spockwaslen wrote:
Sanuk wrote:
907Tri wrote:
President aside, would you support another lockdown in your community, state, or country if we were presented with one? Why?
If there is a need for a 2nd lockdown, it means the first one didn't work despite the loss of thousands of jobs, people getting depressed and it being on the front page of the news for 6 months. We've also had hundreds of thousands die and cases escalating. So why would we think doing it again would change anything?
You will end up with more lost jobs, more people getting angry because only half the country takes it seriously, more disruptions and absolutely no chance of actually having a real lockdown (ie. no one leaves their home, no essential services, no exceptions).
You would end up with more half measures and another result that is exactly like the first one where we haven't accomplished anything.
Yes I don't see use being able to do another lockdown. I think we are going to be near sunk paying for the first one.
I think economists are running out of ways to say it, but they are pretty united in what they say:
1. The world is 'paying for' the pandemic
2. An uncontrolled pandemic will cost a great deal more than a contained one. There will be no proper economic recovery in the presence of a raging pandemic.
For a good example of a second lockdown look at the state of Victoria in Australia. After a couple of colossal fuck-ups they had a serious "second wave"; so bad that they have wound up with 90% of the whole country's deaths, so they went into lockdown (most particularly in the most populous city of Melbourne). 2 months later and they can now point to 10 days in a row without a single new infection. Their rolling 14 day new infection average, which is their headline metric, is comfortably below 1.
They don't talk about an elimination strategy, because new infections are always possible, but they do now have proven systems in place to deal with any flare up. They are out of lockdown. It worked, and in doing so it will save money and jobs.