Cable Forum
Page 33 of 64 « First 2329303132 33 3435363743 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

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)

mrmistoffelees 11-05-2020 13:05
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36034636)
I don't think they should have eased the lockdown at all. However, this is a seperate point - and because observably trains were busy doesn't mean that the majority of the workforce are now going out to work.



It doesn't make them morons, but some journalists are clearly acting dim and I'm not sure why.



Each individual activity you describe here is low risk. The total number of infections resulting from a million low risk events and a hundred million low risk events varies drastically.

The Government management of the epidemic at this point doesn't care about your personal risk of infection. It cares about whether we get six thousand new infections tomorrow or seven thousand. If the R number goes up or down. That's the risk factor.

Then there's adherence to the rules. If you meet a family member at the park and it starts to rain you go home. If you meet in the garden eventually a percentage of people decide it's alright to sit in the kitchen two metres apart. Still a low risk event, but higher than being in the open air. It's a slippery slope.

The lines have to be arbitrarily drawn somewhere.
I'm with you, i think the lockdown should have been extended.

re adherence to the rules, you meet in the park, it starts to rain, you sit in the bandstand or a covered shelter together potentially not 2m apart, Or, you meet in the park and distance perhaps after a couple of times you decide it's ok to sit together and have a picnic.

A garbled message by it's very nature means that the lines haven't been drawn, hence, this is why so many people are questioning.

People need to be told the logic behind the governments decisions.

Sephiroth 11-05-2020 13:59
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 36034617)
So, my father could drive to a beach, my wife and i can can drive to a beach we can stay 2m apart and thats OK. BUT my father can't come to my house and go into my garden (by means of a side gate and not actually enter the house) and sit on our garden furniture 2m apart?

Where's the difference ?
A dobber's delight!

ianch99 11-05-2020 14:10
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuart (Post 36034637)
Be interesting to see what people find. Despite the privacy concerns, If the app helps, I will happily install it.

However, the fact they tested on Jailbroken iphones makes me question the results they got. They are not testing like for like. The Jailbreak may well have altered some aspect of the way the OS handles bluetooth.

I have some knowledge of iPhone development (not extensive by any means, but I have written the odd app for my own use). As far as the testing goes, as far as I can see, they should not have needed to jailbreak the phones. Even assuming they couldn't have used android phones to actually monitor the Bluetooth communication, there are a number of devices on the market (for both legal and illegal purposes) that will monitor Bluetooth communication. They could have used one. Assuming the source code published is complete, they didn't even need to jailbreak the device to install the app. They could have compiled it from the source code using their own developer credentials, and installed it via the Apple Development systems and Apple's Testflight app (which enables developers to send a limited number of invites to enable users to install beta versions).
This was exactly the point I was making. If you have even a basic understanding of Software Development, it is clear your validation of the functional use cases is done against a representative Production environment.

This is an interesting observation on the app from:

https://www.businessinsider.com/nhsx...20-4?r=US&IR=T

Quote:
Ross Anderson, a University of Cambridge professor who advised on the app's security and development, told BI that UK authorities want "fine-grained" contact tracing. The logic here is that it would enable the UK's epidemiologists to take more effective action in response to COVID-19.

Now it isn't clear that the app meets Apple and Google's standards, and whether it would work properly, particularly on the iPhone.

Anderson told Business Insider: "The NHSX people [have] this delightful choice between an app that won't work... or an app that will run on the platform but won't enable them to do the epidemiology they want."

Jon Crowcroft, Marconi professor of Communications Systems at the University of Cambridge, raised similar questions.

"Apple and Google's policies on all COVID-19 related apps was that if they came from a government health agency, subject to normal other checks, they'd be okayed," he told Business Insider, saying that it wasn't clear if the NHSX app might be blocked.

Ultimately, practicality may win out over politics. The obvious solution would be to rebuild the app on Apple and Google's APIs.

Another source said: "Everyone expects the [Department of Health] to rewrite their app to use the API, and claim victory."


---------- Post added at 14:10 ---------- Previous post was at 14:04 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36034632)
The vast, vast majority of workers this morning were either key workers anyway or working from home and still doing so. The outcome of the change is negligible by comparison.
I am not convinced. A friend whose son was working from home has now been told he has to return to work at the office and travel there on Public Transport. The employer, in this case, just wants to start to get back to their definition of normal. Given the new labour market with the severe increase in unemployment, the ability of the employee to push back against the Employer is much reduced.

pip08456 11-05-2020 14:28
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36034642)

I am not convinced. A friend whose son was working from home has now been told he has to return to work at the office and travel there on Public Transport. The employer, in this case, just wants to start to get back to their definition of normal. Given the new labour market with the severe increase in unemployment, the ability of the employee to push back against the Employer is much reduced.
The return to work is for those who can't work from home. The employer in this case is going against Government advice.

Quote:
Step one will begin from 11 May. This includes encouraging people back to their workplaces if they cannot work from home. From 13 May the public will also be allowed ‘unlimited exercise’ and can sunbathe or play sports with members of their household. The prime minister also said that people ‘could drive to other destinations’. Other restrictions remain in place.
Link

mrmistoffelees 11-05-2020 14:47
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36034644)
The return to work is for those who can't work from home. The employer in this case is going against Government advice.



Link
And yet Raab said it was from Wednesday

Pierre 11-05-2020 15:12
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonbxx (Post 36034623)
Just had an email from our office saying 'yes we watched it last night' and 'no, carry on working from home'. There's no plans to open up our offices in the near future...
Which is fine, the government weren't asking people to open up their offices if they don't need to.

---------- Post added at 15:12 ---------- Previous post was at 15:10 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36034625)
Local children’s nursery (the owner has around 10 sites) sent this out.



Then followed up with this
another misconception

Quote:
Following the PM's announcements tonight that some people who cannot work from home will be allowed to return to work from next week, I just wanted to let all parents know that we will be continuing to restrict childcare offered to our key worker list provided by Government until we are asked to amend it.
It wasn't just announced last night. It has "ALWAYS" been the instruction that if you can't work from home you can continue to work as long as you can do it safely. That didn't just happen last night.

Hugh 11-05-2020 15:28
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36034648)
Which is fine, the government weren't asking people to open up their offices if they don't need to.

---------- Post added at 15:12 ---------- Previous post was at 15:10 ----------



another misconception
Quote:
Good evening,

Following the PM's announcements tonight that some people who cannot work from home will be allowed to return to work from next week, I just wanted to let all parents know that we will be continuing to restrict childcare offered to our key worker list provided by Government until we are asked to amend it.

We are hoping there will be further clarification from the Local Authorities or Government in the next couple of days, which is what has happened in the past when significant announcements have been made.

Please bear with us and be patient. As soon as we can offer childcare to all we will do so. But we cannot change policy at this stage until we are given more guidance.

We are very much looking forward to welcoming all our children and families back into nursery at the earliest we possibly can

It wasn't just announced last night. It has "ALWAYS" been the instruction that if you can't work from home you can continue to work as long as you can do it safely. That didn't just happen last night.
The reference was that only key workers' children could access nursery care or schools, as per the GOV.UK guidance. If other places of work are opening up, which was what the PM stated last night
Quote:
if you work in construction or manufacturing, or can't do your job from home, you'll be encouraged to go back to work as long as you can keep your distance from others
This is different than before, otherwise why would he have said it?

Quote:
Schools, and all childcare providers, are therefore being asked to continue to provide care for a limited number of children - children who are vulnerable, and children whose parents are critical to the Covid-19 response and cannot be safely cared for at home.

Vulnerable children include children who are supported by social care, those with safeguarding and welfare needs, including child in need plans, on child protection plans, ‘looked after’ children, young carers, disabled children and those with education, health and care (EHC) plans.

We know that schools will also want to support other children facing social difficulties, and we will support head teachers to do so.

Parents whose work is critical to the COVID-19 response include those who work in health and social care and in other key sectors outlined below. Many parents working in these sectors may be able to ensure their child is kept at home. And every child who can be safely cared for at home must be.

Please, therefore, follow these key principles:

If it is at all possible for children to be at home, then they must be.

If a child needs specialist support, is vulnerable or has a parent who is a critical worker, then educational provision will be available for them.
The nurseries were given a list of "key workers" by the Government - if you weren't on the list, you didn't get child-care or were allowed to attend school.

Pierre 11-05-2020 15:37
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36034651)
The reference was that only key workers' children could access nursery care or schools, as per the GOV.UK guidance. If other places of work are opening up (which was what the PM stated last night



The nurseries were given a list of "key workers" by the Government - if you weren't on the list, you didn't get child-care or were allowed to attend school.
But the message hasn't changed, it is still only key workers that can get child care.

---------- Post added at 15:37 ---------- Previous post was at 15:34 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36034651)
If other places of work are opening up, which was what the PM stated last night This is different than before, otherwise why would he have said it?
.
it is not different from before.

when the lockdown was announced there were certain things that had to close. Bars, restaurants, cafes.

Anywhere else, as long as you could work safely you could work.

jfman 11-05-2020 16:32
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36033162)
Ah well, if Sage has ruled it out I give it about a week before we all wear facemasks out and about.
The Novice Nostradamus out by a week.

jonbxx 11-05-2020 17:01
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36034652)
But the message hasn't changed, it is still only key workers that can get child care.
Still using that one with the kids - give me gyp or fight doing your school work at home then off to school for you.:nono:

Disclaimer - I wouldn't really send them back to school, they have been great really and, as our office is closed, it's no problem having them at home

Sephiroth 11-05-2020 18:48
Re: Coronavirus
 
Here's the link to the actual 50 pages of Guvmin guff.

https://assets.publishing.service.go...v2_WEB__1_.pdf

25 pages of waffle before you get to the nub.

OLD BOY 11-05-2020 19:49
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by richard s (Post 36034570)
The epidemic has to run it's course across the world before it is beaten... because it will creep back into other countries and start all over again. Country to country travel has to be banned for at least a full year.
To run it's course, it needs to have infected about 80% of the population. By taking these measures, we are prolonging the agony, but at least the NHS can cope. In the meantime, we'll pretend that the collapse of the economy doesn't matter.

---------- Post added at 19:49 ---------- Previous post was at 19:38 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 36034629)
How on earth do you socially distance toddlers/pre school ?
Just fix hoola-hoops to them.

richard s 11-05-2020 20:21
Re: Coronavirus
 
Here we go again:


https://news.cgtn.com/news/2020-05-1...XUs/index.html


https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...nease-in-china

Mr K 11-05-2020 21:00
Re: Coronavirus
 
It's all perfectly clear as Boris has explained:-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WT59lu4tCU

jfman 11-05-2020 21:44
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36034668)
To run it's course, it needs to have infected about 80% of the population. By taking these measures, we are prolonging the agony, but at least the NHS can cope. In the meantime, we'll pretend that the collapse of the economy doesn't matter.

Just fix hoola-hoops to them.
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.

Pierre 11-05-2020 21:44
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36034673)
It's all perfectly clear as Boris has explained:-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WT59lu4tCU
It is clear, unless you’re a mediocre comedian long past your sell-by date.

In regards to Boris’s message yesterday and today.

Only those that don’t want to understand, don’t understand.

jfman 11-05-2020 21:49
Re: Coronavirus
 
Shock horror. Capitalist raising own money and risking own assets to prop up failing company. Well I never...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52596273

Surprised Tricky Dicky hadn’t considered this sooner.

Sephiroth 11-05-2020 21:55
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36034668)
To run it's course, it needs to have infected about 80% of the population. By taking these measures, we are prolonging the agony, but at least the NHS can cope. In the meantime, we'll pretend that the collapse of the economy doesn't matter
Surely to run its course, the R value needs to be 0.5 or less for whatever time period - prolly very long.

jfman 11-05-2020 22:08
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.
If there’s no vaccine found then maintaining the R ratio below but near 1 would achieve so called herd immunity in a short amount of time if the claim at the vast majority of people show no symptoms at all is true.

If you had R at 0.5 and maintained that the infection rate would reduce to zero before it hit 80% of the population. Say there’s a million people with it currently - they’d infect half a million - then quarter of a million - 125k - 64k - and so forth until there’s no infections in the population. However maintaining R at 0.5 would be challenging without considerable restrictions - greater than those proposed in England for the next few weeks.

spiderplant 11-05-2020 22:49
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36034683)
If you had R at 0.5 and maintained that the infection rate would reduce to zero before it hit 80% of the population. Say there’s a million people with it currently - they’d infect half a million - then quarter of a million - 125k - 64k - and so forth until there’s no infections in the population.
I think need to get your calculator out. ;)

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

Sephiroth 11-05-2020 23:13
Re: Coronavirus
 
Poor old jfman! At 0.5, the factor is applied only to the number of new cases not the original total. But no matter, the series leads to an almost complete defeat of the virus providing it can be maintained. The time it takes to do this is for the statisticians and epidemiologists to tell us but at its simplest, using a two week window, it would take a year for the number of new case to dip below 100 starting with 1 million.

To put that into UK perspective, if you started with 250,000 cases then R=0.5 would still take around 24 weeks to dip below 100.

If R=0.7 then it would take 46 weeks to dip below 100.

BUT - nobody knows the real R rate nor how to fix it to within reasonable margins of error.

RichardCoulter 11-05-2020 23:36
Re: Coronavirus
 
The late national & local news this evening featured the police, schools & local authorities who either don't understand what Johnson was trying to say, or say that it will be impossible or challenging to deliver what is expected of them.

The police said that it will now be imposdible to police as if they stop anyone, all they have to do is say that they are taking their daily excercise, which they will now be allowed to do all day long.

Seaside places say that they don't want flocks of people now coming to their towns to sit on the beach. Nowhere is open, including toilets and there are still people dying in hospitals. One said that there was a high proportion of elderly people that lived there and they didn't want them putting at risk.

What an absolute mess.

Maggy 12-05-2020 08:29
Re: Coronavirus
 
Yes we already have people peeing in the seafront shelters here in my seaside village.

tweetiepooh 12-05-2020 09:49
Re: Coronavirus
 
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.

Sephiroth 12-05-2020 09:54
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tweetiepooh (Post 36034701)
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.
You make some excellent points and the highlighted one is the best to my taste. It sums up the majority of the legal frameworks in the EU.

Whereas in the UK, apart from some very precise laws such as speed limits, etc, our legal framework is much looser. As an example, the Coronavirus lock down regulations allows a potential offender to have a "reasonable excuse".

Spot on.

mrmistoffelees 12-05-2020 10:21
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tweetiepooh (Post 36034701)
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)
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.
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 ----------

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)
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.
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:

jfman 12-05-2020 13:50
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by spiderplant (Post 36034733)
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:
No worries I thought I'd made a glaring error that I'd missed.:D

---------- Post added at 13:50 ---------- Previous post was at 13:47 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36034730)
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.

Yes, that's what Mr Corbyn thinks. Good luck with that approach.
Money can be found, it always is to bail out big businesses. Money does not grow on trees but it's introduced by central banks. Increasing money supply doesn't make anyone Venezuela nor does it always increase inflation during economic downturns.

As I've said before your household budget based analysis is fundamentally flawed at macroeconomic level. The USA has frequently spent it's way out of recession. That doesn't, and never has, made them socialist by any definition going.

Sephiroth 12-05-2020 13:52
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36034734)
No worries I thought I'd made a glaring error that I'd missed.:D

---------- Post added at 13:50 ---------- Previous post was at 13:47 ----------



Money can be found, it always is to bail out big businesses. Money does not grow on trees but it's introduced by central banks. Increasing money supply doesn't make anyone Venezuela nor does it always increase inflation during economic downturns.

As I've said before your household budget based analysis is fundamentally flawed at macroeconomic level. The USA has frequently spent it's way out of recession. That doesn't, and never has, made them socialist by any definition going.
@jfman

Perhaps you can tip my formula into the spreadsheet and compare it with yours.

jfman 12-05-2020 13:59
Re: Coronavirus
 
Aha!

RichardCoulter 12-05-2020 14:18
Re: Coronavirus
 
If what's being proposed is accepted as the correct way of getting the economy going again whilst protecting people, why didn't we do this instead of lockdown?

Sephiroth 12-05-2020 14:21
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36034738)
If what's being proposed is accepted as the correct way of getting the economy going again whilst protecting people, why didn't we do this instead of lockdown?
I suspect that there's psychology behind this as well as rudimentary disease control method.

Peops are now trained in taking care - aka being alert.

jfman 12-05-2020 14:27
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36034738)
If what's being proposed is accepted as the correct way of getting the economy going again whilst protecting people, why didn't we do this instead of lockdown?
They aren't mutually exclusive or competing options. The health crisis and economic crisis are one and the same.

You couldn't control spread without lockdown.

Russ 12-05-2020 14:29
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36034730)
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.
No idea what Corbyn's garden looks like.

Ayway, when Boris was asked what the difference will be between the austerity measure from 2010 and what is ahead of us, he said "this time we want to help everyday people".

Which means that wasn't the intention 10 years ago but let's face it, we always knew that.

downquark1 12-05-2020 14:41
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36034738)
If what's being proposed is accepted as the correct way of getting the economy going again whilst protecting people, why didn't we do this instead of lockdown?
To use an analogy, the virus is a runaway train and the lockdown was a brake. Basically it has slowed down enough now you can release the brake a little.

If we release the lockdown and there is no difference then the lockdown was a mistake (although we didn't know that at the time, you only get reliable data on the virus after it has infected a lot of people - also the Chinese data was bullshit)

Carth 12-05-2020 14:59
Re: Coronavirus
 
How do they work out the current 'R' figure?

and how accurate is it?

papa smurf 12-05-2020 15:09
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carth (Post 36034745)
How do they work out the current 'R' figure?

and how accurate is it?
They look on CF and see what the experts are saying;)

Hugh 12-05-2020 15:16
Re: Coronavirus
 
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carth (Post 36034745)
How do they work out the current 'R' figure?

and how accurate is it?

Using the Government COVID alert scale of 1 to 5, and using the formula

COVID alert level = R (rate of infection) + number of infections

We are at a COVID alert level of between 223060.5 and 223060.9... :D

downquark1 12-05-2020 15:22
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carth (Post 36034745)
How do they work out the current 'R' figure?

and how accurate is it?
The simplest way is you put the total infections data you've been given by the NHS into a graph and you fit an exponential function to it, the best fitting R number is then reported to be R.

The accuracy is determined by the amount of data you have (which unfortunately means you are least accurate at the beginning of the pandemic and most accurate after it's all over)

Now of course you say, what if the NHS data is incomplete. Well that is a major issue.

Also remember R is just a sort of average and it is vulnerable to various conditions at the time. Social distancing and lockdown pushes R down so it's entirely possible different countries have different Rs for the same virus.

Carth 12-05-2020 15:37
Re: Coronavirus
 
Just guesswork again then, using incomplete and possibly flawed data

Also, using the formula shown by Hugh, my neighborhood has an R value of 0 so I should be free to party & BBQ to my hearts content . . . in fact other neighborhoods with a zero rating could join in :p:



of course, none of us have been tested so we really aren't sure if we've had it, got it, or are naturally immune to it :rolleyes:

Going by the news up this end of the country, Cleethorpes is about as safe as you'll get too ;)

downquark1 12-05-2020 15:42
Re: Coronavirus
 
It isn't guesswork. This is literally how you define R. It's not like viruses come carved with R values in them.

Sephiroth 12-05-2020 16:03
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carth (Post 36034749)
Just guesswork again then, using incomplete and possibly flawed data

Also, using the formula shown by Hugh, my neighborhood has an R value of 0 so I should be free to party & BBQ to my hearts content . . . in fact other neighborhoods with a zero rating could join in :p:



of course, none of us have been tested so we really aren't sure if we've had it, got it, or are naturally immune to it :rolleyes:

Going by the news up this end of the country, Cleethorpes is about as safe as you'll get too ;)
Pretty much sums the whole thing up.

Maggy 12-05-2020 16:05
Re: Coronavirus
 
I'll take downquark's opinion over anyone else on this site on matters scientific.

Sephiroth 12-05-2020 16:19
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maggy (Post 36034753)
I'll take downquark's opinion over anyone else on this site on matters scientific.
Sure - but what we have from Downquark is an estimated startpoint and a consequential current point. The points in between are as true as all the other points. But what is the method for correction? The unknown cases, the asymptomatic cases and so on.

What factor are they using to include these unknowns and what is the basis for that factor? For example can you project the curve backward because you presumably have the function/equation from current statistics.

downquark1 12-05-2020 16:27
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36034755)
Sure - but what we have from Downquark is an estimated startpoint and a consequential current point. The points in between are as true as all the other points. But what is the method for correction? The unknown cases, the asymptomatic cases and so on.

What factor are they using to include these unknowns and what is the basis for that factor? For example can you project the curve backward because you presumably have the function/equation from current statistics.
Excellent questions. You can correct the data with antibody tests and randomised testing. The antibody tests tell you if you have had the virus, because your body is keeping antibodies for it. Random testing then gives you a sample you can extrapolate to the entire population. This is currently being dogged by a lack of reliable tests (every country in the world now wants them and China is selling fakes) and issues about knowing how long you keep immunity to the virus. Some reports are saying you lose immunity fairly quickly.

If you have the R value you can project the curve anyway you want. However as mentioned as you enable or remove precautions that will alter the R value so you will get a kink in the curve as you start or stop a lockdown.

The horny gentleman from imperial college had a computer model for predicting how it changes. It has somewhat been pillared for containing bugs (of the nature I fix in my job), but they insist it is still accurate. But this will be judged by history.

What I would be worrying about is the difference between the lock down R value and the semi-lock down social distancing R value. If there is no difference we need not keep the lock down. If it shoots back up then we may have to lock down again in a few months.

I realise this is all frustrating but viruses are not easy things to understand.

Sephiroth 12-05-2020 16:42
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by downquark1 (Post 36034757)
Excellent questions. You can correct the data with antibody tests and randomised testing. The antibody tests tell you if you have had the virus, because your body is keeping antibodies for it. Random testing then gives you a sample you can extrapolate to the entire population. This is currently being dogged by a lack of reliable tests (every country in the world now wants them and China is selling fakes) and issues about knowing how long you keep immunity to the virus. Some reports are saying you lose immunity fairly quickly.

If you have the R value you can project the curve anyway you want. However as mentioned as you enable or remove precautions that will alter the R value so you will get a kink in the curve as you start or stop a lockdown.

The horny gentleman from imperial college had a computer model for predicting how it changes. It has somewhat been pillared for containing bugs (of the nature I fix in my job), but they insist it is still accurate. But this will be judged by history.

What I would be worrying about is the difference between the lock down R value and the semi-lock down social distancing R value. If there is no difference we need not keep the lock down. If it shoots back up then we may have to lock down again in a few months.

I realise this is all frustrating but viruses are not easy things to understand.
I do a lot of statistical analysis of a different sort (and have reliable software to assist with modelling - nothing to do with viruses, though).

Random sampling: If it were totally random testing, I would imagine that there would need to be various extrapolations to allow for bias as the environment for the samples will not be the same.

Assuming that 'they' can alight on what would be a statistically significant sample, this could be done by having regional overlays that effectively show the variance applicable to the national figure.

Really difficult stuff - unless I've missed something.

downquark1 12-05-2020 16:46
Re: Coronavirus
 
Yep you are right, I should have said representative random sampling. Supposedly the epidemiologists know how to do this, but this will be a source of dispute if the results are controversial.

(They are already disputing some results from America where they put requests up on facebook and then claimed that as random)

Paul 12-05-2020 17:01
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carth (Post 36034749)
Going by the news up this end of the country, Cleethorpes is about as safe as you'll get too ;)
I noticed that the other week, East and West Lindsey are about the lowest death rates in the UK.

Time to visit Skeggy for a walk :D

jfman 12-05-2020 17:26
Re: Coronavirus
 
Seph just posted in red and I’m more worried about what that means than Coronavirus.

Sephiroth 12-05-2020 17:41
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36034772)
Seph just posted in red and I’m more worried about what that means than Coronavirus.
You'll be wanting my babies next!

Have you compared your maths with mine yet?

jfman 12-05-2020 17:46
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36034776)
You'll be wanting my babies next!

Have you compared your maths with mine yet?
I have. That was my “aha!” response. I used Excel as suggested. :)

papa smurf 12-05-2020 17:46
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carth (Post 36034749)
Just guesswork again then, using incomplete and possibly flawed data

Also, using the formula shown by Hugh, my neighborhood has an R value of 0 so I should be free to party & BBQ to my hearts content . . . in fact other neighborhoods with a zero rating could join in :p:



of course, none of us have been tested so we really aren't sure if we've had it, got it, or are naturally immune to it :rolleyes:

Going by the news up this end of the country, Cleethorpes is about as safe as you'll get too ;)
locals go up past the leisure centre no amusements and better beach, remember to book now for your summer hols;)

Sephiroth 12-05-2020 18:03
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36034778)
I have. That was my “aha!” response. I used Excel as suggested. :)
"Aha" is satisfactory!

Pierre 12-05-2020 18:42
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36034734)
Money can be found, it always is
I agree, it can. It also has to be paid back.

OLD BOY 12-05-2020 19:19
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36034791)
I agree, it can. It also has to be paid back.
:D

RichardCoulter 12-05-2020 19:32
Re: Coronavirus
 
It was on TV last night that the money that we borrowed from America to fund WWII didn't get repaid until 2006.

jfman 12-05-2020 19:57
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36034791)
I agree, it can. It also has to be paid back.
That's not how quantitative easing works. It may be the case that the money does need removed at a later date however there's no guarantee it would. You are another one confusing macroeconomics with your household budget.

