SARS CoV-2 coronavirus / Covid-19 (No tin foil hat silliness please)

[Kag]

That’s what will happen here. Working from home will probably reduce demand to an extent but I still find it hard to imagine that you can make public transport safe without cutting off access to work for a lot of people.

The trains here are going to be a shit show in the next couple of weeks. I think we’ve had this conversation before (it may have been somebody else) but our transport infrastructure is absolutely farcical. Years of underinvestment and rank mismanagement are about to come to the fore.

 

[noodlehair]

Sorry noods but the first paragraph is bunkum. There’s no “actual science” which confirms lockdown kills more people than the virus. Nobody knows for sure but the balance of evidence is that the reverse is true. Your theory only works if life immediately snaps back to normal if we immediately stopped all lockdown measures. Which is obviously not going to happen.

We know what is going to happen if we allow the virus spread unchecked. You talk about a mortality rate of “less than 1%” This is in a completely naive population of 7 billion people. No inherent immunity. If No vaccine. If just two thirds of the UK population end up infected - and we assume a mortality rate of 0.5% - that would be over 200000 dead. Which would most likely happen in the next 12 months. The hospitals WILL be overwhelmed. Tens of thousands more people WILL die. Including many thousands who are young, fit and healthy. Those are facts. The consequences of these facts are less certain but the sensible money would be on the 24 news coverage of this horror would scare the shit out of everyone, forcing a large proportion of the country into self imposed lockdown. Which will, in turn, screw the economy regardless. Not to mention the effects of a decimated workforce and a steep decline in public health when the NHS runs out of resources (hospital beds, personnel) to try and treat illnesses other than covid. Imagine living in a world where a car crash could leave mangled people to slowly bleed out on the road because there isn’t an ambulance available to pick them up. Would you be happy to drive on a motorway?

Obviously, the current lockdown can’t continue indefinitely. Equally obviously (or so I thought) the parallel universe where the UK stuck with their original “herd immunity strategy “ would have the UK in a MUCH bigger shit show than you’re in right now. Getting the balance right between the opposing scenarios is the tricky bit but looking at the experience of the various other countries around the world, closing down early and closing down hard seems to result in the best outcome, in terms of lives lost and speed at which life can return to (relative) normality again. The one exception would be South Korea and most well-run countries seem to aspire to their model but are struggling to get their testing and contact tracing capacity as finely tuned as their is. Which can take a while. But make no mistake, even South Korea have had to radically change the way their society functions. There just isn’t any other option. No matter how hard people find all this social distancing we really don’t have any choice. The alternative is just too horrific.

I didn't say it confirmed anything but there are models that show you based on recessions that in the medium term the death toll would be quite significant, and compared to the numbers being thrown around in terms of virus deaths it does make a very interesting case...certainly not one that should just be ignored at all costs like it is being...there's too many uncertain factors to be sure of anything. We don't have any real idea for example how many people lockdown measures have actually saved. What these things do tell you though is if you're going to go don the route of shutting everything down, you HAVE to mmake sure you do it properly and wiith a strategy in place to make sure it is effective as possible and that you have a way out afterwards.

Only Germany at the moment can say with any certainty that what they've done has had any real impact. For all we know here in a year's time it could have been next to pointless once the virus has donee the rounds a couple of times...we have no data to compare anything to and no plan that we know will be effective in protecting people in 6-12 months time. Have you also looked at the actual recorded deaths numbers? There are already thousands of "additional" deaths a week which can't be linked directly to corona virus...what do you think is the other most obvious factor that has changed in this time that might cause more people to die? There's only two possibilities there. Either corona virus is responsible for most of these deaths,, in which case lockdown isn't working very well at all...or lockdown measures are actually causing these deaths, which in reality brings you back to the same conclusion.

These are things the government has admitted it did not even consider...which is why we have ended up with a half arsed flimsy plan that has been quite ineffective when you put it into context, because we haven't factored in things that might have drummed home just how important it was to make sure these mearues worked properly and had the necessary testing and actual strategy to go with them...if the aim was to protect the most vulnerable and the NHS, why do we have an epidemic going through care homes and can't supply NHS workers with the most basic pieces of equipment? Why have we had commuters cramming onto packed trains the entire time? Why can I still not go into my local spermarket without being swamped by entire families of people needlessly wandering around it? Why are the police harrassing people in the middle of empty forests but can't stop large groups of people pointlessly milling about in built up urban areas? Several people I know have lost jobs because they can't work in their restuarant/bar, but 50+ people can still just stand around pointlessly together in a park....

I'm not necessarily saying lockdown was the wrong thing to do or we should all just go back to normal...but what we are doing makes NO sense. It is bordering on madness at this point as we don't even seem to be changing or learning from anything. We've taken away the freedom from literally everyone's lives. We've actively helped destroy our entire economy...and we haven't even bothered to do the most basic things to go with it that actually make sure it would work. It's the equivalent to someone trying to lose weight by exercising 18 hours a day to the point of nearly killing themselves and having no actual life, then just thinking "feck it" and eating 15 cakes before bed every evening.

We have no plan at all as to how to come out of this. We're just literally making it up as we go "oh we'll ease some of the lockdown on Monday but we wont telll you what until Sunday night because we haven't decided what yet"...I mean what is that? Is that an effective strategy? Can any sane person even calll it a plan? What IS the plan if (when) we don't have a vaccine in six months time? What IS the plan for all the people who wont be ablle to have the vaccine even when it is available?

