Media Coverage of COVID -19

[greyman42]

Another frustrating morning listening to Radio 4.

There seems to be a reluctance amongst journalists to ask searching questions from medical and academic professionals. On the Today programme, for example they were interviewing the secretary of the British Thoratic Society, who was giving a pessimistic numerical scenario of the number of people needing treatment based on the number of people not protected after a completed vaccination campaign.

I would have liked to have heard some questioning on the following lines:

• If previous surges in hospitalisation were based on very low or non-existant levels of vaccination, how is it numerically possible that hospitalisations will reach the same levels with such high proportions vaccinated.
• If as implied by the interviewee the virus needs to be "controlled" after the completion of the vaccination programme, i would have liked to have heard some challenge around what sort of controls they thought would be necessary after this time, and for how long. Instead, we got a rather contrite and unquestioning "well you've made your concerns loud and clear"

Your not going to get searching questions from the BBC who seem to be very pro restrictions. I was listening to Nick Ferrari on LBC this morning interviewing some nutty professor. Ferrari pretty much demolished his views regarding keeping restrictions after June 21.

 

[Bantamzen]

It is on the low part of an exponential growth curve, doubling in incidence weekly. A significant proportion of the population is unvaccinated; a far more significant proportion is only part vaccinated, meaning that vaccine protection is limited. For reasons already given on here, Covid trashes hospital capacity to deal with other issues. Put those together, and the assumption that Covid is beaten is a brave one.


I think @yorksrob touches precisely on @Bantamzen's point - these are hard to pin down when discussed in very broad brush terms. The anti-lockdown movement have tended to argue for all of the economic and social harms of Covid, yet those statements have always been incredibly broad brush.

I would like to see a clear articulation of the trade-offs, because understanding whatever policy the government choose around June 21st will be important - wherever on the spectrum of options it lands.

Haven't we been discussing the trade offs for nearly 18 months now? I'm not sure what is unclear at this stage?

We've seen close to a million jobs lost, a million more people on the NHS waiting list, entire sectors have been driven to within an inch of existence, many actually pushed over the edge. We have borrowed hundreds of billions to pay for close to 10 million people being furloughed and to offer a few scraps to businesses trying to stay afloat. In all covid restrictions have cost the country many more hundreds of billions, left a population tired, fed up, and even pushed into mental illness. Many people have had to wait for critical care, some indeed didn't get anything until it was too late. And the NHS is still burning up hundreds of millions on tests for a return of under 2.6%, this despite one of the best vaccination programmes in the world (the one thing the government got right).

And still some quarters want more, longer, harder restrictions continuing for an unspecified length of time. Well here's the trade off, more and more people have had enough. They have had enough of restrictions, of masks, one way systems, "because covid" excuses, constant whining from the media and the experts finding themselves thrust into their spotlights, and all the rest. We have the route out, almost three quarters of the adult population now have it in their veins. We need to stop bean counting and looking for excuses in the data to slow down, and accept that we have to find a better balance than constant and costly restrictions. We're going to be paying for this for many years to come, that pain hasn't even started yet. So let's not dig ourselves in even deeper.

 

[35B]

Haven't we been discussing the trade offs for nearly 18 months now? I'm not sure what is unclear at this stage?

We've seen close to a million jobs lost, a million more people on the NHS waiting list, entire sectors have been driven to within an inch of existence, many actually pushed over the edge. We have borrowed hundreds of billions to pay for close to 10 million people being furloughed and to offer a few scraps to businesses trying to stay afloat. In all covid restrictions have cost the country many more hundreds of billions, left a population tired, fed up, and even pushed into mental illness. Many people have had to wait for critical care, some indeed didn't get anything until it was too late. And the NHS is still burning up hundreds of millions on tests for a return of under 2.6%, this despite one of the best vaccination programmes in the world (the one thing the government got right).

