So, if these new measures were to save the life of just one person but ultimately were to lead to the bankruptcy and the end of Everton Football Club you'd be fine with that? If so you must live a tortured life and deserve nomination for sainthood.
thing is if we locked everything down it could have been all over way before September. If we are to trust Chinese numbers (I know I don't) they got away with it. I agree with @JLW either close every place down for a while [people will adapt knowing this will result in something worthy] and weaken the epidemic to the point we can live fairly normal, or else open everywhere if it's not that bad, as gyms etc would stay open, which is crazy. Simply because people are interacting a lot during these soft lockdowns. No matter how many precautions are in place, it does and will happen. That's why soft lockdowns are pointless imo. It doesn't result in anything, only it increases uncertainity.
Unfortunately, deaths will follow these infection rates. Many of them.
On income grounds.
Yes. Defo that too.
Yes, I would. And I find it incredible that you wouldn't.
Prove to me restricive measures, testing, tracing and everything else that can take place without a full lockdown (and I mean full lockdown) has no effect at all. The idea its full lockdown or full open because 'it can't be that bad then' is complete garbage
OK but what is your POV on full on lockdowns (limited time), maybe we will never need another one (soft or hard) if we have one? European nations never tried it afaik. Economy will be hit but who cares, if it is over, it is over. People would prefer this if it's the quicker solution.
Yes.
Scotland also hasn’t sacrificed all political accountability and any semblance of credibility in order for a scary man to be able to spend lockdown in the countryside.