It's really easy to just poo poo anone who questions why we're doing what we're doing, and yet it's actually quite impossible to logically explain why we're doing what we're doing without having to admit we're doing quite a lot of it quite badly wrong.

 

[Smores]

An informative thread on the prob of transmission

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

The issue with this is it's raw figures and dependent on identifiable contact tracing. Even if it was all equal it would still favour identifiable contacts (i.e. house and work) over random encounters because how do you even discover said stranger gave it you.

I think the point around children is overstated also as it's not backed up by other studies posted on here or on the modelling from say the Scottish government issued recently. Less susceptible certainly but less likely to spread it I'm not so sure.

 

[decorativeed]

Stop making millions of people rush into offices every day when they can work from home?

And more to the point, stop making them complete all these journeys at the exact same point for people unable to work from home. Persisting with 9-5 while dealing with climate change, dirty air and now a pandemic is pure stupidity.

 

[Kentonio]

'The UK government handed a contract to feed more than a million pupils eligible for free school meals to a company with fewer than 150 staff, which has been accused of “woeful” preparation that left children going hungry and humiliated parents.

The task, outsourced to French-owned Edenred under emergency powers without a competitive tendering process, involves distributing food vouchers valued at up to £234m.'
(Guardian)

Interesting seeing this. The snippet makes it sound like the contract was handed to some small unsuited company. Worth noting that EdenRed are the company in France who run the national Ticket Resto system (Basically most workers in France get a book full of lunch vouchers (it’s also digitized now) they pay half of and the employer pays half, that can be used for lunch or in supermarkets to make sure everyone is eating well). They serve many millions of people all across the country.

To be honest I can’t think of a better company to give the contract to, than one who already does this stuff on a national level.

 

[Hammerfell]

Should we be discussing Kyle Walker’s latest slip up in here? Not seen another thread.

He's possible the dumbest footballer out there, which takes some doing. His latest statement reeks of idiocy.

 

[redshaw]

How do you solve the public transport conundrum though?

Some public transport can have windows open, taxis buses. The subway is really difficult and we could limit it by running more services and probably staggering work arrival times so carriages aren't as crammed, flexibility from companies, alternate days in and days working from home, alternate starts. N95 masks can help in addition and I would be already making and buying them for certain commuters in say London and NY, most of the public don't need them. South Korea sell KF94 masks (the N95 equivalent) at the chemist for everyone, we should look to supply those that could greatly benefit in the public like subway commuters and medical spaces. These can help block the droplets and microdoplets that other mask don't help with.

 

[JPRouve]

Interesting seeing this. The snippet makes it sound like the contract was handed to some small unsuited company. Worth noting that EdenRed are the company in France who run the national Ticket Resto system (Basically most workers in France get a book full of lunch vouchers (it’s also digitized now) they pay half of and the employer pays half, that can be used for lunch or in supermarkets to make sure everyone is eating well). They serve many millions of people all across the country.

To be honest I can’t think of a better company to give the contract to, than one who already does this stuff on a national level.

I kind of laughed when I read small company but they are talking about the UK branch which is indeed relatively small and probably couldn't handle it by themselves, they would need the help of the parent company.

 

[noodlehair]

Sorry noods but the first paragraph is bunkum. There’s no “actual science” which confirms lockdown kills more people than the virus. Nobody knows for sure but the balance of evidence is that the reverse is true. Your theory only works if life immediately snaps back to normal if we immediately stopped all lockdown measures. Which is obviously not going to happen.

We know what is going to happen if we allow the virus spread unchecked. You talk about a mortality rate of “less than 1%” This is in a completely naive population of 7 billion people. No inherent immunity. If No vaccine. If just two thirds of the UK population end up infected - and we assume a mortality rate of 0.5% - that would be over 200000 dead. Which would most likely happen in the next 12 months. The hospitals WILL be overwhelmed. Tens of thousands more people WILL die. Including many thousands who are young, fit and healthy. Those are facts. The consequences of these facts are less certain but the sensible money would be on the 24 news coverage of this horror would scare the shit out of everyone, forcing a large proportion of the country into self imposed lockdown. Which will, in turn, screw the economy regardless. Not to mention the effects of a decimated workforce and a steep decline in public health when the NHS runs out of resources (hospital beds, personnel) to try and treat illnesses other than covid. Imagine living in a world where a car crash could leave mangled people to slowly bleed out on the road because there isn’t an ambulance available to pick them up. Would you be happy to drive on a motorway?

Obviously, the current lockdown can’t continue indefinitely. Equally obviously (or so I thought) the parallel universe where the UK stuck with their original “herd immunity strategy “ would have the UK in a MUCH bigger shit show than you’re in right now. Getting the balance right between the opposing scenarios is the tricky bit but looking at the experience of the various other countries around the world, closing down early and closing down hard seems to result in the best outcome, in terms of lives lost and speed at which life can return to (relative) normality again. The one exception would be South Korea and most well-run countries seem to aspire to their model but are struggling to get their testing and contact tracing capacity as finely tuned as their is. Which can take a while. But make no mistake, even South Korea have had to radically change the way their society functions. There just isn’t any other option. No matter how hard people find all this social distancing we really don’t have any choice. The alternative is just too horrific.

