Coronavirus (COVID-19)

[Gaz]

7 minutes ago, MixuFixit said:

There's an onion or daily mash article about how a guy is definitely going that check that thing out you recommended which I wanted to post in response to this but can't find it.

I wish that existed when that mental boy from Dingwall recommended Gattaca to me.

Still haven't watched it.

[pandarilla]

The UK government borrows in its own currency, it literally can't run out of money. We can just print more money to pay for everything. And given the alternative is probably massive deflation, then a little bit of BRRRR is probably okay.
People on here seem to think that as soon as restrictions are lifted then everything returns to normal and "the economy" starts back up and it's all good. It's not going to work like that - for as long as the virus is still working its way through the population, there's still going to be uncertainty. You open things back up, see a surge in infections, then there's detrimental economic effects there too.
There's no "optimal" solution to this crisis. Regardless of lockdown or no lockdown, there's going to be a significant economic hit. People will lose jobs. There'll be enormous and long-lasting social impacts. The best solution is the "least-worst" one

See this is what I'm not sure about.

Most other major economies in the world are planning to ease restrictions, or have already started.

We're holding off, which I'm perfectly happy with (as long as it's counted in weeks, or a few months).

But the idea that we will hold off, printing our own money, paying wages for everyone, without absolute life-changing circumstances seems like fantasy economics. I don't have any expertise but that doesn't fit with anything I've ever read about economics. We would surely end up having considerably worse effects on our society than a managed death toll.

Testing is obviously the key, and a quick vaccine would be fucking brilliant, but the idea of us staying in lockdown until next year seems unrealistic to me. At some point we need to get things slowly moving again, and use the best data we have to manage the risks, and prevent the nhs from being overrun.

Our intensive care capacity has been ramped up massively and it's not being used, which is fantastic. But folk shouldn't underplay the effects of lockdown on a population over the medium to long term.

[vikingTON]

3 hours ago, heedthebaa said:

I'm seeing and hearing a real shift in attitudes towards the lockdown here last few days, I can see all the good that this has done to slow the virus, being undone 

Yep, I'm sure that the South Koreans are fuming that their government didn't kill their economy while still racking up 1000 deaths per day and forcing frontline staff to make their own PPE from bin bags. A British success story to bang all your kitchenware for!

3 hours ago, Marshmallo said:

I'm not willing to potentially become a biological weapon to get a haircut till we know the risks.

Then stay in the house and let those with a rational understanding of risk get on with their everyday lives.

[Marshmallo]

2 minutes ago, pandarilla said:

 But folk shouldn't underplay the effects of lockdown on a population over the medium to long term.


 

You keep saying stuff like this and I always feel really thick. Can you explicitly explain to me like I'm 6 years old - what are these effects on the population from a long term lockdown? 

Secondary question- how many people extra dying would be worth it to offset the effects of lockdown on a population?

[Marshmallo]

1 minute ago, virginton said:

Then stay in the house and let those with a rational understanding of risk get on with their everyday lives.

I literally said "till we know the risks" in the post you quoted.

[pandarilla]

You keep saying stuff like this and I always feel really thick. Can you explicitly explain to me like I'm 6 years old - what are these effects on the population from a long term lockdown?  Secondary question- how many people extra dying would be worth it to offset the effects of lockdown on a population?

 

When companies go bust people lose their jobs, and economic depression can set in. 2008 has led to a decade of austerity, and the effects led to some quite severe social deprivation, and yes people have died (suicide rates due pressure from benefit agencies etc). 

But even if our economy got going tomorrow i think we're looking at long term economic effects that already blow 'the lost decade' (as it's been called) out of the water.

 

Every week that we're locked down the situation multiplies. Businesses fail, families go hungry, food bank use soars, domestic abuse rises, people develop illnesses related to social factors. Mental health factors were already severe in our society before this kicked off. At some point it clearly has a bigger effect on lives.

