COVID-19 — Coronavirus

[AlgarveBlu]

Look I have news for you. If someone posts something you disagree with it's called a different viewpoint. It differs from yours, you might think it is ridiculous, you might find 100 people who agree with you, but it doesn't mean your view is correct and the other person's wrong. It is just different. Oh and the word is stupidest.

I disrespectfully agree with everything you’ve written there

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Karen.

We can’t keep life shut for fear of a second wave.

The potential consequences on health of doing so far outweigh the health impact of Covid.

We’re talking the collapse of economies, supply chains, food production etc.

As for getting what we can from government, the government don’t have money. The government have our money. Taxes which right now aren’t getting replenished, and if we extend lockdown won’t be replenished until it ends and we get back to where we were. Giving money away to folk to tide them over is not sustainable. We are digging a significant hole and bankrupting society in extended lockdown.

The threads of society that keep things in order around the world aren’t as strong as we’d like to think. The world has never shut down like this. Riots, revolt and wars have started for less.

When we come out of it...we’ll have to pay, taxes will increase, net income will reduce, more people in poverty, mortality increasing due to malnutrition, lack of services, mental wellbeing etc etc.

This is not just about the direct dangers of Covid anymore.

As is this.

 

[Vic]

As to this...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/04/25/two-weeks-quarantine-travelling-uk/
Neigh, Gallop, Slam.

A lot of the criticism of WHO is because they didn't recommend restrictions on international air travel. The week's delay (end of Jan) in calling it a Public Health Emergency of International Concern was partly because that economic damage from disruption of flights - but even when they declared it a PHEIC and laid out what precautions should be taken, we didn't take them (either because of economic damage or the herd immunity delusion).

Now it may make little sense. Rather than check inbound passengers for symptoms like high temperature you'd probably catch as many people testing the queue at Asda.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Karen.

We can’t keep life shut for fear of a second wave.

The potential consequences on health of doing so far outweigh the health impact of Covid.

We’re talking the collapse of economies, supply chains, food production etc.

As for getting what we can from government, the government don’t have money. The government have our money. Taxes which right now aren’t getting replenished, and if we extend lockdown won’t be replenished until it ends and we get back to where we were. Giving money away to folk to tide them over is not sustainable. We are digging a significant hole and bankrupting society in extended lockdown.

The threads of society that keep things in order around the world aren’t as strong as we’d like to think. The world has never shut down like this. Riots, revolt and wars have started for less.

When we come out of it...we’ll have to pay, taxes will increase, net income will reduce, more people in poverty, mortality increasing due to malnutrition, lack of services, mental wellbeing etc etc.

This is not just about the direct dangers of Covid anymore.

Whereas what you say is all relevant, I don't think you have adequately considered the other side of the equation, i.e. how bad can Coronavirus be?

Perhaps you are looking at the current 20,000 dead, most of whom are old and were not in the best of health anyway and therefore you are thinking that 20,000 is not that bad in the scheme of things and not worth the adverse consequences you outline? That would seem a reasonable position, logically if not morally.

But the 20,000 is probably nearer 30,000 in reality when we add in cases that have not been counted. And we haven't "finished" yet, not by a long chalk. People are still dying in their hundreds every day. I am guessing but it could easily be 40,000 by the time deaths are back down to a handful daily.

But here's the critical point. This (say) 40,000 is after all of the measures we HAVE been taking and with an NHS which has managed to cope. It is a tiny fraction of what would have happened without such action.

Let's say the mortality rate is 0.7%, which seems quite a conservative figure but perhaps a realistic one. If we stop our social distancing and other measures then perhaps 50m catch this and the raw maths says 350,000 die. But it's much worse than that. Because we could not possibly cope with the numbers of ill people and would have nothing like the necessary ICU capacity needed. Most people needing ICU would not get it, so they would all die. The death rate would be much higher than 350,000. It could be half a million easily.

How can we possibly follow any course of action which could result in hundreds of thousands of avoidable deaths? We have no choice but to carry on with the current strategy of doing everything we can to get the infections under control and to use such measures as necessary to keep it under control until we have a vaccine. And as an absolute must, to keep the rates below the NHS capacity to cope, or else we have loved ones dying alone in corridors and that is unacceptable by any basic moral standards.

 

[Chippy_boy]

I'm not getting into this any deeper, maybe take the blinkers from your eyes and open your mind eh?

You're right. Maybe it's a plot by aliens to get the world off guard before invasion from space. I mean if I open my mind then this is also possible.

 

[SilverFox2]

Karen.

We can’t keep life shut for fear of a second wave.