And the other more broad point (sorry you've started me off now) is this whole reaction seems to be based on the theory of stopping people dying, and wanting them to live forever, and then just carrying on as normal adfterwards. Where is in reality we are all going to die and all we are actually doing here is trying to change how and exactly when some people will die...and again based on the science, in a majority of cases even where we are making a difference to that, we're making a pretty small one. Where as we're making a literally HUGER differenc eto what "normal" is going to be from now on.

That sounds cold but there is a balance you have to strike at some point between avoiding death and avoiding not allowing people to actually live. Every death is a tragedy to someone and a success to no one. We could nearly all live to 100+ if we really wanted to...but it's a part of life. How many thousands of people have been killed or butchered in the middle east or elsewhere, just so people in places like the UK can enjoy a slightly more comfortable style of life, or pay slightly less to drive their cars around? It seems odd that is apparently a sacrifice not even worthy of a thought considering what's happening at the moment, for example

The thing is, I'm one of the lucky ones who hasn't really been affected. I've been saving a ton of money, I'm less stressed by work, I've had time to work on my music stuff, my uni assignments. I still talk to my family and friends just as much...I'm also quite happy being ridiculously unsocial and like crawling out of bed at 11am. The only downside is I split up with my girlfriend but that would have happened anyway I suspect. But...I know 3 people who have lost their jobs where they were laid off before furlough was brought it. I know two others who work for airlines who have already been told they wont have a job after all this. I know two others, including my mum, who were due to change jobs during this so have no idea if they'll have a job afterwards. All this will inevitably have a knock on effect for someone like me further down the line when my employer can no longer bring money in as a result.

My point is, people are living in the illusion that at some point everything is just going to click back to normal, so it's worth sticking to our half thought out, half arsed plan now because it'll all be fine in a few months time and we'll all live forever, or something. Reality is going to hit VERY hard for a vast majority of people as the worst effects of this for them personally haven't actually happened yet. Not having enough money to live off for example seems like a minor problem compared to a virus, until you find yourself in that situation and there's suddenly a large number of things that are more of an impact on and danger to your health than corona virus....and also the virus is actually still around anyway.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

I didn't say it confirmed anything but there are models that show you based on recessions that in the medium term the death toll would be quite significant, and compared to the numbers being thrown around in terms of virus deaths it does make a very interesting case...certainly not one that should just be ignored at all costs like it is being...there's too many uncertain factors to be sure of anything. We don't have any real idea for example how many people lockdown measures have actually saved. What these things do tell you though is if you're going to go don the route of shutting everything down, you HAVE to mmake sure you do it properly and wiith a strategy in place to make sure it is effective as possible and that you have a way out afterwards.

Only Germany at the moment can say with any certainty that what they've done has had any real impact. For all we know here in a year's time it could have been next to pointless once the virus has donee the rounds a couple of times...we have no data to compare anything to and no plan that we know will be effective in protecting people in 6-12 months time. Have you also looked at the actual recorded deaths numbers? There are already thousands of "additional" deaths a week which can't be linked directly to corona virus...what do you think is the other most obvious factor that has changed in this time that might cause more people to die? There's only two possibilities there. Either corona virus is responsible for most of these deaths,, in which case lockdown isn't working very well at all...or lockdown measures are actually causing these deaths, which in reality brings you back to the same conclusion.

These are things the government has admitted it did not even consider...which is why we have ended up with a half arsed flimsy plan that has been quite ineffective when you put it into context, because we haven't factored in things that might have drummed home just how important it was to make sure these mearues worked properly and had the necessary testing and actual strategy to go with them...if the aim was to protect the most vulnerable and the NHS, why do we have an epidemic going through care homes and can't supply NHS workers with the most basic pieces of equipment? Why have we had commuters cramming onto packed trains the entire time? Why can I still not go into my local spermarket without being swamped by entire families of people needlessly wandering around it? Why are the police harrassing people in the middle of empty forests but can't stop large groups of people pointlessly milling about in built up urban areas? Several people I know have lost jobs because they can't work in their restuarant/bar, but 50+ people can still just stand around pointlessly together in a park....

I'm not necessarily saying lockdown was the wrong thing to do or we should all just go back to normal...but what we are doing makes NO sense. It is bordering on madness at this point as we don't even seem to be changing or learning from anything. We've taken away the freedom from literally everyone's lives. We've actively helped destroy our entire economy...and we haven't even bothered to do the most basic things to go with it that actually make sure it would work. It's the equivalent to someone trying to lose weight by exercising 18 hours a day to the point of nearly killing themselves and having no actual life, then just thinking "feck it" and eating 15 cakes before bed every evening.

We have no plan at all as to how to come out of this. We're just literally making it up as we go "oh we'll ease some of the lockdown on Monday but we wont telll you what until Sunday night because we haven't decided what yet"...I mean what is that? Is that an effective strategy? Can any sane person even calll it a plan? What IS the plan if (when) we don't have a vaccine in six months time? What IS the plan for all the people who wont be ablle to have the vaccine even when it is available?

It's really easy to just poo poo anone who questions why we're doing what we're doing, and yet it's actually quite impossible to logically explain why we're doing what we're doing without having to admit we're doing quite a lot of it quite badly wrong.

I certainly won’t disagree with you that the UK approach has been horribly muddled and poorly communicated.

I only quoted you because you seem to think the lockdown we’re coming to the end of might have done more harm than good. I firmly believe the exact opposite is true. The reasons for which I explained in my previous post.

