| Topic: | Cure worse than the disease? | |
| Posted by: | Andy Riley | |
| Date/Time: | 05/04/20 13:49:00 |
| There is increasing discussion online and in the media regarding the "exit strategy". At one extreme we could lift all restrictions soon and accept that the NHS may be swamped and that a lot of vulnerable people will die. At the other extreme we continue with the lockdown restrictions until we have completed the NHS capacity ramp up, have sufficient antibody and antigen tests and have better data about prevalence, morbidity etc. There are costs associated with each strategy. Understandably, the stories of suffering and deaths dominate the headlines. But we know that there will be significant and increasing problems as the lockdown continues. Business failing, unemployment rising, poverty increasing, childrens' education disrupted, mental health problems, domestic violence, breakdown of social order to list the obvious ones. There has been a remarkable consensus so far about the need to follow the government's instructions, perhaps because of the perceived authority of the scientific advisers. But there is a fallacy in taking their advice as final. They are epidemiologists, virologists, clinicians etc. so they will tend to see problems from the perspective of their specialty. Ultimately this has to be a decision taken by us all collectively (no, I'm not talking about a referendum, I mean via our representatives locally and nationally, the media, and forums like this). I get the impression that the experts are still not in a position to give a timescale, so the lockdown seems to be open ended. Clearly this cannot continue for much longer. Should we move to the Swedish model of a lighter approach? Should we set a deadline for easing restrictions? |