The potential consequences on health of doing so far outweigh the health impact of Covid.

We’re talking the collapse of economies, supply chains, food production etc.

As for getting what we can from government, the government don’t have money. The government have our money. Taxes which right now aren’t getting replenished, and if we extend lockdown won’t be replenished until it ends and we get back to where we were. Giving money away to folk to tide them over is not sustainable. We are digging a significant hole and bankrupting society in extended lockdown.

The threads of society that keep things in order around the world aren’t as strong as we’d like to think. The world has never shut down like this. Riots, revolt and wars have started for less.

When we come out of it...we’ll have to pay, taxes will increase, net income will reduce, more people in poverty, mortality increasing due to malnutrition, lack of services, mental wellbeing etc etc.

This is not just about the direct dangers of Covid anymore.

In a way because it is global the UK is not alone in suffering lack of Government income. Will this have any effect on resuming where we left off from a financial point of view?
Our trading partners will be similarly affected and the JIT mismatch of raw materials will take some time to adjust but as you say we need to think about these things I merely point out that our domestic and overseas customers and suppliers may not necessarily be immediately available in all sectors of business.

 

[Brightwell’s left peg]

Whereas what you say is all relevant, I don't think you have adequately considered the other side of the equation, i.e. how bad can Coronavirus be?

Perhaps you are looking at the current 20,000 dead, most of whom are old and were not in the best of health anyway and therefore you are thinking that 20,000 is not that bad in the scheme of things and not worth the adverse consequences you outline? That would seem a reasonable position, logically if not morally.

But the 20,000 is probably nearer 30,000 in reality when we add in cases that have not been counted. And we haven't "finished" yet, not by a long chalk. People are still dying in their hundreds every day. I am guessing but it could easily be 40,000 by the time daily deaths are back down to a handful daily.

But here's the critical point. This (say) 40,000 is after all of the measures we HAVE been taking and with an NHS which has managed to cope. It is a tiny fraction of what woul have happened without such action.

Let's say the mortality rate is 0.7%, which seems quite a conservative figure but perhaps a realistic one. If we stop our social distancing and other measures then perhaps 50m catch this and the raw maths says 350,000 die. But it's much worse than that. Because we could not possibly cope with the numbers of ill people and would have nothing like the necessary ICU capacity needed. Most people needing ICU would not get it, so they would all die. The death rate would be much higher than 350,000. It could be half a million easily.

How can we possibly follow any course of action which could result in hundreds of thousands of avoidable deaths? We have no choice but to carry on with the current strategy of doing everything we can to get the infections under control and to use such measures as necessary to keep it under control until we have a vaccine. And as an absolute must, to keep the rates below the NHS capacity to cope, or else we have loved ones dying alone in corridors and that is unacceptable by any basic moral standards.

I can assure you I am considering all options. It’s a case of choosing your poison.

My current view is on a trajectory of extended worldwide lockdown, the poison is a lot worse than 500,000 deaths.

500,000 deaths would be be horrendous for a whole host of reasons, and I have parents and kids, so I’m not immune to these fears.

We’ve had pandemics before. We faced smallpox, Spanish flu etc and had to carry on.

We’re shutting down at a time in our collective lives, where we are so dependant on the cogs turning we are least equipped to deal with them stopping.

In short, the worst case and most likely with an extended lockdown, will result in a lot more than 500,000 deaths directly and indirectly. Basic moral standards are a luxury of a functioning civilisation. That is at risk.

 

[BosnianBlue]

The fact is that the CV has accidentally targeted those of us who are retired.

Is this a good thing for the economy?

200 000 deaths worldwide so far, even if one costs societies 5 thousands, it's billion per month. Compare that to trillions this shit will cost global economy. it needs to kill millions to be "profitable killer"

 

[kevin horlocks wand]

In a way because it is global the UK is not alone in suffering lack of Government income. Will this have any effect on resuming where we left off from a financial point of view?
Our trading partners will be similarly affected and the JIT mismatch of raw materials will take some time to adjust but as you say we need to think about these things I merely point out that our domestic and overseas customers and suppliers may not necessarily be immediately available in all sectors of business.

You are right it is global and if we were alone in restricting lockdown measures then it

Whereas what you say is all relevant, I don't think you have adequately considered the other side of the equation, i.e. how bad can Coronavirus be?

Perhaps you are looking at the current 20,000 dead, most of whom are old and were not in the best of health anyway and therefore you are thinking that 20,000 is not that bad in the scheme of things and not worth the adverse consequences you outline? That would seem a reasonable position, logically if not morally.

