The big Coronavirus thread

Jeremy.89

coopster_the_1st said:

pblakeney said:

So, what would you do?

Firstly, any modelling that uses any amount of Chinese "data" should go straight in the shredder. Until we do this we will continued to take the wrong approach.

The best option is anyone who is over 70 or is vulnerable due to underlying medical conditions should be in enforced quarantine until a vaccine is found and delivered(estimated 18+ months)

Funnily enough, large numbers of the above high risk group will not value their life enough and not respect these restrictions. Families will quickly break this lockdown as the emotion of not seeing their elders with trump the value of their life. If they and their families treat their lives with such disregard why should we all suffer for them!

We need to ban sensationalist claptrap headlines. Take the Scum today, 1 person dies from C19 every 30 minutes. Well here is the reality, 1 person dies every minute already but we don't throw the whole of UK economic resources at this issue because we see it as part of the standard mortality rate,

If the governement was being serious about the health of the population and preventing deaths it would ban smoking with immedaite effect as roughly 1800 people die each week from smoking diseases. These deaths are accepted as part of the normal mortality. C19 is not overly special, it does similar things to what the flu does each year except with the flu there is a mitigation vaccine to stop many more old and vulnerable dying each year.

Congratulations you just overburdened the NHS. The mortality rate shoots up as people can't get the care they need.

C19 isn't overly special, but it also has a number of characteristics that make it quite scary. Namely the length of time between exposure and symptoms, the number of asymptotic carriers and the possibility of permanent lung damage (or worse).

It's not the horror film stuff of ebola, but if you're looking to cause widespread human harm, it's pretty much perfect.

kingstongraham

coopster_the_1st said:

All those who are moral postering right now are really going to b!tch, whinge, bleat and complain when jobs are cut, vital services are reduced and taxes rise to pay back from the damage we are currently doing to our economy.

You say moral posturing, as if it's just virtue signalling not to want your parents to die unecessarily early.

We understand there will be more difficult decisions, but if it is vital service cuts, and not tax rises, then you can expect justified complaints. We're spending future tax revenues now. I expect to pay more in the future.

morstar

coopster_the_1st said:

All those who are moral postering right now are really going to b!tch, whinge, bleat and complain when jobs are cut, vital services are reduced and taxes rise to pay back from the damage we are currently doing to our economy.

See, this is where you are confused.
In your binary world, you see no nuance.
Most people have the ability to understand action & consequence.
Bear in mind that Flybe collapsed before any government steps were taken as businesses and individuals self restricted activities.
The economy is getting hurt no matter what. This is a best of a bad job situation. A head in the sand binary approach is nonsense.
Not agreeing with your do nothing approach does not mean we have our heads in the sand about consequences.

pblakeney

coopster_the_1st said:

pblakeney said:

So, what would you do?

Firstly, any modelling that uses any amount of Chinese "data" should go straight in the shredder. Until we do this we will continued to take the wrong approach.

The best option is anyone who is over 70 or is vulnerable due to underlying medical conditions should be in enforced quarantine until a vaccine is found and delivered(estimated 18+ months)

Funnily enough, large numbers of the above high risk group will not value their life enough and not respect these restrictions. Families will quickly break this lockdown as the emotion of not seeing their elders with trump the value of their life. If they and their families treat their lives with such disregard why should we all suffer for them!

We need to ban sensationalist claptrap headlines. Take the Scum today, 1 person dies from C19 every 30 minutes. Well here is the reality, 1 person dies every minute already but we don't throw the whole of UK economic resources at this issue because we see it as part of the standard mortality rate,

If the governement was being serious about the health of the population and preventing deaths it would ban smoking with immedaite effect as roughly 1800 people die each week from smoking diseases. These deaths are accepted as part of the normal mortality. C19 is not overly special, it does similar things to what the flu does each year except with the flu there is a mitigation vaccine to stop many more old and vulnerable dying each year.

