Coronavirus (OLD)

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by denphone

Yes but it must be done safely don't you agree?.

I was addressing Taf's point about warehouses and rationing.

Getting back to work to refill our warehouses prolly doesn't just depend on the UK. But you're obviously right.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

... but Taf has a point.

In an ideal world, yes, of course it'd be great if I could click my fingers and go back to normal. I'd much rather be in a city centre pub having a pint rather than drinking a post work beer in my spare room chatting with you on an internet forum

We get back to normal sooner by reducing the virus to near zero, with a competent (and massive) track, test, trace, isolate system in place. In the absence of these we are essentially relying on sheer luck that community transmission doesn't get out of control. If it did, a further lockdown would be inevitable.

The idea of thousands of deaths per day and everyone waking up on the weekend and going for a needless trip into towns and cities for non-essential shopping, bars, restaurants, cafes, cinemas is simply ridiculous. All of these being areas where staff will simply be let go. For a start tens of thousands will have funerals to go to.

The economy simply tanks either way.

Originally Posted by pip08456

Trump doesn't agree with you.

"When you test, you have a case. When you test, you find something is wrong with people. If we didn't do any testing we would have very few cases."

By that "logic", if women didn’t have a pregnancy test, there would be very few pregnancies...

Also, in that case, why is he getting tested every day?

[Carth]

Originally Posted by Damien

But the intervention on smoking shows it can work. Public health campaigns, the taxation and the ban on smoking in pubs reduced the rates of smoking.

The Governments has quite a few tools at it's disposal to help influence public behaviour.

A large percentage of the population were anti smoking to start with, raising the cost of smoking and banning it in enclosed areas did the trick.

I'm sure if the Government massively hiked the tax on fast food, and then closed down 80% of the outlets, there would be a little bit of an uproar from the masses.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Carth

A large percentage of the population were anti smoking to start with, raising the cost of smoking and banning it in enclosed areas did the trick.

I'm sure if the Government massively hiked the tax on fast food, and then closed down 80% of the outlets, there would be a little bit of an uproar from the masses.

Taxation can work in both directions. You could, for example, reduce it on things like gym membership and bicycles.

[Carth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Taxation can work in both directions. You could, for example, reduce it on things like gym membership and bicycles.

Correct me if I appear to have this wrong, but I'm going to presume that the majority of those who eat regular MaccyD, Burger King, etc will have no thoughts about going to a gym . . no matter what the price.

Lower tax on their staple diet will probably allow them to eat more of it though

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Carth

Correct me if I appear to have this wrong, but I'm going to presume that the majority of those who eat regular MaccyD, Burger King, etc will have no thoughts about going to a gym . . no matter what the price.

Lower tax on their staple diet will probably allow them to eat more of it though

Compulsory bicycle racks at fast food restaurants? All those venues are fine in moderation.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Compulsory bicycle racks at fast food restaurants? All those venues are fine in moderation.

Too conservative (small 'c'). But them 3 miles along the end of a cycle route. It's either a six mile trek or cycle.

[jfman]

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...mid=tw-nytimes

Some interesting reading. Despite 'remaining open' the Swedish economy is contracting. It's almost as if consumer confidence is crashing the economy.

Cases (In England) for the last 3 months.

[papa smurf]

Every person prosecuted under Coronavirus Act was 'wrongly charged', CPS admits


https://www.itv.com/news/2020-05-15/...onavirus-laws/



Dozens of people have been wrongly charged by police under a new coronavirus law, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has admitted.

All 44 charges brought under the Coronavirus Act, which allows officers to remove or detain a "suspected infectious person" for screening and assessment, since it was brought in on March 27 were incorrect.

And 12 charges under the Health Protection Regulations 2020, which give powers to break up gatherings and fine people breaching restriction of movement rules, were also wrong.

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by jfman

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...mid=tw-nytimes

Some interesting reading. Despite 'remaining open' the Swedish economy is contracting. It's almost as if consumer confidence is crashing the economy.

Well there are certain things you simply cannot do in a social distancing situation. Clubbing, drinking in bars. I'm told that in Geneva restaurants are open but limited to 4 per table.

This is damaging to the economy, there is no two ways about it. It is simply to what degree of damaging.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-52669441

Doctors have backed teachers' unions by saying Covid-19 infection rates are too high for England's schools to reopen.

The British Medical Association said teachers and heads were "absolutely right" to urge caution and prioritise testing to avoid a second spike.

It comes after teachers' unions met the government's scientific and medical advisers to express concerns about the planned phased reopening from 1 June.

Why pick the one group of children that really cannot be expected to understand social distancing? Why the rush? Or yet again is the teaching profession regarded as merely childminders? And yes I understand the need to ensure that the least advantaged children get an education but I can't help thinking that adjustments can be made later by extending the teaching day so as to cover missed work. Why risk it now?

[daveeb]

Originally Posted by Maggy

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-52669441



Why pick the one group of children that really cannot be expected to understand social distancing? Why the rush? Or yet again is the teaching profession regarded as merely childminders? And yes I understand the need to ensure that the least advantaged children get an education but I can't help thinking that adjustments can be made later by extending the teaching day so as to cover missed work. Why risk it now?

Exactly ! Reception and year1 is a bizarre choice to get the ball rolling. Getting them to stay put and socially distance is akin to herding cats.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by daveeb

Exactly ! Reception and year1 is a bizarre choice to get the ball rolling. Getting them to stay put and socially distance is akin to herding cats.

It's not about the kids and teachers, it's about getting their parents back to work, regardless of consequences. Hence the youngest kids most likely to need parents first.