But the 20,000 is probably nearer 30,000 in reality when we add in cases that have not been counted. And we haven't "finished" yet, not by a long chalk. People are still dying in their hundreds every day. I am guessing but it could easily be 40,000 by the time deaths are back down to a handful daily.

But here's the critical point. This (say) 40,000 is after all of the measures we HAVE been taking and with an NHS which has managed to cope. It is a tiny fraction of what would have happened without such action.

Let's say the mortality rate is 0.7%, which seems quite a conservative figure but perhaps a realistic one. If we stop our social distancing and other measures then perhaps 50m catch this and the raw maths says 350,000 die. But it's much worse than that. Because we could not possibly cope with the numbers of ill people and would have nothing like the necessary ICU capacity needed. Most people needing ICU would not get it, so they would all die. The death rate would be much higher than 350,000. It could be half a million easily.

How can we possibly follow any course of action which could result in hundreds of thousands of avoidable deaths? We have no choice but to carry on with the current strategy of doing everything we can to get the infections under control and to use such measures as necessary to keep it under control until we have a vaccine. And as an absolute must, to keep the rates below the NHS capacity to cope, or else we have loved ones dying alone in corridors and that is unacceptable by any basic moral standards.

you are right and it evidences why this is such a tough call. a really tough call. I don’t think it has to viewed in extremes though.

lockdown one day and now release go back to normal.

surely we can balance the release by still protecting those with underlying conditions and the elderly by still shielding them and allow some people to start to return to normal with a gradual easing of some restrictions. Social distancing in whatever we do is always going to be with us now until we have effective treatment or vaccine.

however what would be very odd is if the uk continued to have a lockdown until a vaccine was found ( if it ever is) when all other countries around the world are starting to prepare their economies for this new normal with an easing of some restrictions and some countries who have not had any restrictions such as ours have done a good job of containing the disease.

 

[Vic]

I can assure you I am considering all options. It’s a case of choosing your poison.

My current view is on a trajectory of extended worldwide lockdown, the poison is a lot worse than 500,000 deaths.

500,000 deaths would be be horrendous for a whole host of reasons, and I have parents and kids, so I’m not immune to these fears.

We’ve had pandemics before. We faced smallpox, Spanish flu etc and had to carry on.

We’re shutting down at a time in our collective lives, where we are so dependant on the cogs turning we are least equipped to deal with them stopping.

In short, the worst case and most likely with an extended lockdown, will result in a lot more than 500,000 deaths directly and indirectly. Basic moral standards are a luxury of a functioning civilisation. That is at risk.

It's a point of view but I think you ruined it with that statement that "Basic moral standards are a luxury of a functioning civilisation". Basic moral standards are a basis of a functioning civilisation. Luxury implies you need wealth to be nice.

 

[Brightwell’s left peg]

In a way because it is global the UK is not alone in suffering lack of Government income. Will this have any effect on resuming where we left off from a financial point of view?
Our trading partners will be similarly affected and the JIT mismatch of raw materials will take some time to adjust but as you say we need to think about these things I merely point out that our domestic and overseas customers and suppliers may not necessarily be immediately available in all sectors of business.

Very true. If I could tell you the consequences of all of that, I’d be earning a lot more than I currently am. ;-)

Right now though, Raw material production, operation and maintenance of facilities etc, activities that support everything about our lives has slowed down to a trickle. The lights will start going out eventually. That’s when panic will set in.

 

[Brightwell’s left peg]

It's a point of view but I think you ruined it with that statement that "Basic moral standards are a luxury of a functioning civilisation". Basic moral standards are a basis of a functioning civilisation. Luxury implies you need wealth to be nice.

It was a comment really with respect to not having people die in hospitals corridors as being morally objectionable. Having high tech hospitals with corridors is itself a luxury afforded by our way of life. That way of life has ceased.

Again, it simply boils down to this.

I believe deaths from impacts of long term lockdown will be higher than deaths from Covid.

 

[SilverFox2]

200 000 deaths worldwide so far, even if one costs societies 5 thousands, it's billion per month. Compare that to trillions this shit will cost global economy. it needs to kill millions to be "profitable killer"

I agree, I was simply pointing out that those of us who are retired are normally not seen as contributing financially to the Gov..
Since they are dead they possibly save the Gov money so no longer are that financial burden.
I do not think this viewpoint contradicts your global view.

 

[BlueHammer85]

when you read the well balanced view points from both sides about the lockdown - it shows the mammoth task the Goverment have got

 

[Marvin]

Whereas what you say is all relevant, I don't think you have adequately considered the other side of the equation, i.e. how bad can Coronavirus be?

