Not during a pandemic, when by the time we've sat around for years arguing about it then everyone is dead. That is what I mean by disingeneous.
Yes, I made that point earlier. They are planning to end lockdown when the most at risk have been vaccinated, but the rest of us will be thrown to the wolves as they reckon they'll only have offered every adult a vaccine by the autumn. We won't know whether if that was a bad idea or not, until it's too late.
It is impossible to give you the numbers you want in a time frame that will make them useful. You'd need some kind of referendum, but people are dumb and easily swayed which is why we aren't in the EU anymore. The Boaty McBoatface effect has put an end to destroying trust in british people.
But not everybody is dead. Infection rates high in terms of likely cases having been had (test numbers vs practical reality where only way to get a test was to be rich/connected or lie and said you know someone that had it means underdiagnosis was likely the order of the day), outcomes usually pretty reasonable for most.
The numbers and efficacy are fairly easily judged and easy to know anyway -- the science types can have fun figuring out specifics and categorising things (quite content to unarse a bunch of money to speed that along as well) but persons infected, deaths/serious outcomes happened, change over year on year. All fairly basic maths well documented and understood for decades (possibly centuries in some cases).
Other countries, different measures taken and general scenarios will give some numbers on what effects things might have.
This level will likely cost this much (work slowdowns, economic turmoil and stoppages are an insurance and national financial planning staple, bad winters another known factor for sitting on your arse/cooped up indoors) and likely stop this many cases, or ensure capacities at hospitals remain under this percent.
This level will cost this much more and likely stop this many cases.
Maybe make a nice slider type setup.
Can help make a nice informed decision that one. I don't need a referendum, just don't like to be told to listen to my betters (especially not by politicians that the vast majority of which would not be able to tell me the scientific method, never mind how to actually read a study, if their life depended upon it -- it is the true believer/salesman problem all over again) and not have them explain things to me.
This level of measure would not be put in place to save one person, thus we have some limit at some level and some tolerated level of death/serious outcomes. At the same time there was scope to leave the house and not have two in the body and one in the head (if nobody is seeing anybody then rates drop through the floor and would be done in [insert infectious period]) so surely that counts as blood on hands -- they made a call that some would die lest everything go with it to do that one. As it stands the efficacy is rather less than some other vaccinations, never mind some kind of realistic ideal, so yet another risk - reward was taken.
Not to mention throughout it all there have been fags and booze sold (in addition to the fat bastard ratio being pumped) which in the long term... is it worth saving a few old people today for a cost of the productive population later? Do I trust politicos to make long term decisions as well? They have been fairly "what will win me the next election" for quite some time now, and basic game theory says they kind of have to be.
Given they can't decide what most at risk means going by that free meals stuff last year and ummed and arred there I don't hold out much hope of a sensible answer from that one. Also want to know what that number is to factor into whether I should support the decision, call them risk happy fools or call them cowards.
I am certainly looking forward to playing coulda, woulda, shoulda, "if I was omniscient and knew what I know now", who did it better, who did it worse, what were the surprising factors, what were the big and small comorbidities in the years to come when we get some nice data to look at and compare to similar countries/regions/demographics. Does not however mean I can't have things explained to me in real time, even if premade paths are taken, never mind less time than it would have taken to do a masters in something. Only reason not to really is for the panicky fools approach if you need to lie to people to somehow make outcomes better and that is a dangerous path to walk, especially if I am supposed to make predictions for myself based upon that (in my case my business is what it is, 5 months- 15 not going to make an awful lot of odds but others have a serious decision for 3 vs 5 and lies to say 3 and will be over just to sound positive is unpleasant).