Re: Coronavirus
 

The selfish me me me *******s will always break the rules sadly as they will never make sacrifices for the greater good of this country in a time of grave crisis.

Re: Coronavirus
 

When did the government ever say we would be in lockdown for 18 months or until we found a vaccine? It is not practical or sustainable to impose such restrictions and the population won't stand for it.

What 2008 did for us was 10 years of austerity. We are already in a worse position than in 2008 due to the lockdown. I'm not sure what economic theory you are using to reassure yourself that everything is actually OK. It most certainly is not OK.

Re: Coronavirus
 

No one except you has mentioned lockdown for 18 months.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The reality is is even with a very gradual easing of the lockdown the old normal that we had will not be the new normal and l am afraid the citizens of this country will have to get used to that.

---------- Post added at 11:06 ---------- Previous post was at 11:04 ----------

The economy is going to take a long time to recover to even get back to what it was with the last quarter of last year.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You're a right one to talk about 'patronising armchair analysis', jfman. What you have just described is not lockdown - it's social distancing, which is indeed the government's approach.

However, I will be most interested to know how that will work in practice with our overcrowded public transport systems.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Meanwhile, even allowing for the 'rally to the flag' effect, Boris is ridiculously popular at the moment. He's outstripping the whole G7. In the chart of 9 major economies here: https://morningconsult.com/form/appr...amid-pandemic/ he's pipped only slightly, by the president of Mexico. Where approval increases have occurred, they have tended to level off - except in Johnson's case, which as of right now is still rising steeply (though I admit I can't see how it can possibly go much higher, because that would require him to make serious inroads into the 'i always vote for der laber, my dad voted for der laber, my grandad voted for der laber, we all vote for der laber in mi house, i hate torees.' territory).

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...1&d=1587982405

Re: Coronavirus
 

What do you suggest?

Re: Coronavirus
 

18 months is how long it may take to get a vaccine. If you cannot imagine a lockdown until then, what exactly will be different before that time that allows it to be ended?

Some will point out that testing is the answer, but none of them are reliable. They may give a false sense of security, but they are not a solution.

As I said before, social distancing is not practical. I mentioned public transport, which is obvious, but what about hairdressers, dentists and all those other workers who have no choice but to get close to their customers? Are we going to stop them working for 18 months?

We'd better hope that the theory I mentioned some posts back that the virus will die out naturally (as did previous coronaviruses) is correct, because that is the best solution of all, but it is out of our hands.

Re: Coronavirus
 

We are in a global pandemic Old Boy - of course everything isn't okay. However, what you are advocating is to ignore a worldwide health crisis and pretend everything is normal. I've stated over and over again - death does very little for consumer confidence, increased rates of sick leave and self isolation leave much of the economy not viable anyway.

You warn, almost gleefully, of the dangerous second wave coming for other countries yet ignore the fact we are at precarious risk of it here.

There's plenty of economic theories that demonstrate state intervention can kickstart economies following a slump. We made our way out the Great Depression with Keynesian economics and similarly could do so again.

I understand it goes against your views ideologically, fundamentally essentially it demonstrates market failure and relies upon state intervention, however that's never been a valid reason to not do anything.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Old Boy, this is why you're receiving a bit of flack at the moment. Den was talking about the length of time it can take to get a vaccine onto the market whereas you misunderstood it to mean the length of time for the lockdown.

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.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

This is a question all governments answer all the time, with regards to health policy. In wars, they answer it too, in terms of acceptable losses balanced against military advantage.

I'm not sure how fair it is to expect a solid answer to such a question on an internet forum. I expect the balancing act is highly delicate. To attempt to just splash a figure here would be the very definition of crass. Nevertheless, just because it is a difficult question to be handled sensitively, it does not follow that the question should not be answered. It has to be.

