• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Coronavirus: How scared should we be?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Clayton

On Moderation
Joined
15 Apr 2018
Messages
259
Well it’s nice that you’re all such tough guys and not scared of a disease that has killed 50,000 in the UK alone so far. However please do carry on obeying the law and government guidelines. I don’t want you to give it to me!
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
8,426
Location
nowhere
Well it’s nice that you’re all such tough guys and not scared of a disease that has killed 50,000 in the UK alone so far. However please do carry on obeying the law and government guidelines. I don’t want you to give it to me!

As a 23 year old male with no conditions, why should I be scared? There have been 11 deaths of 20-24 year old males with COVID since the start of April, with a further 103 deaths from other causes in the same time frame, so I'm sure you can see why I am not at all scared by it.

I shall continue to follow the guidelines, although I do have to wonder why I should if they don't apply to everyone....
 

LAX54

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2008
Messages
3,753
Exactly this, the media have put so much emphasis on the death aspect, the fact that this, for the vast majority is mild and doesn't require hospital treatment has been lost along the way.

It's far from a death sentence.

Do we have Social Media and 24/7 Rolling News from around the World, that has led to mass hysteria surrounding this outbreak ?

The World Health Organistion says: that between 290,000 and 650,000 respiratory deaths globally each year are associated with seasonal influenza.
 

xc170

Member
Joined
9 Feb 2008
Messages
815
Do we have Social Media and 24/7 Rolling News from around the World, that has led to mass hysteria surrounding this outbreak ?

Yes, and this is the issue! The media have hand picked which aspects they've reported, they've focused on the death rate and infections far more than recoveries, this has lead to normal, fit and healthy people being too scared to return to work, despite the risk to them being minimal!
 

underbank

Established Member
Joined
26 Jan 2013
Messages
1,486
Location
North West England
Yes, and this is the issue! The media have hand picked which aspects they've reported, they've focused on the death rate and infections far more than recoveries, this has lead to normal, fit and healthy people being too scared to return to work, despite the risk to them being minimal!

1. Those normal, fit healthy people may well be in close contact with vulnerable, at home, at work, etc., i.e. elderly parents, family/friends with underlying conditions, random people they meet etc.

2. Those who think they're "normal, fit healthy people" may not be. A lot of overweight/obese people are in denial so won't realise they're at risk. Likewise there will be people with underlying health conditions who simply don't know they have them.

3. My OH (middle aged otherwise fit and healthy) has one of the highest risks cancer for covid. There are no outward signs, even some close family don't know as she wants to carry on leading a normal life, working, etc, which she can because in normal times, it's an entirely "treatable" cancer although not curable and will ultimately lead to shorter life expectancy. Her consultant has basically told her she'll die if she contracts covid as they can't treat it due to the impaired immunity. You can't get higher risk than that.

As we come out slowly from lockdown, everyone still needs to respect personal space, personal hygiene, etc whether they think they're at risk personally or not. It's ALL about protecting those around them, hence the track & trace system etc - it's not to protect "you", it's to protect those around you who you may have infected. My OH can avoid obviously risky areas like a pub or a plane, but she can't avoid "normal" people in "normal" situations, hence people like her still need everyone else to at least respect personal space and be relatively hygienic themselves - I don't think that's too much to ask!
 

NorthOxonian

Established Member
Associate Staff
Buses & Coaches
Joined
5 Jul 2018
Messages
1,483
Location
Oxford/Newcastle
As we come out slowly from lockdown, everyone still needs to respect personal space, personal hygiene, etc whether they think they're at risk personally or not. It's ALL about protecting those around them, hence the track & trace system etc - it's not to protect "you", it's to protect those around you who you may have infected. My OH can avoid obviously risky areas like a pub or a plane, but she can't avoid "normal" people in "normal" situations, hence people like her still need everyone else to at least respect personal space and be relatively hygienic themselves - I don't think that's too much to ask!

That point is quite important. Though this is possibly better for other threads such as the one focused on leisure, one idea I have is that there could even be a system where certain high-risk activities where social distancing is impossible or impractical would be clearly labelled as such. I could even imagine a situation where crowded pubs with bouncers, nightclubs, or sporting/cultural events require you to sign a form at the door to get in, stating that the activity you are about to undertake is high risk and the management accept no responsibility for any infection.
 

