shmmeee
Well-Known Member
I think some of the confusion here is about strategy. We aren’t trying to suppress the virus to zero like NZ or China, we have decided to limp along as long as the NHS can handle it.
Hospitalisations are doubling every two weeks in some places. And are therefore two weeks from overwhelming the NHS in those areas. Those two weeks hispiralisations and deaths are locked in. Those people already have COVID.
All the evidence shows lockdown immediately reduces cases. And also second lockdowns work a lot quicker than the first (see Israel evidence). If we don’t lock down now we lock in going over capacity, say we delay two weeks that means we won’t be slightly over capacity, we’ll be at twice capacity and in another two weeks four times over it. Think about that. Hospitals at four eight sixteen times capacity. You’re in dead bodies on the streets territory. I’m stunned anyone thinks this is an option.
We have two options here, whether you care about the economy or health or mental health (as they’re all linked and basically the same thing):
1) Zero COVID strategy. Close the borders, proper lockdown, proper test and trace until there’s no cases. Then open up internally.
2) Manage hospital capacity but not deaths or cases. This requires a very good track and trace to slow the spread (we haven’t got this), good compliance with measures (we haven’t even tried this) and repeated lockdowns when the first two fail.
There is no magic third option where you let hundreds of thousands die, businesses go down the toilet, thousands more have lifelong health conditions. It’s just not credible. It’s the epitome of lazy right wing “what’s the point in action it’ll figure itself out” thought and it angers me this is even seen as a realistic policy choice in the 21st century. It’s be more humane to take the China approach and leave people to die in their homes.
And let’s not forget we’ve just discovered immunity doesn’t last. So double or triple those deaths predictions depending on how long it takes to get a vaccine or antivirals out.
Hospitalisations are doubling every two weeks in some places. And are therefore two weeks from overwhelming the NHS in those areas. Those two weeks hispiralisations and deaths are locked in. Those people already have COVID.
All the evidence shows lockdown immediately reduces cases. And also second lockdowns work a lot quicker than the first (see Israel evidence). If we don’t lock down now we lock in going over capacity, say we delay two weeks that means we won’t be slightly over capacity, we’ll be at twice capacity and in another two weeks four times over it. Think about that. Hospitals at four eight sixteen times capacity. You’re in dead bodies on the streets territory. I’m stunned anyone thinks this is an option.
We have two options here, whether you care about the economy or health or mental health (as they’re all linked and basically the same thing):
1) Zero COVID strategy. Close the borders, proper lockdown, proper test and trace until there’s no cases. Then open up internally.
2) Manage hospital capacity but not deaths or cases. This requires a very good track and trace to slow the spread (we haven’t got this), good compliance with measures (we haven’t even tried this) and repeated lockdowns when the first two fail.
There is no magic third option where you let hundreds of thousands die, businesses go down the toilet, thousands more have lifelong health conditions. It’s just not credible. It’s the epitome of lazy right wing “what’s the point in action it’ll figure itself out” thought and it angers me this is even seen as a realistic policy choice in the 21st century. It’s be more humane to take the China approach and leave people to die in their homes.
And let’s not forget we’ve just discovered immunity doesn’t last. So double or triple those deaths predictions depending on how long it takes to get a vaccine or antivirals out.