Para 1 - Everyone agrees.
Para 2 - Already doing this.
Para 3 - Is a question, not a solution.
Para 4 - Is a statement, not a solution.
Para 5 - Is a statement, not a solution.

How would you solve the current problems?

kingstonian

mr_goo said:

rjsterry said:

ballysmate said:

rick_chasey said:

Bally - please see the study I posted which explains why what your saying is *wrong* with evidence

Do you believe that when the virus is contained/eradicated and we try to get back to normal, we will be able to revert to the 2019 levels of spending on health and public services? The economy shrunken, the Chancellor having shaken every leaf off his money tree? The same levels of treatments will be available then as are available now?
Because if you believe that, I have a bridge for sale that you may be interested in.

I am not saying what is being spent now is necessarily wrong, just that people need to understand that there will be a long term cost.

I don't think there will be any 'back to normality'. This will cause permanent changes in various aspects of how we live, just as previous pandemics have.

On that I agree. Particularly for me as I'm now out of a job. Certainly has made me reassess things. Family and Health 1st obviously, but working in an already volatile industry is not for me anymore. I shall cut my cloth accordingly and when we are in the new normality I shall go for lower paid job where I can just leave it at 5pm and go home without worrying and stressing.
In meantime I'm gonna see if I can volunteer my services to deliver food and medicine to the over 70s.

My brother is in the same situation as you. Lost his job last week, he's decided the industry he is in is too fragile and is now carefully considering his future employment.

ballysmate

rick_chasey said:

ballysmate said:

rick_chasey said:

Bally - please see the study I posted which explains why what your saying is *wrong* with evidence

Do you believe that when the virus is contained/eradicated and we try to get back to normal, we will be able to revert to the 2019 levels of spending on health and public services? The economy shrunken, the Chancellor having shaken every leaf off his money tree? The same levels of treatments will be available then as are available now?
Because if you believe that, I have a bridge for sale that you may be interested in.

I am not saying what is being spent now is necessarily wrong, just that people need to understand that there will be a long term cost.

The clue is in the title of the study. “Pandemics Depress the Economy, Public Health Interventions Do Not”

I struggle how I can make this any clearer.

So shutting down most of the country's businesses and confining people to their homes does not depress the economy?
In which case, we should perhaps look at doing it every year.

Perhaps that is why people have thought that you don't understand the financial consequences and by extension, the consequences to health and the death rate in the coming years.

Perhaps you do get it but there are people who will not see the link between measures taken now and the death of a loved one in years to come.

tailwindhome

coopster_the_1st said:

Firstly, any modelling that uses any amount of Chinese "data" should go straight in the shredder.

China are standing accused of understating the impacts of C19.

rick_chasey

ballysmate said:

rick_chasey said:

ballysmate said:

rick_chasey said:

Bally - please see the study I posted which explains why what your saying is *wrong* with evidence

Do you believe that when the virus is contained/eradicated and we try to get back to normal, we will be able to revert to the 2019 levels of spending on health and public services? The economy shrunken, the Chancellor having shaken every leaf off his money tree? The same levels of treatments will be available then as are available now?
Because if you believe that, I have a bridge for sale that you may be interested in.

I am not saying what is being spent now is necessarily wrong, just that people need to understand that there will be a long term cost.

The clue is in the title of the study. “Pandemics Depress the Economy, Public Health Interventions Do Not”

I struggle how I can make this any clearer.

So shutting down most of the country's businesses and confining people to their homes does not depress the economy?
In which case, we should perhaps look at doing it every year.

Perhaps that is why people have thought that you don't understand the financial consequences and by extension, the consequences to health and the death rate in the coming years.

Perhaps you do get it but there are people who will not see the link between measures taken now and the death of a loved one in years to come.

Have you looked at that chart in the study?

I mean it is all there in black and white. Towns and cities that acted harder and faster for longer had less deep recessions and faster recoveries thereafter.

kingstongraham

ballysmate said:

So shutting down most of the country's businesses and confining people to their homes does not depress the economy?
In which case, we should perhaps look at doing it every year.

