Re: Coronavirus
 

Do you mean the centralised data one, not a decentralised one that uses the Google/Apple framework, like Germany’s App? :D

From ComputerWeekly, two days ago...

Re: Coronavirus
 

No idea Hugh, my interest in it doesn't go that far. ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

UK covid alert level now at meh;)

The UK's coronavirus alert level has been downgraded from four to three, its chief medical officers have said.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53106673

Can't wait till it gets to whatever.

Re: Coronavirus
 

get the pubs open.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

I appreciate the compliment about cogent arguments. :)

I'm a bit tired or my post would have been more polished, but it was meant as more matter of fact than dig. Many people jump to conclusions that debt is tied to one party (whereas it's more linked to economic cycles) so I thought it interesting to see who was in power in 1963. We can all be guilty of jumping to conclusions about politics - if someone had told me the first council housing in Europe was introduced by a Conservative Council in Liverpool I would have been initially sceptical but it's true.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Don't forget that the labelling has changed a lot since the Conservatives were in power in the 1960's. The Vote Leave Tories in power now are a pale and shallow imitation of the mostly one nation Conservatives up until the mid-1970s.

Saying the two types of Tory party of then and now would be a futile exercise. The Tories of old had a, rightly deserved, reputation of decency, integrity and honesty. This new lot cannot even spell the words nevermind abide by them. The only merit of getting a Cabinet post is being a Vote Leave disciple, ability is a bonus. Take Hancock and the "App" for a nice example:

"We backed both horses" - and worked on two apps at once. On-record statement Department of Health on May 18: "There is no alternative app."

The government had "worked closely with Apple and Google". Apple said: "It is difficult to understand what these claims are as they haven't spoken to us."

"We discovered a technical barrier" that every other country with track and trace apps has found, says Health Secretary Matt Hancock. "Our app won't work because Apple won't change their system". Germany's app using the Apple platform is up & running with 10 million downloads in 3 days.

They just cannot help lying, it is in their nature and I am afraid they are in so deep with the debacle of the UK's handling of this crisis, we will see more of this crap.

Here's another example:

UK campaigners seek judicial review of £108m PPE contract award

It's legit, honest!

Re: Coronavirus
 

The app story gets stranger
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-53105642

---------- Post added at 17:06 ---------- Previous post was at 16:59 ----------

Wise words as shown by the school lunch situation.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Hardly. Link.

The early 1970s were U-turn central. Here's a tickle from the link:

Quote:

It certainly doesn't compare to what Ted Heath, undisputed king of the U-turn, got up to in 1972 – the year he earned the derision and despair of the Tory party's proto-Thatcherites by exercising a series of screeching U-turns on what they had been led to believe was the road to redemption.

On your point about lying - that's standard for most politicians. It's unfortunate that they've (Guvmin) got themselves into the current series of incredulous statements. I can't defend it.

Overall, though, the Guvmin policy on treading carefully before relaxing measures is easily supported.

Re: Coronavirus
 

How can it work if it doesn't know who you are or where you are or were?

:dunce::dunce::dunce::dunce:

Re: Coronavirus
 

Absolutely. Lots of Tory supporters that I know say that the current lot don't represent them at all.

Re: Coronavirus
 

'Fraid not...:(

Re: Coronavirus
 

I've washed my hands of it;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Hush . . . I've told the wife she still needs to wear a full face mask until after Christmas ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well I would expect better from you, jfman. You know very well that each country records deaths differently. If we only included Covid deaths in hospitals, excluding in care homes and in the community, as Spain does, the number of deaths in the UK would go down to as few as 25,000, given that only 62% of deaths are in hospital.

Where does that put us in the league table? You have to compare like with like, as I am sure you do as an economist in your field of work.

Re: Coronavirus
 

It know where your phone has been and what other phones it’s been near.

Re: Coronavirus
 

We can see what you are up to, Andrew. You are fooling no-one. Why even mention the Conservatives when the reasons for that crisis was not due to tneir management of the economy?

Can you really see Labour or the Liberals handling it better? Of course not. Look at the position we were in when Labour left office in 1979 and in 2010. All down to economic mismanagement and overspending.

