Lots of people have replied to this saying "but you can't expect anyone to expose their families to potential death!" and to you I say: yeshttps://twitter.com/GidMK/status/1301401048716775424 …
-
-
Replying to @GidMK
Okay, but let's reframe this: Before advocating long-term school closures, people should adopt 2-3 young children and attempt to WFH for the duration of the summer while caring for said children. Before advocating mass business closures, people should start a business ... etc
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @ThadMichaels @GidMK
Everybody comments on C19 interventions from a position of privilege or vulnerability. To imply lockdown critics are the only people guilty of motivated reasoning or hypocrisy is unfair. Reality is we're all making trade-offs, and this needs iterative debate and consensus.
2 replies 1 retweet 6 likes -
Replying to @ThadMichaels
Yes. That's obvious. The debate about the trade-off of various control methods has and will continue. The point is that it is really quite easy to suggest that everyone take on a risk while not experiencing it yourself
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @GidMK
Quite, and as someone who runs a (fairly fragile) business I have much the same experience when people on secure pay / benefits lecture me on how easy it is to just shut down or severely curtail my business for X months.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @ThadMichaels
Sure. Any good public health policy in this arena includes the economic side, trying to minimize the harm of any restrictions. The idea that it is an either/or of lockdown/no restrictions is ludicrous
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @GidMK
Yes, it's not a binary choice. IMO a lot of people are underestimating the 2nd-order social / health effects of lockdown's economic impact. We're in new territory, even harder to model than the pandemic itself. My fear is we have done far more (non-Covid) damage than we realise.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @ThadMichaels
As a counterpoint, I would point out that most people making these arguments steadfastly refuse to recognize the economic impact of the pandemic itself. It's clearly folly to presume that total government inaction would not still entail a great deal of economic ruin
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @GidMK
Yes, especially at the start + peak of an outbreak. We're almost certainly at a point now, in most countries, where the economic damage is being done mainly by the response and not the pandemic itself. eg my job can be done 100% remotely. But furlough rules are killing progress.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ThadMichaels
How so? In many European countries, many/most restrictions have eased. Conversely, the enormous halt in global tourism, which has little to do with local restrictions, is a primary factor in the recession
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
Even at the local level, one of the driving factors in economic slowdowns is risk. It has become more difficult to get large loans where I live, for example, not due to new regulation but because the banks are less willing to lend
-
-
Replying to @GidMK
I've no doubt that's part of the problem, you're right - especially when consumers + businesses stockpile cash and reduce consumption in anticipation of 2nd wave. But I think truth is that the pandemic *and* the response are both having a massive depressive effect on the economy.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ThadMichaels @GidMK
And latter can be quite perverse. For example, my sister works at a nursery school, and has a young baby. He had a fever last wk, so she and her 2 sons were banned from the nursery school (no sick pay) until negative C19 test. C19 cases v low here atm - is this rational approach?
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.