Current Affairs Coronavirus Thread - Serious stuff !!!

[ToffeeTim]

Is this actually true? Wasn't it fairly open to corporate abuse ; people getting paid by the state and working other jobs; and anecdotally, I know of companies who entered their staff on the scheme, but realised that their business wasn't as badly effected as anticipated after a week, but couldn't take their staff off of it for another two weeks causing loss of business and extra expense to the taxpayer.

There probably were cases of misuse, like all things in life. There was no real criteria for how badly a firm had to be effected to use the scheme. In fact that would have been very difficult to even judge at the beginning of April because no one could see into the future.

The more likely breach of the rules was that you couldn't furlough a worker and then make them do any work. If a business asked a furloughed employee to even do 5 mins work, that was against the rules.

3 weeks was the minimum period you could furlough a worker. It was designed that way to be flexible and not tie an employer into a decision for the long term. The claims were processed very efficiently in my experience, and I don't always like to give credit to the revenue!

 

[ForeverBlue92]

Controversial question here.

At what point , given the ramifications of imposing lockdown restrictions for potentially millions of people. Given that the average age of death for covid-19 is over 80.

When do you start to loosen restrictions that are mainly there to protect age groups most likely to die?

In 2018 there were over half a million deaths attributed to dementia and Alzheimer's in the uk based on a quick Google. The age groups affected by this are similar to the average age of deaths for covid-19.

At what point do you return to normal because you are mostly protecting those who are most likely to die anyway? Mostly being the key word , not all.

And at what point do you simply seek to protect those people rather than shut an entire country down who are mostly likely to survive the virus .

It's a callous way of putting it , but it is the reality of it.

What gets me is the science is lacking massively with this thing - if we could get daily results testing you could have carehome workers tested everyday before going on shift

Likewise you could have family home testing before visiting elderly relatives.

Added to the reality that you have a significant number of elderly who aint arsed about the virus - my uncle is in his 60's and you can't keep him out the bookies with his old cronie mates watching the racing - its a day out for them.

 

[tsubaki]

Controversial question here.

At what point , given the ramifications of imposing lockdown restrictions for potentially millions of people. Given that the average age of death for covid-19 is over 80.

When do you start to loosen restrictions that are mainly there to protect age groups most likely to die?

In 2018 there were over half a million deaths attributed to dementia and Alzheimer's in the uk based on a quick Google. The age groups affected by this are similar to the average age of deaths for covid-19.

At what point do you return to normal because you are mostly protecting those who are most likely to die anyway? Mostly being the key word , not all.

And at what point do you simply seek to protect those people rather than shut an entire country down who are mostly likely to survive the virus .

It's a callous way of putting it , but it is the reality of it.

If we get to that point that we as a country knowingly have to sacrifice thousands / tens of thousands of people to a painful death just to save the rest, then the government responsible must be removed and must be held criminally accountable. Society could not continue in any kind of acceptable form if politicians got away with that unpunished.

 

[The binman chronicles]

Controversial question here.

At what point , given the ramifications of imposing lockdown restrictions for potentially millions of people. Given that the average age of death for covid-19 is over 80.

When do you start to loosen restrictions that are mainly there to protect age groups most likely to die?

In 2018 there were over half a million deaths attributed to dementia and Alzheimer's in the uk based on a quick Google. The age groups affected by this are similar to the average age of deaths for covid-19.

At what point do you return to normal because you are mostly protecting those who are most likely to die anyway? Mostly being the key word , not all.

And at what point do you simply seek to protect those people rather than shut an entire country down who are mostly likely to survive the virus .

It's a callous way of putting it , but it is the reality of it.

A small percentage of a massive amount of people is still a lot of people. I tried to answer this point in a post I made not too long ago. This is not just an old person's disease, there have been plenty of younger people seriously ill in hospital because of it. If you say screw it whoever gets it gets it, you're basically saying that to any who needs access to medical care. No cancer treatment etc. because the hospitals are chock full of corona patients and likely you would pick it up and it would finish you off.

So unless you are prepared to live in a world where whoever is fit is useful, whoever is ill is done for it isn't a great idea.

 

[Disgruntledgoat]

Controversial question here.