Re: Coronavirus
 

All based on your simplistic understanding of economics. Conservative governments regularly run deficits and add to the debt bundle, despite privatisating anything of value along the way.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Wasn't it you who said that deficits were nothing to worry about?

I'm sure it was you. :scratch:

Re: Coronavirus
 

But that only works for the Bluetooth based apps, which people are saying can't work.

Re: Coronavirus
 

No, they’re not - they don’t work perfectly, but they work quite well.

The centralised Apps worked on Bluetooth as well.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You are the one equating Conservatives = good for the economy, anyone else = bad on that basis.

And I’m sure I suitably qualified any such remarks and taken in context would stand up. Deficits despite selling off every state asset of value going along the way would be a bad economic indicator. It depends what you are spending the money on, interest rates and other factors.

Propping up the economy during a lockdown, for example, would be an appropriate example of short term spending exceeding tax receipts.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Apple doesn't allow applications to have the constant broadcasting ability with Bluetooth. That is the limitation. We don't know what else the Government is moaning about because they've not been clear but given how idiotic they've been over this app I am not especially interested in what they're saying now.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The Bluetooth approach was the BEST one, which is why so many OTHER countries want to use it. Were they in the wrong?

Re: Coronavirus
 

What are you talking about?

• Both solutions use Bluetooth
• Apple doesn't allow apps access to Bluetooth in the background.
• Apple/Google came up with their own API to expose this functionality consistently across their devices in a way that does leak user data
• Government said No. We'll do our own.
• Everyone said that won't work. The government went ahead anyway
• Two months later it doesn't work.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I think there's a significant degree of ineptitude at the moment that we can see is having negative impact on the economy - like the app, track and trace, late lockdown, etc. Other politicians could undoubtedly do better here.

The 1980/81 and 2008/9 recessions caused a spike in UK government deficits. Whilst neither the Conservative Government in the 1980s or the Labour Government of the 2000s was perfect, these were global recessions...so the increase in debt was largely inevitable. (Less tax revenue, more social security payments.)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Oh come on, this will give the 'Big Brother is Watching' crowd a massive boost to their claims . . .

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavir...e-pub-12011686

*Pint of Mild please barman*
*Certainly Sir, would you mind just filling in this simple form? Name, date of birth, home address, Email address, phone number and bank account details are compulsory*

:D

Re: Coronavirus
 

Don't forget nationality, race, religion, sexual preferences and all that other equality stuff the government really wants to know about you...

Re: Coronavirus
 

Dominic Cummings already has that from Facebook.

Re: Coronavirus
 

He's got nothing on me, I'm existing off the grid . .

It may even surprise you to know my real name isn't Carth . . . shhh ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yet posting on it... ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Is that a whoooosh :D

Re: Coronavirus
 

Cue lots of claims of "they won't let us in because we're ....".

Re: Coronavirus
 

Smoking?

Pissed?

Eating our own food?

. . . aah got it . . look like we'd enjoy ourselves :D

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Germany's R number up to 2.88 mainly due to an outbreak at a meat factory. Be interesting to see their response in action - testing, tracing, isolating. Does it lead to an increased regional/national outbreak or do they get it under control and new infection rates reduce to the low levels of the 11th-15th June.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Tune in next week same Bat time same Bat channel :batty:

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Spreading to that many people in what must be the space of a week, is not good.


Going to be fun for them tracing the contacts of the 7,000 employees and their families.

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.

Re: Coronavirus
 

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.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Who told you?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Can't say I'm too sympathetic with those who are simply scared. I do understand those who are vulnerable or related to someone who is or works in a "high risk" capacity. By now people should have a better understanding of risks and should be able to "work" within the frameworks in place.

It's all a hard thing to work out and I'm glad I don't have to make the choices needed at national levels. They can't look at individual cases and have to balance totals dead, load on services, cost to economy, reaction of the public. Look at the music festival in France - no social distancing, no masks regardless of what the law may be saying. If the public doesn't want to comply in a large enough way then it doesn't matter much what rules you bring in. Are there things to be learnt - certainly, can we change the past - nope? So rather than simply criticising we need all parties to work together so future responses are better. Learn from other nations successes and failures, work out what successes would work here.

