never happen. Vaccine and/or herd immunity or bust.

I guess you missed the word particularly. At a ~0.6-0.65% mortality rate,

That's also manipulated (didn't want to say wrong) information. The mortality rate can change depending on how you calculate it.

Worldometer says the death rate is %4.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

That's based on confirmed cases only, which by definition is a drastic overestimation. Most people who contract the disease will obviously never get tested. This is common sense.

Both the CDC and independent statisticians put mortality at 0.6-0.65%. I trust that a hell of a lot more than back of the envelope math that doesn't even attempt to account for diagnostic shortcomings. https://www.statnews.com/2020/08/24/infection-fatality-rate-shows-covid-19-isnt-getting-less-deadly/

I don't expect people to destroy their savings. If they took a 30 year mortgage, well... they shouldn't have done it. Now you mentioned it, I realized, it is the debt you are scared of so much. Even more than covid19 which explains a lot.

If people saved their cash and gold instead of taking mortgages, nobody would give a damn about the lockdowns now.

Okay, now let's get back to reality where ~80% of workers live paycheck to paycheck, and most businesses only have enough cash flow to survive closed for a month, if that. Projecting your investment views on the rest of society is cool and everything, but it doesn't deal with the actual problem. I also think it's silly to assume everyone can save at all, or invest in gold, when wages have been stagnant for decades vs. surging living costs.

I agree way too many people have mortgages, and like I said before, I would love to see the deadbeat homeowner class mass foreclosed on so the overinflated housing market can be cut down to size and houses can become affordable again. But that option is not on the table.

Again with the mortgages. Yawn. I say just let them burn. Maybe that'll smarten them up a bit or their kids at least.

I've literally been saying that. But I have no choice over Fed and Congressional policy, and it's clear they are going to keep bailing out mortgage holders. There's no point sitting here talking shit about them. It's a done deal.

What I'm talking about is something very different than monetary policy and bailouts. I'm talking about rationality. It's simply irrational to expect people to lock themselves inside when they are faced with financial ruin. We have a society where most people perpetually live on the verge of financial ruin. Therefore they will not comply with ongoing lockdowns. It doesn't matter how we got here as society. It's simple economic reality, and markets are so much more powerful than governments.

Lockdowns worked better in East Asian countries that have more authoritarian and submissive cultures, cultures more intent on saving vs. spending, and also who had the experience of SARS. I honestly don't think it's a matter of guns. The US government can point guns at people but the more they cripple the economy, the more people will actively rebel. That much I am confident of.

[mindrust]

If people saved their cash and gold instead of taking mortgages, nobody would give a damn about the lockdowns now. You can blame the central banks here for lowering the interest rates to zero (or even negative) but on the other hand there are also people like me. I still have no mortgages on me when they were giving if nearly for free few months ago in where I live. Fuck debt.

Agree with your opinion, many people think that debt is a solution to economic problems, even though debt, especially those that have interest, is adding to the burden on your life according to the period of debt you take. Debt makes a person dare to speculate and make decisions based on a picture of the future, which in reality is not necessarily what we expect. With debt, humans force the ability to buy and become very consumptive to buy what they want, not buy what they need.

The option to save money in the form of cash, gold and bitcoin is very good, but it is wiser if we also invest in the real sector so that the economy rotates, apart from banks with interest practices, the money market is one of the causes for speculative action and money accumulates in a group of people, so the economy doesn't spin. The more people save and hoard assets, the less investment, the slower the economy rotates.

Debt is slavery.

Saving money is always a must.

Investing in various assets is a portfolio game.

If the conditions are good enough, you invest in stocks, do business and maybe even take some risks by borrowing money from the bank so you can expand your business.

If things are not going so well, you sit down, wear a mask and hoard gold, clean water, bullets and dry food.

Always have a plan b ready, Never go full debt.

Now that is funny:

The ones who went through it describe this sickness like x5 heavier than the bird flu.

CDC estimates that influenza has resulted in between 9 million – 45 million illnesses, between 140,000 – 810,000 hospitalizations and between 12,000 – 61,000 deaths annually since 2010.

Source: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/index.html
Total deaths from Covid19 in the US is 200k+ after 9 months. Source: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

The death rate is also nearly x5 bigger than the bird flu. (or it will be by the end of the year) So people were spot on while describing covid19.

