Coronavirus

[mickbrown]

9 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said:

I had the app, was told to quarantine for 14 days which I did, after that I binned it. When most of the population don’t have it it’ll never work so what’s the point. 

Didn't you also fuck off self isolating on return from Spain?

[DazBob]

2 minutes ago, Escobarp said:

The hairdresser shouldn’t need to but good on her for doing so. But I would wonder whether the hairdresser is complying with the track trace rules given she felt the need to ring her and no one else has 

My missus has been on furlough since March has been redeployed and now, temporarily, works for the Scottish Government and is now one of their track and tracers.  The amount of calls they have to make is staggeringly low.  She expected to be on the phone all day but that is far from the case.

[DazBob]

3 minutes ago, mickbrown said:

Didn't you also fuck off self isolating on return from Spain?

Mounts does what Mounts wants

[Guest]

Chris Green to vote against national lockdown 

[Escobarp]

1 minute ago, DazBob said:

My missus has been on furlough since March has been redeployed and now, temporarily, works for the Scottish Government and is now one of their track and tracers.  The amount of calls they have to make is staggeringly low.  She expected to be on the phone all day but that is far from the case.

Useful insight that.
 

We put shit in to a machine you’re going to get shit out essentially and that’s what’s happening 

[birch-chorley]

1 minute ago, mickbrown said:

The point is we didn't achieve herd immunity to polio and smallpox by letting it rip though the population.

Also if 70% had caught it in spring, what would the death toll be?

I’m a big supporter of vaccines 

On Polio / Smallpox, you could also say we didn’t allow those viruses to negatively impact our economy, once a vaccine was available we used it eradicate the virus, until then it was business as usual 

How many more would have died in Spring with a different strategy is the key question. If the worst case scenario was 500k then you’d like to think shielding the vulnerable could have brought that down significantly. Obviously it would have been more than the 50k that have died anyway 

If 200k would have died (150k more than where we are now) would that have been more palatable in exchange for a much stronger economy. I’d probably say yes  

[mickbrown]

3 minutes ago, birch-chorley said:

I’m a big supporter of vaccines 

On Polio / Smallpox, you could also say we didn’t allow those viruses to negatively impact our economy, once a vaccine was available we used it eradicate the virus, until then it was business as usual 

How many more would have died in Spring with a different strategy is the key question. If the worst case scenario was 500k then you’d like to think shielding the vulnerable could have brought that down significantly. Obviously it would have been more than the 50k that have died anyway 

If 200k would have died (150k more than where we are now) would that have been more palatable in exchange for a much stronger economy. I’d probably say yes  

To be honest I'd feel slightly queasy saying an extra 150k would be more palatable than a damaged economy.

Economies can rebound. Dead folk don't

[mickbrown]

Or to put it plainer, I don't want my mam and dad dying so that Wetherspoons cunt saves a bit of cash

[Escobarp]

Just now, mickbrown said:

Or to put it plainer, I don't want my mam and dad dying so that Wetherspoons cunt saves a bit of cash

Why would they die if they shield? 

[mickbrown]

4 minutes ago, Escobarp said:

Why would they die if they shield? 

Dad has a carer. How do you guarantee the carer isn't infected if we're letting it rip? 

Edited November 2, 2020 by mickbrown

[Escobarp]

6 minutes ago, mickbrown said:

Dad has a carer. How do you guarantee the carer isn't infected if we're letting it rip? 

I’m not saying let it rip. Difficult to shield if reliant on other people though for sure 

[mickbrown]

2 minutes ago, Escobarp said:

I’m not saying let it rip. Difficult to shield if reliant on other people though for sure 

Aye, that would be my worry. One of his carers has just had to self isolate because she's tested positive, so we're basically hoping PPE does it's job.

[Escobarp]

2 minutes ago, mickbrown said:

Aye, that would be my worry. One of his carers has just had to self isolate because she's tested positive, so we're basically hoping PPE does it's job.

My cousin is a carer. Not had a test at any point as far as I’m aware. That’s a shambles 

[birch-chorley]

13 minutes ago, mickbrown said:

To be honest I'd feel slightly queasy saying an extra 150k would be more palatable than a damaged economy.

Economies can rebound. Dead folk don't

I know it sounds heartless but in context of the 450k that die each year it doesn’t feel outrageous 

3 Winters ago 80k died of flu (including my wife’s nan), 50k more than normal because the flu vaccine wasn’t as effective 

Not a single restriction was put in place, not even face masks which have next to no impact on the economy. With hindsight should we have shut down then in order to save those 50k? Next time something similar happens should we lockdown now a precedent has been set with Covid 

Again, if it was as simple as lives vs a little bit of wealth then fair enough. However the economic damage is now so substantial that the impact on our ability to spend on healthcare moving forward will diminish greatly 

[royal white]

Looks like it’s all going to be fun and games in Manchester on Sunday. So far I’ve seen estimates from 5k to 50k expected to attend the anti lockdown march 

[royal white]

3 minutes ago, birch-chorley said:

I know it sounds heartless but in context of the 450k that die each year it doesn’t feel outrageous 

3 Winters ago 80k died of flu (including my wife’s nan), 50k more than normal because the flu vaccine wasn’t as effective 

Not a single restriction was put in place, not even face masks which have next to no impact on the economy. With hindsight should we have shut down then in order to save those 50k? Next time something similar happens should we lockdown now a precedent has been set with Covid 

Again, if it was as simple as lives vs a little bit of wealth then fair enough. However the economic damage is now so substantial that the impact on our ability to spend on healthcare moving forward will diminish greatly 

Maybe they have learnt a lesson from that? 