 

[Kag]

And the other more broad point (sorry you've started me off now) is this whole reaction seems to be based on the theory of stopping people dying, and wanting them to live forever, and then just carrying on as normal adfterwards. Where is in reality we are all going to die and all we are actually doing here is trying to change how and exactly when some people will die...and again based on the science, in a majority of cases even where we are making a difference to that, we're making a pretty small one. Where as we're making a literally HUGER differenc eto what "normal" is going to be from now on.

That sounds cold but there is a balance you have to strike at some point between avoiding death and avoiding not allowing people to actually live. Every death is a tragedy to someone and a success to no one. We could nearly all live to 100+ if we really wanted to...but it's a part of life. How many thousands of people have been killed or butchered in the middle east or elsewhere, just so people in places like the UK can enjoy a slightly more comfortable style of life, or pay slightly less to drive their cars around? It seems odd that is apparently a sacrifice not even worthy of a thought considering what's happening at the moment, for example

The thing is, I'm one of the lucky ones who hasn't really been affected. I've been saving a ton of money, I'm less stressed by work, I've had time to work on my music stuff, my uni assignments. I still talk to my family and friends just as much...I'm also quite happy being ridiculously unsocial and like crawling out of bed at 11am. The only downside is I split up with my girlfriend but that would have happened anyway I suspect. But...I know 3 people who have lost their jobs where they were laid off before furlough was brought it. I know two others who work for airlines who have already been told they wont have a job after all this. I know two others, including my mum, who were due to change jobs during this so have no idea if they'll have a job afterwards. All this will inevitably have a knock on effect for someone like me further down the line when my employer can no longer bring money in as a result.

My point is, people are living in the illusion that at some point everything is just going to click back to normal, so it's worth sticking to our half thought out, half arsed plan now because it'll all be fine in a few months time and we'll all live forever, or something. Reality is going to hit VERY hard for a vast majority of people as the worst effects of this for them personally haven't actually happened yet. Not having enough money to live off for example seems like a minor problem compared to a virus, until you find yourself in that situation and there's suddenly a large number of things that are more of an impact on and danger to your health than corona virus....and also the virus is actually still around anyway.

I’m largely with you on this. Somewhat understandably, the general public seem to be under the illusion that this virus, and the ongoing death toll, is the peak of all trauma associated with what has been happening. It isn’t. Not even close. The repercussions of this is going to absolutely decimate lives in the coming months and I don’t think people, generally, are prepared to confront that conversation.

“The pubs and restaurants will be waiting for you after all of this is over.”

“Maybe we can all be a little bit nicer and appreciate what we have.”

Common thinking, that. Not even close to impending reality; generally uttered by those with broadband, a bike and a bottle of Bombay Sapphire sat on the drinks rack.

But when people are suffering, these people will no longer give a toss. The deaths are down, and that’s all that matters. We attend to what we value in life, and if it doesn’t stare us in the face, we disregard with ambivalence.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

Missed the sarcasm i reckon

Possibly. Lowest form of wit though.

 

[arnie_ni]

Possibly. Lowest form of wit though.

The conversation deserved the lowest form of everything to reach the level of the poster claiming a family living on 94 per week has ample money to feed them, pay rent, put clothes on their back etc etc

 

[Conor]

So you disagree with a point that I didn't make, I simply told you that the UK wasn't isolated and that the virus was already within your borders when Italy took measures. The head start theory is also not really accurate, no one really knows who got the first cases within its borders, my guess is that it was France because we are the first to actually have a case and the first to have a death in Europe but it could be coincedences.

I initially stated that the UK had an advantage in controlling the initial spread of the virus because of its status as an island, in comparison to other similarly impacted countries in mainland Europe(which it was further behind in virus timeline). You then proceeded to treat me like some sort of idiot that has no concept of the geography of the UK, and made points alluding to the fact that it didn't matter who came in with the virus, as it was already in the UK. I don't really understand how you can say that the UK didn't have more time to handle the situation, considering how blatantly obvious it is that they have a later curve than the other badly hit countries, or why you have picked up on any of my comments to be honest.

Maybe something has been lost in translation here, because you have initially pulled me up for saying it could have been important to limit travel into the UK at the start of the spread, and now you're saying you never said that. Seems like you were just looking for an argument with someone by taking my use of the word isolated in the most literal sense possible.

 

[madzo2007]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[JPRouve]

I initially stated that the UK had an advantage in controlling the initial spread of the virus because of its status as an island, in comparison to other similarly impacted countries in mainland Europe(which it was further behind in virus timeline). You then proceeded to treat me like some sort of idiot that has no concept of the geography of the UK, and made points alluding to the fact that it didn't matter who came in with the virus, as it was already in the UK. I don't really understand how you can say that the UK didn't have more time to handle the situation, considering how blatantly obvious it is that they have a later curve than the other badly hit countries, or why you have picked up on any of my comments to be honest.

Maybe something has been lost in translation here, because you have initially pulled me up for saying it could have been important to limit travel into the UK at the start of the spread, and now you're saying you never said that. Seems like you were just looking for an argument with someone by taking my use of the word isolated in the most literal sense possible.

I don't think that I treated you like an idiot but if that's how you took it, I apologize and will leave you alone in the future.

 

[noodlehair]

I certainly won’t disagree with you that the UK approach has been horribly muddled and poorly communicated.

I only quoted you because you seem to think the lockdown we’re coming to the end of might have done more harm than good. I firmly believe the exact opposite is true. The reasons for which I explained in my previous post.

