The great Barrington declaration

There are a lot of facts and counter facts in this debate, there is also a lot of self interest. It is becoming like the climate change debate where people take sides based on whatever there relative political positioning is, which in all honesty is a bit daft.

The declaration itself makes some sense and its good to see a rational approach rather than the current approach adopted by the maniacal #KBF libertarian cranks you see on twitter.

I am currently involved with a project in Manchester that is being designed to help our city cope with the expected spike in mental issues and it is serious, we are human and we thrive on interpersonal relationships. Loneliness though was around before Covid and no action was taken by any government to counter it, so i have my doubts the current government would be willing to do anything. As normal in Manchester the slack will probably be taken up by the charitable organisations with some assistance from the NHS but the NHS is underfunded in the area of mental health and without a serious cash injection the declarations proposals will be muted.

The declaration also assumes that money will be found to help the care sector carry out there proposals. The care sector pays minimum wage and suffers from staff shortages as it stands, to carry out there proposals would again mean a large cash injection into the private care sector. I am ideologically against that and would prefer all care homes were taken into the public sector whilst the crisis is ongoing and then centrally funded with proper wages paid to attract the staff to carry out the proposals. The private sector is for profit and they will cut corners and that will not help establish the safe places that the elderly and infirm need.

As for deliveries of food etc to the retired there would also have to be co-operation between the government and the retail sector because a person living alone may not be able to spend the amount needed for the delivery to be free and that would have a negative effect on their income. Meeting family outside is fine but surely it would make more sense if family and friends were allowed to deliver shopping and leave it/meet the person in the garden of pathway and save on delivery costs.

Schools should be open, but i would leave the choice of whether the kids attend to the parents, the risk of fines for non attendance should be scrapped for the time being as i dont think one size fits all approach is correct here.

I also dont get why companies are so eager to get workers who have been working from home back into the office/workplace, i can only assume its about corporate control and again i think working from home has been one of the good things to come out of this crisis and it should be encouraged as its good for the environment and good for workers mental health as they are not having the stress of the daily commute.

I get the declaration is aimed at a worldwide audience, but each country has its own specific needs, its own cultural norms and i dont believe one size fits all. Its a good start though and i would like to see it developed and tailored to fit each countries individual needs.

The economic cost of this crisis is obviously huge and as Milton Friedman said the best time to bring about change is during a crisis and i would personally like to see a universal basic income introduced in the UK which would help the economy recover. It is telling though that those at the top the society, the 1% have seen there wealth grow expotentially during this crisis and i am afraid there will have to be tax rises on this people to help the economy recover and for the good of the country at large. Whether that is politically expedient at the moment with BREXIT also looming large is another matter of course. The economy will recover sadly though the household analogy used by the Tory government to explain debt means people are actually frightened o the country being in debt which is nonsensical because after WW2 the nations deficit was -256% of GDP yet the economy boomed in the 50s thanks to Keynesian economics. Nowadays we live in a neo-liberal economic climate and it will take a real sea change for Keynesianism to come back to the fore.

On a personal note i am in the vulnerable category, the drugs i take dampen down and affect my immune system which makes me very wary, but i am not against this declartion, i wont sign it either as i think it needs much more work and a lot more attention to detail.
 
It appears to me that many of the most vocal protesters against the govt imposing to many draconian measures are the same twats that spend the rest of the time crying that the govt are not doing enough. The whole issue has become a politicised tool for people who just don't like the present govt and want to score points - not just in this country either. For that reason I just regard it as annoying noise .
 
There have but they are few and far between and statistically I think you are as likely to die from any other random illness in that age group with no underlying conditions. The risk at over 85 is 1/4 so a lottery at that age and around 1/14 for those over 75.
If the lottery odds were 1/4, I reckon I might stand more of a chance.
I do know what you mean though. I have three relatives of that age and it worries me that they are safe enough. All good so far though.
 
There are a lot of facts and counter facts in this debate, there is also a lot of self interest. It is becoming like the climate change debate where people take sides based on whatever there relative political positioning is, which in all honesty is a bit daft.

The declaration itself makes some sense and its good to see a rational approach rather than the current approach adopted by the maniacal #KBF libertarian cranks you see on twitter.