Re: Coronavirus
 

If someone is prepared to say on an internet forum that they think there is an acceptable loss of life in order to protect the economy, they should also be prepared to provide that value and defend their viewpoint in a reasonable discussion.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

No. Acknowledging that government involves difficult choices between competing issues of critical importance is not the same as professing expertise in making those choices. And I think its a more honest position than making virtue-signalling comments like 'whatever it takes.'

I don't know where the line should be drawn and I'm thankful I don't have to make that call. But I acknowledge that somebody has to.

Re: Coronavirus
 

We are in uncharted waters and I think that we have to accept there are no certainties for now. It's obvious that science,medical knowledge are running to keep up at present. I would rather the media would stop endlessly ramping up the worry and anxiety levels with constant speculation and guesswork and just stick to the facts as they have been announced by WHO and our local homegrown experts.

Re: Coronavirus
 

NHS officials have issued a high-priority alert warning of a rise in children presenting with a 'multisystem inflammatory state requiring intensive care' amid concerns the cases could be related to coronavirus.
https://www.gponline.com/gps-alerted...rticle/1681480

Re: Coronavirus
 

Can't see many parents wanting to send their kids to schools if there's one, or possibly two, serious infections doing the rounds.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I say again, the virus will determine that. We are slowing it down, not stopping infections.

---------- Post added at 13:28 ---------- Previous post was at 13:26 ----------

Do you seriously believe that, jfman, or are you offering everyone false hope?

---------- Post added at 13:29 ---------- Previous post was at 13:28 ----------

It would be over a lot quicker, that's all.

---------- Post added at 13:31 ---------- Previous post was at 13:29 ----------

Here we go again, attack capitalism!

What you advocate in relation to the lockdown measures would have been very popular with King Canute. He was a great advocate of the power of hope and delusion over nature.

---------- Post added at 13:32 ---------- Previous post was at 13:31 ----------

I see no bears, Den. That is just alarmist. :D

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

This continues to be incorrect. You are assuming that everyone will be infected, that that they will be offered the exact same type of medical intervention at all times and that no improvements in either treatment or in the form of a vaccine will arise. Not all of those statements are true.

Indeed, you are contradicting yourself in your desperation of selling everyone the falsehood that the economy needs to reopen at all costs.

On one hand you are telling us that the likelihood is that herd immunity is the solution - in which case slowing the spread ensures that medical services are not overrun as we saw in Italy. On the other you are telling us that the virus could die off or mutate itself out of existence the summer - in which case what's the rush? Let's sit it out til the end of August and lives will be saved.

I absolutely stand by my statements here.

Not for the grieving families it wouldn't.

Re: Coronavirus
 

What nonsense, jfman. I'd really like to know what kind of state intervention you have in mind. The money to keep people away from their employment will eventually run out. Then what will we do? And those on pensions won't be ok either, there will be no money for that.

If you are applying rocket science to how you deal with this virus, it explains why you think this is such a straight forward nut to crack. If you're a rocket scientist, that is.

You may delude yourself that mankind will always beat nature, but nature has a way of proving us wrong.

---------- Post added at 13:48 ---------- Previous post was at 13:41 ----------

You have not understood this, have you?

Of course we should take practical measures to slow down this virus. But you will not stop it.

You may save people from dying now, but they will still die tomorrow. It is a better policy to protect the vulnerable and at the same time create herd immunity in the healthy population than take futile measures that wreck the economy and achieve only a slowing down of the progress of the virus.

By protecting the vulnerable in this way, there will be much less risk of those people much more susceptible to the worst effects of this virus actually catching it.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Mankind will never beat nature that is for sure.

Its because of mankind and its the rampant destruction of the natural world that we are in this mess.

There is a single species responsible for the Covid-19 pandemic and that is us humans.

If humans don't learn from this pandemic then future pandemics will inevitably be worse then this one.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Old Boy I really think you should go for a lie down.

I've clearly outlined that I think the state should support people's incomes, and pointed out that this supports the underlying economy that we will inevitably return to in due course.

If you aren't willing, or are unable, to understand that at a macroeconomic level states can bankroll projects and investment in a way that you cannot as an individual then the conversation will continue to go around in circles.