Perhaps you are looking at the current 20,000 dead, most of whom are old and were not in the best of health anyway and therefore you are thinking that 20,000 is not that bad in the scheme of things and not worth the adverse consequences you outline? That would seem a reasonable position, logically if not morally.

But the 20,000 is probably nearer 30,000 in reality when we add in cases that have not been counted. And we haven't "finished" yet, not by a long chalk. People are still dying in their hundreds every day. I am guessing but it could easily be 40,000 by the time deaths are back down to a handful daily.

But here's the critical point. This (say) 40,000 is after all of the measures we HAVE been taking and with an NHS which has managed to cope. It is a tiny fraction of what would have happened without such action.

Let's say the mortality rate is 0.7%, which seems quite a conservative figure but perhaps a realistic one. If we stop our social distancing and other measures then perhaps 50m catch this and the raw maths says 350,000 die. But it's much worse than that. Because we could not possibly cope with the numbers of ill people and would have nothing like the necessary ICU capacity needed. Most people needing ICU would not get it, so they would all die. The death rate would be much higher than 350,000. It could be half a million easily.

How can we possibly follow any course of action which could result in hundreds of thousands of avoidable deaths? We have no choice but to carry on with the current strategy of doing everything we can to get the infections under control and to use such measures as necessary to keep it under control until we have a vaccine. And as an absolute must, to keep the rates below the NHS capacity to cope, or else we have loved ones dying alone in corridors and that is unacceptable by any basic moral standards.

It's not lockdown v let it ride. There's mass-testing.

Lockdowns are unsustainable. There's no question about that and you can't ignore it. I don't know why you're debating this anyway as most of the US and Europe are in the process of lifting their lockdowns because they are unsustainable.

The arguable point is limited suppression aimed at acquiring immunity (Uk & Sweden) versus all out suppression (Rest of the world in some combination of lockdown/mass-testing), and that argument can only be won in hindsight when we know about vaccines and 2nd waves.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

It's a point of view but I think you ruined it with that statement that "Basic moral standards are a luxury of a functioning civilisation". Basic moral standards are a basis of a functioning civilisation. Luxury implies you need wealth to be nice.

So basically he’s ruined the whole post with one word?

 

[Brightwell’s left peg]

So basically he’s ruined the whole post with one word?

Tough crowd in here!

;-)

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Tough crowd in here!

;-)

https://forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk/...st-miserable-c-t-on-this-entire-forum.345651/

 

[Chippy_boy]

I can assure you I am considering all options. It’s a case of choosing your poison.

My current view is on a trajectory of extended worldwide lockdown, the poison is a lot worse than 500,000 deaths.

500,000 deaths would be be horrendous for a whole host of reasons, and I have parents and kids, so I’m not immune to these fears.

We’ve had pandemics before. We faced smallpox, Spanish flu etc and had to carry on.

We’re shutting down at a time in our collective lives, where we are so dependant on the cogs turning we are least equipped to deal with them stopping.

In short, the worst case and most likely with an extended lockdown, will result in a lot more than 500,000 deaths directly and indirectly. Basic moral standards are a luxury of a functioning civilisation. That is at risk.

You do realise I mean 500,000 UK deaths, not wirldwide? That's 3x our total cancer death rate - our biggest killer.

 

[Marvin]

And here you see the basis for the UK's sub-maximal suppression. ...

Raab, says vaccine wont be available this year and from that stems UK policy. It's obviously stemming from a strand of scientific advice. Some UK scientists have convinced UK politicians of a pathway to acquiring immunity (even if its not total) as an insurance policy. And it's a legitimate strategy imo. One that has an exit, but I think i'd go for the South Korea/China/German approach.

It seems to me obvious now that mass-testing can eliminate the viral infection so why are we pursuing infection? It is a choice. Not too late for a U turn.

On the other hand it is somewhat comforting that some city's have around 15-30% immunity (depending on which survey you read) - but only if you ignore the death that got them there.

The UK strategy has one huge thing going for it, it provides insurance against a savage 2nd wave and will allow the UK to exit then lockdown safe in knowing that it's unlikely to be needed on such a scale again. However we're only halfway there in terms of immunity. Are we prepared to go on in this vein?

Society should really be choosing. Instead it's an elite. That's my problem with this. The strategy has never honestly been discussed in its entirety. Its presented as human v virus but different societies are pursuing different strategies. The crazy thing is that there are so many variables it's genuinely difficult to know the best way out. South Korea/Germany/China mass testing followed by a September vaccine seems the most likely. If a vaccine isn't forthcoming though, what do you do? In the end lockdowns wont wont work, and will end in the complete breakdown of society. We have reached the end of that phase anyway.