Off Topic The Politics Thread

But it doesn't have a 6% contraction in GDP in normal times. Or if it did its's rare.

 

True but lives are still lost because of underfunding .

 

Good point but has anyone actually been paid for not going to work yet?

 

Boris

 

That's not what the first post was about. You are going off on a tangent.

 

You said, 'There will soon come a time when countries will be making some tough decisions on lives v economy'.Those decisions are made all the time. Underfunding of the NHS, social care and welfare in general during the post-2008 austerity is estimated to have cost 120,000 lives. If similar measures are taken after the upcoming recession, with similar impacts on health and welfare, lockdown will have cost many more lives than it saved.

 

Semantics - it will be and the bill will be massive
Not to mention lost taxes thanks to lower economic activity

 

That 120,000 figure used by Momentum is highly suspect. There was a spike in mortality in the early 2000's and the spike quoted by the BMJ originators started two years before 2008.

 

Well, I don't have a crystal ball....funny enough, neither do you...or do you? have you now turned into mystic meg Stroller?
Although one part of your post is spot on. in that lockdown may well cost a lot of lives.

 

Momentum didn't make the number up, it came from a study published in the British Medical Journal. How many early deaths would you say were caused by austerity?

 

According to the negative Guardian, 60,000 people will die from Coronavirus in the UK.

 

That's a good question Stroller. I would also ask what caused austerity for the government at the time to make those decisions. Think back to that note in the treasury and you may find the answer you don't want to hear.

 

I didn't say Momentum did. I referred to the "BMJ originators". But it has been widely discredited by other medical experts on trends for the reason I gave. It is not quoted by mainstream media so far as I can see. Just Momentumites like Sarkar on QT and the Guardian

 

I'll repeat my question, how many early deaths would you say were caused by austerity?

 

I'm not a medical expert and am not qualified to give an opinion. The BMJ article appears to be predicated on a lack of health visitors, but attibuting deaths to that and the number is a matter of debate among medical specialists.

 

Yeah nothing else happened around that time at all, just Diane Abbott or Corbyn, well something Leftie do you want a Venezuela???

 

Would you say that the number is zero?

Would your common sense not tell you that an underfunded NHS, insufficient social care and poverty-related mental health issues, as well as the lack of health visitors would impact mortality rates?