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

Wumminator

The Qatar Pounder
Joined
May 8, 2008
Messages
22,933
Location
Obertans #1 fan.
I find the notion that the government should have been somehow less transparent bizarre. If I hadn’t have been told anything I’d certainly be wondering why:
A man at work
A local legend
The owner of the local curry house had recently died of similar symptoms

and why:
My wife’s maid of honour,
Her flatmate,
A 30 something colleague of mine

had all been in hospital recently. Never mind the people I know who have had grandparents decimated by this.
 

Wumminator

The Qatar Pounder
Joined
May 8, 2008
Messages
22,933
Location
Obertans #1 fan.
"I'm fully aware some people thrive at home; I have (a small minority of) staff that absolutely do. They log in to our server at 5:30am and log off at 8pm"

I would suggest you re-evaluate your idea of what the word 'thrive' means. Because being logged on to 'work' from 5.30am to 8pm is not it.
I was also thinking that. feck me.
 

finneh

Full Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2010
Messages
7,318
But this is a hypothetical that holds no water. In my trust, one of the biggest in London, we've cancelled essentially all elective work, including elective surgeries. We've cancelled all but the most pressing of cancer treatment. We had to triple our intensive care capacity and still almost reached that, despite the lack of incoming from surgeries and people not coming in themselves.

So...in what world does this stay hidden from the public? Especially one in which we've decided to undertake no measures whatsoever and leave them completely blind to what's happening?

I'm sure people won't panic when their dad's cancer treatment is cancelled, when their aunt's hip replacement is cancelled, when their brother is being cared for in theatres after his bike accident because there's no more space in intensive care and when 1/3 of their grandma's care home suddenly dies with no good explanation.

As others have pointed out too, it doesn't only affect old, 'economically unviable' (for want of a better term) people. Its killing a lot of people in their 50s and 60s too, even 40s, who still have a good bit of economic activity left to give. If that is the prism through which you choose to view this.
But it’s not just elderly dying. People from all groups are dying. Also, people would notice - you cannot hide something like this from public because too many will be affected.
My point is it isn't the actual deaths causing the economic problems. I'm not suggesting we could hide it, that would be absurd. I was staying that if we had strong leadership articulating a clear message early on about who is particularly at risk and how we can prevent the spread of the illness (without impoverishing the nation); rather than the current message which has perpetuated countrywide scaremongering, the economy wouldn't have needed to suffer as it has.

In terms of the numbers the latest UK figures have 718 people dead under 80 without pre-existing conditions. A tragedy of course (for every death) but so is the poverty we're sure to see, so is the increase in suicides, domestic abuse, innocent men being remanded in custody for more than a year, a huge reduction in international aid spending due to GDP plummeting, at risk children falling through the cracks, the huge drop in cancer and other medical diagnoses that is certain to cause unnecessary deaths, cancelled surgeries making lives miserable, businesses that have taken decades to build being wiped out.

Surely we'd all accept that differing reactions to this pandemic would lead to differing economic results? We'd probably also accept the UK reaction has been woeful both economically and in terms of protecting life.

"I'm fully aware some people thrive at home; I have (a small minority of) staff that absolutely do. They log in to our server at 5:30am and log off at 8pm"

I would suggest you re-evaluate your idea of what the word 'thrive' means. Because being logged on to 'work' from 5.30am to 8pm is not it.
I was talking about their productivity, not their social life!
 

africanspur

Full Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2010
Messages
9,061
Supports
Tottenham Hotspur
I find the notion that the government should have been somehow less transparent bizarre. If I hadn’t have been told anything I’d certainly be wondering why:
A man at work
A local legend
The owner of the local curry house had recently died of similar symptoms

and why:
My wife’s maid of honour,
Her flatmate,
A 30 something colleague of mine

had all been in hospital recently. Never mind the people I know who have had grandparents decimated by this.
And also....why the leader of the country has suddenly disappeared for a few weeks and turned up in intensive care.

Unless we're talking about North Korea style misinformation.
 

Sarni

nice guy, unassuming, objective United fan.
Joined
Jan 21, 2004
Messages
57,402
Location
Krakow
My point is it isn't the actual deaths causing the economic problems. I'm not suggesting we could hide it, that would be absurd. I was staying that if we had strong leadership articulating a clear message early on about who is particularly at risk and how we can prevent the spread of the illness (without impoverishing the nation); rather than the current message which has perpetuated countrywide scaremongering, the economy wouldn't have needed to suffer as it has.