Germany have "locked down" a tower block at centre of a flareup. It's this sort of response that seems sensible once some general control is present, yes the virus is still present but if there is a way to control such incidents we are able to relax things in other areas.

Re: Coronavirus
 

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

Re: Coronavirus
 

You know, I had a fantastic JFman holiday, you have the auspicious accolade of being the only person I have used the ignore function on in my 17 year tenure to this site ( and I’m pretty sure it’s longer than that including previous incarnations)

So I take you off ignore and this is the first thing I read.

Complete bollocks.

Have you read the story on Sky news Today that earlier on In the pandemic the government couldn’t sell their bonds?

The money markets are just like banks, they look at your ability to pay, and any country that has no economy, no tax, or much reduced, tax income, and is shelling out free money to it’s citizens by the billion, would look like a tramp asking for a mortgage.

Anyway, when are you an Old Boy going to stop fooling yourselves and get a room already?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Feel free to continue to ignore reality as you wish, however you cannot simply be offensive and dismiss the post as “complete bollocks” without any evidence whatsoever.

Another subscriber to the fallacy that Government budgets are somehow equivalent to household budgets. You do realise that this money doesn’t physically exist - there’s no pot of gold you can walk into the Bank of England and claim? It’s created and introduced into the economy, and just as easily rremoved, by the touch of a button on spreadsheets.

You have ignored the important role of Central Banks in increasing money supply and underwriting the Government position as a lender of last resort. I can’t meaningfully say any more than that and if you want to dismiss that as “complete bollocks” instead of engage with the subject then I can’t help you.

By simplistic analogy that’s like someone in the pub saying they can’t afford a round because they’ve got a fiver in their pocket forgetting they’ve got their bank card in their pocket and there’s a cash machine outside.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I’ll keep you off ignore for as long as I can stand it.

1. Governments raise capital by selling government bonds.

2. Investors buy the bonds expecting a return on their investment.

3. Governments need an income from taxation to repay those bonds.

4 in order to have an income from taxation they need to have a functioning economy with individuals and companies paying tax on the money they earn.

5. Printing money, quantitative easing, is an option available to central banks to inject into the economy or use to buy government bonds as a Lender of last resort.

6. Printing money can* cause inflation. * not always, in a global recession Like 2008 it is unlikely, however this isn’t 2008, and there is no knowing yet what the global reaction to this will be if we’re happily printing bank notes like confetti and no else is...............

7. Inflation can affect the value of Government bonds Making them less attractive and forcing the government to offer higher interest rates.

8. Blah blah hyper- inflation, currency devaluation and death.

Here are some simple explanations

https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/6...rinting-money/

https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/8...and-inflation/

Your belief that Money is something intangible and can just be created without consequence is bizarre.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Nobody said “without consequence”. You are putting words into my mouth and have shifted the goalposts to a different point from that which you made originally which was summarised by “complete bollocks”.

You’ve at least acknowledged the role of Central Banks and that there are other ways of the Government raising money from the “money markets” and that in 2008 this was successful at increasing money supply WITHOUT causing the Venezuelan style hyper inflation that’s a cheap, lazy and ignorant dig at a reasonable macroeconomic policy.

Thanks for sharing with me some basic economics websites. I think you’ll probably find them useful reading given how much your knowledge has developed in a mere one hour and seven minutes I think you could grasp this economics lark fully within a couple of weeks if you dropped your ideological barrier at the state having a role in anything.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Oh no, I totally standby the Complete Bollocks statement whole heartedly.

OK, you didn’t put a time frame - so just how long can a shutdown of the economy be “easily” sustained?

Given that we’ve done it for three months and already predictions are that will cost £337B

Sorry I mis-interpreted “easily”, so you admit there will be consequences, potentially very harsh consequences that won’t be so Easy for people in the future.

Well I certainly think you needed them.

As you seem to be unable to get over the very simple premise that borrowed money need to be repaid, eventually.

Re: Coronavirus
 

What is "flawed" about the statement :confused:

Its most certainly too early to be making comparisons.
There is already evidence they are likely to be second waves.
Countries most certainly do count differently, unless you can prove otherwise.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Considering we didn’t fully pay off the debt to free slaves until 2015 it’s important to remember Government borrowing in context. We are already £2 trillion in debt, and nobody regrets the glory days of cheap council houses and selling off nationalised industry on the cheap. Nor is there any clamour to reform the tax system in order to repay that debt. The Government will always be in debt.