 

Now if we can go all radical left wing and fund it all by printing money and create a new society - sign me up. But anyone that thinks that's desirable for most of England needs their head examined. And I'm not sure it can be forced on people. So what the f**k can we do?

 

 

 

 

 

[vikingTON]

Just now, Marshmallo said:

I literally said "till we know the risks" in the post you quoted.

We already have as good an understanding as we can get about the risks and how to mitigate them. I said ages ago that the obvious next move would be to enforce face masks in addition to continued social distancing wherever possible and still washing your hands like somebody who is not a fucking mink - and here we are, with masks certain to be a crucial feature of the immediate post-lockdown environment. What we should not do is either wait indefinitely for a vaccine to be found, mass produced and then distributed to the UK (which will be about 17th in the queue btw) nor have a hysterical shrieking breakdown when someone briefly crosses our two metre personal threshold. That is not actually a credible risk of contagion and so with face masks and fairly strong behaviour norms now instilled a lot of everyday activity should be resuming in around a month's time.

[yoda]

12 minutes ago, pandarilla said:

See this is what I'm not sure about.

Most other major economies in the world are planning to ease restrictions, or have already started.

We're holding off, which I'm perfectly happy with (as long as it's counted in weeks, or a few months).

But the idea that we will hold off, printing our own money, paying wages for everyone, without absolute life-changing circumstances seems like fantasy economics. I don't have any expertise but that doesn't fit with anything I've ever read about economics. We would surely end up having considerably worse effects on our society than a managed death toll.



 

My point of contention wasn't how long a lockdown or quasi-lockdown will last. I don't think it's realistic to expect the current lockdown restrictions to last until 2021. I think it's realistic to see them lasting for a couple more months, and some restrictions still being in place for longer than that. It was the "we'll run out of money!" bit I took issue with.  I'm not squaring for an argument because I don't have the time or inclination for one, and I don't want to come across as a smarmy bellend, but it's not really "fantasy economics". It might not fit with what you've read, but that doesn't mean it's "fantasy".

[ayrmad]

I think we'll tiptoe out of lockdown roughly where we were on the daily death count when Boris 1st announced social distancing, can't remember the infection rate around that time, we need the health professionals to have a small period of recuperation, ppe stocks and distribution chains beefed up properly, testing ramped up to a high level, contact tracing in place, then let infection rates rise to a level(higher than this one) that tests our new capacity without overpowering it, folk are just going to have to accept that we've 10's of thousands of lives to lose before we get through this. 

Hopefully the reality isn't as brutal as that but I'll prepare for it nonetheless, I'll certainly not be recommending any of those I know in vulnerable groups let their guard down too much. 

Edited April 19, 2020 by ayrmad

[madwullie]

54 minutes ago, pandarilla said:

When companies go bust people lose their jobs, and economic depression can set in. 2008 has led to a decade of austerity, and the effects led to some quite severe social deprivation, and yes people have died (suicide rates due pressure from benefit agencies etc). 

But even if our economy got going tomorrow i think we're looking at long term economic effects that already blow 'the lost decade' (as it's been called) out of the water.

 

Every week that we're locked down the situation multiplies. Businesses fail, families go hungry, food bank use soars, domestic abuse rises, people develop illnesses related to social factors. Mental health factors were already severe in our society before this kicked off. At some point it clearly has a bigger effect on lives.

 

Now if we can go all radical left wing and fund it all by printing money and create a new society - sign me up. But anyone that thinks that's desirable for most of England needs their head examined. And I'm not sure it can be forced on people. So what the f**k can we do?

 

 

 

 

 

Basically, because we haven't got proper test and trace methods in place, all we can do is open up, watch cases and deaths rise, and then close down again as the nhs reaches critical point again, and repeat until vaccine or our govt gets it together enough to test the kind of numbers they would have been testing from the start were we not all part of Johnston's eugenics experiment to try to show the rest of the world that British blitz spirit will get us through this slight flu trimmer, healthier and wealthier than the rest of those paranoid nutcases that shut their economies down. 

