| > a strong sentiment of economy over people lives Huh? No you've got it backwards - the argument at the moment is the Johnson is being too careful to protect people at the expense of the economy - the opposite of what you've claimed. https://www.ft.com/content/7bb3e4b5-7dc7-464d-904d-aee5f7eb4... > Isn Boris Johnson who said “I must level with you, I must level with the British public, Many more families are going to lose loved ones before their time.” ... Yes. Isn't that just a fact? More people did lose their loved ones. That happened all over the world. > ... just to keep the business going? No, again you're confused here - that quote was about enforcing new restrictions to protect people - closing more businesses - the opposite of what you've claimed. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/12/uk-moves-to-de... Both of the arguments you made there were fundamentally mistaken and are actually evidence for the opposite of what you're claiming. |
A variation on that argument, is that careful protection is only an option if the economy is simultaneously protected, by paying people and businesses cash, otherwise people desperate for income will not comply with lockdown directives.
We're seeing that being argued from Manchester right now: They want a national "circuit breaker" rather than local lockdown, because a national one is more likely to be accompanied by financial support, as well as a shorter "tier 3" lockdown in Manchester.
Not mentioned much, but hovering in the background, is a minority but significant number of people who aren't entitled to government financial support of any kind. Some as individuals (no recourse to public funds) and some as businesses (started business at a time that haven't shown figures yet by April, or were in an invest-and-spend phase so low/negative profit). In the absence of any government support, during lockdown they depend on volunteers for food and temporary non-eviction law to keep their homes, so they have a strong incentive to resist lockdown measures.