I am currently involved with a project in Manchester that is being designed to help our city cope with the expected spike in mental issues and it is serious, we are human and we thrive on interpersonal relationships. Loneliness though was around before Covid and no action was taken by any government to counter it, so i have my doubts the current government would be willing to do anything. As normal in Manchester the slack will probably be taken up by the charitable organisations with some assistance from the NHS but the NHS is underfunded in the area of mental health and without a serious cash injection the declarations proposals will be muted.

The declaration also assumes that money will be found to help the care sector carry out there proposals. The care sector pays minimum wage and suffers from staff shortages as it stands, to carry out there proposals would again mean a large cash injection into the private care sector. I am ideologically against that and would prefer all care homes were taken into the public sector whilst the crisis is ongoing and then centrally funded with proper wages paid to attract the staff to carry out the proposals. The private sector is for profit and they will cut corners and that will not help establish the safe places that the elderly and infirm need.

As for deliveries of food etc to the retired there would also have to be co-operation between the government and the retail sector because a person living alone may not be able to spend the amount needed for the delivery to be free and that would have a negative effect on their income. Meeting family outside is fine but surely it would make more sense if family and friends were allowed to deliver shopping and leave it/meet the person in the garden of pathway and save on delivery costs.

Schools should be open, but i would leave the choice of whether the kids attend to the parents, the risk of fines for non attendance should be scrapped for the time being as i dont think one size fits all approach is correct here.

I also dont get why companies are so eager to get workers who have been working from home back into the office/workplace, i can only assume its about corporate control and again i think working from home has been one of the good things to come out of this crisis and it should be encouraged as its good for the environment and good for workers mental health as they are not having the stress of the daily commute.

I get the declaration is aimed at a worldwide audience, but each country has its own specific needs, its own cultural norms and i dont believe one size fits all. Its a good start though and i would like to see it developed and tailored to fit each countries individual needs.

The economic cost of this crisis is obviously huge and as Milton Friedman said the best time to bring about change is during a crisis and i would personally like to see a universal basic income introduced in the UK which would help the economy recover. It is telling though that those at the top the society, the 1% have seen there wealth grow expotentially during this crisis and i am afraid there will have to be tax rises on this people to help the economy recover and for the good of the country at large. Whether that is politically expedient at the moment with BREXIT also looming large is another matter of course. The economy will recover sadly though the household analogy used by the Tory government to explain debt means people are actually frightened o the country being in debt which is nonsensical because after WW2 the nations deficit was -256% of GDP yet the economy boomed in the 50s thanks to Keynesian economics. Nowadays we live in a neo-liberal economic climate and it will take a real sea change for Keynesianism to come back to the fore.

On a personal note i am in the vulnerable category, the drugs i take dampen down and affect my immune system which makes me very wary, but i am not against this declartion, i wont sign it either as i think it needs much more work and a lot more attention to detail.

Superb post and agree with every word.

Mental health care and Old Age care could and should be taken back into the public sector and tax payer funded and im convinced a UBI is the way to go.
 
Reponse of expert scientists


Short version: the science is fringe and the policies suggested unworkable.

Sorry, but it's just wishful thinking. There's no easy way out.
It has so many flaws as pointed out in those reactions and if I'm not mistaken haven't Dr Gupta's previous pronouncements favouring herd immunity been shown to be well wide of the mark? How can you pursue a concept that may not even exist for this virus?
 
It has so many flaws as pointed out in those reactions and if I'm not mistaken haven't Dr Gupta's previous pronouncements favouring herd immunity been shown to be well wide of the mark? How can you pursue a concept that may not even exist for this virus?

Gupta has been so entirely wrong on her projections for herd immunity, it's hard to imagine any facts which would change her mind.

This isn't normally a problem in science - fringe voices are essential to test ideas out. The problem here is that those fringe voices are presented as mainstream to an audience who are desperate to believe them, in an attempt to influence public health policy by a right wing libertarian political movement.

These people get invited to Downing Street to brief the PM, whereas far more eminent sceptical voices from the other side such as independent SAGE, are ignored.

This has little to do with science, and everything to do with individualistic ideology.
 
Gupta has been so entirely wrong on her projections for herd immunity, it's hard to imagine any facts which would change her mind.

This isn't normally a problem in science - fringe voices are essential to test ideas out. The problem here is that those fringe voices are presented as mainstream to an audience who are desperate to believe them, in an attempt to influence public health policy by a right wing libertarian political movement.