I'm sure you understand that describing something as 'not rocket science' is a common turn of phrase to indicate that something is not as difficult to do as others suggest.

I'm completely unsure where your last sentence comes from. It's almost as if you want the virus to 'win' in some perverse way.

Can I just ask OB have you go investments that you were intending to cash in on in the next 12-36 months? It's really the only reason why I can understand your impassioned, if at times incomprehensible, sales pitch that we are all inevitably doomed so we should return to our minimum wage jobs to survive our last few months on this earth.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Spot on, Seph. What I am opposed to is futile actions that destroy the economy.

I am used to some on here that like to twist what I say into something completely different so they can have an argument. However, I hope that the majority on here get my drift.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Except the actions are not futile, and the Government can support the economy just as every other Government in the world (and the EU) will have to do the same.

Re: Coronavirus
 

SOME will still die with the lockdown in place, however the death rate without a lockdown in place would be on who knows what exponential. (Whatever it is, it won't be as 'low' as it is now)

Re: Coronavirus
 

I have made no such assumptions, jfman. You are again twisting this to suit your own argumentative agenda. If you are going to comment on my posts, at least get the quotes right.

I accept that we might get a vaccine sooner rather than later, but that's just a hope, not a fact, and mass distribution of that vaccine is unlikely to be available at all this year. You are clutching at straws and giving false hope by describing the absolutely best case scenario, which is most unlike you! :D

---------- Post added at 14:01 ---------- Previous post was at 13:59 ----------

A pretty good observation, Den.

Re: Coronavirus
 

It would be over a damn site quicker, absolutely, it would also lead to the complete and utter collapse of the NHS, & utter destruction of the economy.

BTW Attack capitalism? If that's how you view it fair enough. But in a capitalist market by its very definition, things must be allowed to fail.

You make the money? you should be saving for the rainy days

---------- Post added at 14:02 ---------- Previous post was at 14:01 ----------

One could argue that this is simply a virus at war with another virus

Re: Coronavirus
 

It's not me bursting a blood vessel here, jfman. I am going to let you take a spell to calm yourself.

I have made my views perfectly clear for most people but you are either not understanding them or you are deliberately trying to send me up.

I also understand what you are saying. However, I don't think any amount of arguing will resolve the differences between us on this.

I guess we will soon see what doesn't work and what does.

---------- Post added at 14:16 ---------- Previous post was at 14:08 ----------

This is why the lockdown was introduced, to flatten out the statistics. So we agree on that.

Where we diverge is that you say (if I interpret you correctly) that the lockdown should continue to avoid deaths.

However, it won't. The virus will still claim its victims, but not so quickly.

Would it not be better to protect the vulnerable and let herd immunity do its magic with the healthier population, ensuring that the vulnerable are among the 20% who escape its impact? That's what I am advocating.

That way, we minimise the impact and get the economy going again.

However, whether even that would succeed is debateable. The elderly in care homes are dying in great numbers, despite being given as much isolation as is practicable. However maybe, just maybe, we can protect the vulnerable in their own homes.

Re: Coronavirus
 

No, he wasn't - King Canute did what he did to show he couldn't hold back the tide, not to try and hold back the tide. https://www.medievalists.net/2015/05...and-the-waves/

Re: Coronavirus
 

No, that idea is of no more value now than when it was dismissed out of hand by going into lockdown.

There's nothing magic about 250,000 deaths. I have to say I find some of your use of language here utterly appalling.

Re: Coronavirus
 

But we don't know yet whether we can acquire immunity to CV-19 do we? From just two days ago:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-52425825

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

It may be subject to weekend delays but today's figure of around 350 is very encouraging.

Re: Coronavirus
 

So, a couple of points.

1) Lockdown does not mean the same amount of deaths over a longer period of time. It means less deaths over a longer period of time as we have the resources and the equipment to be able to manage the amount of cases that required dedicated intensive care.

