No economy, no NHS

Why is it not being considered to get things moving again, certainly for people under the age of 60/65 and with no known underlying health problems, as we know that below 60 the infection has vastly mild problems. Of course adhering to social distancing etc. With no money turning over in the country, there won't be money to help those who need it.

What is mortality rate due to lockdown and unemployment, suicides, mental health, increase on domestic violence, other health problems not being attended to? Where does this measure up against mortality rate against different age category's of covid-19? Can this information be produced?

Having the same measures for everybody when age and underlying health conditions are major factors, does not make sense. Get the people who can, out and working on keeping this country going.

Why the contribution is important

To protect our way of life, the economy and save lives.

by Devrus on May 05, 2020 at 03:20PM

Current Rating

Average rating: 4.6
Based on: 29 votes

Comments

  • Posted by Julie May 05, 2020 at 15:34

    I can see why you would suggest this however it would effectively throw older workers onto the scrap heap and leave them open to the first wave of any redundancies.

    It would also make it impossible for the older unemployed to have any chance of finding work. Who would want to take them if lockdowns are on and off until we have a vaccine?

    The only way to make this work is to change the current retirement rules, which has been proposed by someone else in another thread.

  • Posted by ryantravers May 05, 2020 at 15:36

    I totally agree! There has been little emphasis so far on the long term detrimental effects to our NHS with an economy operating at much below normal capacity. There has also been a drastic reduction in the quality of the NHS here in Scotland for any other illnesses and diseases except for combating Covid-19. This cannot last and, moreover, would likely lead to more excess deaths over over the long term than the short term deaths due to Coronavirus.

  • Posted by Ironduke May 05, 2020 at 15:37

    This is true you only get what you pay for and there is no free lunch..

  • Posted by lindyloo May 05, 2020 at 16:05

    I totally agree. It seems the only illness that matters now is covid-19. Screening for cancer postponed. Cancer treatment stopped. Mental health help at a reduced capacity. That is just to name a few. This lockdown will kill more people than coronavirus itself. Of course any death in any circumstances is tragic for the family involved, but for the majority of people coronavirus is mild, the majority of people who did from coronavirus are older with health problems. Stop the lockdown and let us get back to work.

  • Posted by alisond May 06, 2020 at 22:34

    I tend to agree with this, but part of the problem is the lack of transparency around costing and projected impact from the current lockdown to be succeeded by strict suppression policy. We have heard all about the epidemiological modelling and the covid19 data released in a fair bit of detail yesterday in update to SG strategy document. I want to see Government projections on:
    Non Covid deaths likely to result from current measures.
    Impact on health services going forward
    Better and worse case economic impact projections.
    What that means ball park wise in terms of unemployment, businesses closing, people losing homes, children in poverty.
    Cuts to public services and public service worker redundancies
    Data as good as we can get on mental health impact, domestic abuse, increases in children experiencing early adverse health experiences to consequent lifelong detriment.

    I get that we cannot be sure about any of above. Economic and epidemiological crystal ball gazing both imperfect. But the public deserves more information about projected collateral costs, by which I mean lives and life chances not money. I honestly think some folks not facing immediate unemployment think it’s a matter of a bit more tax for a few years which would be fine. I think we’ll be looking at catastrophic consequences, increased mortality, mass poverty, mass unemployment, mental health crisis and mortgage foreclosures and substantial blighting of life chances of young in particular. I don’t think we can build a socially distanced economy which will satisfy the unions without walking right into such a catastrophic outcome. Options to return to normal will be unfeasible economically by time we get a vaccine.
    This is what I worry about, maybe I am wrong about how bad it is liable to get, but I think there should be best available public information about all risks not just Covid risks to health so we can have a discussion with all the facts.

  • Posted by Gtaylor8 May 07, 2020 at 08:52

    Totally agree!
Log in or register to add comments and rate ideas