[jaysabi]

Sweden was the first country to propose the "herd immunity" theory. This was ridiculed by most of the experts in the beginning. But now from the data it looks as if they were right about it.

It's stupid to ridicule herd immunity, since it's a well-known principle in epidemiology that keeps people safe.

Herd immunity depends on the vast majority of the population being vaccinated, what Sweden did was not a herd immunity plan and what Sweden has now is not herd immunity.  Exposing a population to a virus and just telling people "those of us who survive will be better off" is an absolutely idiotic plan. Ridiculing what Sweden did and ridiculing herd immunity are not the same thing.

[mindrust]

Sweden was the first country to propose the "herd immunity" theory. This was ridiculed by most of the experts in the beginning. But now from the data it looks as if they were right about it.

It's stupid to ridicule herd immunity, since it's a well-known principle in epidemiology that keeps people safe.

Herd immunity depends on the vast majority of the population being vaccinated, what Sweden did was not a herd immunity plan and what Sweden has now is not herd immunity.  Exposing a population to a virus and just telling people "those of us who survive will be better off" is an absolutely idiotic plan. Ridiculing what Sweden did and ridiculing herd immunity are not the same thing.

Here is what this guy thinks about Sweden's brilliant plan:

A run at herd immunity in Sweden prompted mathematician Marcus Carlsson to object: “we are being herded like a flock of sheep toward disaster”.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31924-3/fulltext

I was wondering what the hell herd immunity is (I already knew some about it but wanted to hear it from a good source)  and I came across to this article. It was just published on last Saturday. A great read, do recommend.

My personal opinion on herd immunity is a bit complicated though.

The symptoms of this sickness can vary from no symptoms to the "God take my life end my torment" levels. Normally I would give it a go to the herd immu thing but knowing that the heavy virus loads can make you go through hell makes me skeptical about it.

To gain immunity to covid19, your body should fight and win against it first.

I don't know if that's the risk I would want to take. It kinda sounds stupid to me right now because it is not clear what I am going to lose during the fight against the virus. If I knew I was going to win 100% without losing half my lungs, I would go for it. Right now I would rather wear a mask and keep my social distance and as long as there are people like me, herd immunity won't work.

I know people personally that fought and won against covid19 and they became diabetes or started to use statins after the battle which in my opinion translates to -10 years from your life span.

[MCobian]

In my opinion, not all the increase in cases of COVID19 infections must be resolved by lockdown. Because the world economic
situation is getting worse, lockdown will indeed paralyze the economy. Not only in the UK, however, most countries with a high
number of virus spreads will have their economies crippled if they are put under lockdown. I believe there are other ways to deal
with the spread of COVID19, without having to lock down. It is the task of economists to think of the best solution, so that the
economy can run without increasing cases of COVID19 infections.Actually, the key in my opinion is discipline to follow health protocols.

[ultrloa]

In my opinion, not all the increase in cases of COVID19 infections must be resolved by lockdown. Because the world economic
situation is getting worse, lockdown will indeed paralyze the economy. Not only in the UK, however, most countries with a high
number of virus spreads will have their economies crippled if they are put under lockdown. I believe there are other ways to deal
with the spread of COVID19, without having to lock down. It is the task of economists to think of the best solution, so that the
economy can run without increasing cases of COVID19 infections.Actually, the key in my opinion is discipline to follow health protocols.

Key solution is discipline indeed but I think the long months of lockdown cause people to drained the savings of the people that's why others need to get out to work and earn to buy foods. But I think the really one thing needed is stricter imposing of lockdowns with the presence of military on streets as well food aid to be distributed while lockdown is happening will be the only solution to flatten up the curve and control the situation, for sure if the flattening will happen the economy will restart and everyone will slowly back in their feet.

[Cnut237]

Which one is more important, to have a crippled economy or basically letting people die

The crucial question, and we know the government's answer. But the thing is, it didn't have to be a choice between the two. The reason it has become a choice between the two is because of the government's initial lack of response.

Back in the early part of the year, China was in lockdown and the virus was spreading to other countries and wreaking havoc wherever it landed. In the UK, we even had Italy as an example right on our doorstep... and we did nothing.
The importance of being pro-active is drilled into us all the time. The government should have done so here. The best course of action would have been to bring in quarantining of all people entering the country. The result would have been a (comparatively) small economic hit, followed by no lockdown and business as normal. No crippled economy, no massive infection and death rate. In all these threads I keep talking about exponential growth. You don't control exponential growth by waiting until it is a problem; you need to act early so that it doesn't become a problem. This idiocy has been replicated around the globe, although the UK is certainly a particularly egregious example. Johnson should learn that doing nothing and hoping that a problem will go away is not a viable response to a global pandemic.

