Have the government published a quantitative assessment of how it is weighing these two sides up, either in general or for the previous steps? Or is Hancock, Johnson or whoever simply looking at the two and saying "this apple is better than that orange" without much prospect of objective assessment or sensible discussion?
Don't think they have published that. What metrics do you think they might usefully use (I think the 4 tests give a useful framework)? How much weighting should be given to each aspect? A risk assessment approach might be useful, with a broad spectrum of potential hazards, not just COVID-19 health related. I suspect more people are dying, weekly, because of rather than from COVID-19 (cause of death as recorded on death certificate). Should, from 21 Jun, the primary cost (COVID-19 illness and worse) is be allowed to continue to trump secondary and tertiary costs (too many to list including health related)?
'Perhaps' this is a complex assessment which is a bit trickier than 'y' apples versus 'z' oranges: I appreciate you may find it too nuanced to approach decisions in that way.
I'd also observe (and think it likely for both pandemic control and political reasons) that the decision is non-binary. There's a simple spectrum from (eg): set a date 'x' weeks after 21 Jun, relax on 21 Jun but with residual measures (I have suggested a few candidates upthread), relax measures and rely on public restraint and common sense.
I suggest that the likelihood of there being a lack "of objective assessment or sensible discussion" is remote. This is a very important and very difficult decision. Perhaps you could have a go at defining "sensible" to help us take an objective view of whether your implied critique has merit?