37424

Member
Joined
10 Apr 2020
Messages
1,064
Location
Leeds
1. Those normal, fit healthy people may well be in close contact with vulnerable, at home, at work, etc., i.e. elderly parents, family/friends with underlying conditions, random people they meet etc.

2. Those who think they're "normal, fit healthy people" may not be. A lot of overweight/obese people are in denial so won't realise they're at risk. Likewise there will be people with underlying health conditions who simply don't know they have them.

3. My OH (middle aged otherwise fit and healthy) has one of the highest risks cancer for covid. There are no outward signs, even some close family don't know as she wants to carry on leading a normal life, working, etc, which she can because in normal times, it's an entirely "treatable" cancer although not curable and will ultimately lead to shorter life expectancy. Her consultant has basically told her she'll die if she contracts covid as they can't treat it due to the impaired immunity. You can't get higher risk than that.

As we come out slowly from lockdown, everyone still needs to respect personal space, personal hygiene, etc whether they think they're at risk personally or not. It's ALL about protecting those around them, hence the track & trace system etc - it's not to protect "you", it's to protect those around you who you may have infected. My OH can avoid obviously risky areas like a pub or a plane, but she can't avoid "normal" people in "normal" situations, hence people like her still need everyone else to at least respect personal space and be relatively hygienic themselves - I don't think that's too much to ask!
Indeed and apparently Western General Hospital in Western Super Mare has closed A&E this morning due to a large increase in potential Covid patients, a likely consequence of loosing lockdown?
 

scarby

Member
Joined
20 May 2011
Messages
745
Events in Sweden make me question the strategy here because the death rate per capita is lower than ours.

For what it's worth, the number of new admissions in Sweden to intensive care has dropped dramatically this month. In Stockholm, it is now getting close to zero. Many of the 350 or so people now in intensive care (in the entire country), which has dropped from a peak of around 550, have therefore now been in hospital for some time.

Presumably therefore many of the deaths that will follow in the coming days and weeks will sadly be from people who have needed to stay in hospital more or less permanently because their prospects for recovery from whatever wider grave health problems they had was very low.
 

Enthusiast

Member
Joined
18 Mar 2019
Messages
1,045
Well it’s nice that you’re all such tough guys and not scared of a disease that has killed 50,000 in the UK alone so far.
It isn't a matter of being "tough". It's a matter of pragmatism. To counter the spread, economic activity in the country has all but ground to a halt and the recovery from that will take many years, if not decades. The longer that inactivity lasts, the greater the damage will be and the longer the recovery period will be. The lockdown was implemented to prevent the NHS being overwhelmed. It wasn't and actually never came close. Whether it would have done without a lockdown is a debate for another day but in any case I doubt the answer will ever be known.

People's mindsets now seem to have shifted from protecting the NHS from being swamped to protecting everybody from contracting the virus. The government cannot prevent people catching infectious and contagious diseases. It can do its best to protect the most vulnerable but that's all. The lockdown has extracted a terrible price from individuals and companies and is beginning to reach the point where almost anybody can see that the cure will cause more damage than the disease. I actually thought that was so some time ago. So it isn't tough to seek an end to the lockdown. It's simply common sense.
 

northernchris

Established Member
Joined
24 Jul 2011
Messages
1,509
People's mindsets now seem to have shifted from protecting the NHS from being swamped to protecting everybody from contracting the virus. The government cannot prevent people catching infectious and contagious diseases. It can do its best to protect the most vulnerable but that's all. The lockdown has extracted a terrible price from individuals and companies and is beginning to reach the point where almost anybody can see that the cure will cause more damage than the disease. I actually thought that was so some time ago. So it isn't tough to seek an end to the lockdown. It's simply common sense.

Absolutely, the Government can do their bit but everyone needs to take some responsibility. The lockdown was probably the right thing to do back in March, but it's no way to live long term and it's now inevitable more illness, suffering and deaths will be caused in the next few years as a result of everything being sidelined in favour of Covid. To me that's a bigger fear than the virus itself
 

greyman42

Established Member
Joined
14 Aug 2017
Messages
4,894
Absolutely, the Government can do their bit but everyone needs to take some responsibility. The lockdown was probably the right thing to do back in March, but it's no way to live long term and it's now inevitable more illness, suffering and deaths will be caused in the next few years as a result of everything being sidelined in favour of Covid. To me that's a bigger fear than the virus itself
Agreed. Most people who catch the virus suffer no long term effects from it. The effects of long term unemployment will be worse.
 

Mag_seven

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
1 Sep 2014
Messages
9,994
Location
here to eternity
Well it’s nice that you’re all such tough guys and not scared of a disease that has killed 50,000 in the UK alone so far.

Could you source the 50,000 figure please because the official UK Government figure (As of 5pm on 24 May) is 36914.

 

MikeWM

Established Member
Joined
26 Mar 2010
Messages
4,382
Location
Ely
It's a fairly unpleasant disease if you get a bad case (I know - my mother had it in February, and had a miserable few weeks) and occasionally becomes serious enough to need medical intervention. In a small number of cases - mostly when you're already seriously ill from another disease - it can be fatal.

So, of course I'd rather not get it, same as with any virus! But I'm not *scared* of getting it and I'm not going to change my behaviour to avoid it, except in the ways we are regrettably being forced to currently. I refuse to over-react to a disease with an IFR of probably less than 0.5%. I would happily go to a crowded pub or cinema, or travel on a Tube train, right now. Indeed I was doing those things right up until it was no longer possible to do so back in March. This isn't the spanish flu, the bubonic plague, or ebola - if one of *those* was going about, I may consider being a little more cautious.

I've thought for quite a long while that there is a fundametal problem in our society that we no longer accept that sometimes 's#@t happens'. Sometimes nasty things occur, and either they're just not anyone's fault, or they couldn't have been prevented without an effort that is extremely disproportionate compared to the risk of those nasty things. We expect the government and our institutions to somehow protect us from everything, and make an almighty fuss when they can't. It is deeply unhelpful to the health of our society that we've ended up in this mindset.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,438
Location
Yorkshire
Indeed and apparently Western General Hospital in Western Super Mare has closed A&E this morning due to a large increase in potential Covid patients, a likely consequence of loosing lockdown?
You can't lockdown forever; also see:
For what it's worth, the number of new admissions in Sweden to intensive care has dropped dramatically this month. In Stockholm, it is now getting close to zero. Many of the 350 or so people now in intensive care (in the entire country), which has dropped from a peak of around 550, have therefore now been in hospital for some time....
and they did not lockdown; therefore I believe you have no evidence for your claim @37424
 

xc170

Member
Joined
9 Feb 2008
Messages
815
As we come out slowly from lockdown, everyone still needs to respect personal space, personal hygiene, etc whether they think they're at risk personally or not. It's ALL about protecting those around them, hence the track & trace system etc - it's not to protect "you", it's to protect those around you who you may have infected. My OH can avoid obviously risky areas like a pub or a plane, but she can't avoid "normal" people in "normal" situations, hence people like her still need everyone else to at least respect personal space and be relatively hygienic themselves - I don't think that's too much to ask!

I'm sorry to hear about your OH's condition, I really am, but, shouldn't she be shielding herself? Vulnerable people were told to shield themselves before the lockdown was introduced...
 

MikeWM

Established Member
Joined
26 Mar 2010
Messages
4,382
Location
Ely
I'm sorry to hear about your OH's condition, I really am, but, shouldn't she be shielding herself? Vulnerable people were told to shield themselves before the lockdown was introduced...

I'm really not sure what people who are shielding (who are legitimately concerned about encountering this virus) are supposed to do, going forward, and I suspect the government hasn't a clue either.

If we hadn't locked down the whole population, and instead shielded those really at risk - and those who care for them - *properly*, the virus would have pretty much finished burning through the healthy by now, and they would be able to emerge from shielding soon.

As it is, that may have happened *anyway* - in which case the lockdown was not only disastrous but also pointless (see Sweden, probably) - and if it hasn't, what are the shielding supposed to do, stay isolated for years to come?

I know someone who is shielding as she is specifically vulnerable to the virus - but she's an outgoing, lively person, and she's found it really tough so far, not being able to see her children, grandchildren or friends. She despairs that it may be extended further once the 12 weeks are 'up' next month.
 

xc170

Member
Joined
9 Feb 2008
Messages
815
If we hadn't locked down the whole population, and instead shielded those really at risk - and those who care for them - *properly*, the virus would have pretty much finished burning through the healthy by now, and they would be able to emerge from shielding soon.