I suspect in the longer term it's going to be very difficult to stick to that view Pogue, unfortunately. The number who have died here already (whether it's due to the virus or the lockdown) has been vastly under estimated...and from the mortality and infection rate of the virus (the former of which seems to have been over estimated if anything), it's already looking like it will be difficult to argue in the longer term exactly how effective our lockdown was...and that's before you factor in economic impact and related deaths.

Going by the current UK population, if we did nothing and literally EVERYONE got the virus you would be looking at about 300,000 deaths as an absolute worst case scenario and without factoring in the likelyhood the mortality rate is actually lower than 0.5%. So that number is very likely a significant over estimate of an actual worst case scenario, since the mortality rate would be lower and it's really unlikely of the infection rate ever getting to 100%. Also not factoring in that anything up to about 200,000 of that 300,000 would have been at high risk of passing away within the same time period anyway.

The reality is we're already on probably around 40-60,000 deaths. In a year's time that number is going to be much larger. Then you can addon economic impacts and it's in all likelyhood going to be more than 300,000 the way we are going.

I really don't see a way around that...we have actual numbers and science to go on and those are the two things that simply don't lie. Obviously the longer term has to be based on estimates but estimating based on the numbers and past research is still more likely accurate than the baseless presumption of things just coming to an end and going badk to normal. And I really do think most people are still living in this weird bubble where they are oblivious to the effect this is going to have on their lives. The mental stress of not being able to hug your mates really isn't even the begining of the problem. Remember there is also brexit to negotiate in the midst of all this, which is an impending disaster in its own right if not handled properly.

 

[GloryHunter07]

WFH made permanent for those that can. No more ducking out of it by some companies

Apparently, the top execs at my company were so worried by WFH that they considered monitorin peoples Citrix login times at the start of lockdown. Pathetic.

 

[11101]

Should we be discussing Kyle Walker’s latest slip up in here? Not seen another thread.

He's a true idiot.

"At what stage do my feelings get taken into consideration?"

..........

"However, I now feel as though I am being harassed. This is no longer solely affecting me, but affecting the health of my family and my young children too."

He added: "At a time when the focus is understandably on Covid-19, at what point does mental health get taken into consideration?

Easy. At the point when he stops being a fecking moron who keeps going out when hes not supposed to.

 

[F-Red]

How do you solve the public transport conundrum though?

Combination of WFH and promoting & investing in active travel.

 

[PedroMendez]

WFH made permanent for those that can. No more ducking out of it by some companies

thats one of those issues that genuinely puzzles me with many employers. I understand that they want their workers to show up once/twice per week to cultivate a personal relationship and that new employees have a bit more oversight (=come to work). Still most office jobs can be done from home and we really need a cultural change, because its just a waste of time, space, money, real estate and now its an additional health risk.

At least in Germany I know many companies that are already heavily reducing the time that people are allowed to work from home.

Without corona, its stupid, now its dangerously irresponsible.

As if big offices are such a lovely and productive place to work in.

 

[clarkydaz]

He's a true idiot.



Easy. At the point when he stops being a fecking moron who keeps going out when hes not supposed to.

I assume his family are cool with him banging hookers

 

[GloryHunter07]

I wouldnt want to be an owner or investor in city centre office space right now.

 

[GloryHunter07]

I assume his family are cool with him banging hookers

“Hi mum, just banged a hooker. Want a hug?”

 

[Maticmaker]

But it’s time for everyone to reimagine how they work

It certainly is, the Covid-19 Pandemic could be the catalyst that changes lots of things for the future, ways of working are almost certainly number one, because they drive the economy, hence any changes made there have to work. We all know (from Greta's efforts) that at the moment the world is going to hell in a handcart via climate matters, pandemics will be the other great catastrophe we have to plan for. This is one time we really must ''learn from history' and apply the results in such a way to put us a head of the curve.

Elsewhere reference has been made to being 'dewy-eyed' about giving everyone some security either in terms of hours contracts or increase pay. It does not have to be 'rob Peter to pay Paul', if we cease the moment and make the changes necessary then the increase in productivity can benefit everyone. Yes, there will always be rich and poor, and a "fool and his money are soon parted", but the gap has to get less and if any of these things are to succeed everyone must have a stake in the future, if they don't then it is hell in a hand cart, for sure

 

[noodlehair]

I’m largely with you on this. Somewhat understandably, the general public seem to be under the illusion that this virus, and the ongoing death toll, is the peak of all trauma associated with what has been happening. It isn’t. Not even close. The repercussions of this is going to absolutely decimate lives in the coming months and I don’t think people, generally, are prepared to confront that conversation.

“The pubs and restaurants will be waiting for you after all of this is over.”

“Maybe we can all be a little bit nicer and appreciate what we have.”

Common thinking, that. Not even close to impending reality; generally uttered by those with broadband, a bike and a bottle of Bombay Sapphire sat on the drinks rack.

But when people are suffering, these people will no longer give a toss. The deaths are down, and that’s all that matters. We attend to what we value in life, and if it doesn’t stare us in the face, we disregard with ambivalence.

Yeah that's exactly the problem. This blinkered tunnel vision view that the only thing that matters is the daily death count. That number itself isn't even accurate and going by overall death figures is actually a very long way from being accurate. So it's also a false tunnel that people are looking at.