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”.

Under one scenario the Government has control, can protect the “normal” economy and under the other it does not.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Do you have a link for that?

It's OK I've found it.

Re: Coronavirus
 

How those second waves affect each country remains to be seen, so it’s speculative on Old Boys part to assume this ends up the same way for everyone, regardless of what measures or mechanisms they put on place. While countries are counting differently there will always be the excess deaths figures as an indicator.

I suspect you will disagree, so I’ll make that my last post on that for now so as to not go in circles as I’m sure we’ve already disagreed on it, probably more than once.

Re: Coronavirus
 

That's good. I'm looking to replace all my kitchen appliances anyway.

---------- Post added at 21:23 ---------- Previous post was at 21:21 ----------

They say that printing more money pushes up inflation, but I doubt that will be a problem for some time to come. I think that quantitative easing is a form of this.

Re: Coronavirus
 

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

Re: Coronavirus
 

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 ----------

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.

Re: Coronavirus
 

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.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Anytime you feel like an answering the question

Just go right ahead and say so.

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.

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

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.

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

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

Re: Coronavirus
 

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.

Re: Coronavirus
 

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:

Re: Coronavirus
 

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?

Re: Coronavirus
 

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

Re: Coronavirus
 

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.

Re: Coronavirus
 

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....

Re: Coronavirus
 

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!

Re: Coronavirus
 

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

Re: Coronavirus
 

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

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

Re: Coronavirus
 

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

Re: Coronavirus
 

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!

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Boat :cleader::cleader::cleader:

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

14th April 24th April 29th April ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

This is a genuine divide in the expert community, some say there should been a greater effort to stand out the virus entirely. Others are completely convinced that it cannot be stamped out and will just re-emerge over and over again until herd immunity is reached (naturally or via vaccine).

I understand this is a well known phenomena in epidemic history, I cannot cite the evidence myself.

Re: Coronavirus
 

My opinion of the above posts is that whilst they been consistent in opinion, they have been equally consistent in lacking supporting evidence.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Especially when people avoid looking for it.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Your point being?

---------- Post added at 16:40 ---------- Previous post was at 16:38 ----------

I’m sure you could find links supporting the views I have expressed if you looked.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Haircut! too! Mind you, might go down the local Spoons before getting my hair cut as I am starting to rock a Tim Martin hairstyle right now. Might get a staff discount...

That first beer is gonna be goooood...

Re: Coronavirus
 

Thank you for the totaly pointless reply.
None of that has anything to do with the point in question (demise of future generations). :dozey:

Re: Coronavirus
 

Couldn’t find any, except from Karol Sikora, who’s an oncologist, not an epidemiologist or a virologist; he also said in early April

Re: Coronavirus
 

Rumours of a second wave are circulating amongst the "South Asian High Risk Group". Either that or over a dozen 5kg bags of rice and maybe more in pasta in each of 3 trolleys going through the tills at Tesco was an aberration. Just one couple.

Toilet roll stocks stripped from ALDI too by the same couple half an hour before.

Re: Coronavirus
 

So that will be the last Coronavirus Government update tonite?

Re: Coronavirus
 

As I posted yesterday

Re: Coronavirus
 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...avirus-vaccine

[EXTRACT]

The virus will still be tough to conquer with a vaccine that lasts for years.

“It will be harder to get rid of Covid than smallpox,” says Brilliant. With smallpox it was at least clear who was infected, whereas people with coronavirus can spread it without knowing. A thornier problem is that as long as the infection rages in one country, all other nations are at risk.

As David Salisbury, the former director of immunisation at the Department of Health, told a Chatham House webinar recently: “Unless we have a vaccine available in unbelievable quantities that could be administered extraordinarily quickly in all communities in the world we will have gaps in our defences that the virus can continue to circulate in.”


Not looking good, is it, Hugh? As I said, this virus is not going anywhere soon.

---------- Post added at 20:03 ---------- Previous post was at 19:56 ----------

And we'll believe it when we see it.