France recovers after every August.

kingstongraham

rick_chasey said:

I mean it is all there in black and white. Towns and cities that acted harder and faster for longer had less deep recessions and faster recoveries thereafter.

This. This. This.

Choosing between limiting death rates and long term economic damage is not a real thing.

coopster_the_1st

morstar said:

coopster_the_1st said:

All those who are moral postering right now are really going to b!tch, whinge, bleat and complain when jobs are cut, vital services are reduced and taxes rise to pay back from the damage we are currently doing to our economy.

See, this is where you are confused.
In your binary world, you see no nuance.
Most people have the ability to understand action & consequence.

They really don't and you can see it in responses in the last 60 minutes.

They are only thinking about their elders lives for a small x number of months or years.

They are not considering the big X number of years of life that they, their children and their grandchildren will have to live and experience once this is over. This parts applies to 99.5+% of the current population.

kingstongraham

coopster_the_1st said:

morstar said:

coopster_the_1st said:

All those who are moral postering right now are really going to b!tch, whinge, bleat and complain when jobs are cut, vital services are reduced and taxes rise to pay back from the damage we are currently doing to our economy.

See, this is where you are confused.
In your binary world, you see no nuance.
Most people have the ability to understand action & consequence.

They really don't and you can see it in responses in the last 60 minutes.

They are only thinking about their elders lives for a small x number of months or years.

They are not considering the big X number of years of life that they, their children and their grandchildren will have to live and experience once this is over. This parts applies to 99.5+% of the current population.

You haven't actually read any of the responses.

rjsterry

coopster_the_1st said:

morstar said:

coopster_the_1st said:

All those who are moral postering right now are really going to b!tch, whinge, bleat and complain when jobs are cut, vital services are reduced and taxes rise to pay back from the damage we are currently doing to our economy.

See, this is where you are confused.
In your binary world, you see no nuance.
Most people have the ability to understand action & consequence.

They really don't and you can see it in responses in the last 60 minutes.

They are only thinking about their elders lives for a small x number of months or years.

They are not considering the big X number of years of life that they, their children and their grandchildren will have to live and experience once this is over. This parts applies to 99.5+% of the current population.

This. Doesn't. Just. Affect. Old. People. Somewhere between 15 and 20% of working age people who contract the virus will require hospitalisation.

coopster_the_1st

tailwindhome said:

coopster_the_1st said:

Firstly, any modelling that uses any amount of Chinese "data" should go straight in the shredder.

China are standing accused of understating the impacts of C19.

I'm aware and have never trusted their data. They originally covered up the virus so why should/do modellers and the media still continually reference the data from the lying sh!ts as a way forward for the rest of us?

DeVlaeminck

rjsterry said:

ballysmate said:

rick_chasey said:

Bally - please see the study I posted which explains why what your saying is *wrong* with evidence

Do you believe that when the virus is contained/eradicated and we try to get back to normal, we will be able to revert to the 2019 levels of spending on health and public services? The economy shrunken, the Chancellor having shaken every leaf off his money tree? The same levels of treatments will be available then as are available now?
Because if you believe that, I have a bridge for sale that you may be interested in.

I am not saying what is being spent now is necessarily wrong, just that people need to understand that there will be a long term cost.

I don't think there will be any 'back to normality'. This will cause permanent changes in various aspects of how we live, just as previous pandemics have.

I'm not disagreeing here just interested in views - what kind of changes do you/others envisage ?

Jeremy.89

tailwindhome said:

coopster_the_1st said:

Firstly, any modelling that uses any amount of Chinese "data" should go straight in the shredder.

China are standing accused of understating the impacts of C19.

