Quote:
Originally Posted by Moneyseeker
I saw a university professor make that very point on TV last week, he said if a government choosing the 'lockdown' is a hard decision, ending it is harder because you will always be nervous of the risk of it starting up again and all the public cooperation and huge government investment in supporting the economy risks being wasted.
Interestingly, population apparently getting restless in Italy as some start to run out of food and money and the public see no real improvement in the situation despite the lockdown.
Sent from my SM-T580 using Tapatalk
|
this is where we’re being a bit cleverer than what we’re being given credit for.
the balance with lockdown was always making sure that it didn’t start so early that people got bored too quickly, and starting it soon enough before we slipped into exponential growth. i think we timed that pretty well, but it remains to be seen. we still have hotspots but we’ve started to quarantine and distance ourselves early enough vs italy that we potentially will escape the worst.
with regards to the first point, the uk is investing in antibody tests. essentially what you can do then is clear healthy people who have had the virus to go back to work and be free to roam without risking those who still need to remain at home for themselves or their dependants. that allows us to get things moving again from an economical perspective as well as a social one. when new admissions reach a specific level you can then allow everyone out whilst maintaining a high level of cleanliness and personal space, just to minimise risks.
the only problem will be the practical side of things, but the theory works pretty well.