This has been my view right from the start of this mess, the economic and social damage are completely unnecessary.

Why, as someone young (late 20s) and in good health, have I had to be locked up, along with everyone else under 60 and in good health? As long as I'm not coming into contact with anyone at risk, where is the issue?
 

37424

Member
Joined
10 Apr 2020
Messages
1,064
Location
Leeds
You can't lockdown forever; also see:

and they did not lockdown; therefore I believe you have no evidence for your claim @37424
Where did I claim it was evidence I simply commented it may be a possibility going forward.

Sweden is a very different country to the UK, I used to work for a Swedish company and still have friends there. While they haven't had the same level of lockdown as us they have taken some action. I'm told by Swedish friends that they are working from home where possible just as we are in the UK and some are informally following rules similar to ours. I believe the death rate in Sweden is substancially higher than neighbouring Norway and Finland who have had more of a lockdown

You keep banging on about evidence well at this stage i'm taking all stats with a large pinch of salt until we see how this virus pans out and we gain more information about it.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,438
Location
Yorkshire
Where did I claim it was evidence I simply commented it may be a possibility going forward.
Without any evidence to support your theory I'll take it with a pinch of salt.
Sweden is a very different country to the UK, I used to work for a Swedish company and still have friends there. While they haven't had the same level of lockdown as us they have taken some action.
Exactly, and this is what the posters above are suggesting we could have done.
I'm told by Swedish friends that they are working from home where possible just as we are in the UK and some are informally following rules similar to ours. I believe the death rate in Sweden is substantially higher than neighbouring Norway and Finland who have had more of a lockdown
It's a marathon, not a sprint.
You keep banging on about evidence well at this stage i'm taking all stats with a large pinch of salt until we see how this virus pans out and we gain more information about it.
You can take the evidence with a pinch of salt if you prefer your unsubstantiated theories, that's your choice to make :)

I don't really understand what you are arguing for to be honest!
 

37424

Member
Joined
10 Apr 2020
Messages
1,064
Location
Leeds
Without any evidence to support your theory I'll take it with a pinch of salt.

Exactly, and this is what the posters above are suggesting we could have done.

It's a marathon, not a sprint.

You can take the evidence with a pinch of salt if you prefer your unsubstantiated theories, that's your choice to make :)

I don't really understand what you are arguing for to be honest!
Well you seem to have an agenda to try and prove that lockdown wasn't required in this country but I would say your evidence of using Sweden as an example is unsubstantiated at this time, and even if there reasonable evidence to prove that was the case in the long term, its easy to be wise after the event on virus which was completely new to us and reliant on information that was happening in other countries. I am of the opinion thus far that they made the right choice.
 
Last edited:

sheff1

Established Member
Joined
24 Dec 2009
Messages
5,461
Location
Sheffield
Why, as someone young (late 20s) and in good health, have I had to be locked up, along with everyone else under 60 and in good health? As long as I'm not coming into contact with anyone at risk, where is the issue?

You should not have been 'locked up', but you seem to be suggesting that, as I am over 60, I should be even though I am in good health ?
 

xc170

Member
Joined
9 Feb 2008
Messages
815
You should not have been 'locked up', but you seem to be suggesting that, as I am over 60, I should be even though I am in good health ?

Well, yes, I'm sorry but the stats show people 60+ are at greater risk. It should be the young and healthy still working, keeping the economy going.

We cannot continue like this for much longer, if the economy crashes, the NHS goes with it...
 

takno

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
5,038
Well, yes, I'm sorry but the stats show people 60+ are at greater risk. It should be the young and healthy still working, keeping the economy going.

We cannot continue like this for much longer, if the economy crashes, the NHS goes with it...
The stats don't get remotely ominous until people are in their 70s, and even then it still mostly rises in line with pre-existing conditions. In as much as you want to keep anybody indoors against their considered preference at all, it should only be done as required to manage hospital loading, and there isn't a lot of evidence that setting it at 60 and including a lot of the working age people would help with that. I'm not sure why you'd want to start that argument tbh
 

scarby

Member
Joined
20 May 2011
Messages
745
I've been in Stockholm for basically the entire outbreak (I was in the UK at the start of March when it had barely begun) and what is most striking is how calm everything has been.

Today, if you didn't read the news at all, you wouldn't know anything unusual was happening - apart from screens protecting staff just in the grocery stores, and notices to keep distance and very few people wearing masks - maybe you'd assume there was a bad 'flu outbreak.

What is noticeable as well is that services have continued as normal, so evidently there aren't a lot of people at home sick.

Obviously because the restrictions have been measured, there's no agonising over what to open, as most things weren't shut anyway. All that's left is the "biggies" - international travel (Sweden hasn't shut its border but advises against travelling abroad and right now it's simply difficult to do anyway) and mass gatherings of people at sports matches, events, etc.

While the deaths are of course sad, they are absolutely nowhere near some of the wilder predictions: that it would be worse than the Spanish Flu, etc. Because the media has focused so much on death figures, I think people lack perspective of what the death numbers mean when taken in context - for example, around 90,000 people die in Sweden every year anyway (I don't know what the figure is for the UK?).

With the overwhelming majority of healthy people getting through this with no, mild, or at worst quite rough symptoms at home, one can only conclude that pre-existing human resistance to this is much much better than was predicted by many.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,438
Location
Yorkshire
Well you clearly have an agenda to try and prove that lockdown wasn't required in this country but I would say your evidence of using Sweden as an example is unsubstantiated at this time, and even if there reasonable evidence to prove that was the case in the long term, its easy to be wise after the event on virus which was completely new to us and reliant on information that was happening in other countries. I am of the opinion thus far that they made the right choice.
We shall see, but you are yet to substantiate any of your claims, and every time anyone has provided any evidence, you have dismissed it, while presenting none of your own.
I've been in Stockholm for basically the entire outbreak (I was in the UK at the start of March when it had barely begun) and what is most striking is how calm everything has been.

Today, if you didn't read the news at all, you wouldn't know anything unusual was happening - apart from screens protecting staff just in the grocery stores, and notices to keep distance and very few people wearing masks - maybe you'd assume there was a bad 'flu outbreak.

What is noticeable as well is that services have continued as normal, so evidently there aren't a lot of people at home sick.

Obviously because the restrictions have been measured, there's no agonising over what to open, as most things weren't shut anyway. All that's left is the "biggies" - international travel (Sweden hasn't shut its border but advises against travelling abroad and right now it's simply difficult to do anyway) and mass gatherings of people at sports matches, events, etc.

While the deaths are of course sad, they are absolutely nowhere near some of the wilder predictions: that it would be worse than the Spanish Flu, etc. Because the media has focused so much on death figures, I think people lack perspective of what the death numbers mean when taken in context - for example, around 90,000 people die in Sweden every year anyway (I don't know what the figure is for the UK?).

With the overwhelming majority of healthy people getting through this with no, mild, or at worst quite rough symptoms at home, one can only conclude that pre-existing human resistance to this is much much better than was predicted by many.
Thanks. It's becoming increasingly clear that this is what we should have done.

I've also heard through multiple sources that, similar to the UK and London, the R value in Stockholm is much lower now than elsewhere in Sweden, is that correct?
 

scarby

Member
Joined
20 May 2011
Messages
745
Thanks. It's becoming increasingly clear that this is what we should have done.

I've also heard through multiple sources that, similar to the UK and London, the R value in Stockholm is much lower now than elsewhere in Sweden, is that correct?

I believe that might be correct - certainly the number of new hospital admissions in Stockholm has dropped sharply leading to an overall fall of those in hospital, while elsewhere it's seems to be a bit behind that phase. Veteran epidemiologist Johan Giesecke's predictions about how the virus would play out in Sweden have proved to be remarkably accurate, while as we know those of Neil Ferguson, who said there would be 40,000 dead in Sweden by May 1, were totally wrong.
 

Bikeman78

Established Member
Joined
26 Apr 2018
Messages
4,495
I've been in Stockholm for basically the entire outbreak (I was in the UK at the start of March when it had barely begun) and what is most striking is how calm everything has been.

