| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re: Total disaster | |
| Posted by: | Adam Beamish | |
| Date/Time: | 10/09/20 14:40:00 |
| The problem is Adrian that a rational and respectful debate involving contrasting points of view is impossible when, no matter what the issue is, Steve is a contributor, because as far as Steve is concerned whatever he thinks has to be the correct one. I've never met the guy (probably fortunately for both of us) but as I've openly said previously (and acknowledging that on some issues I share his opinion) I have zero time for individuals, both in person or online, who have an over-inflated sense of the importance of their opinion to the extent that it is a matter of undeniable fact. And I can never work out if he's actually on a wind-up because he describes others as being "superior", "self-righteous" or "arrogant" yet to me he couldn't be further up his own backside if he tried. Moving on to trying to have a rational debate, if we look at this on a global scale, there's been a host of different approaches taken by different countries. The largely common trend at the moment within most European countries is that they experienced a decline in new cases from May onwards, but since mid-July onwards have experienced a steady but significant growth in cases. At the same time, the number of deaths partly or fully attributed to covid has, in the main, increased, and indeed in some countries continues to decline and remains, as it has done so for the last 2 months, at negligible levels. Sweden for example didn't have a lockdown and has been relatively light on preventative measures and yet, at the present time, isn't experiencing a surge/increase in new cases and has a death rate of less than 5 since 25th July. If new cases are increasing considerably (as they are) but no such trend is reflected in death rates and the death rates in most European countries remain negligible (as they currently are) then one has to ask themselves why, and furthermore those trends should make it harder to balance the benefits of tightening restrictions against the importance of returning to some kind of normality. There is no right or wrong answer, there is no perfect solution. The previous lockdown in the UK hasn't prevented the recent increase in cases, and that trend has occurred in most places regardless of what initial steps they took. Sweden took alot of flat and acknowledges that it didn't do enough to protect its elderly, yet currently it's in a very good place and it's economy isn't anything like as damaged as ours. Stewart tells us that he took one look at the Flower Market and went to the West End instead. Now this isn't intended as a criticism, but by doing so he's travelled some distance during which time he's bound to have encountered people, and for all he knew he might have suddenly found himself, either during the journey there or when he arrived, surrounded by people. Many people don't have the 'luxury' that Steve apparently has. Not everyone can work from home and not everyone can get access to their personal or professional needs from home. Steve presents himself as some kind of paragon of virtue who is staying in Taylor Towers, and will remain there, for however long it takes. And, talk all he want about selfishness and arrogance, there's many people who come to different conclusions when balancing the personal risk of becoming infected or spreading the virus against the economic impacts and the impacts upon society as a whole if we all just lock our front doors and don't come out until the powers that be tell us we can. Arguably, to me, those people are no more selfish or arrogant than people like Steve who are only looking after no. 1. Was the flower market essential ? - of course not. But the same goes for virtually everything else, I'm sure each and every one of us (yes, even Steve) has done something in the last 6 months that wasn't essential or necessary, but we did it because we wanted to. On the one hand the flower market might have been a hotbed for a rise in infections, both in terms of being at the market itself and more people within the surrounding area. Equally, that same event might have brought considerable economic benefits, not just in terms of the market itself but people spending money within Chiswick itself. So, to take either extreme, the event might, hypothetically, have led to 100 new infections which might in turn lead to someone dying of covid, and equally might have helped brought much needed income for local businesses which allows them to stay afloat. That's the balancing act. People like Steve want everything to effectively shut down for an indeterminate amount of time. At the other extreme people want everything to be how it was pre-covid. Both extremes are essentially driven by selfishness. Were it not for the fact that there are too many idiots out there who don't have any respect for other people and won't take precautions, I'd be all for completely removing all restrictions and seeing how things played out. And I can genuinely say that isn't because it's best for me, I can sit here and WFH for as long as it takes, get stuff delivered and so forth, but its because I don't personally believe that if we did return to a pre-covid scenario there would be a surge in deaths etc. Obviously people will say "yes great Adam but you're playing with my life and the lives of my friends and family" and they'd be quite right, but to date I do not see anything factual or statistical that shows the UK strategy to date has been successful or effective, or indeed the current reintroduction of measures is necessary. Sorry for the long post but as you wanted a debate !. |