And still some quarters want more, longer, harder restrictions continuing for an unspecified length of time. Well here's the trade off, more and more people have had enough. They have had enough of restrictions, of masks, one way systems, "because covid" excuses, constant whining from the media and the experts finding themselves thrust into their spotlights, and all the rest. We have the route out, almost three quarters of the adult population now have it in their veins. We need to stop bean counting and looking for excuses in the data to slow down, and accept that we have to find a better balance than constant and costly restrictions. We're going to be paying for this for many years to come, that pain hasn't even started yet. So let's not dig ourselves in even deeper.

Which is precisely why I question the demand to relax lockdown completely and immediately - because we have seen the huge costs of getting that assessment wrong. Twice.

If they do proceed as hoped, then I'd like to see an articulation of the costs that the government have factored into that announcement - so that if or when there are additional cases, which may or may not put pressure on the NHS, there is a yardstick to interpret those numbers against. And if they choose to go slow on easing restrictions, then I'd like to see that explained with data so that the judgement can be understood and how we are doing compared against that.

You suspect me of looking for excuses to maintain lockdown. That gets me wrong - completely so. But I do want the relaxation of restrictions to be irreversible - and that means following the data. You say that @75% of the population have vaccines. That's excellent, but when you check back, that's actually relatively limited immunity when you consider that it takes time to build up, and the 2nd jab appears to make a significant difference to the protection against the Indian variant. I'd rather have another few weeks of what we have now than have a period of freedom that's then followed by another period of lockdown on because it was unsustainable.

 

[big_rig]

Which is precisely why I question the demand to relax lockdown completely and immediately - because we have seen the huge costs of getting that assessment wrong. Twice.

If they do proceed as hoped, then I'd like to see an articulation of the costs that the government have factored into that announcement - so that if or when there are additional cases, which may or may not put pressure on the NHS, there is a yardstick to interpret those numbers against. And if they choose to go slow on easing restrictions, then I'd like to see that explained with data so that the judgement can be understood and how we are doing compared against that.

You suspect me of looking for excuses to maintain lockdown. That gets me wrong - completely so. But I do want the relaxation of restrictions to be irreversible - and that means following the data. You say that @75% of the population have vaccines. That's excellent, but when you check back, that's actually relatively limited immunity when you consider that it takes time to build up, and the 2nd jab appears to make a significant difference to the protection against the Indian variant. I'd rather have another few weeks of what we have now than have a period of freedom that's then followed by another period of lockdown on because it was unsustainable.

I don't know why you persist in being so disingenuous. Just another few weeks. Oh no there's the new [country x] variant then. Better have another few weeks until we see how that goes. Oh no there's been one case of the [country z] variant now. If it's two cases next week it's growing exponentially. Just another few weeks. Oh no we'd better wait until school children have both doses and three weeks extra protection. Oh no it's autumn now, just another few weeks of caution. It's only a few weeks, don't be selfish. Oh no it's winter now, can't be too careful. Oh no look it's 2022 all of a sudden. New magic variants - what if they can evade the vaccines? Better start again. Hold the line while we distribute 150 million new vaccines. Blah blah blah. Surely it must be exhausting trying to cover this up with your 'neutral observer' schtick?

 

[DustyBin]

It is on the low part of an exponential growth curve, doubling in incidence weekly. A significant proportion of the population is unvaccinated; a far more significant proportion is only part vaccinated, meaning that vaccine protection is limited. For reasons already given on here, Covid trashes hospital capacity to deal with other issues. Put those together, and the assumption that Covid is beaten is a brave one.

Is it really growing exponentially? And if it is, does it matter? The evidence strongly suggests that there is already enough protection across society to keep daily deaths at ten or less. The vast majority of those not vaccinated are young healthy people who very rarely require hospital treatment as a result of contracting Covid. There's no reason to think that hospital capacity is under threat at this point. With respect, you sound like the so-called "experts" on TV have got to you.

