Re: Coronavirus
 

Seeing as the claim is that it is coughing or sneezing that is spreading it, as long as anybody doing either of those things doesn't travel, it's allegedly not an issue. The other main way of spreading it is by exchanging saliva in some way(eg drinking from same cup).

Re: Coronavirus
 

You are stuck with the idea that we only have three options. Lockdown, social distancing, or normal. The reality is various sectors of the economy, indeed even various regions and the devolved administrations, could and indeed should exercise levers to a varying degree for some time.

Testing works elsewhere. While it cannot on its own remove the threat of Coronavirus it mitigates risk. Similar to airport screening. Combined with social distancing you further reduce the risk to levels we can support.

Potentially yes if it cannot be made safe for them to do so. Some areas of the economy may have to work with PPE that ordinarily wouldn't. Others might only be able to work if regular testing is in place to reduce the risk.

What these measures look like are currently being scoped out at the highest levels of Government.

Public transport the quick win is for anyone who can work from home to continue to do so - a situation I expect for many more months to come.

I think if you stop being hysterical acting like a slump in GDP is the apocalypse then we might get more rational, and considered, outcomes in these discussions.

Re: Coronavirus
 

In my view, we need to get people back to work and re-open the schools. The people who need protecting are those registered as vulnerable, although frankly how we manage that is not as easy as it sounds. Visitors have been banned from care homes and good protective measures introduced, but the virus has still got in and the number of deaths is high.

I know some of you don't accept this, but the virus will run its course, no matter what we do. Slowing it down is all we can hope to achieve.

The measures to date have worked in that we have avoided the peak that was predicted if we did nothing, but the number of new cases will start rising again when the lockdown finishes. Unless, of course, our summer season finishes it off, but the jury is still out on that.

While I hope that we do find an inoculation that works and we can get it out there this autumn, the problem is that nobody is yet certain that this can be done, and if it cannot, it will be a long time before it becomes available, by which time, the virus will have burned itself out (provided it doesn't mutate, in which case any inoculation will be worthless against it).

In the end, it is herd immunity that will stop the virus and waiting for the cure to achieve that is hopeless, I'm afraid. It will simply come too late. I completely understand that people are reluctant to face this, but that is the naked truth of the matter.

---------- Post added at 11:54 ---------- Previous post was at 11:47 ----------

I am not ignoring the crisis, nor am I 'gleeful' about any resurgence after initially getting it under control. Stop trying to hype everything up out of all proportion, you do yourself no favours.

What I have drawn attention to is the sheer futility of continuing the lockdown indefinitely. I know that you and some others want the government to be seen to be doing something, even though it won't work, but I think we should be looking at the economic devastation this lockdown will produce and consider whether it was worth it in the end, given that we can only slow it down, but not stop it.

I think you greatly underestimate the long-term financial consequences of what you propose.

Re: Coronavirus
 

This goes against the scientific advice of the United Kingdom, and indeed almost everywhere in the world apart from Sweden who are being pressured into reversing their stance from their own population.

The jury is not still out. Literally nobody of any scientific merit views it as credible, as demonstrated by the existence of the virus in the southern hemisphere.

This is absolutely dangerous scaremongering.

Old Boy once again you have failed to understand that the major Governments have the macroeconomic levers to avoid this. They do not operate household budgets, like you or I. Central banks can increase money supply, and put interest rates to rock bottom to facilitate responsible borrowing.

I'm sorry that you can't see that the global economy doesn't work like a household budget - something that right wing newspapers have consistently tried to portray to the 'man on the street' to justify their ideological position of a small state and low tax.

However the economy is demonstrably at greater risk in the long run by failing to address coronavirus appropriately.

Re: Coronavirus
 

<SNIP>


Apart from the fact we don't know if herd immunity will work yet, there's not even a guarantee that a vaccination will work.

Tell me Old Boy, what's do you propose as an acceptable amount of deaths for the country to have to accept in order for the economy to be protected. 100,000? 250,000? 1,000,000?

Re: Coronavirus
 

I understand the options, jfman. I also understand all the jobs that will be put at risk if this and other measures restricting business are allowed to continue.

Testing is only a viable tool if it is reliable, and if you are honest, you will acknowledge that they are not. Seriously ill people with coronavirus have tested negative a few times before being tested positive. The anti-body method is also deemed unreliable. So it is senseless to establish containment policies on the back of tests that don't work properly. You will end up sending infected people back into the workplace and you will assume people have immunity when they don't. I think that's called 'clutching at straws'.

Yes, working at home is a definite plus, but the majority of the population do not have that as an option. Public transport will still be too crowded to enable social distancing to take place.

I don't know how you can, with any credibility, describe my comments as 'hysterical'. I am simply pointing out the futility of what you are advocating. If only it were that easy.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You are basically agreeing to sacrifice peoples lives to protect the capitalist market. That's not hysterical. In my opinion it's lunacy.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Deaths will occur whatever we do. We do not possess the Hand of God. If it were otherwise, we would not be facing all those care home deaths, would we?

---------- Post added at 12:11 ---------- Previous post was at 12:10 ----------

No, the virus is doing that all by itself, mate.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The question i have to ask is for every life saved how many lives are ruined by the lockdown .

Re: Coronavirus
 

I'll ask again, what do you think is an acceptable amount of deaths for the UK to have to sustain in order to protect the economy?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Old Boy falsely claiming we can't influence the number of deaths by either by managing the health service or delaying as much as possible until a vaccine is found.

Your opinions are so wrong as to be absolutely dangerous Old Boy.

There's a reason why Germany and South Korea have relatively few deaths and a reason the UK, Spain and Italy have a high number.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Imagine how much worse it would be if we didn't have the lockdown in place.

Re: Coronavirus
 

That bears not thinking about.

Re: Coronavirus
 

This question however merits serious discussion.

It's very easy for some of us (and i include myself) to site and ride this out, we have nice homes, lots of subscription tv services, gardens etc.

There are areas of Middlesbrough (I'm sure down your way also is the same and the rest of the country) where the housing is back to back two up two down with no gardens, poverty etc.)

The mayor of Middlesbrough in his infinite wisdom has kept parks closed denying access to those that need access to green space the most

---------- Post added at 12:30 ---------- Previous post was at 12:18 ----------

You can also add Greece and New Zealand to the list of countries that did 'well' in terms of cases and deaths. Greece i think had 'just' 139 recorded deaths.

The saddest thing of all is that so much of this could have been avoided had we looked to other countries who were ahead of us in terms of the outbreak.

The UK dilly dallied with it's response and as such we are paying a higher price than we could of been.

Re: Coronavirus
 

This is where it's important that targeted Government intervention supports those who need it at this time. What would people do with this support? Buy essentials, pay bills. This is money pushed back through the system.

At the other side ensure that the tax system is reformed to capture tax from the main beneficiaries of the lockdown (Amazon, large supermarkets, etc.) to ensure everyone comes back to a level playing field.

It's really not rocket science if there's political will to do it. However for some like Old Boy, even in one the darkest moments for humanity, he can't extract himself from his bitter opposition to state intervention even where it's there to support the small business owners etc. To the extent he views hundreds of thousands of deaths, and undoubtedly millions globally, as a price worth paying. It's quite sad really.