As soon as people are dying instead from reduced quality of life, mental stress, health conditions being caused or worsened by loss of jobs, income, etc. This wont even be seen by most people...the secondary problem there being that a significant number of people don't seem to realise they will be the people who fall under this umbrella when their employer can no longer afford to pay them in 3-6 months time and furlough is no longer a thing...and at that point it will be too late to do anything about it.

I really think it's quite criminal by our government that we've opeted for the full lockdown approach, but then taken this weird, make it up as you go along, relaxed approach to it. If you enact a plan that has a severe impact on literally everyone in the country's life, I'm not sure how you don't then come to the conclusion you need to do EVERYTHING you possibly can to make sure the plan is going to work properly. Places like Germany and Sweden (who've opted for very different methods) have a strategy and plan in place for weeks, months in advance. Our government can't even tell us what they're going to do this Sunday. It's being discussed at cabinet meetings between politicians...how many people in these meetings can say they are any kind of health or medical expert I wonder?

 

[Sparky Rhiwabon]

Spoiler: Potential spoilers of Boris's Sunday announcement

The Lockdown has been extended by another three weeks in Wales - a few minor adjustments but essentially still “stay at home”. May be a big hint as to what Boris is going to say on Sunday.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-52584690

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-52584690

 

[Pogue Mahone]

I suspect in the longer term it's going to be very difficult to stick to that view Pogue, unfortunately. The number who have died here already (whether it's due to the virus or the lockdown) has been vastly under estimated...and from the mortality and infection rate of the virus (the former of which seems to have been over estimated if anything), it's already looking like it will be difficult to argue in the longer term exactly how effective our lockdown was...and that's before you factor in economic impact and related deaths.

Going by the current UK population, if we did nothing and literally EVERYONE got the virus you would be looking at about 300,000 deaths as an absolute worst case scenario and without factoring in the likelyhood the mortality rate is actually lower than 0.5%. So that number is very likely a significant over estimate of an actual worst case scenario, since the mortality rate would be lower and it's really unlikely of the infection rate ever getting to 100%. Also not factoring in that anything up to about 200,000 of that 300,000 would have been at high risk of passing away within the same time period anyway.

The reality is we're already on probably around 40-60,000 deaths. In a year's time that number is going to be much larger. and it's in all likelyhood going to be more than 300,000 the way we are going.

I really don't see a way around that...we have actual numbers and science to go on and those are the two things that simply don't lie. Obviously the longer term has to be based on estimates but estimating based on the numbers and past research is still more likely accurate than the baseless presumption of things just coming to an end and going badk to normal. And I really do think most people are still living in this weird bubble where they are oblivious to the effect this is going to have on their lives. The mental stress of not being able to hug your mates really isn't even the begining of the problem. Remember there is also brexit to negotiate in the midst of all this, which is an impending disaster in its own right if not handled properly.

You’re doing it again, noods. Pretending that letting the virus run riot wouldn’t also cause economic impacts and non virus-related deaths. As per my previous post, the cost (to the economy and in terms of people dying) of not flattening the curve of an outbreak would go far beyond the numbers of people killed by the virus. You can’t keep claiming that the lockdown alone is what’s causing the economic hardship we’ll endure in the next year or two. It’s actually way more complicated than that and the economy would likely be scuppered whatever we do.

 

[finneh]

I didn't say it confirmed anything but there are models that show you based on recessions that in the medium term the death toll would be quite significant, and compared to the numbers being thrown around in terms of virus deaths it does make a very interesting case...certainly not one that should just be ignored at all costs like it is being...there's too many uncertain factors to be sure of anything. We don't have any real idea for example how many people lockdown measures have actually saved. What these things do tell you though is if you're going to go don the route of shutting everything down, you HAVE to mmake sure you do it properly and wiith a strategy in place to make sure it is effective as possible and that you have a way out afterwards.

Only Germany at the moment can say with any certainty that what they've done has had any real impact. For all we know here in a year's time it could have been next to pointless once the virus has donee the rounds a couple of times...we have no data to compare anything to and no plan that we know will be effective in protecting people in 6-12 months time. Have you also looked at the actual recorded deaths numbers? There are already thousands of "additional" deaths a week which can't be linked directly to corona virus...what do you think is the other most obvious factor that has changed in this time that might cause more people to die? There's only two possibilities there. Either corona virus is responsible for most of these deaths,, in which case lockdown isn't working very well at all...or lockdown measures are actually causing these deaths, which in reality brings you back to the same conclusion.

These are things the government has admitted it did not even consider...which is why we have ended up with a half arsed flimsy plan that has been quite ineffective when you put it into context, because we haven't factored in things that might have drummed home just how important it was to make sure these mearues worked properly and had the necessary testing and actual strategy to go with them...if the aim was to protect the most vulnerable and the NHS, why do we have an epidemic going through care homes and can't supply NHS workers with the most basic pieces of equipment? Why have we had commuters cramming onto packed trains the entire time? Why can I still not go into my local spermarket without being swamped by entire families of people needlessly wandering around it? Why are the police harrassing people in the middle of empty forests but can't stop large groups of people pointlessly milling about in built up urban areas? Several people I know have lost jobs because they can't work in their restuarant/bar, but 50+ people can still just stand around pointlessly together in a park....

I'm not necessarily saying lockdown was the wrong thing to do or we should all just go back to normal...but what we are doing makes NO sense. It is bordering on madness at this point as we don't even seem to be changing or learning from anything. We've taken away the freedom from literally everyone's lives. We've actively helped destroy our entire economy...and we haven't even bothered to do the most basic things to go with it that actually make sure it would work. It's the equivalent to someone trying to lose weight by exercising 18 hours a day to the point of nearly killing themselves and having no actual life, then just thinking "feck it" and eating 15 cakes before bed every evening.