IF it was the same amount of deaths that would occur regardless of if you had a lockdown or not, you might, just have a point.

2) You keep talking about herd immunity, again, there's no evidence to support that herd immunity is a way to get out of this. We simply do not know. As a side case, there's currently thirty three identified strains of SARS-COV-2 affecting the human race.

Therefore even if herd immunity were to work you're looking at multiple instances of that being required.

Re: Coronavirus
 

We'll not know that until they are exposed to a second infection.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Things do seem to be going in the right direction at least. Taking into account the 'weekend effect', here are the numbers for the last few Mondays;

27th April - 413
20th April - 596
13th April - 737
6th April - 621
30th March - 209

Re: Coronavirus
 

You had better hope so, since thats how vaccines work.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Where did you get 413 from?

Re: Coronavirus
 

That’s yesterday’s figure - today’s was 350 for England, Wales, and Scotland.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Ok that was a bit confusing.

Re: Coronavirus
 

A lot of media rounds are quoting it, certainly twitter made it read like today’s from a number of sources. That said that’s what I get for going on twitter.

Re: Coronavirus
 

In fairness the .gov website still shows yesterdays figures.

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...2&d=1588002398

Re: Coronavirus
 

Oops, my mistake for not reading properly!

Re: Coronavirus
 

From the BBC site just now

Also worth repeating, the 6,213 did not all necessarily die because of the virus, they simply tested positive for it.
All such cases are counted, regardless of the actual cause of death.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The £60,000 award to families of healthcare workers who died is a nice touch. Obviously nothing will compensate but I have to say I’m pleasantly surprised at the Tories for announcing that with no prompting.

Re: Coronavirus
 

not indefinitely.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Indeed, however nobody is claiming that will be necessary. An effective lockdown to get the numbers down, followed by an appropriately scaled testing programme, working at home for anyone who can, screening at airports and social distancing could see sections of the economy opening up in a few weeks to a few months at most allowing Government to target support at those areas that cannot open up.

This only gets dragged out longer if we make a hash of it, encounter a deadly second wave, the NHS collapses under pressure and we end up back at square one - something that genuinely would have devastating economic consequences because relatively speaking other countries would not be in the same position at the same time allowing them to get competitive advantage in international markets while we have to shut everything down.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well I've been sent April's payslip.

Well with 1 week self isolating and 2 days awake (SSP) by my mums hospital bed, followed by 4 week furloughed by April wage is down by 50%.

Luckily I can ride this storm until July 1st when I should be back at work.

I can go longer but savings will suffer.

Re: Coronavirus
 

So pretty much just continue as we are then. Big thing omitted from that though is schools.

Until schools and Nursery/child care is lifted, many people wont be able to go back to work and this will be a major issue. .

Re: Coronavirus
 

Good point but I know plenty of couples sharing childcare responsibilities who are working different hours to accommodate childcare and employers are now receptive to these situations who hadn't been in the past.

Re: Coronavirus
 

We are approaching the school holidays in any case. So reopening schools is an unnecessary risk when we get a free couple of months on the end when we get there. Child care will likely be allowed in some circumstances during the summer holidays.

If people can't return to work that will help employers enforce social distancing so it is swings and roundabouts really.

There will also be a lot of work done to establish what safety measures are required in terms of PPE for businesses and to ensure supplies can be manufactured to allow more people to work to return safely.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Just watched Panorama. The Tories have blood on their hands.

Re: Coronavirus
 

If the schools aren’t opened on June 1st, then they won’t open again until September. But when not in school my kids go to holiday club, as do a lot of kids.

maybe/maybe not.

Just interested in what you perceive the difference in risk between schools and child care? You obviously see a difference.

Not really, if businesses need to start back up and have key people they need, that can’t come to work - what do they do?

---------- Post added at 20:42 ---------- Previous post was at 20:41 ----------

Good old fair and balanced Panorama, you off to sharpen your pitchfork.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yeah whatever

Re: Coronavirus
 

So what distorted garbage was in it?


