Coronavirus Impact

[blondebier]

Speak to the family’s of victims of covid 19 for justification or you could talk to some of my friends who work in the icu near where I live for that justification you seek

I don't need to. Family friend needs a heart op and can't have it. He's at risk of early death because of it. Getting C19 isn't necessarily a death sentence. Not having the heart op will be.

Get off your horse and see other people's perspectives. It's not black and white.

 

[Amarillo]

I don’t think anyone will dispute that this dreadful disease (and the necessary and desperate attempts to contain it) will have a devastating impact on the economy, which will cost us all heavily in the years to come. And, a great many people are going to suffer enormous hardship through this process of containment and beyond it.

However, we are human beings and this is the time to show some humanity. Medics are already faced with the horrific task of having to choose which patients not to treat (patients who in different circumstance might have had a chance of being saved), and the suggestion that we could, or should, discard the old or vulnerable for the sake of the economy, or to enable us, as a community, to build sufficient herd immunity is frankly abhorrent to me.

Herd immunity is an unproven goal in this case, and although my personal thought is that most of us will probably have to be exposed to this disease, I would rather face the survival lottery at a time when there are sufficient hospital beds available to give me a fighting chance. That necessitates attempting to ease the impact of the sick on services, even if the treatment (isolation, job losses, economic collapse) also causes great pain.

The options for government are very few and none of them easy. I choose compassion over the economy and trust that we will find enough generosity as a nation to help people survive this as best we can.

Oh, and once again, let me remind you that this is not the seasonal flu, or any other kind of special flu outbreak and no amount of data quoting will make this the flu. Even the most recent bad flu years have not necessitated the building of Nightingale hospitals, the need for formal social distancing etc .. and its impact is partially controlled by a globally adopted vaccine.

This is a new to humans virus and we are only just learning how it works. It’s the unknowns that are scary for the world and, to quote a well known proverb .. to “assume makes an ass of you and me”.

Your stage in life, your financial security, your health, your family situation all have an impact on your outlook. It’s time to look at how this situation will impact the future of everyone, and dismissing this virus as just another anything is where I believe you are getting yourself in a bit of a muddle. Oh, and your seeming belief that we have more choices than we actually have.

I happen to agree with you. My issue was your dismissive attitude towards @docbob1 's view.

What utter nonsense you spout.

It is not nonsense, it is a reasonable warning of the price we will all have to pay for our Government's decision to ensure there are intensive care beds available for all those who will need them.

 

[andyinluton]

Looks like ministers are preparing to discuss lockdown options:

Coronavirus: Stay at home over Easter to stop virus, public told

People must "stick with" social distancing despite the forecast of warm weather, a minister says.

www.bbc.co.uk

It's mentioned again in this article that we risk a lot more people dying as a result of Covid-19 than because of it.

I'm hoping that the restrictions are lifted soon as I can't see that there is much justification for persisting them much longer.

The whole point of the restrictions is try & keep the infection rate below the hospital capacity. The current lockdown has bought time for the nightingale hospitals to be built & get additional equipment & staff in place.

Despite restrictions we are currently seeing over 900 people a day dying in hospital. These numbers do not include those that died at home or more poignantly for me those dying in care homes. (The care home just round the corner from me has just lost 15 residents.)

Even now if you are in a care home, too old etc its tough you dont get taken to hospital.

Lift the restrictions now & in two weeks time the whole system will be overwhelmed.

If anything Im expecting further restrictions rather than lifting, especially if thousands go to the beach etc this weekend.

 

[WelshGas]

This Virus is akin to the Influenza virus, but NOT our annual Flu outbreaks for which we do have a vaccine to mitigate the effects, But the Spanish Flu of 1918, which killed some 60,000,000 people worldwide. There was no immunity to that virus and the world has a far greater population now than then. I'm sure someone can do the maths of what the Death Toll would have been .nowadays without any mitigation.

 

[blondebier]

The whole point of the restrictions is try & keep the infection rate below the hospital capacity. The current lockdown has bought time for the nightingale hospitals to be built & get additional equipment & staff in place.

I agree with you Andy, I expect most of the public will too. The current lockdown was justified so that the NHS could prepare and increase the number of critical care beds. This came at a price and a lot of people have now not been treated who would otherwise have occupied some of those beds.

These are extraordinary times and the decisions the government need to make are impossible. (I am grateful that I do not have that responsibility)

However, we do need to ask ourselves if a prolonged lockdown is worth it. I’m not suggesting for one minute that we put a price on someone’s life, but we do need to think about the majority who would be largely unaffected by COVID-19 and who would get over it if they caught it.

Should they have to suffer a prolonged period of financial hardship to protect a small minority, many of whom are elderly, have lived a reasonable life and probably have a secure income?

The crux of it for me is that I do not honestly think people really understand the financial cost of the “rescue package” that has been proposed. The difference with the bank bailout in 2008 was that the banks had to make a repayment contribution and work towards repaying the money they received. That gave us 10 years of austerity. A lot of people are still angry about that.