We have no plan at all as to how to come out of this. We're just literally making it up as we go "oh we'll ease some of the lockdown on Monday but we wont telll you what until Sunday night because we haven't decided what yet"...I mean what is that? Is that an effective strategy? Can any sane person even calll it a plan? What IS the plan if (when) we don't have a vaccine in six months time? What IS the plan for all the people who wont be ablle to have the vaccine even when it is available?

It's really easy to just poo poo anone who questions why we're doing what we're doing, and yet it's actually quite impossible to logically explain why we're doing what we're doing without having to admit we're doing quite a lot of it quite badly wrong.

Agreed. In my view there should have to be ironclad and irrefutable evidence that a lockdown is going to be save a substantial amount of years of life (I say years of life because saving 100 people 3 months isn't worth one person in their 20's who would otherwise live another 60 years committing suicide due to depression. Likewise someone in their 30's who hasn't had a cancerous lump checked out).

As it stands the evidence is anything but irrefutable or ironclad; it's understandably patchy, incomplete and not fully substantiated.

At last count I believe less than 300 people under 60 without pre-existing conditions had passed away... Just over 700 under 80. When you look at the cost of the measures I think it's guaranteed (which will become obvious over the next several years) the reaction is worse than the disease.

Hell I wonder how many people in the third world that have curable diseases, in poverty or dying of other preventable causes could have had their lives saved/extended with the lost wealth these reactions have caused worldwide. No doubt the hundreds of billions lost could have saved far more years of life than coronavirus will cause. The opportunity cost of the lost wealth as a result of the reaction to this virus is millions of years of life. This isn't to say the worldwide economy would be honky-dory without these measures, but it would be immeasurably less awful than it is and will continue to be for years.

People need to realise this isn't a lives vs money debate. These two are the same thing. Every year the treasury decides how much lives and time are worth, whether it's when deciding whether to invest £1b to reduce road deaths by 1000, whether it's to invest £10b to improve healthcare, whether it's to increase welfare or pension payments. Whether it's to spend more or less on international development (which will immediately and automatically be reduced by our GDP reduction, costing thousands of lives no doubt).

The stripping of what should be basic human rights and civil liberties... The ability to walk in a park, visit family, open a business, not have one's business that has taken decades to build destroyed, attend a funeral, sell legal products that people want to buy... These aren't things that government should be able to compromise or destroy at the stroke of a pen and certainly not without unequivocal evidence that shows the casualties resulting are without doubt, demonstrably and irrefutably worse than the result of said pen stroke.

 

[Buster15]

Apparently, the top execs at my company were so worried by WFH that they considered monitorin peoples Citrix login times at the start of lockdown. Pathetic.

Classic example of never mind the quality, feel the width.

Companies run by megalomaniacs who have no concept of trust and leadership.
As long as you are logged on, that is all they are interested in.

 

[Interval]

Going by the current UK population, if we did nothing and literally EVERYONE got the virus you would be looking at about 300,000 deaths as an absolute worst case scenario and without factoring in the likelyhood the mortality rate is actually lower than 0.5%. So that number is very likely a significant over estimate of an actual worst case scenario, since the mortality rate would be lower and it's really unlikely of the infection rate ever getting to 100%. Also not factoring in that anything up to about 200,000 of that 300,000 would have been at high risk of passing away within the same time period anyway.

I usually respect everything you write but you're off the deep end on this one. Apart from making fanciful assumptions about non-virus related deaths and economic impact related deaths which you have no basis of saying, this particular one is just wrong. 300K deaths absolutely the worst because 0.5% is the worst case death rate? Why? Literally if everyone got it, chances are mortality rate will be MUCH higher than the base 0.5% simply because medical care won't be available to everyone. You just need to look at Italy to know what happens when ALOT of people get it, let alone everyone.

Moreover, there would be likelihood of severe economic damage because people won't come in to work because they're sick and people won't travel to do work with or in the UK.

Finally, to provide some scientific 'evidence' = there is evidence to prove that mortality rates actually fall in times of economic depression. Simply because factory related deaths and road related deaths reduce because fewer people are traveling to work. the 2009 recession caused 5000 more suicides in 2009 across multiple countries. These are all referenced numbers, you can look them up. There is absolutely no evidence to show that economic depression will cause more deaths than a disease. Social issues along the line of crime, sure. But yeah, that would happen regardless if things went to shit if EVERYONE got it.

EDIT: This is to say that the lock down was the best approach. Hell, hindsight is 20-20 and in a few years we will be in a position to criticise what could have been done better. But given the situation and facts at hand, no other way seems more palatable than to lock the country down for 30-40 days. Atleast for sizeably populated countries,

 

[Massive Spanner]

Those are really long ways of saying "I don't care if old people die, I want to be able to go do whatever I want again."

 

[Ludens the Red]

@Kag @noodlehair , thought provoking posts there, that probably haven’t come up enough.
I think part of the problem has been the general public’s exposure to the ‘death figures’. Even in this thread if you go back a month ago it was constant figures on dead people. This is how many dead, look over here this Is how many are dead. In the news, look how many are dead in Italy. And I get it you need transparency but It was too much and inevitably most people became so preoccupied with reducing those numbers that they basically forgot everything else. It’s purely “if the death figures are going down this is working”.

