Coronavirus (COVID-19)

[WhiteRoseKillie]

1 hour ago, parsforlife said:

The pub is relatively unimportant. But when you can’t see friends or family at all it’s a pretty big deal,  social isolation is a massive factor in mental health.

Very true. It is telling, imho, that the English relaxation is entirely focussed on the re-animating of the economy, and gives absolutely no consideration to the idea that these workers need human interaction withthose they hold dearest. Fucking diabolical - but what do you expect when the Nation elects a bunch of liars, traitors and sociopaths to govern?

[pandarilla]

Are you seriously suggesting that the areas where the lockdown is being eased, and more importantly being maintained, are not all about getting the resource units back into production while maintaing control of any dissent there may be?
 

What? I've got no idea what you're asking here.

[Detournement]

23 minutes ago, MixuFixit said:

I don't really know what you mean by that in this context.

There are studies which show a causal link between unemployment and increased mortality. So the public health response to the crisis also has to consider the economic effect of lockdown/distancing which impacts long term health as well as short term excess deaths. 

[welshbairn]

4 minutes ago, pandarilla said:

Him and his wife agreed 'that we needed to give each other some space'.

Brilliant. Read between the lines there and either his marriage is fucked, or he's decided that that excuse might get him off.

All he had to do was not brag about it on his blog. People can pretty well do what they want if they keep a little discretion.

http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2020/05/where-i-am-what-im-doing-how-im-doing.html

Edited May 18, 2020 by welshbairn

[WhiteRoseKillie]

50 minutes ago, parsforlife said:

I think this will be very difficult to qualify right now.  I suspect there will be a fair bit of under reporting. A lot of the warning signs are simply not applicable just now. Someone on furlough isn’t going to be noticed that they didn’t turn up etc

Another effect of putting people into "silo living" is, and I don't have the figures at hand, massive increases in calls to charities dealing with Domestic and Child Abuse. As with suicide and S/H, the true picture won't become clear until all this is as over as it's going to be - and even then, only if there are enough people who care to do the legwork. And we then have to get those in power to give a fúck - less than a year after giving Johnson & Co. five years to run the country.

 

[WhiteRoseKillie]

31 minutes ago, Gordon EF said:

Well, yes. That's mostly why I wrote that. People have a tendency to think of large societal changes through the prism of personalities. It's a well know phenomenon in History and I'm sure someone who knows more about it could confirm.

The idea that MLK could have achieved what he did without a society that had already massively shifted from where it was decades previously is ridiculous.

Of course many movements etc do require some kind of figure head. The idea that they're completely the catalyst for wide scale societal change is ludicrous.

Without MLK, who was seen as an almost-civilised character, whatever replaced the Civil Rights Movement as we now remember it would have coalesced behind much less diplomatic means. The South would have burned.

Collective Responsibility would not have happened. Mob Rule would.

[pandarilla]

Young people top themselves all the time too. A couple of months of the pubs being closed isn't exactly being banged up in Barlinnie.

Lol, the way some people talk you'd think we were under martial law or something. 
If I wanted I could go out as frequently as I want, to most parks, lots of businesses are still open etc etc. 
Neither me nor my wife (who goes out more frequently than me) have ever been stopped by the police and asked what we're doing out. It's just hyperbole to suggest otherwise. 
I dare say you could get away with meeting up with your pals if you really wanted to. 

Settle down a bit, you’re being asked to spend 4/5mths of your life with restriction to help save the lives of other members of the population, make it the best year of your life by thinking to yourself what a hero you are by complying.

These 3 posts are examples of people underplaying the serious consequences of extended lockdown.

For some people this is a piece of piss but there are plenty of folk who are really struggling with this - and that needs to be fully recognised, and factored into any discussions.

And that's the social consequences, before we get on to the economic consequences for those at the bottom of society.

Now I'm not denying that Boris and his pals have a wholly different agenda - but that doesn't mean to say their solution is wrong.

[hearthammer]

For anyone who is currently unemployed, or will be at some point due to this pandemic, give these guys a go.  They're Scottish Government sponsored and their objectives are to match up clients with suitable, available positions.  They welcome those with disabilities, health issues and those with patchy previous employment histories.  They promise to assist clients for a year and are very professional in keeping in touch and monitoring what progress is being made in your quest for employment.  I'm in employment (currently furloughed), but used them prior to getting my job.  Although i found my job myself, they are still regularly checking that things are going ok and that my employer is doing the right things at this time. Great to have this wee safety net should anything happen. 

https://www.startscotland.scot/fair-start-scotland

[pandarilla]

Without MLK, who was seen as an almost-civilised character, whatever replaced the Civil Rights Movement as we now remember it would have coalesced behind much less diplomatic means. The South would have burned.
Collective Responsibility would not have happened. Mob Rule would.

You're giving mlk way too much credit.

Yes he was an important factor but your conclusion is oversimplistic.

