Can they can't they

[JohnW2]

I agree - very big rock and very big hard place.
IMO we're overdue for someone (probably Boris) to simply come out and discuss the elephant in the room - if we don't get the economy running again quickly, that will cause deaths (perhaps more than the coronavirus itself) going forward. We already know that suicides are up, domestic violence is up, child neglect/violence is up, routine medical treatments are down, etc, etc. At the moment, IMO there's too much pandering to the "but we must keep up the lockdown because ..." brigade - just look at all the wailing over the relatively minor relaxation of the rules the other week.

This really ought be be a separate/new thread, but ...

...I agree. In many senses, it would be good if the government "treated us as grown ups", but I'm far from convinced that the general population could cope with that.

If "relaxing restrictions (e.g. returning to school/work/social activity etc. etc.) only when it is 'safe' " means "only when it is so 'safe' that it will not result in more infections (and deaths)", then we would be waiting many months, quite possibly years, by which time the collateral damage resulting from the economic, sociological and psychological collapse would be catastrophic, with, apart from anything else, the capacity to result in even more illness and deaths than the virus itself.

The rock and hard place issue is that the only rational definition of 'safe' in that context is "safe enough to not result in an an unacceptable amount of morbidity and an unacceptable number of further deaths". However, that requires decisions to be taken as to what is "an acceptable number of further deaths" etc. - and it's that discussion which I'm not convinced that the population could 'cope with' if it were happening explicitly 'in public'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[SimonH2]

I agree, there would be a small number who would struggle - but I think most people, if it were explained sensibly, could cope.
But, I think it's safe to say that should such a discussion break out, then before it had got past it's first sentence, there'd be social media campaigns denouncing the "murderers" deciding who gets to live and who gets to die. And certain papers would have a field day.
So really, such a discussion doesn't stand much chance - who wants to believe facts when they've seen the "truth" on Farcebook or The Stun.

To a certain extent you can see that going on already. We've got the "militant unions" as some teachers seem to consider them trying to block all progress unless TPTB can guarantee "complete" safety - which as we all realise here is not possible. But at the same time, they don't seem to realise (or at least, don't seem to be acknowledging it) that the children are suffering long term disadvantage from the current lack of schooling. And while the children aren't at school, the parents can't go out to work - I have colleagues trying to juggle home schooling with a full time job WFH.

Yeah, it's easy sat here in relative safety, working from home, secure job, full pay. I really cannot imagine what it must be like for those where the income has "just gone"

 

[JohnW2]

I agree, there would be a small number who would struggle - but I think most people, if it were explained sensibly, could cope. But, I think it's safe to say that should such a discussion break out, then before it had got past it's first sentence, there'd be social media campaigns denouncing the "murderers" deciding who gets to live and who gets to die. And certain papers would have a field day.
So really, such a discussion doesn't stand much chance - who wants to believe facts when they've seen the "truth" on Farcebook or The Stun.

Again, all agreed. When I talked of some of 'the population' not being able to cope with such discussion, I should have also said something about the way in which the media, various organisations/groups and even politicians/political parties would almost certainly fuel that 'inability to cope'.

Having said that, whilst I imagine that many/most people could come to understand, in concept, the need to make a decision about "an acceptable number of deaths", quite a lot would probably find it very difficult/uncomfortable to be involved in, or even just exposed to, a discussion about what that 'acceptable number' actually should be.

I also strongly suspect that it is fear of inevitably similar responses/reactions from those media/organisations/groups etc. that has made TPTB too frightened to make any attempt to put the 'cares homes deaths furore' into sensible perspective - which is one of my (many!) 'discussion hot topics' (elsewhere) at present

Kind Regards, John