Coronavirus - Page 27

jfman · 20-10-2020, 12:52

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/our...ker-lockdowns/

Economists for circuit breakers.

papa smurf · 20-10-2020, 12:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/our...ker-lockdowns/

Economists for circuit breakers.

opinions are like bum holes

everyone has one

Pierre · 20-10-2020, 13:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh

But it’s not like seasonal flu - it kills more

but will it? when we have a vaccine and the vulnerable are vaccinated?

Because it's a novel virus there is by definition no immunity (ignoring the T-Cell theory for a moment)

How many might seasonal flu kill if there was no immunity and 15-20M weren't vaccinated annually?

---------- Post added at 12:25 ---------- Previous post was at 12:23 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien

If parents are smoking in the house with their children then health experts probably aren't happy but there isn't much they do can about it. Short of banning it all together then the reasonability lies with the parents surely?

Oh there's lot's they can do! they could legislate that smoking in a confined space with children is illegal and abusive to children. Like they have done with cars!

Then the police will come a knocking when someone makes a complaint against you.

jfman · 20-10-2020, 13:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierre

but will it? when we have a vaccine and the vulnerable are vaccinated?

Because it's a novel virus there is by definition no immunity (ignoring the T-Cell theory for a moment)

How many might seasonal flu kill if there was no immunity and 15-20M weren't vaccinated annually?

A straw man comparison if ever I saw one.

Pierre · 20-10-2020, 13:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/our...ker-lockdowns/

Economists for circuit breakers.

Left wing economists from the university of Viv Nicholson.

Quote:

as in times of war, there is no effective economic limit on crisis spending

Let's shut it down, then start it up, then shut it down, then......repeat ad-infinitum

**Damien** · 20-10-2020, 13:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierre

but will it? when we have a vaccine and the vulnerable are vaccinated?

Because it's a novel virus there is by definition no immunity (ignoring the T-Cell theory for a moment)

We don't know I don't think.

I know what you're saying, that this is a new virus entirely and even/when it evolves it'll become like the flu in that our experiences of dealing with the previous version of the virus will allow our immune systems to adapt to it's evolved strains quicker.

But I don't think they know that for sure yet nor the long term ramifications of the virus. The reports of 'long COVID' and people having evidence of damage from it even if they were asymptomatic are not fully understood yet.

Either way it's going to be around forever it seems but the question is if it's better for all of us that first exposure is done via a vaccine rather than contracting the virus proper.

Even if we do give up and try a controlled spread as opposed to halting the virus then that'll likely involve trying to keep it very low over the winter months and opening up in spring again to avoid the flu season.

There are still so many unknowns I don't think you can fault the government for taking the cautious approach.

nomadking · 20-10-2020, 13:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierre

Left wing economists from the university of Viv Nicholson.

Let's shut it down, then start it up, then shut it down, then......repeat ad-infinitum

"No limit" shouldn't mean a free for all. You still have to be selective about what you spend money on.

Pierre · 20-10-2020, 13:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman

A straw man comparison if ever I saw one.

no it isn't, it's perfectly sensible coherent argument.

Comparing the death rates of two viruses. One that we have a vaccine for and one that we don't - now that's nonsensical.

jfman · 20-10-2020, 14:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierre

Left wing economists from the university of Viv Nicholson.

Let's shut it down, then start it up, then shut it down, then......repeat ad-infinitum

There's no outcome that doesn't cause economic harm. You either choose to mitigate it or do not under the guise of it being too expensive. Yet there's no plan to pay the current £2trn of debt anyway!

---------- Post added at 13:00 ---------- Previous post was at 12:58 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierre

no it isn't, it's perfectly sensible coherent argument.

Comparing the death rates of two viruses. One that we have a vaccine for and one that we don't - now that's nonsensical.

Hmmm. I suppose it's an interesting thought experiment. However I fail to see how useful such a comparison is. In the real world we do have a flu vaccine.

Nobody would ever countenance not distributing a flu vaccine. It's generally accepted in the civilised world we try to improve treatment outcomes.

---------- Post added at 13:02 ---------- Previous post was at 13:00 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking

"No limit" shouldn't mean a free for all. You still have to be selective about what you spend money on.

Quality infrastructure projects. You either pay for that our pay out on dole money anyway and have nothing to show for it. The private sector isn't coming to the rescue any time soon.

Pierre · 20-10-2020, 15:35

thank the lord the pandemic is over.

I mean it's no longer a public health issue, just a financial settlement issue.

jfman · 20-10-2020, 16:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierre

thank the lord the pandemic is over.

I mean it's no longer a public health issue, just a financial settlement issue.

Well, there's no point asking people to isolate if they haven't got the means to pay their bills during that time. Similarly, it the Government are pushing contact tracing onto local authorities after the failure of the private sector the least they can do is recognise the value of this work. £10bn for one that doesn't work is a nice big pie to spread among local authorities and NHS boards.

**Mick** · 20-10-2020, 18:14

BREAKING: Greater Manchester moves to Tier 3 from Midnight Thursday, the strictest of the lockdown tiers.

**Damien** · 20-10-2020, 18:20

The Government announced it during Burnham's press conference presumably thinking they'll catch him unawares but now BBC/Sky have footage they're replying of local leaders finding out about the lockdown via text messages.

Sephiroth · 20-10-2020, 18:27

Is it right that Burnham turned down £60m and so ended up with £22m?

nomadking · 20-10-2020, 18:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Is it right that Burnham turned down £60m and so ended up with £22m?

Looks like it.

Link

Quote:

Greater Manchester was offered £60m of central government to help support businesses under the new Tier 3 limits - but in a conversation with the prime minister, Mayor Andy Burnham suggested it was not possible to accept less than £65m.

Link

Quote:

And he says that Greater Manchester will receive £22m "on top of the £1bn we're providing in funding for local authorities across the whole country he says.