Lockdown Squared?

[ToraToraTora]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55529640
we are already in T4 any idea what further measures could be imposed?

[emmie]

i am sure they will -

[jim360]

And why not? The longer these restrictions go on for the more damaging to businesses they will be. The restrictions would likely have been needed for far less time, however, if they were introduced at a proper level far earlier. There is a direct link between the failure of the Government to face up the challenge, and the extent of that challenge.

This is a long way from saying that it is *all* Johnson's fault. But his approach borne from mindless optimism has been deadly, and is utterly the wrong strategy.

[ToraToraTora]

You're having a Turkish jim, are you seriously suggesting that the unemployment arising from the crisis is avoidable? Seriously? Perhaps you could tell us how the unemployment related to: Transport, leisure etc could have been avoided.

[jim360]

Not at all. I'm saying it *was* avoidable.

[ToraToraTora]

How? Only by not reacting at all, and you're already having a go about that. You can have it both ways.

[emmie]

i know that a local hotel let go 72 of its staff, don't think they are furloughed either, not sure whether they are even open now - i suspect not.

[emmie]

so whats the answer more steeper lockdowns, when many of the population aren't taking it seriously anyway.

[jim360]

I don't have the time, energy or insight to design an economic package alongside the lockdown I'm envisaging (or envisaged). Suffice it to say that, at the very least, half-hearted measures that last over several months are not less expensive than proper lockdown that brings the disease back under relative control (see June-August), and guarantees jobs and wages for the duration.

The Government's approach is merely dragging the damage out for longer. In as much as there's any protection to job it's even more expensive than a more intense lockdown.

[archibaldy]

//In Tier 4 foreign travel is effectively banned because you cannot leave home without a reasonable excuse. So you cannot go to the airport//

You can foreign travel for work and that's a reasonable excuse. This could be banned.

Not saying that this would necessarily help stop spread much as I don't know the numbers involved but it's currently not as restrictive as it could be.

[pixie374]

^^ exactly jim. I was asking the other day (didn't get an actual answer), what the death figures would have been, if we had done a 100% lockdown in March (say) for 3 weeks. We would have had deaths... but nowhere near these numbers or the effect on the economy. Probably not ethical.... except for the number of other lives it would have saved.

[ToraToraTora]

jim 16:38, not looking for a budget I just want you to support your assertion that any unemployment arising from the crisis was avoidable and therefore the fault of the government.

[New Judge]

// I was asking the other day (didn't get an actual answer), what the death figures would have been, if we had done a 100% lockdown in March (say) for 3 weeks.//

You didn't get an answer because nobody knows!

Just out of interest, what do you term a "100% lockdown", pixie?

[jim360]

I don't think it's controversial that if you are opening and shutting businesses regularly for between nine and 12 months, and possibly longer, that will be more damaging to jobs and businesses than a three-month decisive effort coupled with extensive support.

[pixie374]

I know, nj! Literally 100%. Nobody allowed to leave their houses, work etc.... as I said, I'm not suggesting that, just wondering whether the number of deaths would have reached the same amount in 3 weeks?

[jim360]

I should also say that I am not claiming that all unemployment was avoidable -- just that the damage could have been controlled far more effectively.

[emmie]

100 percent lockdown still won't cut it with some people, you can't police it for one thing, maybe illegal raves, or famous people bending the laws, you could. But for those staying with friends, or family that's aren;t supposed to, or meeting up with mates, or indeed congregating for a demo as has happened, who knows

[youngmafbog]

"coupled with extensive support."

And therein lies the problem doesnt it.

Not too good with things financial are you jim?

[ToraToraTora]

jim 16:53 ok but how is that the governements fault? The crisis has meant unavoidable job loses unless you are/were advoicating taking no lock down measures at all.

[jim360]

I don't claim to be an expert, no. But the Government has been accruing massive levels of debt during the pandemic anyway.

[pixie374]

Emmie... there may have been more chance, knowing it was short-term and the rules were understandable. It would be obvious with anyone being outside at all.
No doubt the hospitals would have done the same the care homes did, by having the same staff isolate there for 3 weeks.
I am literally just wondering the difference between a brief actual lockdown, or doing nothing and leaving everything as usual. As that's the only real way you can tell what difference these on/off lockdowns are making.