[Gordon EF]

5 minutes ago, WhiteRoseKillie said:

Without MLK, who was seen as an almost-civilised character, whatever replaced the Civil Rights Movement as we now remember it would have coalesced behind much less diplomatic means. The South would have burned.

Collective Responsibility would not have happened. Mob Rule would.

I have no idea what you're talking about. Are you seriously suggesting that there was no collective effort or responsibility whatsoever and that one man convinced an entire country who did not want Civil Rights, to accept them?

Or, was it more likely that society had been moving that way for a long time and MLK happened to be an exceptional character who came along at the right time to get it over the line?

Do you also think that everything that happens in the history of countries is down to the Kings, Queens and Emperors at the time?

Edited May 18, 2020 by Gordon EF

[welshbairn]

2 minutes ago, pandarilla said:

These 3 posts are examples of people underplaying the serious consequences of extended lockdown.

My post was in response to someone arguing that since old people die all the time, a few more is no big loss.

[WhiteRoseKillie]

14 minutes ago, pandarilla said:

27 minutes ago, WhiteRoseKillie said:

Are you seriously suggesting that the areas where the lockdown is being eased, and more importantly being maintained, are not all about getting the resource units back into production while maintaing control of any dissent there may be?
 

What? I've got no idea what you're asking here.

You were suggesting that the relaxattion or otherwise of the lockdown was not a political issue in terms of right and left. If a reasonably sensible and considered poster such as yourself can't see that it absolutely is, I'm disappointed.

Take my personal case - can it possibly be safer for me to mix with almost a thousand people daily whose adherence to guidelines I am unsure of, than it is for me to meet (within sensible SD) my own family? If you an answer that without conceding that my economic contribution is seen by the Government as more important than my mental health, I will doff my cap to you.

[s_dog]

56 minutes ago, expatowner said:

Can anybody post a graph of global deaths say for the past 3 or 4 years that might, or might not, show a blip caused by Corona virus?

Think the graphs in the financial times are the closest you get to that (think they've already been posted on this thread). If you look at their coronavirus tracked page: https://www.ft.com/content/a26fbf7e-48f8-11ea-aeb3-955839e06441 the second and third graphs on that page give indications of the excess mortality from Covid-19.

[s_dog]

21 minutes ago, WhiteRoseKillie said:

Very true. It is telling, imho, that the English relaxation is entirely focussed on the re-animating of the economy, and gives absolutely no consideration to the idea that these workers need human interaction withthose they hold dearest. Fucking diabolical - but what do you expect when the Nation elects a bunch of liars, traitors and sociopaths to govern?

Did anyone see the Phillip Schofield interview with Matt Hancock telling him the new rules were "utter bonkers" because you can go out and meet one other person in a public space, but not for example, both your parents at the one time, you'd have to meet them individually. 

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/phillip-schofield-matt-hancock-this-morning-interview-lockdown_uk_5eba6d72c5b69011a57392fd?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAANlU1ZMKMEZUpdZ6l14wXnjPMNcbVFnzUdNbM3fnuk2awVObVjLnmJ9o-HJLIOPN24UGNm82B3VSs_MDGOZa6fQZKJ4nmqBI81br8Fuqbe7iukS5uc1jJapAzhT2hYHl1LB0D_QabsNZfIHe8lDKRmJtoW1TR1uc6oQORXe1VPPL

[WhiteRoseKillie]

7 minutes ago, pandarilla said:

These 3 posts are examples of people underplaying the serious consequences of extended lockdown.

For some people this is a piece of piss but there are plenty of folk who are really struggling with this - and that needs to be fully recognised, and factored into any discussions.

And that's the social consequences, before we get on to the economic consequences for those at the bottom of society.

Now I'm not denying that Boris and his pals have a wholly different agenda - but that doesn't mean to say their solution is wrong.

Of course it's fucking wrong!

"Go to work - trusting your employer to look after your H&S, but DON'T meet your family in safe conditions"

"You can't see your grandkids - but it's safe for them to go back to school with staff who you cannot be sure are not infectious. Don't listen to the TUs or the BMA, listen to Michael Gove.*"

The people who, as you say, are really struggling with this, would receive a much bigger boost to their wellbeing by allowing increased social interaction than by being forced (economically) onto PT** to go back into a call centre with all the dedication to H&S which those workplaces are noted for.

** Michael fucking Gove, ffs. I can only think of one Michael I'd trust less to look after kids - and that's only because Gove looks so fucking weird the kids would run off before he got a chance to fúck them.

**Which of course they have been warned is risky, but is their only option.

[pandarilla]

You were suggesting that the relaxattion or otherwise of the lockdown was not a political issue in terms of right and left. If a reasonably sensible and considered poster such as yourself can't see that it absolutely is, I'm disappointed.
Take my personal case - can it possibly be safer for me to mix with almost a thousand people daily whose adherence to guidelines I am unsure of, than it is for me to meet (within sensible SD) my own family? If you an answer that without conceding that my economic contribution is seen by the Government as more important than my mental health, I will doff my cap to you.