This xkcd strip from 09 March might deserve another airing:


https://xkcd.com/2278/

[so98nn]

What about the trillion dollar loan that was taken by the UK to recover the economy and give away stimulus packages to their people? I am sure the crippling won't be so easy. If they had no backing money in that much amount then we could have thought this thoroughly. But it seems UK has already planned for the worst situation.

Second lockdown is not for worsening but for sake of recovering. The more healthy people stays the more faster they could overcome all the economy. Unlike Boris, he is talking in the view of closed businesses. But UK is not big continent, but its financial status is way stronger than other currencies. So beat it!

[mu_enrico]

This is how China fights Covid19:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfsdJGj3-jM

Well, from a business perspective:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1eaqYM7-jY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cs2po6xwy-c

I believe there are other ways to deal with the spread of COVID19, without having to lock down.

Lockdown is impossible anyway without starving all people to death, and if you want to be treated "humanely."
But the question is such artificial measures needed? Was it effective? Or just let mother nature do whatever it wants to do as since it's an unstoppable natural force at this stage.

IIRC the last interview with a South Korean expert, said that the virus could remain dormant for one month or more in the human body.

[Vishnu.Reang]

UK was under lockdown for many weeks. Around 40,000 people lost their lives during this lockdown period. So what makes the critics think that another lockdown may reduce the mortality rates? The initial lockdown was successful in slowing down the community spread. But now community spread has been reported from almost all the British counties. Any new lockdown measure will have very limited positive outcomes. On the other hand, such measures can cripple the economy, to a point of no return.

[Cnut237]

now community spread has been reported from almost all the British counties. Any new lockdown measure will have very limited positive outcomes.

Regardless of whether lockdown is good or bad, I'd disagree with the above.
If we put in some arbitrary starting values to illustrate the point, let's assume an R value of 2, and that cases take a week to spread. Let's start from 1,000 infections. Let's assume the capacity of the Health Service is 10,000 cases.
wk1:  1,000 current cases
wk2:  2,000
wk3:  4,000
wk4:  8,000
wk5: 16,000
wk6: 32,000

If you implement lockdown at wk3, when the problem is getting worse but is still manageable, you fix the maximum cases at around 8,000, assuming that the wk3 people have already infected others who are yet to show symptoms. But if you wait one more week, then you are locking down when cases are 8,000 and will rise to 16,000.

Not saying the R value is 2, but it's certainly well above 1. There is a need with exponential progression to act before it becomes a problem. If you wait until it is a problem, then you're way too late. This is exacerbated by the fact that number of confirmed cases is a lagging indicator.

[shoreno]

In my opinion, not all the increase in cases of COVID19 infections must be resolved by lockdown. Because the world economic
situation is getting worse, lockdown will indeed paralyze the economy. Not only in the UK, however, most countries with a high
number of virus spreads will have their economies crippled if they are put under lockdown. I believe there are other ways to deal
with the spread of COVID19, without having to lock down. It is the task of economists to think of the best solution, so that the
economy can run without increasing cases of COVID19 infections.Actually, the key in my opinion is discipline to follow health protocols.

second lockdown on other places is the evidence that people cant be responsible or can do self decipline because cases still arise .

thier governments have given them a chance to roam around without lockdowns but what they have done ? they live like theres no pandemic .  if theres second or more lockdowns , that was necesary than seeing more people got infected and slowly killing them not just the economy .

[SquallLeonhart]

What happens if UK economy cripples? Is it really as bad as people think it is? How about government decides that from now on they are going to print money to save companies and people and not let anyone work for 2 months? It would mean billions of dollars, probably over a trillion dollars (well pound not dollars but you got it) what could be the worst thing?

I will tell you what, they are making you think that if this happens it would turn pounds into something like Venezuela money or Zimbabwe money because of high inflation but if UK has 10% inflation just once in its life, it is not going to suddenly cause the whole nation to go belly up, it would be bad for a year but then it will go back to how it was like nothing happened, one year of bad finances versus tens of thousands of dead, you make the pick.