They've simultaneously overplayed the seriousness of C19 to make the rest of the world crash their economies, whilst lying about the true magnitude of the dead to make it look like they did a much better job of treating the disease.

rjsterry

DeVlaeminck said:

rjsterry said:

ballysmate said:

rick_chasey said:

Bally - please see the study I posted which explains why what your saying is *wrong* with evidence

Do you believe that when the virus is contained/eradicated and we try to get back to normal, we will be able to revert to the 2019 levels of spending on health and public services? The economy shrunken, the Chancellor having shaken every leaf off his money tree? The same levels of treatments will be available then as are available now?
Because if you believe that, I have a bridge for sale that you may be interested in.

I am not saying what is being spent now is necessarily wrong, just that people need to understand that there will be a long term cost.

I don't think there will be any 'back to normality'. This will cause permanent changes in various aspects of how we live, just as previous pandemics have.

I'm not disagreeing here just interested in views - what kind of changes do you/others envisage ?

I'm not sure I can begin to guess, but compare the social changes post-1918 and post-1945.

coopster_the_1st

DeVlaeminck said:

rjsterry said:

ballysmate said:

rick_chasey said:

Bally - please see the study I posted which explains why what your saying is *wrong* with evidence

Do you believe that when the virus is contained/eradicated and we try to get back to normal, we will be able to revert to the 2019 levels of spending on health and public services? The economy shrunken, the Chancellor having shaken every leaf off his money tree? The same levels of treatments will be available then as are available now?
Because if you believe that, I have a bridge for sale that you may be interested in.

I am not saying what is being spent now is necessarily wrong, just that people need to understand that there will be a long term cost.

I don't think there will be any 'back to normality'. This will cause permanent changes in various aspects of how we live, just as previous pandemics have.

I'm not disagreeing here just interested in views - what kind of changes do you/others envisage ?

Off the top of my head a recent contentious policy suggestion - old people who require care home care will have to sell their homes to pay for it before the state starts paying

TheBigBean

rjsterry said:

DeVlaeminck said:

rjsterry said:

ballysmate said:

rick_chasey said:

Bally - please see the study I posted which explains why what your saying is *wrong* with evidence

Do you believe that when the virus is contained/eradicated and we try to get back to normal, we will be able to revert to the 2019 levels of spending on health and public services? The economy shrunken, the Chancellor having shaken every leaf off his money tree? The same levels of treatments will be available then as are available now?
Because if you believe that, I have a bridge for sale that you may be interested in.

I am not saying what is being spent now is necessarily wrong, just that people need to understand that there will be a long term cost.

I don't think there will be any 'back to normality'. This will cause permanent changes in various aspects of how we live, just as previous pandemics have.

I'm not disagreeing here just interested in views - what kind of changes do you/others envisage ?

I'm not sure I can begin to guess, but compare the social changes post-1918 and post-1945.

The interesting difference there was that war brings people together whereas this is about isolating people.

Longshot

coopster_the_1st said:

DeVlaeminck said:

rjsterry said:

ballysmate said:

rick_chasey said:

Bally - please see the study I posted which explains why what your saying is *wrong* with evidence

Do you believe that when the virus is contained/eradicated and we try to get back to normal, we will be able to revert to the 2019 levels of spending on health and public services? The economy shrunken, the Chancellor having shaken every leaf off his money tree? The same levels of treatments will be available then as are available now?
Because if you believe that, I have a bridge for sale that you may be interested in.

I am not saying what is being spent now is necessarily wrong, just that people need to understand that there will be a long term cost.

I don't think there will be any 'back to normality'. This will cause permanent changes in various aspects of how we live, just as previous pandemics have.

I'm not disagreeing here just interested in views - what kind of changes do you/others envisage ?

Off the top of my head a recent contentious policy suggestion - old people who require care home care will have to sell their homes to pay for it before the state starts paying

Most already do!

rick_chasey

Given the rather panicked noises coming out of the farming sector, who are all worried about the border closures and lack of travel creating a massive fruit and vegetable picking labour shortage, combined with a d!cktonne of layoffs, we'll see if the Brexiters were right and Brits will indeed do that work if the pay is right.