At what point , given the ramifications of imposing lockdown restrictions for potentially millions of people. Given that the average age of death for covid-19 is over 80.

When do you start to loosen restrictions that are mainly there to protect age groups most likely to die?

In 2018 there were over half a million deaths attributed to dementia and Alzheimer's in the uk based on a quick Google. The age groups affected by this are similar to the average age of deaths for covid-19.

At what point do you return to normal because you are mostly protecting those who are most likely to die anyway? Mostly being the key word , not all.

And at what point do you simply seek to protect those people rather than shut an entire country down who are mostly likely to survive the virus .

It's a callous way of putting it , but it is the reality of it.

The idea is that you are protecting the hospitals from being overloaded with serious cases as was happening earlier in the year. That's in addition to all the other increased admissions over the winter with flu, that winter vomiting bug etc etc.

You're looking at restrictions until next spring, I think.

Incidentally, here in Belgium we're seeing 400 cases a day but single figure deaths and almost no hospital admissions, which is the state they tell us they want until a vaccine comes along. Is it a similar situation in Britain?

 

[paultheblue]

We need to live our lives as tomorrow is not guaranteed for any of us with or without ‘kin COVID
Don’t let these clowns take away our freedom because of their incompetence

I tend to agree with you mate, the people telling us what to do are clueless so we have to make our decisions to look after our own.

 

[evilwebby]

I would have started with safe discharging of vulnerable people into care care homes and appropriate PPE for NHS and Social care sector. As we did not the Government will be forever shackled by those failures which of course is entirely correct. So shoot me I'm a quantifiable socialist...

You can go over the decisions taken and highlight mistakes made with a fine tooth comb, but more to the point what would you do different now?

Unlike armchair permacritics, policymakers do not have the benefit of hindsight to determine what the best course of action was. They can only make a judgement given the information - much of it conflicting - that is present at the time. I am not pretending that every decision has been optimal and the best course of action in hindsight, but are we following the basic premise of taking the most prudent action given all the evidence available and our need to balance the various priorities? I would say very much yes.

Remember that we built a hospital with 5000 beds, about 4950 of which were never used. Was this a mistake? Categorically you would have to say yes in hindsight as it diverted important resources away from other areas, but at the time it was unquestionably the right course of action.

 

[roydo]

The idea is that you are protecting the hospitals from being overloaded with serious cases as was happening earlier in the year. That's in addition to all the other increased admissions over the winter with flu, that winter vomiting bug etc etc.

You're looking at restrictions until next spring, I think.

Incidentally, here in Belgium we're seeing 400 cases a day but single figure deaths and almost no hospital admissions, which is the state they tell us they want until a vaccine comes along. Is it a similar situation in Britain?

Adjusted for population difference, pretty much. There has been an uptick in admissions, but not sure if that all down to Covid. The plan, I think, is to keep things stable, as best we can.

 

[davek]

I know it's convenient to talk about 'the industry' rather than individual people, but for every industry that is allowed to die or told to wait there are tens of thousands of individuals affected. It's rent not paid, bills not paid, closure of business, closure of local services, increase in support mechanisms needed.

And completely locking down isn't 'the only way to get on top of it'. We live with risk all our lives, and even where there is a pandemic, it can be managed with the right systems in place that we mitigate as much risk as possible.

Sticking with Blackpool, there are around 25,000 full time jobs in Blackpool that rely on tourism. It's tourism industry is valued at around £1.6bn. There is evidence across multiple disasters and emergencies that the perception of problems and reputational damage in tourism is often worse than the actual difficulties faced and it's possible the perception that it cannot open successfully, on a town so reliant on tourism, would cripple it. It's missed the summer season and it's now set to miss the autumn and winter season.

Equally, I doubt it's inhabitants are interested in a debate as to whether the economy needs a shift at the present time. Perhaps as part of the learning when we begin to fully recover but really many can't wait and hope that investment is made in diversification.

Firts of all, we cant wish away a pandemic. Some areas (and areas of activity) will inevitably be more affected than others. Second, I dont say we need complete lockdown forever. But another lockdown has to be for a couple of months to get the infection levels under control for certain sectors like hospitality. Third, of course there can be no reset of the economic imbalance right now and I'm not suggesting people from Blackpool should be concerned with it. That debate's for the future.