[Karartma1]

The fortunes of cities, regions and countries around the world shift over time. In the twentieth century, for example, London first boomed, then declined and finally recovered. Then Covid-19 came and everything changed again for the UK capital.
Boris is right, the economy is not going to be the same. Lockdown or not, people need to adapt quickly. We can not expect to live the same way we were used to.

[plvbob0070]

In my opinion, not all the increase in cases of COVID19 infections must be resolved by lockdown. Because the world economic
situation is getting worse, lockdown will indeed paralyze the economy. Not only in the UK, however, most countries with a high
number of virus spreads will have their economies crippled if they are put under lockdown. I believe there are other ways to deal
with the spread of COVID19, without having to lock down. It is the task of economists to think of the best solution, so that the
economy can run without increasing cases of COVID19 infections.Actually, the key in my opinion is discipline to follow health protocols.

I agree that we need discipline but both the citizens and government have their responsibilities in this situation. Yes, lockdown is not the only solution they can do to prevent spreading the virus so the government should also do something, not just proposing a second lockdown because there won't be any changes if there's no action. However, I'm not totally against lockdown because they can still impose a lockdown where essential businesses can still operate to at least help the economy.

[jostorres]

The thing is, cops are not really as harsh as they should be and that causes all the trouble. I have seen weddings and engagements and many other stuff on instagram stories for example, I have seen all my friends and all the people I follow and in most of them people are not careful enough, they are not really caring about the masks and hygiene and basically all around prevention as much as they should be.

If you put up just ONE cop at every wedding trying to warn everyone without mask on and if anyone declines to put a mask on they take him away, you could have weddings with forced distance between people and everyone wearing mask. This is just one example, have cops rule over the city for distance and masks and you can reopen everything and won't need lockdown.

[Yatsan]

Implementing another set of lockdown would really make any country's economy to cripple for what they currently left would be in danger to put into stake. Yes the economy is very important to think but if you will just let the cases to grow for not implementing any lockdown to give way for testing and push people so hard to just stay indoors, the economy would possible to suffer even more for lots of people can potentially be infected. Here in our country, we did not do a nationwide lockdown for the second time, just for the local government state to directly control and take action on the spot where most infected cases are recorded so other places not in range can still go on and continue their lives. UK must work on with their economy but at the same time must consider putting strict attention on controlling the cases by putting up a very strict lockdown protocol on those large cases infected areas only so other can still work on managing to recover the economy because if they will just consider economy and set aside the health of the people, UK's economy will get even worst than what they are experiencing right now. They must put into balance working on with economy and health both at the same time.

[reliable]

This will affect the economy no doubt, but on other hand also to control the people getting from becoming Covid positive is also important. The second wave seems to have start to hit and this could be dangerous as well if thousands on day start getting effected with it. It’s going to be a tough call and not sure what will the right solution for it.

[stompix]

What happens if UK economy cripples? Is it really as bad as people think it is? How about government decides that from now on they are going to print money to save companies and people and not let anyone work for 2 months? It would mean billions of dollars, probably over a trillion dollars (well pound not dollars but you got it) what could be the worst thing?

A country's economy doesn't have an on/off button that when you push it everything starts at full power.
First of all, in no country was everything shut down, in most of cases agriculture went by, food processing also, transport and markets, all utilities, and for those a lot of people still went to work. A complete shutdown again will make things worse ten times than before.

I will tell you what, they are making you think that if this happens it would turn pounds into something like Venezuela money or Zimbabwe money because of high inflation but if UK has 10% inflation just once in its life, it is not going to suddenly cause the whole nation to go belly up, it would be bad for a year but then it will go back to how it was like nothing happened, one year of bad finances versus tens of thousands of dead, you make the pick.

You sound like Mark Weisbrot:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/07/venezuela-not-greece-latin-america-oil-poverty

Of course, nothing bad will happen from printing money, absolutely nothing.
Actually, why not simply print money every time, as much as people need it?


That aside, I'm curious why people here go from one extreme, mainly China where a forced lockdown (presumably) worked and one where it didn't like US or UK, and ignore the man in the middle, South Korea who altough still has cases has kept infections and death to a minimum, just as the damages to the economy.

[Xembin]

With the strategies on ground to tackle covid-19 cases  right now in UK, even though they pronounce second lockdown, I think it will not cripple UK economy.
I guess even the UK president  know it very well that if they pronounce second lockdown it will affect the re-election of the president, and many people want to go back to school and businesses.