Even if the money did have to removed from money supply - there's strong support for the lockdown. Would people be willing to may minimal amounts of increased tax or VAT over the next 5-10 years to literally support themselves now for a mere few months? A move that would protect employees, protect small businesses and leave the economy better placed to bounce back?

Of course they would. However nobody wants to raise the question of tax reforms when the human price of underfunded public services is so prevalent on their TV.

downquark1 12-05-2020 20:00
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36034797)
That's not how quantitative easing works. It may be the case that the money does need removed at a later date however there's no guarantee it would. You are another one confusing macroeconomics with your household budget.

Even if the money did have to removed from money supply - there's strong support for the lockdown. Would people be willing to may minimal amounts of increased tax or VAT over the next 5-10 years to literally support themselves now for a mere few months? A move that would protect employees, protect small businesses and leave the economy better placed to bounce back?

Of course they would. However nobody wants to raise the question of tax reforms when the human price of underfunded public services is so prevalent on their TV.
I would put money on there not being any tax rises when it reopens. The demand for things is going to be very low and they will be wanted to get people spending again. It is not going to be as simple as borrowing money to pay back.

jfman 12-05-2020 20:05
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by downquark1 (Post 36034798)
I would put money on there not being any tax rises when it reopens. The demand for things is going to be very low and they will be wanted to get people spending again. It is not going to be as simple as borrowing money to pay back.
Short term I agree. The economy needs stimulated, but that means keeping people in work, protecting small businesses and giving people security to get through the crisis.

While the health crisis is about 'flattening the curve" the economic response is about "sharpening the V". The quicker the economy goes down, the shorter timescale that it needs supported and by protecting incomes, jobs and businesses the quicker it recovers.

Otherwise we just have a recession that drags on for years because 'household budget capitalism' can't simulate the recovery required.

GrimUpNorth 12-05-2020 20:15
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36034747)
Using the Government COVID alert scale of 1 to 5, and using the formula

COVID alert level = R (rate of infection) + number of infections

We are at a COVID alert level of between 223060.5 and 223060.9... :D
From that equation a quick bit of algebra tells us that R(rate of infection) = Covid Alert Level - number of infections

So according to Borris we're moving to alert level 3

So R = 3 - (approx) 226000

So R = approx -225997

Quite a bit below the target of 0.5 to 0.9

Carth 12-05-2020 20:33
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth (Post 36034800)
From that equation a quick bit of algebra tells us that R(rate of infection) = Covid Alert Level - number of infections

So according to Borris we're moving to alert level 3

So R = 3 - (approx) 226000

So R = approx -225997

Quite a bit below the target of 0.5 to 0.9
I'm too old to remember much algebra, but pretty sure some of it being in brackets alters the working of it :D ;)

jfman 12-05-2020 20:34
Re: Coronavirus
 
BODMAS!

brackets ofs divide multiply add subtract.

Pierre 12-05-2020 20:53
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36034796)
It was on TV last night that the money that we borrowed from America to fund WWII didn't get repaid until 2006.
Your point being?

---------- Post added at 20:53 ---------- Previous post was at 20:36 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36034797)
That's not how quantitative easing works.
Well it sort of is, as the BofE purchases government bonds to pump in the cash into the economy, those bonds must have a return for the BofE, eventually, or the BofE goes out of business.

It really is amazing that you think money is “free”.

Increased risk of inflation. But granted inflation has not been an issue for over a decade, but this is a different issue to 2008 so we have to remain “alert” on that.

Quote:
You are another one confusing macroeconomics with your household budget.
You’re confusing QE as magicking money and not having to pay for it..........you do.

mrmistoffelees 12-05-2020 21:13
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by downquark1 (Post 36034798)
I would put money on there not being any tax rises when it reopens. The demand for things is going to be very low and they will be wanted to get people spending again. It is not going to be as simple as borrowing money to pay back.
https://apple.news/AXOJ0kGp_TV-F14TFJJz2sw

jfman 12-05-2020 22:55
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36034806)
Your point being?

---------- Post added at 20:53 ---------- Previous post was at 20:36 ----------



Well it sort of is, as the BofE purchases government bonds to pump in the cash into the economy, those bonds must have a return for the BofE, eventually, or the BofE goes out of business.
Oh dear. And here's your fundamental misunderstanding of macroeconomics. A Central Bank simply isn't a business.

Quote:
It really is amazing that you think money is “free”.

Increased risk of inflation. But granted inflation has not been an issue for over a decade, but this is a different issue to 2008 so we have to remain “alert” on that.

You’re confusing QE as magicking money and not having to pay for it..........you do.
I think you'll find that you continue to fundamentally understand the subject matter.

It's not surprising, as right wing political parties have for ideological reasons sold the myth (and you have unquestionably bought said myth) that national economies and household budgets are essentially the same. They are not. However it's an easy sell to people who don't understand the subject matter, and a prelude to selling off the profitable functions of the state while leaving the taxpayer to fund the unprofitable bits and underwrite losses where the market fails.

I'll stick with Comrade Rishi here. And literally it's the first time in my life I've agreed with a Conservative Chancellor about anything.

Sephiroth 12-05-2020 23:13
Re: Coronavirus
 
What the country must pay for is the deficit due to borrowing. Nothing to do with QE.