There is also no context and a breakdown to these figures a lot of the time and to people not clued up it’s dangerous (The age, health, make up of the majority of the dead). For instance I’ve got a few friends (early 30’s) who’ve said even post lockdown they’re not leaving the house. Fit and healthy young people shouldn’t really be fairing for their lives.


It says a lot when the majority of the general public think the government have handled this well. And that only seemed to change once we went into lockdown. Forgetting that it took so long and still to today testing isn’t up to scratch. Forgetting it took an age for essential workers to get their tests and appropriate kit. The only thing they’ve got right is furlough but how long and sustainable is that?

As for the unnecessary people around and the policing of it. This was doomed to fail from day one in terms of expecting 100% adherence. Without question the majority have obeyed the law but there’s enough who haven’t that’ll have an effect. Policing in this country is totally different to anywhere else. By all accounts it’s a lot ‘softer’ and to suddenly try and carry out a major lockdown enforcement is naive, especiallly if you fail to give police the tools they need (ID checks points, laws, ticketing systems etc).
But yeah the only way you get control of something like this is by being assertive and direct from the get go. Police were basically told to be really nice and negotiable about things. It literally was a case of only fine/arrest as a complete last resort. And then you factor in the self entitled who think they’re too special to be questioned by police that they resort to juvenile retorts whilst recording and uploading it to their social media accounts you’re on a hiding to nothing. This isn’t really a surprise. The Government have been failing emergency services for years. Why would they suddenly stop now,


The point about stopping people living to keep them alive is a fair one. I was one who said, elderly should be on lockdown indefinitely but actually that’s easy for me to say. It must be horrific at the moment being in that bracket especially in a care home. You’re more likely to be lonely in general, you know you haven’t long to live and now you’re being told you’re not allowed to meet anyone or go out and the government are still failing to protect you anyway.

 

[Skills]

Yeah it’s very frustrating. I guess many companies take out long leases on big office spaces etc so they don’t want empty buildings. But it’s time for everyone to reimagine how they work

It's not just that tbh. I worked from home for a few weeks, and I thought it was frustratingly slow - the VPN was often getting overloaded and if you're working with files on shared drives it just took so much longer to download/open/update them (we've got some that are huge).

 

[finneh]

thats one of those issues that genuinely puzzles me with many employers. I understand that they want their workers to show up once/twice per week to cultivate a personal relationship and that new employees have a bit more oversight (=come to work). Still most office jobs can be done from home and we really need a cultural change, because its just a waste of time, space, money, real estate and now its an additional health risk.

At least in Germany I know many companies that are already heavily reducing the time that people are allowed to work from home.

Without corona, its stupid, now its dangerously irresponsible.

As if big offices are such a lovely and productive place to work in.

Offices are far, far more productive than working from home in my experience.

I currently have 12 staff working from home. One is around 10% more productive working from home, one is around 10% less and the other 10 range between 20% and 70% their usual output despite having the workload available.

I've also tried to work from home myself and I get far more done including a 2 hour commute to go into the office (11 hours at home achieves less than 9 hours in the office).

If working from home was equally productive as well as being cheaper for the employer (an employer could pay staff less as they would have no commuting costs and more free time due to the lack of a commute); the biggest companies would already be taking advantage.

If my experience is anything like the country as a whole the best we can hope for is maybe 10% of people who can work from home being given the opportunity after this is all over (although the politics and legal aspect involved with allowing one person with an identical job title the opportunity but telling 3 others they can't would put me off).

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

Possibly. Lowest form of wit though.

Only unfunny folks, or people without a sense of humour say that.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Offices are far, far more productive than working from home in my experience.

I currently have 12 staff working from home. One is around 10% more productive working from home, one is around 10% less and the other 10 range between 20% and 70% their usual output despite having the workload available.

I've also tried to work from home myself and I get far more done including a 2 hour commute to go into the office (11 hours at home achieves less than 9 hours in the office).

If working from home was equally productive as well as being cheaper for the employer (an employer could pay staff less as they would have no commuting costs and more free time due to the lack of a commute); the biggest companies would already be taking advantage.

If my experience is anything like the country as a whole the best we can hope for is maybe 10% of people who can work from home being given the opportunity after this is all over (although the politics and legal aspect involved with allowing one person with an identical job title the opportunity but telling 3 others they can't would put me off).

Your personal experience goes against the evidence of actual research on the issue, so can probably be ignored.

Although it does seem as though you should put a bit of thought into how to best motivate your staff.

 

[sullydnl]

One of the joys of reading through threads like this is knowing that the people posting are nowhere near being in a position to have any influence on actual policy.

 

[Camilo]

Your personal experience goes against the evidence of actual research on the issue, so can probably be ignored.

Although it does seem as though you should put a bit of thought into how to best motivate your staff.

Working from home... What a miserable existence that would be. I hope to heaven we all all fight it tooth and nail.

 

[BeforeKeanetherewasRobson]

Should we be discussing Kyle Walker’s latest slip up in here? Not seen another thread.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52587293

Doesn't read well for any individual, never mind one who has recently been caught (maybe should be keeping his head down) and who's a professional footballer getting paid a lot of money who may be playing again soon... should perhaps be doing his best to minimise direct contact.

Not sure about playing the mental health card. If he has some serious problems ok, but if not, is a pisstake for people who DO have serious issues.