#LetFansIn

I didn’t say it’d all be ok, but we’d be in a much better position now. Both economically and health wise.

 

So you keep saying but your idea of doing that and closing the borders would cause huge economic problems.

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-dinners-dig-hole-writes-Sir-ROCCO-FORTE.html

Another great piece especially the end part. Protect those at high risk and for the rest of us get life back to normal.

 

How?
All our competitors locked down sooner and harder; and the benefit of that is fewer deaths and a stronger economy.

We’re in the state we are because of dithering, weak leadership. It’s daft to suggest that weaker lockdown rules could have improved both sides of this awful outcome. You might have a slightly stronger economy, but at the cost of even more lives. How many is acceptable?

 

How many do YOU think is acceptable from a contagious virus that kills vulnerable people? How many do YOU think should die before lockdown is forced on the wider community?

 

I think you might need a cold drink fella.
You appear to have caught ‘Nudgers caps lock’.

 

That did make me laugh to be fair but the question still stands

 

This is more useful reading. You might stop thinking it's just about the deaths then.

https://www.itv.com/news/2020-08-12...symptoms-and-what-help-is-there-for-sufferers

 

I get some people have been unlucky with getting back to full health out of the 300+ thousand who we know have had it and all the other probably millions who's had Covid and not realised. I just think now is the time for people to be allowed to take more responsibility for themselves. Allow those who want to keep shielding and don't feel safe to keep doing so. Whilst allowing those who have weighed up the risks and decided to go back to normality to do so.

Everyone free to make their own decision. The stats got updated at 4 pm which had 1,001 in hospital with Covid and 70 on a ventilator. These days we are getting of over a thousand new cases haven't even resulted in a rise in 111 calls. We've seen a big rise in infections since masks have become compulsory to wear, which isn't a surprise because a piece of cloth that hasn't been proven to work has made people more complacent when it's more important to wash your hands and social distance.

 

Everyone shouldn't be free to make their own decision, when they can transmit it to countless others.

 

We were last winter and the winter before that.

I still think it's absolutely bonkers that it is now illegal for me to do various things in case I pass it on to a vulnerable person but only gentle advice that the vulnerable person doesn't go rubbing shoulders with everyone in meadowhall.

 

You keep likening it to flu. There's a vaccine for flu, some herd immunity and those who do get it suffer fewer complications.

 

The question was stupid, it relies on me accepting a premise which I refuse to do.

But I’ll give you the answer to the question you should have asked; how would I have managed the pandemic?

I’d have looked at how other countries were dealing with it and taken note of the successes and what was leading to them. Which means that rather than abandoning tracing I’d have doubled down on it. Whether with an IT system or not, nationally or locally, the countries that fared best knew exactly where the virus was.

you must know the saying ‘knowledge is power’, it’s often misinterpreted by idiots to think that if you keep things to yourself you’re banking an advantage. It doesn’t, it means the more facts you have the better decisions you’ll make.

not only did our leader wilfully deny himself knowledge, he also denied the opportunity to the experts whose job it was to advise him.

The simple fact is that the countries with the fewest deaths also had the least financial impact.
People should stop getting sucked in by sound bites from libertarians who just wish to gamble our lives so they can make money, and look around them for the evidence of what could have happened here if we’d managed it better.

 

What premise do you refuse to accept?

 

This...

That somehow you wish to make me responsible for forcing something on someone.

it was a bitter reaction to my post, that didn’t even really address the point of my post.

point of note - read, think, address poster

Rather than - half read, react aggressively.

you’re not a daft lad; but sometimes you don’t half try to prove you are

 

Its a question. You asked how many lives lost is acceptable. I merely asked you the same question. How many deaths from a contagious virus do you personally feel is acceptable before a widespread lockdown should be enforced?

You can't argue that the question is aggressive, stupid or whatever else you claim when you asked practically the same question. The difference was you made your question specifically about the virus called covid-19, I asked it about any contagious virus as when a body is put in the ground it is the same end result.

 

Maybe you should be a politician. Straight out of the Jim Hacker playbook!

 

again - a stupid premise (I also note you’ve failed to read my reply and just want to chase the ridiculous argument)

No deaths are necessary before you decide how to deal with a pandemic. You set a policy to limit deaths, you don’t wait for the 1st, 100th or 10,000th death. You can already see what’s happening elsewhere and you use your intellect.

 

Do you realise that you are calling your own question stupid?

 

No
I’m calling your spin of my question stupid

I asked how many extra deaths would be acceptable; you asked how many deaths I’d accept before I removed people’s freedom