I don't think anybody believes Covid is "beaten". It's here to stay, we can't get rid of it and therefore we must live with it. Carry on vaccinating away but I think it's unlikely we'll ever find ourselves in a significantly better situation than the one we're in now.

 

[NorthOxonian]

You suspect me of looking for excuses to maintain lockdown. That gets me wrong - completely so. But I do want the relaxation of restrictions to be irreversible - and that means following the data. You say that @75% of the population have vaccines. That's excellent, but when you check back, that's actually relatively limited immunity when you consider that it takes time to build up, and the 2nd jab appears to make a significant difference to the protection against the Indian variant. I'd rather have another few weeks of what we have now than have a period of freedom that's then followed by another period of lockdown on because it was unsustainable.

As I said in the thread about whether all restrictions should be removed on June 21st, I can understand where you're coming from. This new variant is certainly more transmissible (possibly by enough to be an issue), and the speed at which we're doing vaccinations means even just a week or two could make a significant difference in what happens after unlocking.

But ultimately I can't agree, because I just don't believe these scientists when they say a delay would only be a few weeks. Because I guarantee, they'll find another excuse afterwards. Maybe they'll say we all need boosters before we can unlock, or maybe they'll say "until everywhere's safe, nowhere's safe" and claim high rates of infection around the world mean we need to keep our domestic restrictions.

 

[Dent]

It is on the low part of an exponential growth curve, doubling in incidence weekly

What figures are you looking at? It is nowhere doubling weekly by any metric I have seen, just like it wasn't last autumn when a similar myth was being spread.

 

[DustyBin]

I don't know why you persist in being so disingenuous. Just another few weeks. Oh no there's the new [country x] variant then. Better have another few weeks until we see how that goes. Oh no there's been one case of the [country z] variant now. If it's two cases next week it's growing exponentially. Just another few weeks. Oh no we'd better wait until school children have both doses and three weeks extra protection. Oh no it's autumn now, just another few weeks of caution. It's only a few weeks, don't be selfish. Oh no it's winter now, can't be too careful. Oh no look it's 2022 all of a sudden. New magic variants - what if they can evade the vaccines? Better start again. Hold the line while we distribute 150 million new vaccines. Blah blah blah. Surely it must be exhausting trying to cover this up with your 'neutral observer' schtick?

There are certainly plenty of "experts" who will try exactly this, and that's why I think enough is enough.

 

[Bantamzen]

Which is precisely why I question the demand to relax lockdown completely and immediately - because we have seen the huge costs of getting that assessment wrong. Twice.

If they do proceed as hoped, then I'd like to see an articulation of the costs that the government have factored into that announcement - so that if or when there are additional cases, which may or may not put pressure on the NHS, there is a yardstick to interpret those numbers against. And if they choose to go slow on easing restrictions, then I'd like to see that explained with data so that the judgement can be understood and how we are doing compared against that.

Oh the biggest error is yet to be realised, sit back and watch when this or a future Chancellor has to slash public sector budgets to have a chance to pay for all of this. For the price of the mass testing alone we could actually be paying for better and more flexible capacity, and after so long we could even be well into training new medical staff. We could even afford to pay them a decent rise this year.

You suspect me of looking for excuses to maintain lockdown. That gets me wrong - completely so. But I do want the relaxation of restrictions to be irreversible - and that means following the data. You say that @75% of the population have vaccines. That's excellent, but when you check back, that's actually relatively limited immunity when you consider that it takes time to build up, and the 2nd jab appears to make a significant difference to the protection against the Indian variant.

You are right about one thing, I do suspect you continue to look for excuses to slow relaxations. You've done pretty much nothing else since the first ones were enacted. Case in point your comment above. 75% of first doses, many of which were administered months ago is more than excellent, it is a primary reason for looking at easements. And that's before we consider the al most 50% of the adult population that have had both. You are just sounding like what some pro-restriction experts have been shouting, that the vaccine is not enough. Well if the vaccines are not enough then I'll be damned I know what will be. No scratch that, I've already seen their dystopian visions.