With this “rescue package” there will be no repayment. What is the austerity that follows this going to look like?

Will it be worth it?

I’m not sure it will.

Most people will accept that the voice driving our future direction will be heavily influenced by the medical profession. Their sole remit being the preservation of life. They do not need to consider the wider implications to the economy and knock on effects to our society as that’s not their job. They will also get paid regardless of the period of lockdown. As will many in our public sector.

A lot of other people aren't as fortunate though and will have lost their income and the restrictions are preventing them from doing anything about it.

I can't see that they will accept that for very long.

IMO - I don't think they should have to.

 

[Velma's Dad]

As many accept the formation of a police state, an economic disaster is occuring (I see economists are now referring to a DEPRESSION) not an economic recession (qv) . We are looking at £30Billion pounds for private sector minimum wages , a milllion approved DWP claims alone in the last 2 weeks (?£1 billion per month) plus what further will occur in next month or two!! The unemployment toll will be in excess of 15% possibly for 10 years so no tax from them to fund government but benefits also needed by these poor individuals. All this will be paid for by loans from whom and under what conditions? Look out for the Eurobond (coronabond!) but we need to be part of Europe to have it. This last bit is conjecture but likely to be the financing we will receive will stipulate that.
I attach a link to specialists in virology/epidemiology (study of diseases of populations) whose voices are not heard above WHO (not the independent, wonderful world peacekeepers medical branch of UN but whose biggest financiers are 1) Bill Gates 2)Pharmaceutical companies, and who determined this lock down policy. LOOK IT UP!
The dissenters, never heard on the British Brainwashing Corporation or mainstream media.
Try this for alternative research for the facts.

10 MORE Experts Criticising the Coronavirus Panic

Following on from our previous list, here are ten more expert voices, drowned out or disregarded by the mainstream narrative, offering their take on the coronavirus outbreak. * * * Dr. Sunetra Gupt…

off-guardian.org

I also attach a paper from the 1989 flu epidemic (there were a few more in 1999, 2010, 2015 etc)
which shows an explosive incidence of respiratory disease weeks 46-51 (Nov/endDec) and the 2-3 week lag period for respiratory deaths, clearly must be linked!! In a seven week period there were 22,000 deaths above those expected. Lock down NO No No, normal epidemic flu not even pandemic.
For those with no brains or contributions do not waste a reply with "Yawn" "everyone has an opinion like arseholes" you deserve what will be coming your way if you don't wake up

Bob, I think it's extremely important to look objectively at the economic and human costs, against the benefits, of the strategies the UK and most other G7 countries are currently taking to mitigate the effects of the CV19 outbreak.

But I'm afraid the way you're trying to do that in your posts - pushing data selectively and quoting experts selectively (there will always be a minority of scientists who question any orthodoxy, that's their job, but it doesn't of itself make a consensus false), and hinting at global conspiracy theories that you imply include international institutions, UN agencies, Bill Gates and the media - makes it hard, for me anyway, to take your underlying arguments seriously.

On the matter of the economic costs/benefits of various options, some attempts have indeed been made to apply the same broad econometric approach to the CV19 pandemic that is conventionally used in cost-benefit analysis of new candidate treatments in general healthcare. In looking at CV19, age-adjusted estimates of the value of each life saved add up to an absolutely massive case for accepting even a major hit on the economy over a number of years. I'm not going to quote any particular figures but from what I've seen there is directional consistency in the analysis: ie that there is an economic as well as a raw human case for the current measures. I'm not taking sides, I'm just saying that there is something approaching a consensus, which when taken alongside the clear view of the public and their elected representatives that saving lives in the short term is paramount, is why most countries have adopted broadly similar strategies.

 

[Moakesy]

If we can accept the following

1) That some, but not all, of the population will die as a result of getting Covid19.
2) Every age group will have deaths, although the percentages vary by age group

If we then take 20 of our closest family and friends, how many of those is it acceptable to die in order for the rest not to incur financial hardship?

would it be the 39 year niece who is a nurse? Or maybe the 76 year old uncle? Or maybe it’s me who’ll die?

This point is we don’t get to choose, the virus does.

this is the impossible decision we are asking others to make. It is far easier to support someone through financial hardship than it is from Covid19.

 

[LemonDrop]

The trouble is it's really not black and white - it's not only about deaths directly caused by Covid 19. The financial hardship that is to come WILL result in deaths for years down the line: The NHS will inevitably suffer financially along with all other facets of society, resulting in a further squeeze on staffing levels, beds, operating theatres resulting in delays to operations as @blondebier has already highlighted: There will be more cases of medical negligence (medical staff often can't provide safe levels of care as it is) and life-saving drugs will be denied to patients because they are too expensive.

