The thing is things have changed.I think we have already blown the bank on it unfortunately
In other words, their won’t be a second national lockdown because we can’t afford it no matter how many people die.
It wasn't actually a national "lockdown" anyway.
Essential workers were still working - in London the tubes were mobbed.
We were all (shielded excepted) going to the shops.
But yes, clearly they want to avoid the levels they went to previously. It's about getting the best result for the least effort and that's where the disagreements kick in.
It achieved what it was meant to at the time i.e. slow things down. Stop the NHS from being totally overrun with covid while they tried to figure what they were dealing with. It worked, from a personal point of view as in the last 2 to three months I've had three GP visits in person (blood tests) and two hospital procedures as they started to open things up again. Now it's also about trying to get people dealt with for non covid stuff too and they do seem to be making some progress in my experience.
They're trying to balance money and health but I think when push comes to shove the cost of just doing nothing would far outweigh the cost of shutting stuff down to keep things suppresed as far as possible.
It's a massive bag of poop and I certainly wouldn't want to have the responsibility for it, and let's face it the people that do unfortunately just picked the wrong time to give up not being politicians. Most of them aren't qualified to run a stall in market (no offence to market stall holders) let alone run a response to a pandemic.
Last edited by a moderator: