Coronavirus

[Albert]

6 minutes ago, TexasRam said:

I actually believe the cure is worse than the course, especially now in the perceived 2nd wave.

You can believe whatever you want, but the facts of the case tell a different story. 

It's fine, patience, and getting things done right is hard. We all understand that. 

At the end of the day, I do feel somewhat guilty bringing up the successes elsewhere, as I'm lucky enough to experience them first hand. There's nothing special about it though, and it is something that can be replicated, as has been shown by a number of countries. As noted, I don't think that the UK should be seeing itself as inferior to places like Australia, New Zealand and Taiwan, but that is, in essence, what you're arguing. 

[maxjam]

1 hour ago, Albert said:

As noted, Australia, New Zealand, etc have opened up, and it is not flaring up. Here in Adelaide it's been over 50 days since the last 'flare up', which was less than half a dozen cases, and prior to that it was 100 days.

Comparing New Zealand or Australia to the UK is flawed on many levels.

New Zealand for example only has a population of 5m and only generates about as much in total yearly from tourism then the UK has lost from lack of tourism in the past 6 months alone.  New Zealand is also facing 'its worst recession in years';

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54186359

Whilst it has only suffered 25 covid deaths, the future cost of their lockdown will be felt for years.

 

1 hour ago, Albert said:

As to the claim that the lockdown is costing lives, there is scant, if any evidence of such being the case to date. There's no doubt that there will be extra cases of cancers that aren't caught as quickly as they otherwise would have, etc, but the suggestion that this would represent as many lives lost as have been saved is fanciful. Again, the infection fatality rate of Covid is something like 0.5-1.0%, and many survivors get longer term complications, including damage to the liver, heart, lungs and brain. A year of delayed diagnoses is not doing that level of damage. That's not even considering the impacts of if the NHS were overwhelmed. 

I give up.

I obviously can't provide figures that exactly determine the future cost of the nations health or economy - but their are numerous predictions that say it will be severe.  I think it is more than a little flippant to downplay the consequences of delaying/ignoring immediate medical conditions and thats to say nothing of any mental health or financial issues that according to opponents to austerity cost the lives of 100k.

[Albert]

19 minutes ago, maxjam said:

Comparing New Zealand or Australia to the UK is flawed on many levels.

New Zealand for example only has a population of 5m and only generates about as much in total yearly from tourism then the UK has lost from lack of tourism in the past 6 months alone.  New Zealand is also facing 'its worst recession in years';

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54186359

Whilst it has only suffered 25 covid deaths, the future cost of their lockdown will be felt for years.

 

I give up.

I obviously can't provide figures that exactly determine the future cost of the nations health or economy - but their are numerous predictions that say it will be severe.  I think it is more than a little flippant to downplay the consequences of delaying/ignoring immediate medical conditions and thats to say nothing of any mental health or financial issues that according to opponents to austerity cost the lives of 100k.

So, the only argument you really have is population size? Why does that make any different? In terms of proportion of their earnings, that is what you expect. 

As to the article you posted, yes, every country has been hit by large recessions. What you didn't note is that the range of data discussed was up to June, prior to them reopening. As to the point of it only being 25 deaths, that's because they took it seriously from the start, it would be a lot more, and for a worse economic outlook, if they didn't. 

Equally, what's flippant is you downplaying just how much damage the pandemic is doing, instead trying to blame the effects on the lockdowns, etc. Without such controls, the damage to the economy would be worse. 

Also, I'm not ignoring the delays in elective and preventative medicine, that's a major reason for the line of argument I have. There is no outlook in which appropriate focus can be given by the medical community back to those areas without the numbers being driven down. You can't just go 'you know what, you coughing chaps you just die in the streets, we have elective surgeries to perform'. 

To repeat this point, do you know where people can get preventative and elective treatments? Places where the numbers have been driven to zero. Again, I don't know why you don't believe in the UK, but I do. It's time the focus turned to what needs to be done, rather than just idly stumbling week to week, praying that a vaccine comes quick enough to save us all. 

[Ken Tram]

1 hour ago, Eddie said:

the message still hasn't got through to a large number of people that the easiest, best and cheapest way to reduce transmission of the disease is to reduce droplet transmission from person to person, and that if you have been unfortunate enough to come into close contact with somebody who has the disease, then it's better to know that information as quickly as possible so that you can take steps to break the chain.

I'm one of the people who haven't got the message properly!

I've learnt so much in the last two days on this thread! ?

