Re: Coronavirus
 

It might not be fun but it's necessary to any effective response. Throwing their hands in the air and saying it's too hard = national lockdown in weeks.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

That's why we need to get herd immunity.....

---------- Post added at 19:55 ---------- Previous post was at 19:51 ----------

It shows how infectious and virulent the virus is. It also shows why it is far too early to compare deaths between countries. As I keep saying, all we are doing is delaying these cases.

---------- Post added at 19:57 ---------- Previous post was at 19:55 ----------

Next time, the restrictions should concentrate on the 'at risk' and vulnerable groups. There is no point in shutting down the whole economy again.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Simply not an option unfortunately - the cost in terms of human lives is too great, it'd be politically unacceptable. Equally, there's guarantee of long term immunity at all and the long term health effects on those who do survive is unknown.

You are assuming that we don't get better at treatments and that a vaccine wouldn't be developed.

The economy won't recover until the health crisis has been resolved. Your proposal to let a deadly virus pass through the population doesn't bode well for consumer confidence.

Until people believe they can go around their daily lives with little/no risk the economy is going to go down and unemployment up.

Re: Coronavirus
 

As originally planned, until the modelling showed the social and economic cost of having that many people sick so quickly was unbearable. HMG dropped it pretty quickly and won’t be going back. Herd immunity will now only arise from a vaccination programme.

Re: Coronavirus
 

That simply is not true. The aim was always to time a lockdown so that the NHS wasn't overwhelmed. You just have to accept it's not going away in a hurry and the cases will continue whatever.
March 16th

Re: Coronavirus
 

A viral expert said on today's Andrew Marr Show that the virus was spreading more than ever, that he doesn't expect a vaccine until at least 2021 and that we will be impacted by an even worse pandemic (though it's not known if this will be in 1 or 100 years).

Looks like people like myself have a stark choice of staying inside until whenever a vaccine is found or going outside and risking death.

Been told that if we get the virus, we had a 50/50 chance of survival, but that that new drug found to help the other week has increased our risk of survival to 66%. It's like being told that if we go outside we will probably be ok, but that there is a sniper about and we stand a good chance of being killed.

There's no way that i'm going to risk my life just to go out and spend to help the economy!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000kc2h It's a guy about halfway through with a foreign accent.

Re: Coronavirus
 

There’s no need for us to be so defeatist, given the progress that we, and other countries, have seen to keep the numbers down. With a number of vaccines in development.

Herd immunity has been binned. The reality is that fully easing of restrictions fully leaves us no more than a few weeks from a March 23rd type situation - national lockdown.

This is not politically or economically sustainable.

I’ve no real idea why some persist in going against the established position that our Government has taken by continuing to push the discredited herd immunity theory of letting the virus run through the population. What are you trying to achieve? Are people that desperate for the FTSE to go up 500 points they think hundreds of thousands (Current death total has taken us to avoid 14% of the population - less than the 60-80 required for herd immunity) of lives are a price worth paying?

Re: Coronavirus
 

That absolutely is true.

The best estimate of community exposure to COVID-19 so far was just 7% of the population by the end of April, based on a study done in England. At that rate it’s safe to conclude that we can’t have sufficient natural exposure to bring about herd immunity without overwhelming the NHS. Too many people need to be seriously ill at the same time.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52837593

Re: Coronavirus
 

Temporary tax reductions for the leisure sector sound sensible. I don't know how much capacity there is for public spending cuts though. Now is a time to be inventive and not same old, same old.
https://www.ft.com/content/b6cc50e8-...e-a825ec865b69

Re: Coronavirus
 

With borrowing costs at record lows now is the time to commit to public spending. Especially infrastructure projects that will reap long term economic benefits.

It’s been proven that austerity gives you a slower recovery. Tired, outdated economic policy running the state like a household budget isn’t going to save the economy now. It should be dismissed for what it is - a simplistic trope to sell the idea of a small state to the economically illiterate while the profitable arms of the state were sold off.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Do you mean EXPRESS-style? :)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Protecting the vulnerable is all that's required. Shutting down the economy is not something that can be sustained, repeated or enforced.

In comparing the number of deaths in this country with that of others, I stand by my statement that it is too early to make those comparisons. Not only will there be future waves, but we are all counting differently.

Most people accept that we have to get the country back to work now, and if we have to mandate that masks be worn and proective screens erected to reassure those who are scared, so be it. But the economy must be working effectively again without delay.

---------- Post added at 11:02 ---------- Previous post was at 10:59 ----------

Doesn't it depend on what further measures are put in place?

---------- Post added at 11:04 ---------- Previous post was at 11:02 ----------

Had they simply protected the vulnerable, the numbers would not have been anywhere near as high as they have been and the economy would still be in good shape. There was no need for this global over-reaction.

Re: Coronavirus
 

All down to The Bank of England doing a lot of Quantitative Easing. But who do they borrow from? And at what rates?

The very low Base Rate means the banks can get income for almost nothing, so they don't need to attract Depositors any more. Hence large drops in Depositor interest rates.

So the Capitalist System demands we "Spend! Spend! Spend!" to support the economy, rather than save for leaner times.

Unfortunately, many have noticed during lockdown that we used to spend far too much money on frivolous things. The missus, for example, sorted out all her clothes and footwear and announced "I never need to buy more ever again!"

:(:(:(:(:(:(

Re: Coronavirus
 

Sadly, I think he is right, but I anticipate that a resurgence will be sooner rather than later. And indeed, if anyone thinks we will get everyone vaccinated in the near future, they are deluding themselves. No effective vaccine has been discovered yet, although I am told it won't be long before one is found. But then it needs testing on animals, testing on humans, it then needs to be mass produced, distributed to hospitals and doctors' practices and then inoculations will commence. This process will not have been completed until 2022 at the earliest, I would have thought.