Some *huge* recruitment drives going on in the farming sector to hold off that disaster.

kingstongraham

DeVlaeminck said:

rjsterry said:

ballysmate said:

rick_chasey said:

Bally - please see the study I posted which explains why what your saying is *wrong* with evidence

Do you believe that when the virus is contained/eradicated and we try to get back to normal, we will be able to revert to the 2019 levels of spending on health and public services? The economy shrunken, the Chancellor having shaken every leaf off his money tree? The same levels of treatments will be available then as are available now?
Because if you believe that, I have a bridge for sale that you may be interested in.

I am not saying what is being spent now is necessarily wrong, just that people need to understand that there will be a long term cost.

I don't think there will be any 'back to normality'. This will cause permanent changes in various aspects of how we live, just as previous pandemics have.

I'm not disagreeing here just interested in views - what kind of changes do you/others envisage ?

More home working and less commuting.
It will take the live entertainment industry (including sport) and restaurants years to get people back through the doors in the same numbers.

briantrumpet

rick_chasey said:

Given the rather panicked noises coming out of the farming sector, who are all worried about the border closures and lack of travel creating a massive fruit and vegetable picking labour shortage, combined with a d!cktonne of layoffs, we'll see if the Brexiters were right and Brits will indeed do that work if the pay is right.

Some *huge* recruitment drives going on in the farming sector to hold off that disaster.

All the government needs to do is to make the lockdown even stricter, but give an exemption for anyone working on a farm. Might even persuade some of the dïcks who think it's still OK to drive up onto Dartmoor for their permitted exercise, or the ones who are driving to the beach to walk their dogs...

tailwindhome

rick_chasey said:

Given the rather panicked noises coming out of the farming sector, who are all worried about the border closures and lack of travel creating a massive fruit and vegetable picking labour shortage, combined with a d!cktonne of layoffs, we'll see if the Brexiters were right and Brits will indeed do that work if the pay is right.

Some *huge* recruitment drives going on in the farming sector to hold off that disaster.

Also some issues with regard to *safe* working conditions for staff in those sectors.

tailwindhome

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1243496497729191936?s=20

rick_chasey

Sheesh.

Worth not forgetting the UK gov't excuses for not being part of the EU ventilator purchasing scheme. Seems their "not seen the email" excuse is in fact, as bad an excuse as you think it is.

Sounds like it was overruled by no.10 as it was against its Brexit policy.

surrey_commuter

Jeremy.89 said:

tailwindhome said:

coopster_the_1st said:

Firstly, any modelling that uses any amount of Chinese "data" should go straight in the shredder.

China are standing accused of understating the impacts of C19.

They've simultaneously overplayed the seriousness of C19 to make the rest of the world crash their economies, whilst lying about the true magnitude of the dead to make it look like they did a much better job of treating the disease.

No they created it to crash other economies (and distract from HK)

The only bit I don’t understand is why they did not use chem trails to spread it?

surrey_commuter

tailwindhome said:

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1243496497729191936?s=20

Fair play he has put his money where his mouth is on herd immunity. Let’s all hope the fat sod does not die and Raab takes over.

If you look at select groups who have access to blanket testing, senior members of royal family and Ministers it could give us an idea of the true spread. I would rather these tests were saved for frontline medical staff.

orraloon

surrey_commuter said:

Jeremy.89 said:

tailwindhome said:

coopster_the_1st said:

Firstly, any modelling that uses any amount of Chinese "data" should go straight in the shredder.

China are standing accused of understating the impacts of C19.

They've simultaneously overplayed the seriousness of C19 to make the rest of the world crash their economies, whilst lying about the true magnitude of the dead to make it look like they did a much better job of treating the disease.

No they created it to crash other economies (and distract from HK)

The only bit I don’t understand is why they did not use chem trails to spread it?

The lizard overlords would not permit that.

kingstongraham

This will be another major change in the way society operates: https://medium.com/@thejanellemj/please-join-me-in-wearing-a-mask-71e0e3f4fe4a