[GboroRam]

27 minutes ago, maxjam said:

I obviously can't provide figures that exactly determine the future cost of the nations health or economy - but their are numerous predictions that say it will be severe.  I think it is more than a little flippant to downplay the consequences of delaying/ignoring immediate medical conditions and thats to say nothing of any mental health or financial issues that according to opponents to austerity cost the lives of 100k.

It's equally flippant to downplay the consequences of ignoring a pandemic virus that kills, and can overwhelm the health service within weeks if left to burn.

Austerity was a choice to cut spending on essential services to save money. This is a choice between a virus with deadly potential if unchecked or the impact of delaying or deferring treatable medical conditions. One is a truly horrible choice with no upside, the other is just shameful.

[Uptherams]

What's the latest on that meat factory. 150 positive cases. No one showed any signs of illness. PPE and masks clearly had no effect. 

All asymptomatic? All of them? Great sign then isn't it. 

Or has asymptomatic been a red herring all along. Maybe 90% false positive. Maybe only a dozen actually have Covid-19. 

 

[maxjam]

Just now, GboroRam said:

It's equally flippant to downplay the consequences of ignoring a pandemic virus that kills, and can overwhelm the health service within weeks if left to burn.

Where have I downplayed it?

I have constantly said that the vulnerable should shield and the rest of us should abide by social distancing.

I do however disagree with the damage we are doing to the economy and neglect that non-covid illnesses are receiving - which will imo far outweigh the numbers we will save due to various lockdowns.

 

4 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

Austerity was a choice to cut spending on essential services to save money. This is a choice between a virus with deadly potential if unchecked or the impact of delaying or deferring treatable medical conditions. One is a truly horrible choice with no upside, the other is just shameful.

But both are the result of a lack of money being generated to pay for services.  TBH I'm fed up going around in circles now and have repeated my argument more than enough times to have made my point.  I guess we can look back at this conversation in a years time and see what the outcome was.

[Eddie]

3 minutes ago, Ken Tram said:

I'm one of the people who haven't got the message properly!

I've learnt so much in the last two days on this thread! ?

There are a few in this thread who seem to think that it just spreads spontaneously or by witchcraft.

Sure, it's possible that you could be really unlucky and touch a contaminated doorknob or a contaminated cabbage in Tesco, but that would rely on you not regularly sanitising or washing your hands before you then decided to pick your nose. However, inhalation of droplets is by far the most prevalent cause of transmission, and the closer you are to someone who is infected, and the greater the length of time you are close to them will increase the number of droplets you inhale and hence increase the viral load, thus increasing your chances of serious infection.

Wearing a mask might help prevent you catching the disease a bit, but wearing a mask will help prevent you passing the disease on a whole lot more. The economy isn't going to collapse just because people are encouraged to wear a mask and to socially distance - it has never been an either/or situation.

[Ken Tram]

7 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

Austerity was a choice to cut spending on essential services to save money.

I don't want to wind you up, but ... was austerity to save money?

Or was it to borrow less money?!

How much money was being borrowed per person per year before austerity? (A debt to be left to our future generations, so that later generations who will be living in a relatively less wealthy country than it is now, can pay for the current generations to have a better standard of living.)

I am being a bit antagonistic, because, of course, there are other ways to tackle a deficit - and to manage the economy - and better ways to handle austerity measures.

I guess that the reason that I jumped down your throat was because it sounded like  you were saying that the reason for austerity was to save money, as if, money was being saved away in the bank; whereas the reason for austerity was so that the country could borrow less money.

[jimmyp]

23 minutes ago, Uptherams said:

What's the latest on that meat factory. 150 positive cases. No one showed any signs of illness. PPE and masks clearly had no effect. 

All asymptomatic? All of them? Great sign then isn't it. 

Or has asymptomatic been a red herring all along. Maybe 90% false positive. Maybe only a dozen actually have Covid-19. 

 

Big difference between most were asymptomatic and all of them were asymptomatic. 

 

Post a link to any article that says all of them were asymptomatic.

[Ken Tram]

6 minutes ago, Eddie said:

Wearing a mask might help prevent you catching the disease a bit, but wearing a mask will help prevent you passing the disease on a whole lot more. The economy isn't going to collapse just because people are encouraged to wear a mask and to socially distance - it has never been an either/or situation.

I think that you are probably right! So, why is the emphasis not on manufacturing and distributing higher grade masks?

I have been wearing the same mask for weeks and I have no idea whatsoever how it's efficacy changes over time.

I have heard about the rule of six, but I haven't heard messages about droplets being emphasised.

