The big Coronavirus thread

pblakeney

To be fair, I have just realised that whilst I predicted people going apeshit when their Easter holidays got cancelled it turns out that people are taking it much better than I expected.
Also, ignoring what BJ says, the steps being taken are pretty much as I anticipated so credit there. The chapeau however, goes to covering people's wages. I never saw that coming. Trumped even what the other side of the house would have proposed.

A long, hard way to go but being handled better than I expected.

The worldwide economy however......

tailwindhome

The reaction of the medical experts to Pence is quite something

https://twitter.com/johnmcternan/status/1241146822086844417?s=19

morstar

With regard to the economic support packages. It is great to see the government being really proactive.

However, I think there is a fundamental error in the approach. What is happening is we are trying to keep things as normal as possible.

Surely, in such desperate times, the desired (read required) outcome is survival. So surely we need to take profits out of the money system.

You can then give people a lot less. As long as people can get sufficient supplies and they are secured from losing their homes. Nobody needs to make profits.

If my basic essentials are cost capped at government instruction and I have a secure supply of food, I don't need any disposable income and I can receive a lot less money. Arguably, my work efforts could be better directed to the greater good without long term detriment to either my career or my employer. This is a wartime footing.
As it is, my employer now has a safety blanket to keep me with a decent proportion guaranteed of a comfortable income whilst being less busy and working on projects that retain some normality about daily life rather than working towards the greater good.

It seems ridiculous that so much national debt is fuelling the traditional profit lines to the top of society when the intention is to keep afloat. We're having to cover both costs and profit when we should just be covering costs.

I'm sure the leftiebollox accusation will come but I'm not anti profit. It is the reward for hard work but, these are not normal times.

coopster_the_1st

The BBC are treading very carefully with the message so not to offend but maybe we are getting somewhere now this story has been written

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-51979654

coopster_the_1st

morstar said:

With regard to the economic support packages. It is great to see the government being really proactive.

However, I think there is a fundamental error in the approach. What is happening is we are trying to keep things as normal as possible.

Surely, in such desperate times, the desired (read required) outcome is survival. So surely we need to take profits out of the money system.

You can then give people a lot less. As long as people can get sufficient supplies and they are secured from losing their homes. Nobody needs to make profits.

If my basic essentials are cost capped at government instruction and I have a secure supply of food, I don't need any disposable income and I can receive a lot less money. Arguably, my work efforts could be better directed to the greater good without long term detriment to either my career or my employer. This is a wartime footing.
As it is, my employer now has a safety blanket to keep me with a decent proportion guaranteed of a comfortable income whilst being less busy and working on projects that retain some normality about daily life rather than working towards the greater good.

It seems ridiculous that so much national debt is fuelling the traditional profit lines to the top of society when the intention is to keep afloat. We're having to cover both costs and profit when we should just be covering costs.

I'm sure the leftiebollox accusation will come but I'm not anti profit. It is the reward for hard work but, these are not normal times.

'Cash is King' in the current situation.

Cease all unnecessary spending and get refunds on holidays etc

I don't disagree with your view but capitalism works because of the profit incentive. However any company abusing this at the current time should have consumers walking away from them and thus causing them to fail. We should remember those companies that are doing things for the greater good when this is over

morstar

coopster_the_1st said:

The BBC are treading very carefully with the message so not to offend but maybe we are getting somewhere now this story has been written

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-51979654

Agreed that the death rate is too blunt a measure for those exact reasons.

However, it seems the survival rate in severe cases is heavily dependent on far more medical intervention than required with flu. Therefore the health service limitations are the critical factor in deciding how many avoidable deaths occur.

Even doubling the intensive care capacity would make limited impact on the graphs on the Imperial college modelling if we don't delay spread as much as possible.

You also need to consider that capacity may diminish. On Thursday night a BBC piece in Italy showed Italian doctors themselves being treated in the same ward where they had been working. The 14th doctor died that day at the age of 38.

That suggests Italy are going to lose scores if not hundreds of doctors which is going to significantly impact capability.

coopster_the_1st

morstar said:

coopster_the_1st said:

The BBC are treading very carefully with the message so not to offend but maybe we are getting somewhere now this story has been written

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-51979654

Agreed that the death rate is too blunt a measure for those exact reasons.

However, it seems the survival rate in severe cases is heavily dependent on far more medical intervention than required with flu. Therefore the health service limitations are the critical factor in deciding how many avoidable deaths occur.