 

[davek]

Death rate could be due to other factors such as Chefs being overweight and Taxi drivers and Security Guards having sedentary lifestyles

They could be. I think I read the case of chef's is the amount of time they remain in an enclosed space which, despite extractors etc will recirculate air all day long.

 

[orchard]

You can go over the decisions taken and highlight mistakes made with a fine tooth comb, but more to the point what would you do different now?

Unlike armchair permacritics, policymakers do not have the benefit of hindsight to determine what the best course of action was. They can only make a judgement given the information - much of it conflicting - that is present at the time. I am not pretending that every decision has been optimal and the best course of action in hindsight, but are we following the basic premise of taking the most prudent action given all the evidence available and our need to balance the various priorities? I would say very much yes.

Remember that we built a hospital with 5000 beds, about 4950 of which were never used. Was this a mistake? Categorically you would have to say yes in hindsight as it diverted important resources away from other areas, but at the time it was unquestionably the right course of action.

Loaded question again. What to do NOW after wasting so much time and money...it's not hindsight, most if not all of this was forseable(sp).

Regarding the bolded text, thousands of referrals weren't made because they weren't set up to accommodate any other complications, which, with this virus, are legion.

 

[Noisy noise annoys]

The idea is that you are protecting the hospitals from being overloaded with serious cases as was happening earlier in the year. That's in addition to all the other increased admissions over the winter with flu, that winter vomiting bug etc etc.

You're looking at restrictions until next spring, I think.

Incidentally, here in Belgium we're seeing 400 cases a day but single figure deaths and almost no hospital admissions, which is the state they tell us they want until a vaccine comes along. Is it a similar situation in Britain?

Would you take the vax?

 

[Disgruntledgoat]

Would you take the vax?

Why would I not?

 

[Amw79]

Controversial question here.

At what point , given the ramifications of imposing lockdown restrictions for potentially millions of people. Given that the average age of death for covid-19 is over 80.

When do you start to loosen restrictions that are mainly there to protect age groups most likely to die?

In 2018 there were over half a million deaths attributed to dementia and Alzheimer's in the uk based on a quick Google. The age groups affected by this are similar to the average age of deaths for covid-19.

At what point do you return to normal because you are mostly protecting those who are most likely to die anyway? Mostly being the key word , not all.

And at what point do you simply seek to protect those people rather than shut an entire country down who are mostly likely to survive the virus .

It's a callous way of putting it , but it is the reality of it.

I don’t think it is a controversial question. Whitty and Valance this week talked specifically about balancing the Covid deaths, other non related deaths and the consequences of economic collapse.

Aside from those who take the extreme - shut it down or open it up - positions, most countries are trying to strike a balance.

Down the road, further economic collapse would be disastrous, even at this point I can see that next year we’re gonna see public services cut to a degree never seen before.

Who will pay for the economic collapse? Will it be managed through investment, sustainable borrowing and sensible progressive taxation? Unlikely. Those who thought the austerity of the 2010s was severe, will not be pleased by the public services cuts to come next year.

 

[davek]

Controversial question here.

At what point , given the ramifications of imposing lockdown restrictions for potentially millions of people. Given that the average age of death for covid-19 is over 80.

When do you start to loosen restrictions that are mainly there to protect age groups most likely to die?

In 2018 there were over half a million deaths attributed to dementia and Alzheimer's in the uk based on a quick Google. The age groups affected by this are similar to the average age of deaths for covid-19.

At what point do you return to normal because you are mostly protecting those who are most likely to die anyway? Mostly being the key word , not all.

And at what point do you simply seek to protect those people rather than shut an entire country down who are mostly likely to survive the virus .

It's a callous way of putting it , but it is the reality of it.

It's a completely spurious argument to use demographics in this way. There will be ramifications for the long term health of many young people who have been exposed to this virus. The long covid19 problem is something the health professions know all about and have warned younger age groups to heed.

What you're proposing will store up a health disaster years down the line.


We all must be protected from the virus.