1) Which heavily affected country had enough PPE? Not even South Korea did.
2) John Hopkins University(USA) stated that the UK was 2nd best prepared for a pandemic.
3) Plans have been forged since the Civil Contingency Act(2004).
4) Have the devolved governments done any better?
National Risk Register report for 2008.
2016 report
Pandemic preparedness report from 2015 on face masks.
As it mentions a previous HPA review, the policy before then was the same.

Re: Coronavirus
 

2nd best prepared country? Given how unprepared we were that’s like being the second best sexually transmitted infection.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Let me guess, you have just listened to a ranting session from Dr. John Ashton, venomously Anti-Tory, Anti-Brexit and it's all their fault?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Are yes, Panarama, well know for its fair, unbiased, non sensationist reporting.

I would trust it about as much as I trust the Sun.

Re: Coronavirus
 

It's not a perceived difference it's an actual difference.

Child care, nurseries or clubs will be smaller numbers in each location. Additionally take up of these services is much lower than state mandated education.

If there was an outbreak this would be easier to manage, contact trace, test and isolate.

Adapt, hire temporary staff, arrange childcare for their key staff or remain closed along with the pubs.

It's not up to the Government to find a workable solution for every single scenario that this forum can invent on the journey to 'normal'. It's simply not practical.

It's already accepted by Government there will be no going back to 'normal' until into next year.

Re: Coronavirus
 

So remind me again, who exactly was prepared?

Re: Coronavirus
 

South Korea. Simply because we would balk at the idea of surrendering privacy is simply Darwinism in action - being too stupid to survive.

They may well not have had enough masks but I'd rather have their body count, and closer return to a normal economy than ours.

Some in this thread want to surrender 200,000 souls to get the economy going, l'd say a short term invasion of privacy seems a small price to pay.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Wrong Mick, guess whatever the hell you like.

---------- Post added at 21:12 ---------- Previous post was at 21:12 ----------

Remind me again, which is your preferred STI?

---------- Post added at 21:14 ---------- Previous post was at 21:12 ----------

If all the points it raised get to be proven wrong I'll happily post that my opinion has changed.

But i wouldn't hold your breath.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well, if you hadn’t just posted a one liner, I wouldn’t have to guess.

You’ve made a claim, back it up, posting you’ve just watched a BBC Propaganda hit piece, with chatter from Dr John Ashton, doesn’t cut it for me.

Re: Coronavirus
 

So the South Korean rules on testing didn't work. They were disregarded by that medical officer.
When 61% of your cases can be traced back to just one person, it makes it a lot easier.
If there are more points of introduction of the virus spread around the country, it leads to more cases and more difficultly tracing anybody. IT DOES NOT SPONTANEOUSLY ARISE. It has to be introduced somewhere. It should be blatantly obvious that the more points of introduction means more cases. There is no simple way of comparing number of cases between countries. Just as you can't compare Northern Italy with Southern Italy. Southern Italy didn't magically do better.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yes, and our lack of lockdown and airport screening contributed to more points of introduction. Our lack of any meaningful contact tracing mean we probably have no idea the original cases in all the strains in the UK.

We haven't got 10% of the global deaths by pure bad luck as you seem to be portraying. These are lessons that need to be learned soon, or else we will face more restrictions for longer.

You raise an interesting point though about the privacy angle. I wonder if the US, UK and billionaire owned media would have done a better job selling the idea had they understood the economic impact sooner. As it stands a tracing app appears to be part of our way out.

I wonder if the elderly, the furloughed or even just those dying for a pint in a pub before 2021 would have readily conceded had they fully understood the seriousness of the pandemic.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Of course there will be a smaller number if kids that attend these venues, however the numbers of children actually in contact with each would be around the same as a normal class size ( anywhere between 15-30) and many many smaller but numerous < 15 operating all over.

It’s as much a risk as a school and vice versa.

so would a school? The pupils are all known, easily traced and isolated?

my point was about specific skills, what if known are available? what if, as discussed, there is non-available as it is closed but they’ve been told they can operate, and therefore will no longer be able to claim government assistance.....just go out of business then?