[beerlover]

The cartoon is actually quite on the nose for many many things in the world. Right now things are not as bad but if nobody does anything about it it will become bad and because it is not bad right now nobody does anything about it. Same with climate as well, it is already bad right now, Australia burned down a lot, California burns down every few years, things are not looking good, but people still don't do anything about it for some reason, we need to do something in order to prevent a catastrophic situation but since we are not there yet people do not react enough.

Since not that many people are dead and economical breakdown would look worse for a government, they do not do anything about it. If they do, economy will be worse and that would be horrible.

[CODE200]

It will surely affect the economy of UK the moment that they will try to impose another national lockdown for operations being implemented to somehow work on recovering the economy will put into stop once again which will make the economy cripple. But not implementing lockdown knowing that there are lots of positive cases of covid-19 is also an alarming concern that is in need to take some action because is not acted accordingly, can also brought up a more severe negative effect on the economy of UK. Instead of doing such nationwide lockdown, why not do just implement lockdowns into those place with lots of cases only so that other places won't be affected and can continue the operation for the economic recovery of their country. Both economic and health concern must be paid attention and no one must be compromised so better yet do act accordingly just implementing lockdown only on certain place so economy can still continue its recovery and at the same time cases of infected individuals can be taken into control.

[jaysabi]

The symptoms of this sickness can vary from no symptoms to the "God take my life end my torment" levels. Normally I would give it a go to the herd immu thing but knowing that the heavy virus loads can make you go through hell makes me skeptical about it.

To gain immunity to covid19, your body should fight and win against it first.

I don't know if that's the risk I would want to take. It kinda sounds stupid to me right now because it is not clear what I am going to lose during the fight against the virus. If I knew I was going to win 100% without losing half my lungs, I would go for it. Right now I would rather wear a mask and keep my social distance and as long as there are people like me, herd immunity won't work.

I know people personally that fought and won against covid19 and they became diabetes or started to use statins after the battle which in my opinion translates to -10 years from your life span.

It's also a false premise to present this as a binary outcome where people either get the virus and die (1% mortality) or recover, and so the risk is only in that 1% mortality rate.  That's absolutely not the end of the risk.  We already have evidence the virus affects other parts of the body, and sometimes severely, and doctors and researchers continually say that it likely affects the body and organs in ways we still don't know and won't be evident for years.  The complications for those that "recover" can last a lifetime, and so to ignore all the non-death consequences of contracting the virus is one way anti-maskers and those who downplay the virus are being either disingenuous or downright stupid.

[Emitdama]

I feel sorry for any country that is planning to go for another lockdown at this time, it seems the first one didn’t teach them enough lesson. The first lockdown was very bad for the economy of countries around the world, and it caused their economy to break badly.

In my country during the lockdown a lot of people were strongly against it, because it caused things to become pretty messed up, unless you have got millions and billions stored in your bank, that way you can do anything you want even during the lockdown, but it’s a very bad thing for the economy as a whole; prices for a lot of things went up and everything, even foodstuffs, were costly. But, after the lockdown things has gotten cheaper again.

[jaysabi]

UK was under lockdown for many weeks. Around 40,000 people lost their lives during this lockdown period. So what makes the critics think that another lockdown may reduce the mortality rates? The initial lockdown was successful in slowing down the community spread. But now community spread has been reported from almost all the British counties. Any new lockdown measure will have very limited positive outcomes. On the other hand, such measures can cripple the economy, to a point of no return.

All lockdown measures slow the spread of the virus.  That's not debatable, it's proven.  The virus cannot spread when infected people are not near uninfected people.  Anyone who has the virus got it by being close to someone who had the virus.  Citing 40,000 people dying despite lockdown ignores how many people would have died if not for the lockdown.  There isn't a data set in the world that shows that quarantine measures had no effect on the spread of the virus.

If you want to debate if the lockdown is worth it, that's a separate discussion, but there's no debating that lockdowns reduce the number of deaths from the virus.

[rexxarofmoknathal]

While I understand that covid effects are dangerous, but UK’s economy currently is fragile, and shutting it now could completely cripple whatever is left of their economy, hence I support Boris call that UK should not do a fresh lockdown.

I'm not sure I agree with either of you. This is a fragile time and if the government doesn't act in a more invasive way the thread of the virus will not only threaten the economy as a whole but will affect everything else including more hospitalisation, more deaths etc. This period so close to winter is crucial, and the restrictions that Johnson imposed are no different to the ones that the public should have been following up until now anyway.

