Coronavirus

[ZedLeg]

I understand the seriousness of this now that it has affected me personally

[Broccers]

I have been looking a Sweden - how is it our death rate is higher even after the period of lockdown compared to their social distancing measures which isnt killing their economy?

[NotoriousREV]

I understand the seriousness of this now that it has affected me personally

Tory ideology, innit? Anyone else suffering = they should just work harder and pull themselves up by their bootstraps, Me suffering = a serious problem that the government needs to solve

[NotoriousREV]

I have been looking a Sweden - how is it our death rate is higher even after the period of lockdown compared to their social distancing measures which isnt killing their economy?

I don’t know, but I think this is pertinent:

“[Sweden]...has by far and away the highest death toll among Scandinavian countries—more than double the number of cases in Denmark and nearly four times as much as in Finland.”

[jamcg]

I have been looking a Sweden - how is it our death rate is higher even after the period of lockdown compared to their social distancing measures which isnt killing their economy?

Because they listened and obeyed? We get told to do something, and some people completely ignored it, a lot of people initially obey, and then started to ignore it, while others actually do follow it- it needs to be the whole country to actually make a difference. The amount of people complaining to my wife when she’s at work in Tesco about “the ridiculous social distancing measures” are the types I’m talking about, won’t follow simple instructions to keep themselves and others safe, just take the “I haven’t got it” attitude, and ignore the fact you’re infectious before getting symptoms

[Broccers]

It does beg the question was herd immunity the correct decision? https://www.npr.org/2020/04/26/84521108 ... 7983574568

I think, as per the US, overcrowded cities should have been treated differently to the rest of the country. Altho as said above our general lack of doing what we are told may be the problem there. On the whole tho I think we've all been pretty good citizens.

[Jobbo]

It does beg the question was herd immunity the correct decision? https://www.npr.org/2020/04/26/84521108 ... 7983574568

I think you can say with certainty that the death rate to date in the UK would be higher if that policy had been followed. You can't extrapolate that our death rate would be like Sweden's; we know the rate of infection in the UK has been brought down by the lockdown, and we know the hospitals have not reached capacity. We may be lacking data outside hospital cases, but these are things we do know.

The question is: would it ever be acceptable to allow people to die for a perceived later economic benefit? I don't think philosophically that call could be made in a democracy. Maybe in a dictatorship.

[Carlos]

There are many variables and you want to come to a conclusion based on one, how severe the social distancing measures are ?

If you factor in the population of Sweden is only 15% of the UK's they are in a similar position to the UK in terms of deaths.

Sweden is also massive, twice the size of the UK and with such a small population the spread is always going to be limited compared to ours.

[ZedLeg]

Don’t try and explain how complicated the statistics for this are. It doesn’t fit his biase

[GG.]

The question is: would it ever be acceptable to allow people to die for a perceived later economic benefit? I don't think philosophically that call could be made in a democracy. Maybe in a dictatorship.

Being pedantic, but I presume that your question is only related to the idea of herd immunity as obviously allowing some people to die for a perceived later economic benefit is exactly what will happen with relation to the phasing of release of the lockdown, but hopefully without such a dramatic increase in deaths. To avoid any excess death that wasn't stoppable to the extent we are able, then you'd keep people in total lockdown until and unless a vaccine is found - which clearly won't and can't be the strategy.

It is important to distinguish though because it underlies the fact that there will always be a balancing act to be done in this sort of scenario - a low intervention herd immunity strategy with some social distancing clearly will result in more deaths than a strict lockdown but even the latter is about squashing a peak and allowing health services to cope not eradicating all excess deaths and clearly it can't go on forever in its current strict form.

Last I heard, Sweden was also not a dictatorship and I think the approach (though it may/has already been proven to be misguided) of limiting economic damage with looser controls (and therefore higher deaths) is exactly what they're doing. Clearly you may argue that the 'acceptable' bit may come into play later if they get booted out of govt (or office in the case of the health professionals advising/justifying the approach) very quickly...

