324 Covid Deaths Yesterday, And 2,095 Cases Are They Easing Lockdown Too Early ?

[Gromit]

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/

[Gromit]

Interesting that the Government's own scientists are distancing themselves from easing lockdown now...

Prof Calum Semple, Sage member:
// "Essentially we're lifting the lid on a boiling pan and it's just going to bubble over. We need to get it down to simmer before we take the lift off, and it's too early." //

Prof Edmunds, from the London School of Tropical Hygiene and Medicine and a member of Sage:
// The levels of coronavirus were still "very high" and many scientists would rather the number of cases declined before measures were relaxed.

Sir Jeremy Farrar, a member of Sage:
// Covid-19 is "spreading too fast to lift lockdown in England" and NHS test and trace "has to be fully working and infection rates have to be lower". //

Prof Peter Horby, Sage and chairs its NERVTAG subcommittee,
// The R number was still close to one and it was important we "don't lose control". //

[jno]

other European countries' new cases are way down on ours. Yesterday: Italy 516, Germany 567, France 597, Spain 658, and Belgium, which has had a huge proportion of deaths, only 212.

The UK figure of 2095 is far ahead of those. Never mind a second spike, we haven't overcome the first one, though the other countries I mentioned have more or less done so. I can see why they are easing up; it doesn't follow that Britain is equally ready to do so.

[Ken4155]

DD @ 09;23. "If lives are sacrificed for the sake of the economy, then so be it." Just so long as it's not the life of someone you hold dear, eh?

[jim360]

We'll have to wait something in the region of three to four weeks to know for certain if it was safe to ease lockdown already or not. I have to say I'm not optimistic -- even if you allow for the fact that the 324 deaths didn't all occur yesterday I think it's still well above 200 daily at the moment, which is something in the region of a 10-15% excess in mortality. That's a lot of people sacrificed to save "the economy".

The question DeskDiary et al ought to answer is how many people is an acceptable sacrifice. If we've eased lockdown too early and it leads to a second spike, how many people dying in that spike is too much for it to have been worth it? Or are we too far gone to even care any more? These are macabre calculations and I'm not meaning to accuse DD et al of not caring, but I do want to ask the question all the same: how many people are you prepared to let die in order to save "the economy"?

[Sqad]

Jim....this a situation when the numbers game has no place. If one goes down the economy route, then it takes what it takes to achieve a recoverable economy.

[jim360]

The problem is that lockdown easing in the current scheme doesn't really achieve that, either. I suppose it's a step in the "right" direction, but as long as there's a need for social distancing then economic activity will remain relatively suppressed. I'd assume that, in DD's preferred model, even eased lockdown is still too much if it has an economic impact. So, I disagree: it *does* come down to a numbers game. Is the "save the economy" approach based on some idea of a tolerable death rate, and, if so, what is it? Where is the line drawn?

The second point really is that if the goal is to get to business as usual, why? Isn't one of the key lessons of the last few months that the current economic vulnerable is far too reliant on continued activity? Wouldn't it be better to use this lockdown as a motivation to change our approach, rather than as just an irritating pause to be swiftly forgotten?

[youngmafbog]

Trashed economy means lives shortened by poverty.

Want to save the NHS, get the country going.

Enough is enough, it has been too easy to control us. This is not the plague and death rates are not massive. That doesnt mean to say I am happy about it - just not being emotional.

[naomi24]

Jim, //Wouldn't it be better to use this lockdown as a motivation to change our approach//

You've said this before without explanation - despite being asked for one. Our approach to what - and how would you like us to change it?

[jim360]

// This is not the plague and death rates are not massive. //

Over the course of April, twice as many people died as would be expected. If that were to be replicated for an entire year then you're looking at over half a million excess deaths. The country can't sustain that, either.

Naomi: It's an open-ended question that I don't claim to have a detailed answer to. I'm not sure what's so difficult about that concept. All I'm saying is that if the global economy was so shaken by this then there's a good reason to suggest that its design is flawed, in that it is too vulnerable to short, sharp shocks.

[naomi24]

Jim, So you make a suggestion and don't actually know what you're suggesting. Okay.

[jim360]

// If that were to be replicated for an entire year then you're looking at over half a million excess deaths. The country can't sustain that, either. //

I wanted to add that I don't know how likely it would be that the April death rate would be sustained in the long-term. It should be clear, though, that what happened in April is horrific, and we should be trying our utmost to avoid it happening again. There is no real sense in calling a 100% rise in mortality "not massive". Unless you have extreme standards for what constitutes an existential threat, ie anything short of nuclear winter isn't worth worrying about...

[jim360]

I'm asking a question, not making a suggestion, though.

[naomi24]

Right ...

[jim360]

Out of interest, what do you think about the question? Is the lesson of the lockdown that pandemics have to be ignored/endured no matter how large the death toll, or that an economic model that relies to heavily on constantly just doing stuff deserves revisiting?

[jno]

Ken, we could set up something like those war graves cemeteries, with a big monument saying "In memory of those who gave their lives for the economy".

[youngmafbog]

It would be interesting to know the positions of those wanting to keep lockdown.

How many are collecting a final salary pension or being paid by the State with a nice final salary pension on the way and so not affected financially like everyone else.

As I have had no money in whatsoever since March I do have a vested interest in getting us going. Also I need my pension investments to get back as I do not have the luxury of a State funded golden pension. I also have 4 children, two grandchildren and one on the way so a further interest there as it is they who will end up with this millstone round their neck.

[daisypotter]

^^ Why be so nasty? Lockdown is easing anyway, so it's irrelevant who wants to keep it! Sick of people always having a go at pensioners on here and NO, I am not a pensioner, I am in my 40's, but I have pensioner relatives who mean the world to me and I sincerely hope they survive all this.

[naomi24]

Jim, //an economic model that relies to heavily on constantly just doing stuff deserves revisiting?//

If by ‘just doing stuff’ you mean manufacturing, trading and investing in order to build prosperity, I can’t think of an alternative. You must have had something in mind when you asked the question. Why are you so reluctant to voice it?

[naomi24]

Daisy, I don’t think ymb is having a go at pensioners per se. He’s simply saying that some people need to get back to work - if their jobs are still there that is - because that’s the only source of income they have.

[gulliver1]

Creep.