You are reading a single comment by @GoatandTricycle and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
-
Maybe this explains our differences as generally I agreed with your points, I don’t see this as being the only lockdown we’ll have.
GoatandTricycle-
Unless I’m very much mistaken ... if we get this right; learn to deal with endemic C19, test, trace, quarantine and solve the airline issue ... then we shouldn’t need another mass lockdown. A shorter lockdown increases the 2nd and subsequent waves of infection.
I realise this depends heavily on the effectiveness of government.
miro_o
I would suggest we (as a society) already do aim to protect life ‘within reason’. There will be quiet decisions in care homes every-day that demonstrate that logic. I’m not a life preserving absolutist (that sounds like someone with a life-jacket kink).
I agree. I think everyone is aware there is a huge and unknown cost to this lockdown.
However, and this is what I fear is being missed ... there was an observable normalcy bias prior to lockdown, against lockdown. It conveniently aligned with myopic profit making, ruling-class arrogance and manifested in the over stating of certain science. Cherry picking ‘herd immunity’ gave plausible deniability of a problem. A poor basis for policy. It
probablyalmost certainly cost lives in my (idiot) opinion.There is likely a new bias now. Now that completely mega numbers of people are in a similar, familiar, shared situation. Everyone is frustrated by our unprecedented lack of freedoms. That mass of share experience is huge and very unusual. So this I think is a factor. Other factors;
It’s economically important to lift the lockdown,
It’s increasingly politically expedient to lift the lockdown. I’m sure you can see the danger here?
If we lift restrictions in 2.5 weeks time then beforehand I would like to hear why this is manageable. I’d like to hear it from someone credible and those likely directly effected (there are many, but those in the care sector are in the forefront of my mind).