Edited April 19, 2020 by madwullie

[Todd_is_God]

It's clear that the additional hospitals, if we can call them that, are for coping with any additional strain on the NHS caused by any spiking as lockdown is eased.

We don't need them now (and all figures point to having reached the plateau), and I'm not sure we were ever that close to overwhelming the NHS.

As they said at the start, the main goal was to prevent the NHS becomming overwhelmed. With capacity now increased, anyone who thinks we are going to keep the general population in lockdown beyond the next 4-6 weeks is kidding themselves on.

Edited April 20, 2020 by Todd_is_God

[greendot]

As you were......... @101

Spoiler

 

 

 

[hearthammer]

42 minutes ago, Snafu said:

There will be a lot of guess work on how much of the population has immunity to the virus by the experts. Once the number of new cases start to go down they will relax the lockdown because they will think there are enough people with the antibodies that there should be enough of a workforce to reopen some businesses. The lockdown isn't about saving lives as they might let you believe its about delaying the population getting it all at once and therefore overloading hospitals, we will all get it eventually at some point or so I've been told. Where I work we have brought in temps to cover those sick or in isolation this was against our wishes because there would be more chance of getting the virus with more people, the bosses want their targets regardless. Our government won't be thinking any different, they know they need to get people back to work very soon as billions of pounds/dollars/euros are being hemorrhaged everywhere and the big bosses, the kingmaker types especially will be squirming and putting pressure on governments, virus or not money is being lost.

 

Like everything that goes on in this "partnership of 4 equal nations", every major decision will be based on how london is faring and progressing with this covid-19 situation.  I'm not confident Scotland will make any move re easing the lockdown, re-opening businesses, schools, etc, independently of the cabal dann sarff, notwithstanding our predicament and population spread merits being dealt with based on what's actually happening up here. 

Post covid will see some extremely harsh criticism being correctly aimed at the war cabinet in londonshire and Edinburgh, particularly with regard to the PPE scandal if the number of NHS staff dying continues at the rates of late.

[Granny Danger]

For every discussion up and down the country today about the incendiary Sunday Times article there will be a hundred or more about ‘good old Captain Tom’.

That’s why nothing will change.

 

[welshbairn]

Watching "caring" Grant Schnapps oozing out treacle on the No10 press conference on rewind. What an eminently punchable c**t he is. 

[tamthebam]

4 hours ago, Gaz said:

Looking forward to someone providing me with a scale drawing of how I can fit myself, my desk, 33 pupils, 33 desks, a cupboard, drawers and a shelving unit into a room measuring 8m x 7m while maintaining 2m between everyone at all times.

It's summer, wee f*ckers can sit in the playground while you shout at them through the window!

[DeeTillEhDeh]

I can't see the schools reopening while there is some sort of social distancing going on. It's a physical impossibility to keep everyone in a school 2m apart at all times, not to mention the question of PPE.

With Social Distancing you'd be lucky to get 6 to 8 pupils in a class.

In CSCs the limit is 5 pupils per classroom.

[Granny Danger]

Looks like the promise of 100,000 tests per day by the end of the month is unachievable.

Attention grabbing headline rather than realistic target.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/apr/19/impossible-for-uk-to-meet-covid-19-testing-targets-say-scientists#maincontent

[Gaz]

15 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

With Social Distancing you'd be lucky to get 6 to 8 pupils in a class.

In CSCs the limit is 5 pupils per classroom.

Yep. And that's just in classrooms - not to mention the corridors between classes, dining halls, gym halls, playgrounds, dropoffs / pickups before / after school, even the logistics of getting them onto buses.

I can't see schools reopening in anything like a "normal" form when Social Distancing is still a thing. The two are massively incompatible.

[pub car king]

Just on the schools thing in england they dont finish for summer until the last week of July. I would expect they will go back even if it is only for 6 weeks of the summer term.

Not trying to act the c**t here in any way but the only silver lining in this is that it isn't killing children apart from those with serious underlying issues. It doesn't seem to have affected them anywhere near as much as adults/the elderly.