As far as I am concerned, QE is an off-balance sheet exercise with essentially zero sum gain. You can read about it at: https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/me...ance-sheet.pdf


Pierre 12-05-2020 23:51
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36034815)
Oh dear. And here's your fundamental misunderstanding of macroeconomics. A Central Bank simply isn't a business.
Ok, I’ll break it down for you. Government bonds have to repaid. Yes or No?

jfman 13-05-2020 00:03
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36034820)
Ok, I’ll break it down for you. Government bonds have to repaid. Yes or No?
Exactly the kind of obfuscation I've come to expect from you, Pierre - is the Bank of England a business - yes or no?

I will now note the absolute lack of response to my post the other evening which I will quote now:

Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman
I fail to see how I can reasonably be accused of lacking vision when I’ve correctly identified a number of variables for any successful risk assessment.

There’s no obligation to try to unfurlough workers as soon as possible - that’s simply your personal preference in the matter principally because of your political ideology. For some businesses opening up will remain not commercially viable for the foreseeable - in these cases unfurloughing staff “ASAP” as you put it would make no commercial sense and actually would leave some company officers in breach of their legal obligations in respect of foregoing Government assistance and incurring needless losses.

Great business owners and entrepreneurs know state hand outs are a great idea instead of them taking losses themselves.

I think you lack vision in this regard.
Have you had enough time to consider a response to this yet?

I'd call you a junior economist but for the fact I'd not discredit novice economists and I'm doing my best to stay in this thread.

Sephiroth 13-05-2020 00:11
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36034822)
Exactly the kind of obfuscation I've come to expect from you, Pierre - is the Bank of England a business - yes or no?

I will now note the absolute lack of response to my post the other evening which I will quote now:



Have you had enough time to consider a response to this yet?

I'd call you a junior economist but for the fact I'd not discredit novice economists and I'm doing my best to stay in this thread.
Hmmm!

jfman 13-05-2020 00:17
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36034823)
Hmmm!
We've even agreed!

Pierre appears to however throw around insults here and there, selectively quote posts and then wilfully misinterpret them. I'm only asking him to respond to points made in full rather than cling in desperate hope to a single sentence in a much wider point.

Stuart 13-05-2020 00:28
Re: Coronavirus
 
Guys, please calm down.

Sephiroth 13-05-2020 00:30
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36034824)
We've even agreed!

Pierre appears to however throw around insults here and there, selectively quote posts and then wilfully misinterpret them. I'm only asking him to respond to points made in full rather than cling in desperate hope to a single sentence in a much wider point.
He doesn't have to respond. I don't want you banned given we're having each other's babies!

There's no doubt that Coronavirus will cost us dear when the virus is no longer a threat QE has little to do with that other than any borrowings made by the bank to finance liquidity would be repaid from increased taxes etc.

Paul 13-05-2020 01:08
Re: Coronavirus
 
This is a coronavirus topic, not economics, start your own topic if you want to fight over money.

Mr K 13-05-2020 09:27
Re: Coronavirus
 
Good news, cleaners and nannies can return to work at ones mansion. (But your own family members can't visit you). This is a relief to us all, well those that can afford these things of course. The Ministers households come first ! Now crack on slaving away for us plebs....

jfman 13-05-2020 10:00
Re: Coronavirus
 
"Except for viewers in Scotland"

A phrase that brings terrifying memories of England getting a movie and us getting some garbage.

Hugh 13-05-2020 10:03
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36034834)
Good news, cleaners and nannies can return to work at ones mansion. (But your own family members can't visit you). This is a relief to us all, well those that can afford these things of course. The Ministers households come first ! Now crack on slaving away for us plebs....
Erm, I’m a pleb, and our cleaner is coming back for 4 hours 1 day a month (we’ll do it the other weeks).

We’ve been paying her £50 a month since lockdown (along with a number of her regular customers) to keep her head above water, and taking her back on part-time allows her to earn money (she normally cleaned with a colleague, but has to do it on her own at the moment).

She does a good job, earns a living, and we are lucky enough to be able to afford to pay her - your reverse snobbery is showing.

Mr K 13-05-2020 10:25
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36034841)
Erm, I’m a pleb, and our cleaner is coming back for 4 hours 1 day a month (we’ll do it the other weeks).

We’ve been paying her £50 a month since lockdown (along with a number of her regular customers) to keep her head above water, and taking her back on part-time allows her to earn money (she normally cleaned with a colleague, but has to do it on her own at the moment).

She does a good job, earns a living, and we are lucky enough to be able to afford to pay her - your reverse snobbery is showing.
Don't you think that's a bit of an unnecessary risk for both you and her Hugh? Particularly the if she's doing other houses as well. Keep paying her out of your zillions and do the dusting yourself as you're kindly sole, plus retired/ nothing better to do ? ;)

mrmistoffelees 13-05-2020 10:45
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36034845)
Don't you think that's a bit of an unnecessary risk for both you and her Hugh? Particularly the if she's doing other houses as well. Keep paying her out of your zillions and do the dusting yourself as you're kindly sole, plus retired/ nothing better to do ? ;)

Have you stopped to consider that some people actively want to get back to some degree of normality and going to work is a part of that?

No need for such a patronising comment.

Mr K 13-05-2020 10:53
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 36034852)
Have you stopped to consider that some people actively want to get back to some degree of normality and going to work is a part of that?

