Lockdown sceptics vs zero-Covid: who’s got it right?

Status
Not open for further replies.
To me it reads like another piece which just assumes that elimination via temporary hard lockdown + closed borders is obviously too expensive/difficult.

The German and South Korean examples are spurious. Germany's excellent contact tracing has been overwhelmed, because they opened borders. South Korea has managed to keep a lid on things with 100-200 cases per day, just within contact tracing capaity, with border controls contributing hugely to that.

That South Korean rate of about than 2 per million per day seems like a good mark for sustainability without lockdowns, in excellent agreement with Indie SAGE. You don't get there without tight borders. AFAIK there is zero evidence for a TTI program being able to deal with higher rates.
 
To put this quote from Sir Simon Stevens in context, it was actually part of an announcement on the running of the NHS becoming 'Carbon neutral'
It is my personal opinion that lockdowns came about because of the way society is now more risk averse than it was.

'NHS chief executive Sir Simon Stevens said: “2020 has been dominated by Covid-19 and is the most pressing health emergency facing us. But undoubtedly climate change poses the most profound long-term threat to the health of the nation.

“It is not enough for the NHS to treat the problems caused by air pollution and climate change – from asthma to heart attacks and strokes – we need to play our part in tackling them at source.”

“The NHS has already made significant progress decarbonising our care, but as the largest employer in Britain, responsible for around 4% of the nation’s carbon emissions, if this country is to succeed in its overarching climate goals the NHS has to be a major part of the solution.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top