I'd rather have another few weeks of what we have now than have a period of freedom that's then followed by another period of lockdown on because it was unsustainable.

You've been saying that for months, & I'll wager you will still be saying that months from now.

 

[Dent]

I'd rather have another few weeks of what we have now than have a period of freedom that's then followed by another period of lockdown on because it was unsustainable.

That is a false dichotomy. There is no justification for either course of action given the protection of vaccination, and even before vaccination most of the restrictions would not have passed a comprehensive cost/benefit analysis.

Wasn't the current slow opening supported on the basis that making it so slow would make it irreversible? So it is already irreversible because of how slow it is, but it has to be delayed even further to make it irreversible - isn't that a logical contradiction?

 

[initiation]

I would like to see a clear articulation of the trade-offs, because understanding whatever policy the government choose around June 21st will be important - wherever on the spectrum of options it lands.

Interesting to note that the Government have never (as far as I can find) produced a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis of restrictions over the last 15 months. I am not optimistic enough to expect them to suddenly start doing this now...

 

[Bantamzen]

Interesting to note that the Government have never (as far as I can find) produced a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis of restrictions over the last 15 months. I am not optimistic enough to expect them to suddenly start doing this now...

Well a starter for ten is the estimated £355 billion borrowed for 2020-21 for covid measures, equivalent to over £5K per person in this country. And that's just the estimation for the actual cost to the end of the last fiscal year. The loss in income, effect on health, the economy, as well as ongoing costs isn't even factored into that. That will still have to be worked out by the Treasury & No.11.

Put simply its not sustainable, and is why more & more people are calling for an end to restrictions.

 

[brad465]

Interesting to note that the Government have never (as far as I can find) produced a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis of restrictions over the last 15 months. I am not optimistic enough to expect them to suddenly start doing this now...

I suspect if one was and it found it to be more costly than beneficial, the outrage and wider ramifications of realising how much money and livelihoods lost were squandered would be unforgivable, to the point they have to cover something like that up rather than admit they were wrong. It all stems back to the media fear storm driven up at the start that helped drive the apparent need to lock down, once it happened and then realised how costly it was, everything had to be thrown and trying to justify them, even if data and situations on the ground had to be fabricated and/or exaggerated.

 

[Bantamzen]

Interesting to note that the Government have never (as far as I can find) produced a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis of restrictions over the last 15 months. I am not optimistic enough to expect them to suddenly start doing this now...

Well a starter for ten is the estimated £355 billion borrowed for 2020-21 for covid measures, equivalent to over £5K per person in this country. And that's just the estimation for the actual cost to the end of the last fiscal year. The loss in income, effect on health, the economy, as well as ongoing costs isn't even factored into that. That will still have to be worked out by the Treasury & No.11.

Put simply its not sustainable, and is why more & more people are calling for an end to restrictions.

 

[35B]

I don't know why you persist in being so disingenuous. Just another few weeks. Oh no there's the new [country x] variant then. Better have another few weeks until we see how that goes. Oh no there's been one case of the [country z] variant now. If it's two cases next week it's growing exponentially. Just another few weeks. Oh no we'd better wait until school children have both doses and three weeks extra protection. Oh no it's autumn now, just another few weeks of caution. It's only a few weeks, don't be selfish. Oh no it's winter now, can't be too careful. Oh no look it's 2022 all of a sudden. New magic variants - what if they can evade the vaccines? Better start again. Hold the line while we distribute 150 million new vaccines. Blah blah blah. Surely it must be exhausting trying to cover this up with your 'neutral observer' schtick?

Better a “neutral observer” than wilfully blind and self obsessed. My post was not disingenuous, and represents my genuine uncertainty as to the right answer right now.