Even doubling the intensive care capacity would make limited impact on the graphs on the Imperial college modelling if we don't delay spread as much as possible.

You also need to consider that capacity may diminish. On Thursday night a BBC piece in Italy showed Italian doctors themselves being treated in the same ward where they had been working. The 14th doctor died that day at the age of 38.

That suggests Italy are going to lose scores if not hundreds of doctors which is going to significantly impact capability.

Agree but it is a start, albeit very minor start to the UK accepting who we target our medical sources towards.

I heard 17 Italian doctor deaths this morning No idea on the circumstances eg did they smoke but it does seem that repeated exposure to C19 increases the risk of death. In that case we need to be even more careful with our NHS resources and who those resources are targeted at

tailwindhome

coopster_the_1st said:

The BBC are treading very carefully with the message so not to offend but maybe we are getting somewhere now this story has been written

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-51979654

There seems to be such a wide range in the modelled outcomes due to unsure assumptions at this early stage and the effect of just tweaking one variable slightly




Italy had 627 deaths yesterday - that's one every 2.3 minutes

focuszing723

I don't understand why you are so fixated on this point. It's obvious tough choices will have to be made, but why keep bringing it up and wallowing in it?

I mean, above you even manage to mention it in both paragraphs!

mrfpb

coopster_the_1st said:

The BBC are treading very carefully with the message so not to offend but maybe we are getting somewhere now this story has been written

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-51979654

While there is going to a bit of overlap between the regular 600,000 deaths and the C19 (550,00 deaths if we do nothing), Its not great enough to justify doing nothing.

There is always a targeting of resources in the health service, but having a quickly spreading killer disease with no known cure requires more action than playing eeny-meeny-miney-mo in the a&e and icu department.

pblakeney

morstar said:

coopster_the_1st said:

The BBC are treading very carefully with the message so not to offend but maybe we are getting somewhere now this story has been written

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-51979654

Agreed that the death rate is too blunt a measure for those exact reasons.

However, it seems the survival rate in severe cases is heavily dependent on far more medical intervention than required with flu. Therefore the health service limitations are the critical factor in deciding how many avoidable deaths occur.

Even doubling the intensive care capacity would make limited impact on the graphs on the Imperial college modelling if we don't delay spread as much as possible.

You also need to consider that capacity may diminish. On Thursday night a BBC piece in Italy showed Italian doctors themselves being treated in the same ward where they had been working. The 14th doctor died that day at the age of 38.

That suggests Italy are going to lose scores if not hundreds of doctors which is going to significantly impact capability.

This is the main concern, and the reason for action. The action is not to spread the virus per se, it is to avoid the NHS being overstretched. Once the NHS is overstretched then the deaths increase and that increases to include the young and healthy.

pblakeney

Just to add a lighter note.
I see that restaurants can only serve take away food. Spain and France have banned cycling and we appear to be following their actions eventually.
Has this been originated by an unholy union between MacDonalds and Zwift?
Joke conspiracy theory. 😉

coopster_the_1st

mrfpb said:

coopster_the_1st said:

The BBC are treading very carefully with the message so not to offend but maybe we are getting somewhere now this story has been written

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-51979654

While there is going to a bit of overlap between the regular 600,000 deaths and the C19 (550,00 deaths if we do nothing), Its not great enough to justify doing nothing.

There is always a targeting of resources in the health service, but having a quickly spreading killer disease with no known cure requires more action than playing eeny-meeny-miney-mo in the a&e and icu department.

We as a country need pragmatic not panic. That is what I am pushing here and the country would be in a better place had the media created a pragmatic view rather than a panic one.

Unfortunately ICU resources are going to be allocated on age and health at some point. This is correct and aligns with a past of 'women and children first'. Now it will be young before old and however harsh it is to accept this, rightly so!

mrfpb

focuszing723 said:

I don't understand why you are so fixated on this point. It's obvious tough choices will have to be made, but why keep bringing it up and wallowing in it?

I mean, above you even manage to mention it in both paragraphs!

This.
But he seems to want to dictate terms to the NHS on who they should save.

coopster_the_1st

mrfpb said:

focuszing723 said:

I don't understand why you are so fixated on this point. It's obvious tough choices will have to be made, but why keep bringing it up and wallowing in it?

I mean, above you even manage to mention it in both paragraphs!