Wow, at last.........an admission from you that government cannot do all or be responsible for all.

You’re on the right path now, keep walking.

Re: Coronavirus
 

When you start to do the homework, it all hits home - Panorama Editor is Rachel Jupp, who just happens to be the sister-in-law of Labour MP, Helen Hayes.

Dr John Ashton, Labour Member said back in March that he feared the NHS will be unable to manage the large numbers of people who will become seriously sick, he bitterly suggested by saying:

“It’s a joke when they put up people to say they are really on top of it and if it spreads at a community level the NHS will cope, it’s always coped. The hospitals are full at the moment, A&Es are full, beds are full, intensive care is full.”

Every single person that has got Covid-19 and landed in hospital has been treated and not been turned away because beds were "full". So how wrong was he?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Link

Re: Coronavirus
 

Not a high school, two in my town have over a thousand pupils all changing classrooms every hour, intervals, lunchtimes, buses to and from.

As above.

What would they do if said person got hit by a bus tomorrow? It doesn't sound like good business continuity planning for one person to be mission critical.

You've completely misunderstood my point, potentially wilfully for the purposes of being obtuse.

The Government can take responsibility for the people, businesses and underlying economy. It cannot simply create a set of rules for everyone, in every set of circumstances, to carry on working safely as if there's no global pandemic on the go.

I have no need to keep walking anywhere. My point has been entirely consistent throughout.

I fail to see why you are spending your time asking me to provide solutions for things I don't think should be happening in the short term in any case. The "open the economy" side must really be scraping the bottom of the barrell if I've to provide the informed arguments for and against.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I was not referring to high schools, kids from high school age are less likely to be involved in holiday clubs or child care because they can take care of themselves.

I’m sure everyone plans for that situation, and ensures they have clean underwear too.

not at all, I thought younhsd been enlightened.

Marxism in 12 words.....well done.

Of course it can. I though you were a socialist! I’m really heartened to see this change in you.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Some thoughts here on how the country may operate post-lockdown.
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavir...eased-11979256

Re: Coronavirus
 

All perfectly sensible. Presumably about to be described as Marxist, hysterical, extreme or unnecessary by certain elements of the forum.

I await with baited breath the condemnation of the Government from those who usually defend it...

Re: Coronavirus
 

As Professor Chris Whitty warned yesterday there is still a very long way to go in this coronavirus crisis and sadly he expects many more lives to be lost yet.

The old normal is a very distant dream now and has disappeared way over the horizon to be replaced by the new normal which the vast majority of us are getting used to apart from a few selfish idiots.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I agree. It is good that this is being aired to the whole country. The report is pretty damning.

Re: Coronavirus
 

We have one of the worst death rates in the World, the real number is likely to be closer to 40,000, given they are only giving hospital deaths. We were given plenty of warning but were too slow to react. The PPE shambles and running down of the NHS over the last 10 years has hit us hard. Getting the virus doesn't make Boris a martyr, or mean he isn't incompetent. . It will take decades for this country to recover, other countries will recover quicker. The fallout from this will end many political careers.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yes indeed people will remember the infighting and backstabbing within the Labour party while the Tory's took charge and protected the country.

Re: Coronavirus
 

As was The Sunday Times dossier and that is a moderate Conservative newspaper which would not go too far out of its way to criticise the government too much.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Best laugh I’ve had in lockdown.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Don't know which parallel world you've been in Smurf... Unfortunately the job losses, tax rises, house price crash will wake a few up.

Some good will come though, house prices coming down is long overdue. Nationalisation is back. Public services being valued. People are being nicer to each other, a sense of community is back, we certainly are all in this together now. It's not Tory territory.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Really? You should get Netflix. Look up Tiger King, it’s a hoot. ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

It might not be natural Tory territory but Comrade Sunak is doing a grand job. ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yeah the lad's got potential ;)