[mickbrown]

10 minutes ago, Escobarp said:

My cousin is a carer. Not had a test at any point as far as I’m aware. That’s a shambles 

She only got tested because she had symptoms.

 

[Escobarp]

4 minutes ago, mickbrown said:

She only got tested because she had symptoms.

 

These people should be being tested weekly as a minimum same as any nurse or similar 

[mickbrown]

3 minutes ago, Escobarp said:

These people should be being tested weekly as a minimum same as any nurse or similar 

You would have though so, given they are working with folk who are very vulnerable to it.

[Tombwfc]

46 minutes ago, birch-chorley said:

I’m a big supporter of vaccines 

On Polio / Smallpox, you could also say we didn’t allow those viruses to negatively impact our economy, once a vaccine was available we used it eradicate the virus, until then it was business as usual 

How many more would have died in Spring with a different strategy is the key question. If the worst case scenario was 500k then you’d like to think shielding the vulnerable could have brought that down significantly. Obviously it would have been more than the 50k that have died anyway 

If 200k would have died (150k more than where we are now) would that have been more palatable in exchange for a much stronger economy. I’d probably say yes  

 

What's the economic impact of 15+ million people being unable to leave their homes for six months, while everyone else attempts to catch a virus? How many businesses can run without the over 60s, the obese, the asthmatics and those who live with them? What about the non-vulnerable who didn't fancy catching it?

Does it give you any pause for thought, that no country - each advised by people with far greater expertise than you or I - attempted this?

[birch-chorley]

21 minutes ago, royal white said:

Maybe they have learnt a lesson from that? 

Perhaps, but then again it’s quite a common occurrence 

Similar numbers of excess deaths (50k) occurred in 2014 / 2015, 1999 / 2000, 1996 / 1997 

If from now on we look to shut down our economy to save 50k from Winter Flu viruses then we would be doing it far too frequently. Such regular lockdowns wouldn’t do public finances / the NHS any favours 

 

[Tonge moor green jacket]

1 minute ago, birch-chorley said:

Perhaps, but then again it’s quite a common occurrence 

Similar numbers of excess deaths (50k) occurred in 2014 / 2015, 1999 / 2000, 1996 / 1997 

If from now on we look to shut down our economy to save 50k from Winter Flu viruses then we would be doing it far too frequently. Such regular lockdowns wouldn’t do public finances / the NHS any favours 

 

That's 50,000 with no formal intervention. We've had pretty much that with massive amounts of intervention. 

No one really knows where the balance lies, I suppose that's the holy grail until a vaccine arrives.

It will be interesting to see what happens after: back into tier 3 or 2 for example. 

I think there's a chance that they can work, if the levels are low enough initially with a suitably low R value.

[Nowack]

37 minutes ago, birch-chorley said:

 

3 Winters ago 80k died of flu

 

Can you just check that, it seems a little high. 

[birch-chorley]

6 minutes ago, Tombwfc said:

 

What's the economic impact of 15+ million people being unable to leave their homes for six months, while everyone else attempts to catch a virus? How many businesses can run without the over 60s, the obese, the asthmatics and those who live with them? What about the non-vulnerable who didn't fancy catching it?

Does it give you any pause for thought, that no country - each advised by people with far greater expertise than you or I - attempted this?

The economic impact of 15m isolating for 6 months would be bad 

But nowhere near as bad as it was shutting large parts of the economy down for 4 months for all 66m of us. Clearly if 50m could have operated as normal and businesses remained open then the economic picture would have been a lot better 

We could have paid the 15m vulnerable people £1k a month through lockdown and it would still have been cheaper than the furlough scheme, that’s without even considering all the other government spending incurred (on top of the huge hit in tax revenue) 

With regards other countries, of course it gives pause for thought. To be fair I was supportive of lockdown / saving the NHS myself in March. With hindsight I believe it was the wrong way to go at it, now we can start to see the economic damage caused I think the cure is worse than the virus  

With that in mind, If it’s another 12 months for a vaccine I’d say we need to change our approach. If a vaccine is a matter of weeks away as has been suggested then of course we should carry on with plan A at this stage 

[Mounts Kipper]

1 hour ago, Escobarp said:

But that’s exactly the attitude that is the root cause of the problem alongside folk who don’t give a fuck 

I’m working from home, limiting my contacts and taking all other precautions I can, except I’ve a wife working in school and a son in school, if I feel ill I will isolate, I’m not risking repeated needless isolations, now if I was allowed to have a test as soon as I got the message to see if I was positive or not then I’d reconsider it.

Edited November 2, 2020 by Mounts Kipper