I'm not saying that therefore we should end lockdown but there is no "right" answer to this horrible situation. We aren't going to know for quite some time I don't think, but there may well be a similar amount of deaths as a result of Covid 19 which ever way we go, one lot directly related to the disease and the other as a consequence of it.

 

[Amarillo]

With this “rescue package” there will be no repayment. What is the austerity that follows this going to look like?

There was always an alternative to austerity: fleecing the rich.

 

[Velma's Dad]

A really interesting in-depth article by Reuters that analyses the UK Government's decision making processes since January.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...DNhL2W2XD8yK0Sioi9OTl8itp9FlaUBQFXTwRKsK2I3p0

It explores among many other things the interplay between scientists and policy makers at the crucial stages of the outbreak, that led to the delay in implementing the lock-down and of focusing effort on expanding testing capacity.

 

[Velma's Dad]

The trouble is it's really not black and white - it's not only about deaths directly caused by Covid 19. The financial hardship that is to come WILL result in deaths for years down the line: The NHS will inevitably suffer financially along with all other facets of society, resulting in a further squeeze on staffing levels, beds, operating theatres resulting in delays to operations as @blondebier has already highlighted: There will be more cases of medical negligence (medical staff often can't provide safe levels of care as it is) and life-saving drugs will be denied to patients because they are too expensive.

I'm not saying that therefore we should end lockdown but there is no "right" answer to this horrible situation. We aren't going to know for quite some time I don't think, but there may well be a similar amount of deaths as a result of Covid 19 which ever way we go, one lot directly related to the disease and the other as a consequence of it.

There's no doubt that financial hardship will be in spadefuls. I would say however that I've read in the media some lazy assertions that a drop in GDP leads to more deaths.

Maybe counter-intuitively, it seems this is not necessarily true. An increase in unemployment does usually cause more deaths, tragically, from certain causes, notably suicides and alcohol misuse. On the other hand it reduces likely deaths from some other causes, such as road accidents and, oddly, drug dependence. The net-net seems to be that mortality stays almost exactly the same when GDP drops significantly.

A major factor appears to be whether health services are maintained during a recession, and that's ultimately a political choice.

(For the avoidance of doubt I'm not saying that recession doesn't cause enormous hardship, of course it does.)

 

[Amarillo]

This Virus is akin to the Influenza virus, but NOT our annual Flu outbreaks for which we do have a vaccine to mitigate the effects, But the Spanish Flu of 1918, which killed some 60,000,000 people worldwide. There was no immunity to that virus and the world has a far greater population now than then. I'm sure someone can do the maths of what the Death Toll would have been .nowadays without any mitigation.

World population in 1900: 1.6bn
World population in 1927: 2.0bn
World population in 2020: 7.8bn

Spanish flu deaths: 17m to 100m

If equivalent of Spanish flu hit now without mitigation 66m to 500m deaths.

Without mitigation, Coronavirus estimated to infect 80% of population with a 1% mortality rate.

7.8bn x 80% = 6.2bn
6.2bn x 1% = 62m

 

[willwander]

There was always an alternative to austerity: fleecing the rich.

Define ‘the rich’. Would you count yourself in that category?

 

[Amarillo]

Define ‘the rich’. Would you count yourself in that category?

There are several possible definitions of rich. Here are twelve:
1. Individual or household income at or above average (mean, median or mode).
2. Individual or household net worth at or above average (as above).

Yes, almost certainly, by any of the twelve measures above.

It is for the government to decide. Austerity has a disproportionate effect on the poorest, hence the widening inequality in this country.

 

[Moakesy]

There are several possible definitions of rich. Here are twelve:
1. Individual or household income at or above average (mean, median or mode).
2. Individual or household net worth at or above average (as above).

Yes, almost certainly, by any of the twelve measures above.

It is for the government to decide. Austerity has a disproportionate effect on the poorest, hence the widening inequality in this country.

If that's twelve then you may be in need of a little home schooling...

 

[willwander]

It is for the government to decide.

How convenient

 

[Amarillo]

If that's twelve then you may be in need of a little home schooling...

Income or net worth = 2
Individual or household = 2
Mean, median or mode = 3

2 x 2 x 3 = 12

 

[Moakesy]

Income or net worth = 2
Individual or household = 2
Mean, median or mode = 3

2 x 2 x 3 = 12

Schooled !!!

 

[westfalia]

Schooled !!!

Had, more like.

Of course, you fell into amarillos trap.

 

[andyinluton]

Income or net worth = 2
Individual or household = 2
Mean, median or mode = 3

2 x 2 x 3 = 12

If people are being pedantic.

At average or above average is a further 2x so

2 x 2 x 2 x 3 = 24

back to school.

 

[Velma's Dad]

Pedantry is the new football.

 

[larrylamb]

 

[ArunAlec]

Pedantry, chiropody what’s the difference?

 

[EddieEagle]

About a foot

 

[Wongo]

There was always an alternative to austerity: fleecing the rich.

‘Tax the tax avoiders