Of course it's fucking wrong!
"Go to work - trusting your employer to look after your H&S, but DON'T meet your family in safe conditions"
"You can't see your grandkids - but it's safe for them to go back to school with staff who you cannot be sure are not infectious. Don't listen to the TUs or the BMA, listen to Michael Gove.*"
The people who, as you say, are really struggling with this, would receive a much bigger boost to their wellbeing by allowing increased social interaction than by being forced (economically) onto PT** to go back into a call centre with all the dedication to H&S which those workplaces are noted for.
** Michael fucking Gove, ffs. I can only think of one Michael I'd trust less to look after kids - and that's only because Gove looks so fucking weird the kids would run off before he got a chance to fúck them.
**Which of course they have been warned is risky, but is their only option.

You're arguing about specifics, and I'm not.

The discussion stemmed from yesterday about some people on the left thinking that keeping lockdown going is a left wing policy, and I'm arguing that it's not.

Of course it's no surprise that Boris ignored the relaxation of the rules for friends and family - and i pointed that out at the time. It's all about the economy for them.

But easing restrictions generally is not a right wing policy.

And just to be clear, I'm not saying I want ns to relax rules right now - I'm saying people are oversimplifying the debate, particularly in left v right terms.

The lockdown is severe, both in terms of social and economic consequences, and those at the bottom of society are taking the brunt.

[Granny Danger]

17 minutes ago, Gordon EF said:

I have no idea what you're talking about. Are you seriously suggesting that there was no collective effort or responsibility whatsoever and that one man convinced an entire country who did not want Civil Rights, to accept them?

Or, was it more likely that society had been moving that way for a long time and MLK happened to be an exceptional character who came along at the right time to get it over the line?

Do you also think that everything that happens in the history of countries is down to the Kings, Queens and Emperors at the time?

I’ve never been one to think that history is shaped purely by individuals, but on occasion that does happen.

Three I can think of who changed/are changing history are Hitler, Gandhi and Trump.  I think the circumstances that put them in place were always going to be there but with a different figure there would have been/would be a different outcome.

[Granny Danger]

7 minutes ago, pandarilla said:

You're arguing about specifics, and I'm not.

The discussion stemmed from yesterday about some people on the left thinking that keeping lockdown going is a left wing policy, and I'm arguing that it's not.

Of course it's no surprise that Boris ignored the relaxation of the rules for friends and family - and i pointed that out at the time. It's all about the economy for them.

But easing restrictions generally is not a right wing policy.

And just to be clear, I'm not saying I want ns to relax rules right now - I'm saying people are oversimplifying the debate, particularly in left v right terms.

The lockdown is severe, both in terms of social and economic consequences, and those at the bottom of society are taking the brunt.

Of course it is but I’m not sure a premature lifting of the lockdown will change that.

[WhiteRoseKillie]

6 minutes ago, pandarilla said:

You're arguing about specifics, and I'm not.

The discussion stemmed from yesterday about some people on the left thinking that keeping lockdown going is a left wing policy, and I'm arguing that it's not.

Of course it's no surprise that Boris ignored the relaxation of the rules for friends and family - and i pointed that out at the time. It's all about the economy for them.

But easing restrictions generally is not a right wing policy.

And just to be clear, I'm not saying I want ns to relax rules right now - I'm saying people are oversimplifying the debate, particularly in left v right terms.

The lockdown is severe, both in terms of social and economic consequences, and those at the bottom of society are taking the brunt.

Of course it's not - but restrictions are not being eased generally, are they?

Every little wrinkle of the current relaxation in England is skewed towards economic benefit, and none towards social benefit. That is the very definition of a right wing policy. Or "fúck the poor" as it is known.

[renton]

My assumption is that tomorrow, sturgeon will announce that the lockdown continues in its current format until June 1st, a nice round number to force R effective lower. Hopefully we'll see some concrete timelines for TTI implementation.

Schools won't be back until August, then.

I noticed previously some chat about opening up social contacts in a kind of 'bubble' I.e. two or three households able to interact but strictly only those households together. Given Sturgeon's chat last week about balancing the needs of the economy and allowing folk to see their relatives, I suspect that might be a first step goer.

After that it's speculation. Selfishly, getting private nurseries open again is a priority and in fairness, its probably a requirement to opening the economy back up effectively without over exposing older grandparents. Of the latter, I think it would make sense for them to shelter longer but discriminating on those grounds might make good sense medically but is probably legally ineforcable. That will come down to personal responsibility and individual caution.

Opening up manufacturing and tech sector offices should be a relatively painless venture. I suspect there will still be a lot of working from home to ease social distancing in office spaces.

Mandatory face coverings for the moment in public transport makes perfect sense, more so than trying to juggle quarter loaded transport.

The hospitality sector will continue on ice with no definite timelines would be my guess, with a review at the end of June to see if R has been kept low enough to think about bringing those back.