Cable Forum - Coronavirus (OLD)

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)

- Current Affairs (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=20)

- - Coronavirus (OLD) (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33708712)

An interesting article was published by The Health Foundation in early June in the Covid-19 Chart Series.

Quote:

Understanding excess deaths: variation in the impact of COVID-19 between countries, regions and localities.

https://www.health.org.uk/news-and-c...ons-localities

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36040690)

There’s no clear definition of “vulnerable” for the virus. Yes, there are higher at risk groups but there are also those outwith having severe health impacts, and ultimately deaths.

Shutting down the economy can easily be sustained, repeated and enforced if that’s the most cost effective way of dealing with the virus.

You can continue to stand by statements all you like however when they are flawed and against all known evidence then it simply discredits your arguments.

Again based on the flawed belief that human behaviour returns to normal or that businesses can survive on reduced demand in the economy. For many they cannot - and when they scale back and put people on the dole the outcome is inevitable. An entrenched long term recession that will be harder to get out of and cost the public purse more in the long run.

Unless the Government intends to stimulate demand in the economy - but that goes against your ideology and defeats your original intent which is to keep the state out of it.

How would the numbers be lower by “protecting the vulnerable”. We protected the vulnerable, and everyone else while we were at it, and still had devastating figures.

It’s a flawed logic, ignores reality and distracts from the steps that we, and all other countries, must take if there’s to be any meaningful return to normal for the foreseeable future.

---------- Post added at 12:50 ---------- Previous post was at 12:49 ----------

Which is why elimination should have been the obvious choice. While it’s a high short term cost, it has the greatest long term gains.

I think that the Government only class people like me as being vulnerable (those at serious risk from the coronavirus). This has caused problems as those who are 'just' disabled don't qualify for automatic priority for online grocery slots.

Tesco includes the disabled as also being entitled to these slots e.g. blind people, but Asda are refusing to and have been threatened with group legal action for not complying with the 'reasonable adjustment' provision of the Equality Act.

---------- Post added at 21:39 ---------- Previous post was at 21:28 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36040714)

Just had a chat with my bro-in-law, who is a research SVP for a large* biosimilars company in the USA - they are, and I quote

No matter what Governments are saying, he says most of the Pharma and biosimilar companies are expecting the 2nd wave September/October, and are planning for that - it’s not just following the science, it’s following the money behind the science.

The company he works for has already started human testing of an experimental Covid-19 antibody cocktail designed as a treatment for the disease, and they should know within a month whether the treatment is effective.

*market cap of $70 billion

Oh I do hope so Hugh, it's absolutely awful having to stay permanently inside. It was on the news that the Government is to reduce the requirements for shielding in a couple of weeks and scrap them completely in August. This means that our free weekly box of foodstuff will stop too.

As I see it though, at this point in time, nothing has changed. There is still no vaccine and herd immunity isn't working. The only thing that has improved is that we will get a hospital bed as the NHS won't be overwhelmed now that the peak has passed.

If we catch it, we still only have a 50% chance of survival (well, slightly more since that drug was found to help the other week).

I suspect those that can will still stay inside, apart from those who have to go back to work because the Government will be stopping their Statutory Sick Pay.

Quote:

Originally Posted by joglynne (Post 36040777)

An interesting article was published by The Health Foundation in early June in the Covid-19 Chart Series.

https://www.health.org.uk/news-and-c...ons-localities

Excess deaths seem to be the settled metric at this point. Interestingly France and the Netherlands have very little difference between their excess deaths and those marked as COVID. I wonder if we're therefore seeing fewer people die of non-COVID related illnesses in lockdown or if they're overly cautious in marking deaths as COVID related.

Anytime you feel like an answering the question

Quote:

just how long can a shutdown of the economy be “easily” sustained?

Just go right ahead and say so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36040769)

Considering we didn’t fully pay off the debt to free slaves until 2015 it’s important to remember Government borrowing in context.

