Boris is right a second lockdown could cripple UK economy.

[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.