-
Pretty much what the govt are saying - restrictions can be eased slowly while the infection rate stays below 1 and those that are infected can be tracked and traced. There will be at-risk people who die but hopefully care is getting better and the numbers will stay low.
Don't think we're even close to that point yet. Best guess would be in 4-6 weeks.
Whenever it is, if the infection numbers start going back up, we'll be back into lockdown sharpish.
Pretty sure they won't do it by age or demographic or geography though. It's all or nothing IMO.
villa-ru-
Pretty much what the govt are saying - restrictions can be eased slowly while the infection rate stays below 1 and those that are infected can be tracked and traced. There will be at-risk people who die but hopefully care is getting better and the numbers will stay low.
Don't think we're even close to that point yet. Best guess would be in 4-6 weeks.
Whenever it is, if the infection numbers start going back up, we'll be back into lockdown sharpish.
Pretty sure they won't do it by age or demographic or geography though. It's all or nothing IMO.I think I agree with that (except for the bit about it being what the government are saying). But everyone should be aware (as you've stated) that this will result in people dying who would not have died otherwise.
Whether demographics should be taken into consideration is a pretty tough question for a number of reasons (logistic and moral). And I get you're not saying it should or should not, but rather you think it will not. But I don't think it should be dismissed (by the government) if it could result in fewer deaths and less suffering. And that doesn't mean age necessarily (and almost certainly not 50), but thinking about pre-existing conditions makes sense.
I don't think we should have an immediate end of the lockdown for people under 50, but a question about the different lines of argument here: should easing of lockdown restrictions not take place if those in certain age groups are at an increased risk because of that easing? Or are people saying there should be no easing if any risk to anyone remains?
Neither of these seem particularly viable to me. But it's totally possible I'm missing something obvious - my head has been very much in work mode today and I'm more than a bit square eyed.
Or are people of the opinion that there is a point at which the risk to at-risk groups is acceptable, but we're not there yet?