Wow, OK. When the Government financed that act in 1830 something that was 40% of its budget. Last year the government budget was £821B, 40% of that is £328B, a figure already stated as the cost of the pandemic, and we’re not through it yet, and you are happily content to continue racking up the debt with gay abandon. You quite happy for the taxpayers to payoff this debt that is easily “handled
“ for the next millennium, after all it won’t be your problem.

Quote:

We are already £2 trillion in debt,

Brilliant, that’s a razor sharp economic mind at work right there.

Quote:

and nobody regrets the glory days of cheap council houses and selling off nationalised industry on the cheap.

They were all sold off at market rate, Investors of nationalised industry bought companies that had been chronically starved of investment with workforce’s used to public sector mentality and unaffordable pensions.

Quote:

The Government will always be in debt.

and there is a tipping point, but again you don’t care about that

Quote:

You are under the false belief that we won’t have a recession either way, with a long and protracted one costing far more in the long run and that a normal economy is an option on the table. That’s absolutely fanciful, or to use your terminology “complete bollocks”.

We will undoubtedly have a recession, but you’re happy to Go skipping into a depression.

We are paying off the debt for previous generations for good things that benefit us too (WWII, the formation of the NHS, the introduction of the welfare state, pensions etc).

I don't see a problem with future generations paying off our debt. After all, some (all?) future generations wouldn't exist if we had decided not to spend money on trying to control this virus, tackle climate change etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36040790)

After all, some (all?) future generations wouldn't exist if we had decided not to spend money on trying to control this virus, tackle climate change etc.

I think you are being a little over dramatic. :erm:
Even if left completely uncontrolled, the virus was only expected to kill about 2% of the population, mostly older people, hardly the end of future generations. :sleep:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36040800)

2%=130,000 deaths, the health service overwhelmed, and others with life threatening illnesses not getting treatment.

If we had locked down earlier half of the deaths we had could have been avoided, and we wouldn't have had the most deaths in Europe. Our Govt was sleeping at the beginning to of this, hence Boris proudly shaking Coronavirus patients hands. Guess what happened next?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-53145629

Quote:

Cinemas, museums and galleries will be able to reopen in England from 4 July, Boris Johnson is expected to announce on Tuesday as he outlines a further easing of coronavirus restrictions.

Venues closed since the middle of March will be able to welcome visitors as long as safety measures are in place.

The PM is also due to set out how pubs can safely reopen following a review of the 2m distancing rule.

Quote:

He is expected to announce the plans in Parliament at about 12:30 BST.
Mr Johnson is expected to say the 2m (6ft 6in) social distancing rule will be reduced to 1m (3ft 3in) from 4 July, with some mitigating measures.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36040690)

Now you are just arguing for the sake of it. We do know who the high risk groups are, and 'vulnerable' people have underlying health conditions. By isolating them, most deaths can be avoided.

Shutting down the economy has a dreadful impact on businesses, creating unemployment on potentially a massive scale. For some perverse reason, you may not care about that, but there are many, many parents with children for whom this would be their worst nightmare, taking them from financial security and throwing them into poverty. Your answer to the crisis would simply kill the goose that lays golden eggs.

You reference my quote relating to second waves and statistics from other countries as being 'flawed and against all known evidence'. Really, jfman, what planet are you on? Regarding second waves, unless you are completely cut off from the news, you must have heard the scientists talking about that (and indeed further waves), which the likes of China and Germany are already experiencing - and during the hot summer months, too). This highly infectious disease has not gone away, so what do you expect? Anyone who has not yet had the virus will ultimately get it until such time as we acquire the herd immunity you hate talking about or the virus comes to the end of its life for some natural reason and dies out by itself. That, however, is wishful thinking, but scientists do think that might happen.

As for the statistics from other countries, do come off it! You may wish, for your own reasons, to show the UK in a bad light, but can you really not see that each country has its own way of compiling these figures? You are not comparing like for like when we include all known Covid deaths and some countries are only recording deaths in hospitals. If we did that, current figures for the UK would be about 26,000 deaths. How do I know that? Well, because the government's own figures show that 62% of deaths have been in hospitals.

