COVID-19 — Coronavirus

[Deleted member 77198]

The economy will recover. Dead relatives will not.

No but if you crash an economy we’ll be dead before it recovers.

You also have to remember that to governments, the economy is the most important thing. No government in the world would ever admit it, but it’s true for every country in the world.

 

[twosips]

*only* 403 deaths announced in England today. Was expecting a lot more.

 

[oman0115]

How many dead people is the tipping point? the day the NHS gets overrun is the day that figure sky rockets.

I’m playing devils advocate here, is it not sensible to enforce a lock down for people at risk? My parents are 70s both been really ill with the symptoms, neither have been tested but I’m / they’re convinced they had it and trust me they don’t want to be outside now.

what is to stop vulnerable people being locked down and fit and healthy people being allowed to keep the country running? I don’t think what we are doing now is sustainable for long. We need options.

Also I live in the Netherlands, shops are shut and we are advised to keep a distance. Trust me, when I walk my dog ( I avoid people as much as I can ) it’s like a public holiday out there. That’s the Dutch approach. Having countries with a strict lock down, and some without it, how does this help the world get back to normal. You could have some nations with a resistance, and some without. Do we ban travel indefinitely?

 

[Chippy_boy]

I don't agree with that at all.
The objective is a bit of both. Slow and limit the infection rate "until" a vaccine is available.
You seem to think the economy isn't important, but i'm afraid it is.
The longer a shutdown occurs, the harder it is to reverse.
This doesn't mean death aren't important, but a balance needs to be achieved.
We can only go so long before real economic impacts starts to actually cause deaths.
You've seen people fighting over toilet rolls, imagine what will happen when the food runs out...

Minimum economic damage was ALWAYS going to be caused by locking down sooner and harder. If we'd done so 2 weeks prior, and stopping fucking about with allowing crap like Cheltenham to go ahead and then when we did lockdown, not with this "it's ok to go out to exercise" bollocks, the peak would have been several weeks ago and we'd be very near to opening up pubs and restaurants again. The period of disruption although more severe would have been much shorter and survivable by more businesses.

That it has gone on - and will go on - as long as it is, is entirely due to the peak being bigger and taking longer to peak, because it's a bigger peak. And longer to decay back down again.

We could have simply hit the <pause> button on the economy, the government paid everyone for a short period and then we'd be back to some semblance of normality quite quickly. And the economy would bounce back.

This is still the best approach, we just made it more difficult. The sooner we have this thing under control, the sooner we can start getting back to normal and restarting the economy with the minimal of businesses lost. We do not minimise the length of the lockdown by allowing a few businesses to limp along. It actually hurts them more in the long run.

 

[Deleted member 77198]

*only* 403 deaths announced in England today. Was expecting a lot more.

I wouldn’t pay too much attention to the death reports on the days they are reported as they’re all a bit haphazard.

Deaths in the community and at care homes aren’t included in some of the daily death reports and are retrospectively added or announced on subsequent days.

 

[Chippy_boy]

No but if you crash an economy we’ll be dead before it recovers.

You also have to remember that to governments, the economy is the most important thing. No government in the world would ever admit it, but it’s true for every country in the world.

The UK economy was booming 15 years after WW2, so I am sure we can back on track from this rather sooner than that.

 

[domalino]

I wouldn’t pay too much attention to the death reports on the days they are reported as they’re all a bit haphazard.

Deaths in the community and at care homes aren’t included in some of the daily death reports and are retrospectively added or announced on subsequent days.

With all these stats they are only really relevant to themselves. Deaths announced each day are meaningful compared to the same stat yesterday and the same stat tomorrow.

 

[Blue Hefner]

No but what the government has to try to do is minimise the death toll without the whole country ending up destitute for a generation.

I accept that but is it doable? What we are doing now seems a decent halfway house. Particularly as the government loans upto £250k no longer need a personal guarantee and are interest free for 12 months

We absolutely cannot have the health service over run and we cannot just carry on as if nothing is happening

Like I said, what we are doing now seems a decent balance

 

[Deleted member 77198]

With all these stats they are only really relevant to themselves. Deaths announced each day are meaningful compared to the same stat yesterday and the same stat tomorrow.

The same stat tomorrow will have a number of days’ worth of non-reported community deaths added. Today’s hasn’t had that as they don’t do that on a Monday.

There was one day last week where the reported deaths for one day was 477 out.

 

[The blue phantom]

*only* 403 deaths announced in England today. Was expecting a lot more.

Looking like total UK figures could be under 430. They have give a warning though that these could be a bit misleading.