Coronavirus (OLD)

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Russ

I won’t even try to hide the fact I’m anti-Tory and anti-Boris.

But he tried and in my opinion failed spectacularly to “fire up the country” by attempting to sound very “Winston Churchill”. Still he is the PM so let’s see how it goes.

l am certainly not a fan of Boris Johnson or the Tories either as l have made clear before but he is the PM at the end of the day and its up to him to see us through this crisis.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Your plan would wreck the economy. For some perverse reason you either think that's a good thing or it doesn't matter.

Or maybe you are working for the Russians to spread alarm and desponency!

You have no interest in arguing because you don't have answers that address your daft comments, jfman.

I don't want to see you banned, but would welcome a proper debate with you to try to understand your views, which seem very strange and perverse to me.

As pointed out - I'm making statements in line with UK Government policy, and many other western Governments. I would consider that neither perverse nor strange. Or daft - I'd appreciate if you refrain from the insults.

I've also pointed out that I think the Government should do as much as it can to support businesses during what is essentially only a pause in the economy. There's no reason it will not recover, providing the Government (and worldwide governments) use the macroeconomic levers they can to plug the gap for everyone for a few short months.

Where will the money come from? You ask. What you haven't grasped is that at macroeconomic level trillions of dollars, pounds and euro of debt doesn't really exist in any meaningful way if there's a co-ordinated step by the major economies to exploit quantitative easing and low interest rates.

You've been reading far too much right wing nonsense if you assume that such steps automatically makes us Venezuela. It didn't in 2008 when we bailed out the banks, and it wouldn't now.

Yes, naturally GDP will fall during this pause, however that's only one economic measure and not particularly useful when you know that it is intentional to support dealing with the health crisis. It doesn't measure the wealth of the country, for example.

[tweetiepooh]

Was thinking at weekend (it was the barbie that smelled of smoke) about the different strains of the virus and the longer term impact on immunity.

One reason for the common cold returning is that it doesn't make the patient ill enough to produce a strong immune response. Mutations are another but this could combine with the former.

Asia and western US have predominantly been infected with strain A that is less virulent or causes less extreme symptoms than strain C that has been the main form in Europe and eastern US. If a more extreme symptom can lead to a better immune response and the reverse is true -

• Is it possible that Europe/eastern US may develop a better immunity than Asia/western US?
• Is it possible that immunity to strain C (because of it's pathology) could lead to immunity to strain A while those countries hit with stain A and now at risk from strain C?
• Or maybe the reverse that as with smallpox/cowpox that using the weaker pathology agent can be used to vaccinate against the stronger?

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by denphone

And workable vaccines don't just turn up that quickly out of thin air as it is likely to take a minimum of 18 months and could even be longer then that and even after that you must industrialise production and then vaccinate the whole population which could take another year.

There is also the added possible problem that some countries might try to exert power to corner it for their own country first.

The Ebola vaccine took a lot longer then 18 months

https://www.statnews.com/2020/01/07/...ebola-vaccine/

https://www.biopharma-reporter.com/A...ne-development

The reality is, Den, that there is no way the government will impose a lockdown for 18 months. This one has been in place for just a few weeks and people are already fed up and infringing the rules.

Additionally, we will have run out of money well before even another three more months of this, so anyone who thinks this will carry on until we have a vaccine is going to be disappointed.

Back to work sooner rather than later, chaps.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

The reality is, Den, that there is no way the government will impose a lockdown for 18 months. This one has been in place for just a few weeks and people are already fed up and infringing the rules.

Additionally, we will have run out of money well before even another three more months of this, so anyone who thinks this will carry on until we have a vaccine is going to be disappointed.

Back to work sooner rather than later, chaps.

Spare us your patronising armchair analysis Old Boy.

You've put up a nice straw man there of a lockdown for 18 months - a situation nobody expects and nobody advocates. The UK Government position, based on medical advice, is for social distancing measures to remain and adjusting to a new normal.

Can you evidence that we will run out of money within three months? Or is that merely your own hyperbole.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

The reality is, Den, that there is no way the government will impose a lockdown for 18 months. This one has been in place for just a few weeks and people are already fed up and infringing the rules.

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

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

As pointed out - I'm making statements in line with UK Government policy, and many other western Governments. I would consider that neither perverse nor strange. Or daft - I'd appreciate if you refrain from the insults.

I've also pointed out that I think the Government should do as much as it can to support businesses during what is essentially only a pause in the economy. There's no reason it will not recover, providing the Government (and worldwide governments) use the macroeconomic levers they can to plug the gap for everyone for a few short months.

Where will the money come from? You ask. What you haven't grasped is that at macroeconomic level trillions of dollars, pounds and euro of debt doesn't really exist in any meaningful way if there's a co-ordinated step by the major economies to exploit quantitative easing and low interest rates.

You've been reading far too much right wing nonsense if you assume that such steps automatically makes us Venezuela. It didn't in 2008 when we bailed out the banks, and it wouldn't now.

Yes, naturally GDP will fall during this pause, however that's only one economic measure and not particularly useful when you know that it is intentional to support dealing with the health crisis. It doesn't measure the wealth of the country, for example.

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

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

No one except you has mentioned lockdown for 18 months.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

The reality is, Den, that there is no way the government will impose a lockdown for 18 months. .

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

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

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Additionally, we will have run out of money well before even another three more months of this, so anyone who thinks this will carry on until we have a vaccine is going to be disappointed.

Back to work sooner rather than later, chaps.

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

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

Spare us your patronising armchair analysis Old Boy.

You've put up a nice straw man there of a lockdown for 18 months - a situation nobody expects and nobody advocates. The UK Government position, based on medical advice, is for social distancing measures to remain and adjusting to a new normal.

Can you evidence that we will run out of money within three months? Or is that merely your own hyperbole.

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

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

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

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

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

What do you suggest?

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Hugh

No one except you has mentioned lockdown for 18 months.

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

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

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

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

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by denphone

And workable vaccines don't just turn up that quickly out of thin air as it is likely to take a minimum of 18 months and could even be longer then that and even after that you must industrialise production and then vaccinate the whole population which could take another year.

There is also the added possible problem that some countries might try to exert power to corner it for their own country first.

The Ebola vaccine took a lot longer then 18 months

https://www.statnews.com/2020/01/07/...ebola-vaccine/

https://www.biopharma-reporter.com/A...ne-development

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

The reality is, Den, that there is no way the government will impose a lockdown for 18 months.

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