I thought that it was safer to meet outdoors than indoors, so why is the number of people the same.

Why is six people without masks reading at a dinner table, the same as six people outdoors with masks on?

I think there is too much emphasis on coming up with "easy to understand (and enforce) rules", and not enough emphasis on the sort of things you are explaining, like, what actions and behaviours carry the greatest risk.

You should be the combined NHS and government spokesman!

PS. I know one person who wiped down every item that came from the shops, and one who supported disinfectant into their shipping bags. But, no-one else. I'm sure that I read that the virus can survive on surfaces for two days, but perhaps that's a red herring. What is helpful about your explanation about droplets is that you explain the risks, which enable people to make better decisions.

I think non-compliance is fuelled when rules do not make sense. Consequently, although strict rules are good for sending out the message "this is important", they need to be backed up with explanations, and why some activities are more risky than others.

[Gone]

3 hours ago, Albert said:

...find it mate... I'm not doing your legwork. 

It’s your leg work, I’ve seen it. You want to see it find it. I have nothing to prove to you

[Gone]

1 hour ago, jimmyp said:

Big difference between most were asymptomatic and all of them were asymptomatic. 

 

Post a link to any article that says all of them were asymptomatic.

So deadly they didn’t even know they had it, there’s 170 added to the numbers............ cue the replies from the usual gang “but they can pass it on” ? they obviously did, to each other and guess what,  they were all fine. 

[jimmyp]

2 minutes ago, TexasRam said:

So deadly they didn’t even know they had it, there’s 170 added to the numbers............ cue the replies from the usual gang “but they can pass it on” ? they obviously did, to each other and guess what,  they were all fine. 

Taken from the article you just posted 

 

“Most of those who tested positive were unaware they had Covid-19 and were not displaying symptoms.”

[Ken Tram]

14 minutes ago, Ken Tram said:

How much money was being borrowed per person per year before austerity?

I didn't know the numbers, so to answer my own question, the first Google result was this BBC article, and I looked up the National Debt on this website. Then, assuming a population of 60 million, I got the following figures.

In 2010, the national debt per person was £19,800 per person, which was increasing by a deficit of £2,400 per person per year.

In 2017, the debt was £29,700 per person, with the deficit increasing by £900 per person per year.

The per person figures (above) are based on the data below.

[Ken Tram]

It says that the national deficit in 2010, when the coalition government took over, and got the note saying "there is no money left" was £144b.

The article says that the deficit (annual borrowing) was £80b (£1,300 per person) by 2015, and £52b (£850 per person) by 2017.

And where do we borrow the money? I believe that's a secret, but, future generations will be paying them for a while!

According to Google Assistant (!), national debt in 2010 was 74.6% of GDP. GDP was £1.60 trillion in 2010, giving the debt as £1.19 trillion.

By March 2017, the debt was 86.2% of GDP, with GDP being £2.070 trillion. That's £1.78 trillion. And the deficit was £52b.

[Gone]

3 minutes ago, jimmyp said:

Taken from the article you just posted 

 

“Most of those who tested positive were unaware they had Covid-19 and were not displaying symptoms.”

Yes that was the original posters point 

[maxjam]

2 hours ago, Albert said:

So, the only argument you really have is population size? Why does that make any different? In terms of proportion of their earnings, that is what you expect.

No, as I stated earlier it is down to a multitude of factors.

 

2 hours ago, Albert said:

As to the article you posted, yes, every country has been hit by large recessions. What you didn't note is that the range of data discussed was up to June, prior to them reopening. As to the point of it only being 25 deaths, that's because they took it seriously from the start, it would be a lot more, and for a worse economic outlook, if they didn't.

And the long term effect of a recession or missed Doctors appointments etc won't be known for a long time.

 

2 hours ago, Albert said:

Equally, what's flippant is you downplaying just how much damage the pandemic is doing, instead trying to blame the effects on the lockdowns, etc. Without such controls, the damage to the economy would be worse.

I haven't downplayed the pandemic.  I supported the first lockdown but the data suggests now that if you are under 60 and healthy the chances of you dying from covid are tiny.  Take precautions but for those that want to, get back to 'normal'.

 

2 hours ago, Albert said:

Also, I'm not ignoring the delays in elective and preventative medicine, that's a major reason for the line of argument I have. There is no outlook in which appropriate focus can be given by the medical community back to those areas without the numbers being driven down. You can't just go 'you know what, you coughing chaps you just die in the streets, we have elective surgeries to perform'.