In order to prevent all the massacre that is to come, I feel tougher restrictions and better policing need to be put in place, as people are deliberately not following the rules.

[bryant.coleman]

I'm not sure I agree with either of you. This is a fragile time and if the government doesn't act in a more invasive way the thread of the virus will not only threaten the economy as a whole but will affect everything else including more hospitalisation, more deaths etc. This period so close to winter is crucial, and the restrictions that Johnson imposed are no different to the ones that the public should have been following up until now anyway.

In order to prevent all the massacre that is to come, I feel tougher restrictions and better policing need to be put in place, as people are deliberately not following the rules.

The pandemic is already 6-7 months old in many of the countries and I don't believe that lockdowns will help in reducing the spread now. The virus is present in the air and the chances of getting infected are high even if you stay at home. I would say that at this point a fresh lockdown sounds completely unnecessary. It will have no impact in reducing the number of new infections, and on the other hand it will destroy the already weakened economy.

[adzino]

Yes he is right. Another lockdown could cause a serious harm in the UKs economy. It is not just the case in UK. Every countries that had strict lockdown rules faced some major economic crisis. Further lockdown might even crumble the economy. Now it is totally up to them how they control the situation.
But if only people listed and followed the restrictions like wearing masks in public and keeping some sort of social distance. But nope, people won't do that! They would rather "die than the government control them".

[jrrsparkles]

I'm not sure I agree with either of you. This is a fragile time and if the government doesn't act in a more invasive way the thread of the virus will not only threaten the economy as a whole but will affect everything else including more hospitalisation, more deaths etc. This period so close to winter is crucial, and the restrictions that Johnson imposed are no different to the ones that the public should have been following up until now anyway.

In order to prevent all the massacre that is to come, I feel tougher restrictions and better policing need to be put in place, as people are deliberately not following the rules.

The pandemic is already 6-7 months old in many of the countries and I don't believe that lockdowns will help in reducing the spread now. The virus is present in the air and the chances of getting infected are high even if you stay at home. I would say that at this point a fresh lockdown sounds completely unnecessary. It will have no impact in reducing the number of new infections, and on the other hand it will destroy the already weakened economy.

Lockdown might helped in reducing the number of cases a lot if it got implemented in the right way but lot of countries just announced their lockdown without prior announcement so people gathered a lot and stacking things in the early months of 2020.The virus is not present in the air but it can travel through air and cause you to be infected when there is someone who is having the virus near you.

[verita1]

It is clear that the UK is experiencing a second wave of Covid19 infections. According to what was experienced at the beginning of the pandemic, the UK has a central plan "Winter Economy Plan", with this plan the government intends to support businesses and workers.
Support for workers.
Tax cuts and deferrals
Give bussinesses flexibility to pay back loans.
Investment in public services.

In my opinion it is a good plan and classified as the most generous in the world because now the government is more experienced by what it experienced at the beginning of the pandemic and because it is necessary to recover the economy that has been affected by the coronavirus.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/chancellor-outlines-winter-economy-plan

[Yey09]

Second lockdown will kill economy of any country. I really hope that people understands this

[mindrust]

Second lockdown will kill economy of any country. I really hope that people understands this

What people don't understand is,

"What is dead may never die."

or

"Omae wa mou shindeiru"

[Jet Cash]

So what is the general conclusion in this thread? Has anyone pointed out that most of the population has built immunity now, and that means that crippling vaccines aren't needed. We need a knicker wetting panic to get people back into the mindset of allowing themselves to be vaccinated, or all that money that was given to the rich Pharma companies, and could have been used to save lives, will be perceived as wasted.

[jaysabi]

So what is the general conclusion in this thread? Has anyone pointed out that most of the population has built immunity now, and that means that crippling vaccines aren't needed. We need a knicker wetting panic to get people back into the mindset of allowing themselves to be vaccinated, or all that money that was given to the rich Pharma companies, and could have been used to save lives, will be perceived as wasted.

Most the population most certainly does not have immunity first of all. No country even has a majority infected to be said to mostly have immunity. The number infected still represents a very small minority of any geographic population. On top of this, there is no consensus that those who have been infected are immune to reinfection. And on top of that, the virus is known to be rapidly evolving as it moves through the population, so even if you are immune to one strain, you could be infected by another.