This.
But he seems to want to dictate terms to the NHS on who they should save.

This will happen.

The sooner you and others accept this the better for all of us in dealing with C19.

Mother nature has a way of removing the old and weak which allows the young and healthy to evolve and move forward. Whether that is trees felled in a storm or hyena's weeding out the weak wildebeest and countless other examples.

Medical advances has been great delaying mother nature and keeping many people alive for longer than would have otherwise happen. We should be celebrating this and that these people lives have already been lengthened rather than risking society as we know it.

morstar

mrfpb said:

focuszing723 said:

I don't understand why you are so fixated on this point. It's obvious tough choices will have to be made, but why keep bringing it up and wallowing in it?

I mean, above you even manage to mention it in both paragraphs!

This.
But he seems to want to dictate terms to the NHS on who they should save.

I am pretty sure they study ethics as part of medicine.
I doubt there is a dr alive who hasn’t made difficult decisions and knows far more about it than any of us outside the profession.
I don’t even think it needs discussing. I’d have thought this is a largely taboo subject for those involved. They know the choices they have and will continue to face and nobody outside the decision makers needs to know that patient A was sacrificed on behalf of patient B as no good can come of that knowledge.

coopster_the_1st

As we should all have a lot more time on our hands watch this hour presentation by CMO Prof Chris Whitty from 2018. I'm sure this will go viral soon anyway.

This is why we are following the science. This man and his team have huge knowledge of endemics, epidemics and pandemics and the best way to deal with them when they happen.

https://youtu.be/rn55z95L1h8

mrfpb

coopster_the_1st said:

mrfpb said:

focuszing723 said:

I don't understand why you are so fixated on this point. It's obvious tough choices will have to be made, but why keep bringing it up and wallowing in it?

I mean, above you even manage to mention it in both paragraphs!

This.
But he seems to want to dictate terms to the NHS on who they should save.

This will happen.

The sooner you and others accept this the better for all of us in dealing with C19.

Mother nature has a way of removing the old and weak which allows the young and healthy to evolve and move forward. Whether that is trees felled in a storm or hyena's weeding out the weak wildebeest and countless other examples.

Medical advances has been great delaying mother nature and keeping many people alive for longer than would have otherwise happen. We should be celebrating this and that these people lives have already been lengthened rather than risking society as we know it.

Just in case you haven't been paying attention to my recent posts on the Coronavirus Bill, Coop, I do work in the healthcare/social care sphere, and have done for nearly 30 years. I am well aware of the tough choices that are made. They are being made now, they were being made last week and last year and last century.

What we find distasteful/repulsive about your posts is your barely concealed delight that the NHS may have to allow elderly people to die. It's your eugenics wrapped up as some sort of pragmatism.

Those amongst us who have had at some point gone home from work knowing we have not been able to give people the care or treatment they need don't really need your opinion on this.

kingstonian

The tough choices will inevitably arise, and by the sounds of it have done already in some ICU depts in Italy, I’m just glad I am not one of those that will have to make them.

I thought the BBC article was fairly well balanced. To be honest I hadn’t fully computed that the Covid death count is recording those that die who have Covid in their system, and not strictly those that die as a direct result of Covid. Maybe that’s obvious, I just hadn’t realised it. So some would have died anyway and Covid may have played no part, some were very ill and Covid accelerated their decline, and some were generally well but underlying health conditions meant they were unable to fight off Covid when they caught it. Over time I expect we’ll learn the proportions in each category, but either way it is a terrible situation we find ourselves in.

pblakeney

A message to the young and invincible.

"Speaking at an online news conference from WHO headquarters in Geneva, Mr Tedros said: "Although older people are hardest hit, younger people are not spared."
He added: "I have a message for young people: You are not invincible, this virus could put you in hospital for weeks or even kill you."

coopster_the_1st

mrfpb said:

coopster_the_1st said:

mrfpb said:

focuszing723 said:

I don't understand why you are so fixated on this point. It's obvious tough choices will have to be made, but why keep bringing it up and wallowing in it?

I mean, above you even manage to mention it in both paragraphs!

This.
But he seems to want to dictate terms to the NHS on who they should save.

This will happen.

The sooner you and others accept this the better for all of us in dealing with C19.

Mother nature has a way of removing the old and weak which allows the young and healthy to evolve and move forward. Whether that is trees felled in a storm or hyena's weeding out the weak wildebeest and countless other examples.