I presented some data in an earlier post that showed 30k+ cancer operations had been delayed - as we all know the sooner you catch at treat cancer the better your survival chances.  Also, 1m woman will now not have a mammogram and cancer referrals are down 60%.  Cancer is one of the biggest killers in the UK, these won't be insignificant numbers.  Add on to that other missed illnesses and the humanitarian consequences of a massive recession we could very well lose more at a later date than we ever would have to the virus.

 

2 hours ago, Albert said:

o repeat this point, do you know where people can get preventative and elective treatments? Places where the numbers have been driven to zero. Again, I don't know why you don't believe in the UK, but I do. It's time the focus turned to what needs to be done, rather than just idly stumbling week to week, praying that a vaccine comes quick enough to save us all. 

And to repeat my point, I believe in the UK and peoples willingness to manage their own risk and get back to working/living.

Idly stumbling by week to week is living in limbo preying for a vaccine that may or may not be forthcoming in the near/not-so-near future so we can get back to normal.  Be proactive and manage your own risk, shield if you need to shield otherwise get back to work and living your life.

 

Why does it annoy you Neil?  They are at virtually no risk.  If you are vulnerable or uncomfortable mixing with people take your own precautions, wear a mask, practice social distancing and do as my parents do, speak to your kids/grandkids once a week on the front lawn.

Herd mentality used to be an option, allow it to pass through the population that is largely immune to its more severe effects.  We are much more informed these days as to who it effects and who should be shielding and how. 

The alternative is to drive the economy into the ground and risk massive numbers of secondary deaths further down the line whilst we endure further lockdowns waiting for a vaccine that has no definite arrival time.

Feel free to respond but as I mentioned in my reply to Gboro I've made my argument enough times now that its getting boring repeating it.  The only way to see if what I'm harping on about is complete nonsense or not is to jump forwards in time a year or two so I'll leave it here.

[Ken Tram]

1 hour ago, GboroRam said:

Austerity was a choice to cut spending on essential services to save money. This is a choice between a virus with deadly potential if unchecked or the impact of delaying or deferring treatable medical conditions. One is a truly horrible choice with no upside, the other is just shameful.

As you say, people seems so cruel and horrible when they don't agree to spending more money on X, Y and Z, as you said, but what is the solution to our levels of debt and deficit?

So, whether austerity was the right thing to do or not, and if other measures could have been taken, the rate of deficit borrowing has fallen, but, we are still borrowing more money than we spend.

You said that there was no upside, but the rate at which national debt was increasing was lowered. Whether that was worth the impact of austerity can be debated.

But, how do we reduce the pressure that will face future generations, if we do not have a plan to deal with this debt? And if it fair, if we do not deal with it so that current generations can maintain our standards of living? Should we start a transition towards a lower standard of living? 

After all, we are no longer the wealthiest country in the world. We are slipping down the table, just as developing countries are rising up, so I cannot see how we can prevent a relative decline in wealth.

So, if the country has rising debt, and declining relative wealth, won't it be even tougher for future generations to address it in the future?

I cannot see any political party addressing it within a long term strategy because they need to appeal to the popular vote on the electoral cycle! But, at some point, we need to find an acceptable plan that will take us on an economically sustainable path that will enable us all to have healthy and enriched lives! Maybe we need to rethink our priorities, and determine what is actually important when it comes to living a healthy and enriched life!

Perhaps, a key factor is being able to watch football on a Saturday, and if so, we need to clear up Covid!

I read today that addressing the cost of Vivid could be the equivalent of adding 6p to tax rates. But, that didn't address the bigger debt and deficit that was around before Covid.

[GboroRam]

9 minutes ago, Ken Tram said:

It says that the national deficit in 2010, when the coalition government took over, and got the note saying "there is no money left" was £144b.

The article says that the deficit (annual borrowing) was £80b (£1,300 per person) by 2015, and £52b (£850 per person) by 2017.

And where do we borrow the money? I believe that's a secret, but, future generations will be paying them for a while!

According to Google Assistant (!), national debt in 2010 was 74.6% of GDP. GDP was £1.60 trillion in 2010, giving the debt as £1.19 trillion.

By March 2017, the debt was 86.2% of GDP, with GDP being £2.070 trillion. That's £1.78 trillion. And the deficit was £52b.

Unfortunately I'd love to take this up with you, but we're wondering off into territory that belongs in a different thread. Politics is no longer a subject we can discuss at length, but this thread obviously butts up to it on occasion. Anyway, back to CV-19.