These people get invited to Downing Street to brief the PM, whereas far more eminent sceptical voices from the other side such as independent SAGE, are ignored.

This has little to do with science, and everything to do with individualistic ideology.
Zero scientific argument in that comment.

I think this is a pretty pointless discussion. Effective medicines are clearly close to being realised so the route to herd immunity and or cure is through science and medicine.
 
There have but they are few and far between and statistically I think you are as likely to die from any other random illness in that age group with no underlying conditions. The risk at over 85 is 1/4 so a lottery at that age and around 1/14 for those over 75.
I've yet to win the triple rollover so I might just continue with one of the 'three chances when I get to 85.
 
There are a lot of facts and counter facts in this debate, there is also a lot of self interest. It is becoming like the climate change debate where people take sides based on whatever there relative political positioning is, which in all honesty is a bit daft.

The declaration itself makes some sense and its good to see a rational approach rather than the current approach adopted by the maniacal #KBF libertarian cranks you see on twitter.

I am currently involved with a project in Manchester that is being designed to help our city cope with the expected spike in mental issues and it is serious, we are human and we thrive on interpersonal relationships. Loneliness though was around before Covid and no action was taken by any government to counter it, so i have my doubts the current government would be willing to do anything. As normal in Manchester the slack will probably be taken up by the charitable organisations with some assistance from the NHS but the NHS is underfunded in the area of mental health and without a serious cash injection the declarations proposals will be muted.

The declaration also assumes that money will be found to help the care sector carry out there proposals. The care sector pays minimum wage and suffers from staff shortages as it stands, to carry out there proposals would again mean a large cash injection into the private care sector. I am ideologically against that and would prefer all care homes were taken into the public sector whilst the crisis is ongoing and then centrally funded with proper wages paid to attract the staff to carry out the proposals. The private sector is for profit and they will cut corners and that will not help establish the safe places that the elderly and infirm need.

As for deliveries of food etc to the retired there would also have to be co-operation between the government and the retail sector because a person living alone may not be able to spend the amount needed for the delivery to be free and that would have a negative effect on their income. Meeting family outside is fine but surely it would make more sense if family and friends were allowed to deliver shopping and leave it/meet the person in the garden of pathway and save on delivery costs.

Schools should be open, but i would leave the choice of whether the kids attend to the parents, the risk of fines for non attendance should be scrapped for the time being as i dont think one size fits all approach is correct here.

I also dont get why companies are so eager to get workers who have been working from home back into the office/workplace, i can only assume its about corporate control and again i think working from home has been one of the good things to come out of this crisis and it should be encouraged as its good for the environment and good for workers mental health as they are not having the stress of the daily commute.

I get the declaration is aimed at a worldwide audience, but each country has its own specific needs, its own cultural norms and i dont believe one size fits all. Its a good start though and i would like to see it developed and tailored to fit each countries individual needs.

The economic cost of this crisis is obviously huge and as Milton Friedman said the best time to bring about change is during a crisis and i would personally like to see a universal basic income introduced in the UK which would help the economy recover. It is telling though that those at the top the society, the 1% have seen there wealth grow expotentially during this crisis and i am afraid there will have to be tax rises on this people to help the economy recover and for the good of the country at large. Whether that is politically expedient at the moment with BREXIT also looming large is another matter of course. The economy will recover sadly though the household analogy used by the Tory government to explain debt means people are actually frightened o the country being in debt which is nonsensical because after WW2 the nations deficit was -256% of GDP yet the economy boomed in the 50s thanks to Keynesian economics. Nowadays we live in a neo-liberal economic climate and it will take a real sea change for Keynesianism to come back to the fore.

On a personal note i am in the vulnerable category, the drugs i take dampen down and affect my immune system which makes me very wary, but i am not against this declartion, i wont sign it either as i think it needs much more work and a lot more attention to detail.
Not a lot to disagree with in this from me. I have been advocating UBI for a while now but the meritocrats won't have it as they believe that you have to have 'earned' your 'right' to live off the state.

The lack of support is the reason why this could never work in this country imho. People cite Sweden as an example of a lighter touch response to the pandemic but fail to acknowledge the major differences in welfare provision between them and the UK.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.