Lockdown extended

I'm still waiting to see when Scotland rids itself of Westminster.
We had all this Scotland v England and the UK nonsense way back at the start of Brexit.
I wish they'd just go or shut up the sooner the better.

There is some validity in the points you raise jainainsworth but EllenVannin's question has validity too. Btw, purely on a simple matter of correctitude GagaJo wrote almighty not filthy lucre.

Espousing utilitarian principles is all very well and good and it can be argued that out of a population of 66 million the loss of 250,000 people is "for the greater good", however this misses out more than mere statistics.

Who decides which lives are expendable?
Who are the expendable?
Who actually is expended?

If Boris Johnson had died was it because he was expendable?

This does not begin to cover some of the issues a utilitarian approach in this matter raises.

The people who are ok now and in the next few years are the wealthy and the retired.
If you're both wealthy and retired, you're laughing.
The rest need to be able to get on their feet again.

More black, overweight and people with underlying health conditions died than any other demographic.

Black men seem to be the most at risk of dying; closely followed by black women. When this is all over we need to be asking why. There seems to be a suggestion that this might be partially accounted for by the fact that so many work in the service sector and are "public facing." But men in general seem to be at greater risk.

We can do nothing about our ethnic group, but those who are overweight can and should be putting in the effort to get down to a normal weight.

The majority of those who died were in the overweight category, and that applied to all ethnic groups.

I didn't see the article Gabriella but I am not entirely convinced that people who have had it can't get again. There is a poster (a medic on the front line) who has had it twice. I was also reading yesterday that scientists have found hundreds of mutations to the virus so that may indicate that someone could have one variant recover and then contract a different variant.

I read scientific modelling the uk possible deaths today. 250,000. Could be prevented but won't be because England's out of lockdown
You may be right, but even “scientific” modelling is not the same as facts at the present.
And incidentally, England's not out of lockdown

Cherrycezzy Espousing utilitarian principles is all very well and good and it can be argued that out of a population of 66 million the loss of 250,000 people is "for the greater good", however this misses out more than mere statistics

I’m afraid you’ve lost me there. You seem to be making an assumption that if lockdown is eased, the death toll will be 250,000.
Has anyone actually said that gradually opening up the economy will lead to that?
If so, on what basis? Do you have a reference?
Other countries like Spain and Italy are taking a pragmatic approach and if there is an increase in the number of people contracting the virus, they will reimpose restrictions. That seems a very reasonable thing to me and I hope our government will do something along those lines.

CherryCezzy
It was an article by the WHO.

Read the article. Having once had C-19 you may test positive after recovery but that is explained in the article. I cannot link via mobile but will put a screenshot up.

Here's the article.

We can afford to lose some people, unfortunately, the people dying are majorly assets to the community, not the people we could do without.
No good saving people if there are no jobs, a crumbling economy and everyone on JSA or CU.

CU UC

Gabriella either the DM has got it completely wrong, or the WHO has changed its opinion according to this article from Reuter’s

“No evidence' that recovered COVID-19 patients cannot be reinfected - WHO”

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUKKCN2270FD

janeainsworth
The article you quote from is dated April 25th.
Mine is dated today 7th May.
A lot can happen in 2 weeks. ??
Opinions change.
New facts come to the fore.
New tests produce different results.

I saw that article a few days ago too janeansworth . Thanks for the screenshot Gabriella. The most recent article may or may not be the case.
As I stated earlier, my reference was to a poster on GN who related her personal experience. She had the virus (tested positive) and was off work. She recovered. She was retested -negative. She returned to work. A couple of weeks later she had symptoms and tested positive.

jainainsworth , am I making an assumption? You ask for a reference, where's yours to the contrary?
I read it this morning, there was an article on the BBC. Sorry if it doesn't suit you when I openly state that I do not remember the name of the medical scientist. Yes, it was a projection and evidently projections are not facts but extrapolated from evidence, since crystal balls do not actually see into the real future. I will however state that if, counting the stats from the Office for National Statistics and the official figures released by the Government, the current total of deaths from Covid-19 is above 33,000 under current lockdown measures and much of the population are rarely venturing outside then it is highly likely that, since the virus will still be present, the rate of increase in infections and deaths will increase. In two months of lockdown 33,000 lives. At a consistent rate, until a vaccine (many scientists and the WHO are saying) a year from now = 6 × 33,000 plus the 33,000 we have already had does it not? That means a death toll of 231,000 does it not? Not far off 250,000 under existing measures.

Everything seems so disjointed.

I have only this week as a support worker (my company followed govt guidance) been instructed to wear full ppe when I'm on shift.

One of the houses I go to also have another agency who do more of the personal care, and their workers have been wearing ppe, but stopped this week!!

It's a crime to state a fact then question it.

A reminder as to what to say if lockdown is eased and someone who should be in, is out.

The areticle i read yesterday said the Government were considering extending lockdown for 65s ,70s and 80s, to 17 weeks, but Iain Duncan Smith argued that it is unfair to trat people of those ages all the same,as a lot of that age group are healthier than some younger people
I don't particulary like him but this makes sense to me,
I believe it should focus more on the health of people of these ages
If this goes on too long, many people will have died before lockdown ends anyway

I like that Gabriella

I suppose the more complex the easing off is, the more chance of people misunderstanding, or just thinking they've had enough and going out anyway.

Having different rules regarding lockdown in the countries which make up the U.K. is as practical as having a section for peeing in a swimming pool.

It doesn't exactly inspire confidence.
I think the govt is going to be bowing to pressure if they do too much, too soon.