 

[big_rig]

Better a “neutral observer” than wilfully blind and self obsessed. My post was not disingenuous, and represents my genuine uncertainty as to the right answer right now.

You're perfect and everybody else is nuts. Gotcha. Would recommend others not continue to engage

 

[35B]

You're perfect and everybody else is nuts. Gotcha. Would recommend others not continue to engage

I don’t pretend to be perfectly right, and have genuine doubts as to which way to proceed. As opposed to...?

 

[big_rig]

I don’t pretend to be perfectly right, and have genuine doubts as to which way to proceed. As opposed to...?

Righto. See you on the 21st when you've thought up some new excuses as to why restrictions should continue indefinitely

 

[87electric]

Oh the biggest error is yet to be realised, sit back and watch when this or a future Chancellor has to slash public sector budgets to have a chance to pay for all of this. For the price of the mass testing alone we could actually be paying for better and more flexible capacity, and after so long we could even be well into training new medical staff. We could even afford to pay them a decent rise this year.


You are right about one thing, I do suspect you continue to look for excuses to slow relaxations. You've done pretty much nothing else since the first ones were enacted. Case in point your comment above. 75% of first doses, many of which were administered months ago is more than excellent, it is a primary reason for looking at easements. And that's before we consider the al most 50% of the adult population that have had both. You are just sounding like what some pro-restriction experts have been shouting, that the vaccine is not enough. Well if the vaccines are not enough then I'll be damned I know what will be. No scratch that, I've already seen their dystopian visions.


You've been saying that for months, & I'll wager you will still be saying that months from now.

I’ll chip in to that wager as well. The Gatekeeper is slipping.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Well a starter for ten is the estimated £355 billion borrowed for 2020-21 for covid measures, equivalent to over £5K per person in this country. And that's just the estimation for the actual cost to the end of the last fiscal year. The loss in income, effect on health, the economy, as well as ongoing costs isn't even factored into that. That will still have to be worked out by the Treasury & No.11.

Put simply its not sustainable, and is why more & more people are calling for an end to restrictions.

Of course, that is only half the story. What would the cost to the country be if we didn't implement restrictions? That answer is a lot harder to get a solid number for, mainly because a lot of what you'd have to look into would result in a "it depends". But you can certainly say that the cost wouldn't have been zero. So banging on about the cost to the taxpayer of supporting the restrictions isn't really fair on its own as the alternatives would have cost a significant amount too.

 

[Bantamzen]

Of course, that is only half the story. What would the cost to the country be if we didn't implement restrictions? That answer is a lot harder to get a solid number for, mainly because a lot of what you'd have to look into would result in a "it depends". But you can certainly say that the cost wouldn't have been zero. So banging on about the cost to the taxpayer of supporting the restrictions isn't really fair on its own as the alternatives would have cost a significant amount too.

Well a starting point for that would be the NHS budget, which I believe that for 2019-2020 was £141 billion. So the question is how much more did it cost to deal with the covid patients, procuring PPE, equipment, treatments etc. Of course we probably will never get to see the full cost, but we have to remember that it is rumoured that hundreds of millions was wasted on inadequate equipment, as well as the Nightingale hospitals that were never used, and not forgetting the vast amount being spent on testing.

All this is before you factor in the forgotten cost, that of the 4.5 million or so people still waiting to get treatment, and of course all the lost tax revenue that will be needed to pay for their future care. The price we will pay for the covid response will go on for years to come, but it is very likely that we cannot afford to keep artificially propping up the economy indefinitely, at least not if we want a viable healthcare system in future.

 

[Domh245]

Well a starting point for that would be the NHS budget, which I believe that for 2019-2020 was £141 billion. So the question is how much more did it cost to deal with the covid patients, procuring PPE, equipment, treatments etc. Of course we probably will never get to see the full cost, but we have to remember that it is rumoured that hundreds of millions was wasted on inadequate equipment, as well as the Nightingale hospitals that were never used, and not forgetting the vast amount being spent on testing.

All this is before you factor in the forgotten cost, that of the 4.5 million or so people still waiting to get treatment, and of course all the lost tax revenue that will be needed to pay for their future care. The price we will pay for the covid response will go on for years to come, but it is very likely that we cannot afford to keep artificially propping up the economy indefinitely, at least not if we want a viable healthcare system in future.

Dealing with covid patients, procuring PPE, equipment, treatments etc would have had to happen whether we had restrictions or not - indeed likely more would have been spent on those items without restrictions with the wider spread of the virus. That 'forgotten' cost would also have happened, regardless of restrictions. A healthcare system overwhelmed by covid patients (even if you are turning them away at the doors to try their luck at a National Hospice Service Nightingale) cannot process non-covid patients.

As soon as the virus landed in the UK (if not the moment it started doing the rounds in Wuhan) the NHS was going to be hit hard by it, regardless of what the government chose to do. The only healthcare savings from a "do-nothing" approach is in the lack of T&T, but with a likely increased cost to deal with the larger number of patients.

 

[Bantamzen]

Dealing with covid patients, procuring PPE, equipment, treatments etc would have had to happen whether we had restrictions or not - indeed likely more would have been spent on those items without restrictions with the wider spread of the virus. That 'forgotten' cost would also have happened, regardless of restrictions. A healthcare system overwhelmed by covid patients (even if you are turning them away at the doors to try their luck at a National Hospice Service Nightingale) cannot process non-covid patients.

As soon as the virus landed in the UK (if not the moment it started doing the rounds in Wuhan) the NHS was going to be hit hard by it, regardless of what the government chose to do. The only healthcare savings from a "do-nothing" approach is in the lack of T&T, but with a likely increased cost to deal with the larger number of patients.

Yes those costs would have been felt regardless, however there government shut down large parts of the economy and committed to vast support packages. That is all lost money that could, and frankly should have gone to the NHS. We still have four and a half million people do treat, why do you suppose NHS bosses are panicking? I suspect they know the NHS is going to struggle to fund all that.

What we should be doing now is preparing for permanent capacity increase across all healthcare, to allow for ebbs & flows of all potential diseases, even if this means having lots of spare capacity at quieter times. It won't come on line straight away of course, but had we started, oh I don't know 18 months ago we would be 18 months further down the line.

 

[WelshBluebird]

however there government shut down large parts of the economy and committed to vast support packages.

But had that not happened, how much more money would have had to be spent on caring for the additional people who would have got COVID? (I'm assuming here the bit we will disagree on is the number of people - I suspect had the government not done much, a hell of a lot more people would have ended up in hospital or worse than what we actually have seen, and so the cost would have been quite high - whereas I can only assume you believe that number would be fairly low).
And how much would still have had to be spent on vast support packages (because even countries that have had limited restrictions have still for the most part stopped large scale events and the like).

What we should be doing now is preparing for permanent capacity increase across all healthcare, to allow for ebbs & flows of all potential diseases, even if this means having lots of spare capacity at quieter times. It won't come on line straight away of course, but had we started, oh I don't know 18 months ago we would be 18 months further down the line.

At least we agree on something!

 

[brad465]

Yes those costs would have been felt regardless, however there government shut down large parts of the economy and committed to vast support packages. That is all lost money that could, and frankly should have gone to the NHS. We still have four and a half million people do treat, why do you suppose NHS bosses are panicking? I suspect they know the NHS is going to struggle to fund all that.

What we should be doing now is preparing for permanent capacity increase across all healthcare, to allow for ebbs & flows of all potential diseases, even if this means having lots of spare capacity at quieter times. It won't come on line straight away of course, but had we started, oh I don't know 18 months ago we would be 18 months further down the line.

Not only should we build more capacity for what you describe, but the population increase over decades means by default more people will be needing treatment, both in general and when more people near life expectancy. In a (morbid) way if you want a stable secure job in future, become an undertaker.

