1finny
Well-known member
I think we got it down low, really low, but have just let it creep back when we could have really knocked it back further. Also, hospital admissions were very low and treatment had got better by then, so all the resources would be going into few patients, so survival rate will increase for certain.
But the people do need to work, and the economy does need to tick over, so I'm not against opening things, providing we're quick and ready to react when things increase. Again though, we've been too slow though, they just didn't learnt the first time. Every week of delay, takes three weeks to get back, it's like a basic children's slide graph, steep up, slow down. As soon as the spike was noticed they should have just shut the place down for two weeks, yes the sharp pain would hurt, but then it's far, far easier to recover from, overall it's far better. Either shut down or get extreme with temp testing at shops and forced tracking and tracing, hand gelling, forced masks etc. A lot of the public are too stupid to look after themselves, which is killing others that were not stupid.
There can't be excess deaths from previous years, that's just "normal" deaths, as they're used for the average we're comparing the current excess/ inexess to now (is the opposite of excess inexess??). Deaths from Flu will probably go down though, as social distancing and hand gelling will stop flu spread, as well as other viruses. Also covid's already killed off a lot of the weak, "there might not be as much kindling left to burn" as one report put it.
Thanks for that
I guess the bit I really struggle with is It sounds like locking down merely delays the inevitable. Sage member said exactly that on BBC the other day.
On that basis there is another choice - the Swedish Example for instance.
Tough choices though