Cable Forum - Coronavirus (OLD)

I think the message of common sense is a good one. If you make it very prescriptive there will always be people with valid reasons to break the rules. e.g. you can only travel 5 km to go shopping. What if you live 5.2km from "the shop"? What if you really do live 20km from nearest shop? You can exercise for 1hr, what if you cycled out for 30 mins and on way back had a bike problem or the road is closed forcing a detour over 30 mins? If you prescribe things you have to prescribe exceptions and counter exceptions and so on.
To high-jack Brexit type issue, it's why Eurorules work in some places not others or it gets very complex in countries that have very precise legal frameworks. It's why rules on benefits are complex to try to ensure the entitled are helped but not those who don't need it. The story continues with other areas of life.
So a general relaxation with emphasis on "common sense" both to behaviour and policing of behaviour.
Unfortunately those that abuse common sense either because they are selfish or simple lack any can spoil things for the majority. As at the start before lockdown when it was hinted not to travel beauty spots recorded record visitor levels.

As you have stated above re the police, the problem with the common sense methodology is whilst it's a great idea it in theory it also requires the use of the police service and other enforcement agencies to use the same amount of common sense.

The police have been shown to not be using common sense in multiple cases since the beginning of the lockdown.

It's perfectly common sense in my mind to do many things, but would the police have the same mind? possibly, possibly not. Is there a legal definition for common sense that can be applied in court?

OLD BOY

12-05-2020 10:22

Re: Coronavirus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36034681)

Surely to run its course, the R value needs to be 0.5 or less for whatever time period - prolly very long.

That too, but this would require a very long lockdown.

Sephiroth

12-05-2020 10:34

Re: Coronavirus

Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36034708)

That too, but this would require a very long lockdown.

But would it? any R value other than zero implies a degree of non-lock down.

Bring in well observed "stay alert" mitigations, then lock down is not really necessary. "Well observed" is the buggeration factor.

OLD BOY

12-05-2020 11:01

Re: Coronavirus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36034711)

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36034678)

How many times must we go round in circles.

The role of Government and Central Banks is to support the economy. It can easily do this because government budgets do not operate like household budgets.

The economy tanks either way - the global recession was underway far before lockdown. Death, sick leave and self isolation aren’t good for consumer confidence.

The economic crisis is twinned with the health crisis. If you can’t solve the former without solving the latter, regardless of how many deaths you wish to create by not managing the health emergency the fall in the FTSE is here for a while, as are the supply and demand side shocks that have brought forward a recession that was in the cards anyway.

Protect people’s jobs and incomes for the duration and the economy comes out healthier in the end.

I wish I could believe that, jfman. If that were true, we would not have needed the austerity measures.

While I don't like the prospect of so many deaths being caused by this virus, I think there is some inevitability about it given that there is no real way to prevent them that makes any sense. Crashing the economy to achieve the impossible is madness, to my mind.

downquark1

12-05-2020 11:16

Re: Coronavirus

Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36034713)

I don't think anyone in the government is under the impression this is the end of the matter. They are trying a balancing act and minimising economic and human wellbeing damage.

Russ	12-05-2020 11:17

Re: Coronavirus

Well the austerity measures from 2010 weren’t brought in with the intention of helping us ‘common people’ so let’s hope what we face over the coming years will.

Hugh	12-05-2020 11:39

Re: Coronavirus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ (Post 36034718)

Well the austerity measures from 2010 weren’t brought in with the intention of helping us ‘common people’ so let’s hope what we face over the coming years will.