Today, if you didn't read the news at all, you wouldn't know anything unusual was happening - apart from screens protecting staff just in the grocery stores, and notices to keep distance and very few people wearing masks - maybe you'd assume there was a bad 'flu outbreak.

What is noticeable as well is that services have continued as normal, so evidently there aren't a lot of people at home sick.

Obviously because the restrictions have been measured, there's no agonising over what to open, as most things weren't shut anyway. All that's left is the "biggies" - international travel (Sweden hasn't shut its border but advises against travelling abroad and right now it's simply difficult to do anyway) and mass gatherings of people at sports matches, events, etc.

While the deaths are of course sad, they are absolutely nowhere near some of the wilder predictions: that it would be worse than the Spanish Flu, etc. Because the media has focused so much on death figures, I think people lack perspective of what the death numbers mean when taken in context - for example, around 90,000 people die in Sweden every year anyway (I don't know what the figure is for the UK?).

With the overwhelming majority of healthy people getting through this with no, mild, or at worst quite rough symptoms at home, one can only conclude that pre-existing human resistance to this is much much better than was predicted by many.
In interesting insight. What are trains like over there? Are they still quite busy? I assume leisure travel is still allowed?

Regarding normal death rates, it was around 10,000 per week in the UK so around 520,000 per year.
 

Enthusiast

Member
Joined
18 Mar 2019
Messages
1,045
while as we know those of Neil Ferguson, who said there would be 40,000 dead in Sweden by May 1, were totally wrong.
To be scrupulously fair, it wasn't Prof. Ferguson himself or his team who made that claim. It was made by somebody else (presumably in Sweden or with Swedish connections) who used the same mathematical model as used by Ferguson. So wildly adrift was it (Sweden has only recently reached 4,000 deaths - 10% of the forecast total and almost a month late) that serious doubts must be cast on the model's usefulness.

It is becoming increasingly clear to me that the UK's reaction (and probably that in most of Europe) was a colossal mistake. The UK economy has been trashed beyond belief (something I still think many people don't get as they sit at home on their furlough pay). Fear was a very big part in gaining consensus for the lockdown. Initially it was politicians who were scared by the experts. Then it was the population scared by the politicians. Many in both groups, it seems, still are.
 

37424

Member
Joined
10 Apr 2020
Messages
1,064
Location
Leeds
I believe that might be correct - certainly the number of new hospital admissions in Stockholm has dropped sharply leading to an overall fall of those in hospital, while elsewhere it's seems to be a bit behind that phase. Veteran epidemiologist Johan Giesecke's predictions about how the virus would play out in Sweden have proved to be remarkably accurate, while as we know those of Neil Ferguson, who said there would be 40,000 dead in Sweden by May 1, were totally wrong.
I think its far too early to jump to that conclusion as yet the death rate per capita of other Nordic countries which have had more of a lockdown is far lower than Sweden and strikes me as a more realistic comparison.

We appear to have performed very badly compared to some other countries which have also had a lockdown notably Germany and we need to look at why that is and there are clearly many factors to look at, but before you even get to that stage you need to look at the consistency of the figures on a country by country basis for instance Belgium appears to have performed very badly but Belgium are counting suspected cases as well as confirmed.
 

37424

Member
Joined
10 Apr 2020
Messages
1,064
Location
Leeds
To be scrupulously fair, it wasn't Prof. Ferguson himself or his team who made that claim. It was made by somebody else (presumably in Sweden or with Swedish connections) who used the same mathematical model as used by Ferguson. So wildly adrift was it (Sweden has only recently reached 4,000 deaths - 10% of the forecast total and almost a month late) that serious doubts must be cast on the model's usefulness.

It is becoming increasingly clear to me that the UK's reaction (and probably that in most of Europe) was a colossal mistake. The UK economy has been trashed beyond belief (something I still think many people don't get as they sit at home on their furlough pay). Fear was a very big part in gaining consensus for the lockdown. Initially it was politicians who were scared by the experts. Then it was the population scared by the politicians. Many in both groups, it seems, still are.

All very well with the benefit of hindsight, lets not forget we were seeing what was happening in Northern Italy and health service which by all accounts is better than ours being overwhelmed. Lets also not forget we have yet to see what the consequences of loosening lockdown will be in this country, lets see what happens with that first before we start jumping to conclusions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top