Medical advances has been great delaying mother nature and keeping many people alive for longer than would have otherwise happen. We should be celebrating this and that these people lives have already been lengthened rather than risking society as we know it.

Just in case you haven't been paying attention to my recent posts on the Coronavirus Bill, Coop, I do work in the healthcare/social care sphere, and have done for nearly 30 years. I am well aware of the tough choices that are made. They are being made now, they were being made last week and last year and last century.

What we find distasteful/repulsive about your posts is your barely concealed delight that the NHS may have to allow elderly people to die. It's your eugenics wrapped up as some sort of pragmatism.

Those amongst us who have had at some point gone home from work knowing we have not been able to give people the care or treatment they need don't really need your opinion on this.

Underlying I am criticising the sensationalism, mainly driven by the media that is creating panic and harming millions of people over less than 200 deaths that are very likely to have occurred anyway. And to put some perspective on those numbers. It's really not that hard.

The messaging is hugely important for the health of the 64,999,900 people who have not died from C19. This is nothing to do with eugenics so I will not put my head in the sand like many others about the reality of the situation.

mrfpb

coopster_the_1st said:

mrfpb said:

coopster_the_1st said:

mrfpb said:

focuszing723 said:

I don't understand why you are so fixated on this point. It's obvious tough choices will have to be made, but why keep bringing it up and wallowing in it?

I mean, above you even manage to mention it in both paragraphs!

This.
But he seems to want to dictate terms to the NHS on who they should save.

This will happen.

The sooner you and others accept this the better for all of us in dealing with C19.

Mother nature has a way of removing the old and weak which allows the young and healthy to evolve and move forward. Whether that is trees felled in a storm or hyena's weeding out the weak wildebeest and countless other examples.

Medical advances has been great delaying mother nature and keeping many people alive for longer than would have otherwise happen. We should be celebrating this and that these people lives have already been lengthened rather than risking society as we know it.

Just in case you haven't been paying attention to my recent posts on the Coronavirus Bill, Coop, I do work in the healthcare/social care sphere, and have done for nearly 30 years. I am well aware of the tough choices that are made. They are being made now, they were being made last week and last year and last century.

What we find distasteful/repulsive about your posts is your barely concealed delight that the NHS may have to allow elderly people to die. It's your eugenics wrapped up as some sort of pragmatism.

Those amongst us who have had at some point gone home from work knowing we have not been able to give people the care or treatment they need don't really need your opinion on this.

Underlying I am criticising the sensationalism, mainly driven by the media that is creating panic and harming millions of people over less than 200 deaths that are very likely to have occurred anyway. And to put some perspective on those numbers. It's really not that hard.

The messaging is hugely important for the health of the 64,999,900 people who have not died from C19. This is nothing to do with eugenics so I will not put my head in the sand like many others about the reality of the situation.

I think this post belongs on the Irony thread.

surrey_commuter

Coopster certainly has an extreme point of view but bizarrely one that in ingrained in economics. Decisions on whether to put traffic calming measures on a road are determined by the level of fatalities. Getting rid of the hard shoulder on a motorway will ease traffic flow but more people will die.

Now where I disagree with Coopster is the reason why I am shittin it about C19 when I am normally one of the people in the pub or booking a cheap cruise. The reason is that the Chinese Govt really don’t care about lives but instead of sweeping this latest virus under the carpet and burying the bodies in a city most of us had never heard of they chose to take the economic cost of locking their country down. What on earth did the charts look like that they decided to make that decision?

rick_chasey

rick_chasey

Shout out to the wage guarantee going through paye.

Those chancers getting paid via dividends through company structures get sfa.

kingstonian

rick_chasey said:

Shout out to the wage guarantee going through paye.

Those chancers getting paid via dividends through company structures get sfa.

Yep, tax dodging comes back to bite them in the bum.

pblakeney

rick_chasey said:

Shout out to the wage guarantee going through paye.

Those chancers getting paid via dividends through company structures get sfa.

"Bonuses" are going to be hit too.

rick_chasey

Why the inverted commas?

pblakeney

rick_chasey said:

Why the inverted commas?

I think the bonuses are sometimes arbitrary when they should be linked to performance.

rick_chasey

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

Why the inverted commas?

I think the bonuses are sometimes arbitrary when they should be linked to performance.

Yeah because salaries are...