[Rich B]

The question is: would it ever be acceptable to allow people to die for a perceived later economic benefit? I don't think philosophically that call could be made in a democracy. Maybe in a dictatorship.

Purely philosophical, but what if you can demonstrate that the economical benefit will save more lives than the virus kills?

Glad I don’t have to make the decisions!

[integrale_evo]

Sweden aren't doing too bad considering a lack of 'lockdown' however Spain have got it under control far quicker than us with a much stricter lockdown, they've not let anyone out for anything other than medical reasons or food for 6 weeks, and only now are letting children out for some exercise if accompanied by an adult.

With so many factors in play I doubt there will ever be a 'right' way to have done it which will suit all situations.

[GG.]

The question is: would it ever be acceptable to allow people to die for a perceived later economic benefit? I don't think philosophically that call could be made in a democracy. Maybe in a dictatorship.

Purely philosophical, but what if you can demonstrate that the economical benefit will save more lives than the virus kills?

Glad I don’t have to make the decisions!

You could argue even that would be a relatively easy one if you could prove it as it compares deaths with deaths. If you are trying to reduce the number of deaths as your key aim then you would have to take the necessary action, even if it involves more deaths from the disease. I would note that it may be interesting to see who argues for this as its the opinion of many on the left that you can prove this and action should be taken to avoid it.

Even harder balancing act would be to weigh the decrease in quality of life (increase in depression, anxiety, self harm, etc.) induced by a lockdown, job losses, insolvencies and bankruptcies, people losing their houses or rental accommodation against disease deaths. No-one will admit to doing that but it doesn't mean it won't happen in reality or that it doesn't have to happen (see point above about a permanent lockdown until a vaccine is found).

Its all a bit Jeremy Bentham...

[Jobbo]

The question is: would it ever be acceptable to allow people to die for a perceived later economic benefit? I don't think philosophically that call could be made in a democracy. Maybe in a dictatorship.

Purely philosophical, but what if you can demonstrate that the economical benefit will save more lives than the virus kills?

Glad I don’t have to make the decisions!

It’s a very hard call, you’re right. And if you were making the decisions you’d be doing so in advance based on assumptions and best guesses, since hard data is inevitably lacking with a novel disease like this.

I think the lockdown policy has worked pretty effectively though, with the benefit of hindsight - based on the indicators I mentioned before. We haven’t had a particularly hard lockdown compares to other countries. Sweden is no better an example for what would have happened here if we’d pursued a different policy than Brazil.

[Orange Cola]

I’m struggling with the Boris bashing. I never liked him, I’ve never voted for him, I’ve never agreed with him and his views, but I can’t knock the way he’s handled this so far and I find the sniping remarks are baseless and usually down to people who don’t know how to report on him or acknowledge in anything but a negative way.

I’m not saying he’s been perfect but he’s exceeded my expectations as Boris the PM. I’m not defending him but I’m trying to say those who knock him really are starting to show themselves as people who can’t recognise some level of positivity and think twice before they spout.

[ZedLeg]

What has he done?

The initial policy he supported would’ve been a disaster and it delayed the lockdown.

If the recent reports are correct he was completely uninterested in the issue until it was already a serious problem and he’s let Dominic Cummings have way too much authority in deciding what we do.

We don’t have bodies piled in the street but I wouldn’t say it’s because of Boris.

[Rich B]

*getting bored of the constant whining*

If it’s so fucking easy, why aren’t you in charge?

[ZedLeg]

I’d gladly take charge, can’t imagine many of the people round here would like my ideas though

[NotoriousREV]

*getting bored of the constant whining*

If it’s so fucking easy, why aren’t you in charge?

If it’s so fucking hard, why did all but 7 other countries have better results than us?

[Broccers]

*getting bored of the constant whining*

If it’s so fucking easy, why aren’t you in charge?

If it’s so fucking hard, why did all but 7 other countries have better results than us?