No need for such a patronising comment.
I'm afraid 'normal' isn't going possible for a very long time, if at all. People need to come to terms with that and adapt. As for patronising, my comments to Hugh were half in jest as he'll know.

Sephiroth 13-05-2020 11:05
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36034853)
I'm afraid 'normal' isn't going possible for a very long time, if at all. People need to come to terms with that and adapt. As for patronising, my comments to Hugh were half in jest as he'll know.
It’s the half not in jest that is offensive.

mrmistoffelees 13-05-2020 11:08
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36034853)
I'm afraid 'normal' isn't going possible for a very long time, if at all. People need to come to terms with that and adapt. As for patronising, my comments to Hugh were half in jest as he'll know.
Hence, my use of 'degree of normality'

Russ 13-05-2020 11:19
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36034845)
Don't you think that's a bit of an unnecessary risk for both you and her Hugh? Particularly the if she's doing other houses as well. Keep paying her out of your zillions and do the dusting yourself as you're kindly sole, plus retired/ nothing better to do ? ;)
My 77 year old disabled mother uses a cleaner and has done for several years. She can’t clean her house the way she’d like it because of her age and disability.

The cleaner stopped coming when the lockdown was announced but started again a few weeks ago (don’t forget the rules are different here).

The cleaner is VERY conscious about CV, uses loads of bleaches, brings several pairs of rubber gloves and masks and disposes of them after each household (she has 2 others). She makes sure the client is either out when she works or confined to a single room.

Carth 13-05-2020 11:43
Re: Coronavirus
 
To be honest, I don't think I want to return to the 'normal' of the recent decade.


I've had enough of the soft touch regarding criminal sentencing, police having their hands tied by ridiculous rules that protect the 'rights' of some sectors of the public and their need to hit 'targets' set by big dicks in small offices.

I've had enough of cheap foreign imports and the way we generally moan about the human rights issues in many countries yet willingly buy the crap made there by those who are victims of it.

I'm sick of being told to turn my TV off at night to protect the environment while the people who tell me to do so are flying around the world to attend conferences.

I'm thoroughly fed up to the back teeth of no name celebrities crawling out of the woodwork every day, trying so hard to be human but failing miserably.

I could go on all day . . .

jfman 13-05-2020 11:51
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 36034852)
Have you stopped to consider that some people actively want to get back to some degree of normality and going to work is a part of that?

No need for such a patronising comment.
What the people want is broadly irrelevant in times of crisis. That said, the lockdown and Government measures remain popular. So what a reckless few want has to be weighed against the overwhelming majority and public safety.

@Carth that's a post and a half.

mrmistoffelees 13-05-2020 12:50
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36034861)
What the people want is broadly irrelevant in times of crisis. That said, the lockdown and Government measures remain popular. So what a reckless few want has to be weighed against the overwhelming majority and public safety.

@Carth that's a post and a half.
The government want people where possible to return to work if they can't work from home and their place of employment is safe (as has always been the case),

A degree of the population will WANT to return to work that could be for financial reasons or mental health reasons etc.

A degree of the population NEED people to return to work. (Example, our oven decided to stop working whilst in the initial lockdown period, had it not been for the lovely people at AO who fitted a new double oven for us less than two days after ordering, then we wouldn't have had an oven for four weeks)

I'm not sure how returning to work if it's safe to do so is 'reckless' ? We have to start taking very small tentative steps towards a 'new normal'


@Carth, agree with JFMan that's a blinder of a post.

Sephiroth 13-05-2020 13:15
Re: Coronavirus
 
Have I misunderstood something?

The papers report that 40% of CV deaths ate in care homes.

There are just over 1200 hospitals in the UK and over 15,000 care homes. Where’s the scandal other than the past PPE neglect?

ianch99 13-05-2020 14:15
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36034870)
Have I misunderstood something?

The papers report that 40% of CV deaths ate in care homes.

There are just over 1200 hospitals in the UK and over 15,000 care homes. Where’s the scandal other than the past PPE neglect?
The Care Home scandal is just starting to blow up. It seems that one of the number of early mistakes was to transfer COVID-possible patients from hospitals to care homes with minimal mitigation of risk:

https://twitter.com/afneil/status/1260462206883450885

Quote:
London doctor continues: “We discharged known, suspected, unknown cases into care homes which were unprepared, with no formal warning that patients were infected, no testing available, no PPE to prevent transmission. We actively seeded this into very population most vulnerable.”
Seems even the Torygraph has had enough:

Care homes' soaring death rate blamed on 'reckless' order to take back Covid-19 patients

Quote:
A Government diktat that NHS hospitals should move hundreds of elderly patients to care homes has been branded “reckless” and blamed for the homes’ soaring coronavirus death rates.

In two damning policy documents published on 19 March and 2 April, officials told NHS hospitals to transfer any patients who no longer required hospital level treatment, and set out a blueprint for care homes to accept patients with Covid-19 or who had not even been tested.

Analysis by the Telegraph suggests that the rate of coronavirus deaths accelerated more than twice as fast in care homes than in hospitals in the week beginning 7 April - two and a half weeks after the first policy document was published.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:36.
Page 33 of 64 « First 2329303132 33 3435363743 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
All Posts and Content are © Cable Forum