 

[johncrossley]

Lead article on the BBC News website is "Zero daily deaths announced in UK", so they have a positive headline for the first time in a while.

 

[Bantamzen]

But had that not happened, how much more money would have had to be spent on caring for the additional people who would have got COVID? (I'm assuming here the bit we will disagree on is the number of people - I suspect had the government not done much, a hell of a lot more people would have ended up in hospital or worse than what we actually have seen, and so the cost would have been quite high - whereas I can only assume you believe that number would be fairly low).
And how much would still have had to be spent on vast support packages (because even countries that have had limited restrictions have still for the most part stopped large scale events and the like).

Well here is where we look at the people most affected by the illness. A lot of people who were furloughed were not in these at risks groups, so would the difference in hospitalisations / deaths have been much greater if we had not shut down so much of the economy? It will take a lot more analysis, but its far from certain that less restrictions would have led to greater risks to the NHS. If the older generations are more likely to suffer serious illness, locking up the younger generations will not have as great as effect as has been claimed.

Lead article on the BBC News website is "Zero daily deaths announced in UK", so they have a positive headline for the first time in a while.

We are definitely going to need greater capacity in the future, not only in actual numbers but beds per capita. One thing that was painfully obvious from the start was that we lagged a long way behind other European countries in this.

 

[Dent]

But had that not happened, how much more money would have had to be spent on caring for the additional people who would have got COVID?

More than the cost of shutting down most of the economy for months on end? Sounds extremely unlikely.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Well here is where we look at the people most affected by the illness. A lot of people who were furloughed were not in these at risks groups, so would the difference in hospitalisations / deaths have been much greater if we had not shut down so much of the economy? It will take a lot more analysis, but its far from certain that less restrictions would have led to greater risks to the NHS. If the older generations are more likely to suffer serious illness, locking up the younger generations will not have as great as effect as has been claimed.

But younger and older people interact - often at home (either living together or for things like childcare, or adults caring for aging relatives etc).
It also isn't a lovely clean break between those who are most affected and those who aren't - the age "barrier" so to speak is more of a slope than a straight line and then you have those younger but also particularly vulnerable. I don't see how you could successfully isolate the vulnerable groups from everyone else to enable everyone else to go about their lives normally - or at least not in a way that wouldn't have also led to a lot of the complaints / consequences from the last year anyway.

More than the cost of shutting down most of the economy for months on end? Sounds extremely unlikely.

I know how much this forum hates models, but in the worst case examples where a complete overrun of hospitals was a possibility, then yes the cost could well have been worse (in £ and in lives lost). People think we have a problem with the backlog of operations and the like hospitals have at the moment - and that is with them having been able to still see people over the last year - imagine if they weren't able to because of COVID? That is the worse case situation. Now by all means we can argue how realistic that scenario would be and how accurate those models are, but you can't just pretend that a lighter government tough wouldn't have had any consequences or costs.

 

[Bantamzen]

But younger and older people interact - often at home (either living together or for things like childcare, or adults caring for aging relatives etc).
It also isn't a lovely clean break between those who are most affected and those who aren't - the age "barrier" so to speak is more of a slope than a straight line and then you have those younger but also particularly vulnerable. I don't see how you could successfully isolate the vulnerable groups from everyone else to enable everyone else to go about their lives normally - or at least not in a way that wouldn't have also led to a lot of the complaints / consequences from the last year anyway.

Let's not forget that same of the earliest and worse rates of infections took place in care settings, and that these are often the sources of others. So there are lots of issues to deal with there before we start to deal with others.

However with regards to interactions with more vulnerable people, this is a matter for those in those groups and their medical carers, family etc. We cannot keep asking people to lose jobs or income purely on the basis that other people may be more vulnerable. Because if we go down that road again then pretty much every winter will require full lockdowns, destroying our economy and our ability to care for them. Its a double edged sword.