Going back to 'protecting the vulnerable', we did not do a good job on that. Had we done so, we would not have allowed our care homes to be infected with the virus as we did, would we?

I'm sorry, jfman, but it is your arguments that are flawed, not mine. The only way this virus will be defeated is if we (a) let it run through the community while protecting the vulnerable and 'at risk' groups, with tight security in care homes; (b) finding, testing, mass manufacturing and then inoculating everyone against the virus, which will take years; or (c) the virus gives up the ghost by itself. The contact and trace systems out there will slow down the virus, but it will not be eliminated by this method.

I cannot see any other practical alternatives. Some countries with lower figures may be a little too quick to be congratulating themselves now, before further waves strike them.

Well, it's a strange day in our house as, for the first time since March, both kids are at school! My eldest has been going in for a few weeks now but we decided that our 12 year old needed the contact with her peers for her mental well being. She was soooo happy this morning which is great as she has been descending in to a bit of a funk recently.

Pulled the key worker card but the school was happy to take both regardless as they are working at less than 10% capacity.

It's eerily quiet here....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36040809)

2%=130,000 deaths, the health service overwhelmed, and others with life threatening illnesses not getting treatment.

sea and we wouldn't have had the most deaths in Europe. Our Govt was sleeping at the beginning to of this, hence Boris proudly shaking Coronavirus patients hands. Guess what happened next?

Delayed, not avoided, Mr K.

I fail to understand why some of you think that this virus will not keep coming back as lockdowns are ceased. It won’t. It is still the deadly, contagious virus that it ever was.

---------- Post added at 09:08 ---------- Previous post was at 09:03 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonbxx (Post 36040825)

Yes, my eldest grandson told his parents that he would never complain about going to school again!

Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36040826)

Delayed infections can save lives, especially when the longer this goes on the better the treatments are.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36040826)

Delayed, not avoided, Mr K.

I fail to understand why some of you think that this virus will not keep coming back as lockdowns are ceased. It won’t. It is still the deadly, contagious virus that it ever was.

---------- Post added at 09:08 ---------- Previous post was at 09:03 ----------

Yes, my eldest grandson told his parents that he would never complain about going to school again!

You keep saying this, but never back it up...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...udy-finds.html

Quote:

Coronavirus is killing its victims up to 13 YEARS before they would have died naturally, study finds
- Men who die of COVID-19 are losing, on average, 13 years of their lives
- While the figure for women is around 11 years, according to new research
- The study goes against claims many victims were likely to have died anyway
- It argues many could have expected years more life if they weren't infected

Men who die of COVID-19 are losing, on average, 13 years of their lives, scientists say, while women have 11 years cut off their life expectancy.

The disease, which has hospitalised more than 100,000 people in the UK, is having a devastating impact comparable to heart disease, the scientists said.

The research was done by Public Health Scotland and experts at the universities of Glasgow and Edinburgh.

It flies in the face of authorities' focus on the 'underlying health conditions' of most of the people dying of COVID-19.

And it goes against claims many of the victims are people who were likely to have died anyway.

Office for National Statistics data shows that most people dying in the UK are aged between 75 and 84.

The Scottish research argues that many of those could have expected years or even more than a decade more life if they hadn't caught the virus.

Even people with long-term illnesses - known as morbidities - are having their lives cut short by many years, they said.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36040848)

You keep saying this, but never back it up...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...udy-finds.html

The Daily Mail is making a different point. Right at the start of this, the government explained that the intention was to slow down the virus so as not to overwhelm the NHS. Do you really not recall that?

If you want a link to verify that was the intention, here it is, but you could have looked it up yourself rather than continually trying to discredit me.

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavir...ut-it-11962901

Good article here by Jay Rayner, food critic on food supply chains and how they were stretched at the start of things;

From panic buying to food banks: how Britain fed itself in the first phase of coronavirus

I was wondering why steaks have been on offer in my local Tescos for so long and now I know why, we were eating like students buying mince and most steaks are sold through restaurants!