1andrew1

12-05-2020 12:19

Re: Coronavirus

Quote:

Excess UK deaths in Covid-19 outbreak tops 50,000
Official figures from the statistical agencies are much higher than the government’s daily tally, which stands at 32,065.
The number of UK deaths during the coronavirus outbreak over and above normal levels has exceeded 50,000, official figures confirmed on Tuesday. The Office for National Statistics said that in the week ending May 1, there had been 17,953 deaths in England and Wales recorded, 8,012 higher than the average of the past five years in that week, as the disease killed three times the normal number of people in care homes. This represented the seventh consecutive week that deaths exceeded normal levels and once equivalent figures from Scotland and Northern Ireland were included, takes total mortality across the UK during the pandemic to 50,979.At present this is the highest absolute level of excess deaths in Europe, although figures for Italy are not yet comparable because they are only available to the end of March.

https://www.ft.com/content/40fc8904-...c-ea3e48bbc034

denphone

12-05-2020 12:27

Re: Coronavirus

This is a good read but a long read as go just over halfway down the page and one can download the much fuller article.

https://www.iiss.org/blogs/survival-...k-and-covid-19

.

jfman

12-05-2020 12:54

Re: Coronavirus

Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36034713)

To be honest, I have huge reservations about this. As I have said all along, lift the lockdown and we start all over again, as South Korea, Germany and China are finding out now.

As soon as the measures are even relaxed a little (by allowing people back to work) you increase the rate of infection, particularly amongst those on long commutes.

We have already seen how just one person coming into this country with the infection led to an exponential spread because the damned thing is so infectious. What makes anyone think we can get to any semblance of normality against something like this?

I admire the government for trying, I really do, but in the end, this problem will continue until we find and distribute a vaccine or it dies off by itself. Not a nice prospect.

---------- Post added at 11:01 ---------- Previous post was at 10:55 ----------

I wish I could believe that, jfman. If that were true, we would not have needed the austerity measures.

While I don't like the prospect of so many deaths being caused by this virus, I think there is some inevitability about it given that there is no real way to prevent them that makes any sense. Crashing the economy to achieve the impossible is madness, to my mind.

Austerity was a political choice ideologically driven. But I digress...

Hugh	12-05-2020 12:56

Re: Coronavirus

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-...l_vWy6wkeJzyN0 ]

Quote:

The UK scheme to pay wages of workers on leave because of coronavirus will be extended to October, Chancellor Rishi Sunak said.

He said the government backed workers and companies going into the lockdown, and would support them coming out.

Mr Sunak rejected suggestions some people might get "addicted" to furlough if it was extended.

Some 7.5 million workers are now covered by the scheme, up from 6.3 million last week, he said.

jfman

12-05-2020 12:58

Re: Coronavirus

Quote:

Originally Posted by spiderplant (Post 36034687)

I think need to get your calculator out. ;)

In reality you couldn't maintain R at 0.5. And that's herd immunity.

And Sephs comment below not quoted.

I'm unsure where the calculation has gone wrong - I'm not talking about the total number of infections but the number of people they in turn infect to which trends to zero over time at any value where R remains below 1.

Sephiroth

12-05-2020 13:05

Re: Coronavirus

Cell A1 = 0.5 (the R value)
Cell A2 = 250000 (the starting point for the number of UK infections)
Cell A3 = A2 * A1
Cell A4 = A3*A1
Cell A5 = A4*A1
etc.

I believe in R so long as it can be reasonably determined.

OLD BOY

12-05-2020 13:16

Re: Coronavirus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ (Post 36034718)

Well the austerity measures from 2010 weren’t brought in with the intention of helping us ‘common people’ so let’s hope what we face over the coming years will.

It was to rebuild the economy so we had the money to help your 'common people'. Money doesn't grow on trees, unless you have a garden like Mr Corbyn's.

---------- Post added at 13:16 ---------- Previous post was at 13:15 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36034725)

Austerity was a political choice ideologically driven. But I digress...

Yes, that's what Mr Corbyn thinks. Good luck with that approach.

spiderplant

12-05-2020 13:43

Re: Coronavirus

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36034727)

I'm unsure where the calculation has gone wrong - I'm not talking about the total number of infections but the number of people they in turn infect to which trends to zero over time at any value where R remains below 1.

Yes I realised that after I'd posted but too late to correct my post. Apologies.

As I was taught at a very young age, having a calculator is all well and good, but you have to understand what you're doing with it :dunce:

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:11.

Page 216 of 421

216

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page