Hi Caz
While I take on board the points made above about how many people 2-3 months ago didn't have any real idea of how enormous and how serious the coronavirus outbreak would become, for me many of those doubts should have been removed when the virus reached Italy and then began wreaking hell in that country. It was pretty clear to me then at least that this virus was not going to be confined to China and the far east.
IIRC, by the time the first cases of COVID-19 were confirmed in England, the situation with the virus in Italy was gettng worse by the day. That was the time at which many western governments, including that of the UK, should have realised that what was developing was something that needed to be acted on and quickly.
This is only my opinion, but my fear is that the slow response by both the UK government and by many other western governments will lead to more people becoming seriously ill and more people sadly dying from this disease than might otherwise have been the case.
Originally Posted by: David M Porter
Absolutely correct - it was a dereliction of duty not to have closed borders to hotspots like Lombardy, to cancel people's skiing holidays and take firm control of our borders. Whatever Gandalf may say, closing borders works, especially if combined with port screening and mandatory quarantine for those who do arrive.
Anyhow, we are now betweem Scylla and Chaybdis - either we completely trash the economy, or we ease up on the lockdown.
Interesting article here:
https://capx.co/on-coronavirus-economists-think-differently-to-the-common-sense-crowd/?omhide=true&utm_source=CapX+briefing&utm_campaign=c948a4efe9-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_07_17_COPY_02&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b5017135a0-c948a4efe9-241906557
"...
Now, as it happens, most economists have agreed with the “common-sense” view on the strong case for near-term lockdowns so far. The epidemiological modeling implies a risk of terrible loss of life from weak early action – an unbearable cost. With high uncertainty still about how the virus transmits, the number of people already infected, and the strain on healthcare capacity, the case for precautionary action was strong. So aggressive action would pass most ordinary cost-benefit tests, in the short-term, despite the huge economic and social costs.
But such consensus will likely prove short-lived, because economists think (or at least should think) at the margin. Full lockdowns are incredibly crude, banning much low-risk activity alongside high-risk activity. Economists don’t think in terms of “essential” vs. “non-essential” but in terms of benefits, costs, and risks. So if a form of retail brings large economic benefits at a tiny elevated risk of infection, we’d relax restrictions on it, despite it marginally worsening health outcomes.
What’s more, the longer lockdowns go on, the more the income losses for businesses and households turn into bankruptcies and defaults, risking a depression. So economists recognise that the costs and benefits of policy will change over time. They will look for ways of maintaining low health risks but at lower economic and social cost than crude shutdowns, recognising this balance changes as the pandemic evolves.
Indeed, once the transmission rate has been brought down and more people recover from the virus, the calculations could change drastically. If I were one of the last 50 people in the whole country to have not yet been infected, I would not expect a destructive national lockdown to protect me. So, clearly, there comes a point when it’s better to relax things from an economic welfare perspective. That could come much sooner than we think."