-
Source for the thousands a week? Or is that world-wide, not just UK? The BBC wrote an article about avoidable deaths due to people not going to hospital/other reasons, their source said it was too early to call an exact figure.
Sure there is no "perfect" solution, but mass test/trace is recommended and the UK is not there yet.
JWestland-
Source for the thousands a week? Or is that world-wide, not just UK? The BBC wrote an article about avoidable deaths due to people not going to hospital/other reasons, their source said it was too early to call an exact figure.
Sure there is no "perfect" solution, but mass test/trace is recommended and the UK is not there yet.
So what do we do until test/trace is in place? How good does that have to be before we ease lockdown? If we don't have an exact number of deaths and long-term impairment of health and wellbeing caused by lockdown, what would be a reasonable assumption and how do we weigh that up against the direct harm caused by the virus?
ffm
There is no response that results in no deaths. That Lonely Joe Parker twitter thread that @William. linked above is worth a read, specifically this:
"This was an impossible task for BJ: There is no such thing as a 'perfect' strategy out of lockdown.
Unknown:
We do however have a fairly good idea of the costs - and I'm talking in genuine, statistically-attributable, earlier-than-necessary, DEATHS here - of economic contraction. They are not trivial. They run to thousands a week, too. 4/"