In terms of the numbers the latest UK figures have 718 people dead under 80 without pre-existing conditions. A tragedy of course (for every death) but so is the poverty we're sure to see, so is the increase in suicides, domestic abuse, innocent men being remanded in custody for more than a year, a huge reduction in international aid spending due to GDP plummeting, at risk children falling through the cracks, the huge drop in cancer and other medical diagnoses that is certain to cause unnecessary deaths, cancelled surgeries making lives miserable, businesses that have taken decades to build being wiped out.

Surely we'd all accept that differing reactions to this pandemic would lead to differing economic results? We'd probably also accept the UK reaction has been woeful both economically and in terms of protecting life.

I was talking about their productivity, not their social life!
Again, preexisting conditions include hypertension and diabetes (among others). 1 in 4 adults have hypertension, much higher in over 50 group which is most vulnerable to virus. 1 in 10 or more in that group have diabetes. If anything this ‘almost exclusively people with preexisting conditions are dying’ is even more misleading than ‘elderly are dying’ because of what counts as a preexisting condition. If you look at full list you’d be hard pressed to find people over 50 who don’t suffer from any of them.
 

JPRouve

can't stop thinking about balls - NOT deflategate
Scout
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
65,330
Location
France
The pre-existing condition point is a bit of red-herring, while it's very important statistically, it's not actually that useful from a practical standpoint or in terms of policies, the amount of pre-existing conditions that put you at risks are relatively numerous and a large amount of the population isn't diagnosed or is in daily contacts with these people.
 

Abizzz

Full Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2014
Messages
7,600
I thought I saw figures on the BBC quite recently that suggested that 90% of the deaths in the UK have been in the 60+ age bracket.
I haven't seen those but even then 10% of 30k are still a lot. And loads of the 60+ might otherwise still have decades left to enjoy life, see grandchildren born etc. Even having a preexisting condition just means that that condition hadn't been bad enough to do you, so one might still have a long time left.

I just don't see how we've already reached anything close to the level of economic deprivation where it becomes reasonable to have higher priorities than to immediately save lives. We used to take pride in protecting the weakest (I think this is true for almost all civilizations).
The other thing the “only kills the young” nutters are (deliberately?) ignoring is that the death toll among the young has been relatively low BECAUSE of the measures taken. Everyone who needed a ventilator got one, hospitals didn’t run out of ITU drugs, or oxygen (all three of which would certainly happen when they get overwhelmed). If you throw tens or even hundreds of thousands more cases in the mix then the mortality will skyrocket across the board.

Someone coined a phrase for this paradox. Can’t remember what it is. You take measures to avoid a catastrophe. The measures work. We avoid a catastrophe. People say “why did we take these measure? there wasn’t any catastrophe “
Agree with all of that. Healthcare workers might also become less motivated if we're all out there recklessly risking infection while simultaneously asking them to risk their lives to help us should we catch it. I certainly would.
 

JPRouve

can't stop thinking about balls - NOT deflategate
Scout
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
65,330
Location
France
Again, preexisting conditions include hypertension and diabetes (among others). 1 in 4 adults have hypertension, much higher in over 50 group which is most vulnerable to virus. 1 in 10 or more in that group have diabetes. If anything this ‘almost exclusively people with preexisting conditions are dying’ is even more misleading than ‘elderly are dying’ because of what counts as a preexisting condition. If you look at full list you’d be hard pressed to find people over 50 who don’t suffer from any of them.
And even among the under 50 these preexisting conditions are common, particularly among people with overweight which is also common.
 

Classical Mechanic

Full Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2014
Messages
35,216
Location
xG Zombie Nation
How does this myth that "almost no-one under the age of 80 or without pre-existing condition" is dying persists? Is it just wishful thinking or are there actually more reliable numbers out there indicating it to be the case? It is a lot more deadly to older patients but it's still very deadly for younger people too.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics/
Is that myth really pervasive though? I think most people know that the risk of death increases as you get older and if you have underlying conditions.

I guess it depends how you look at that data. To me that data says that only 1% of deaths are attributed to the under 45s that had no or were unknown to have had underlying health conditions; then only 3.5% of deaths attributed to the 44-65 year old age group of otherwise healthy individuals.

The other problem is that it only shows share of deaths and not how many people die out of how many people have been infected. As such I think it’s scaremongering to try to use it as evidence of the virus being ‘very deadly‘ to all ages.

I heard a statistician say that the chance of death from this virus for most people is roughly the same as your chance of dying in a year from any given cause. I don’t think it’s worth getting that worried about if you’re in good health.
 

Pexbo

Winner of the 'I'm not reading that' medal.
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
68,380
Location
Brizzle
Supports
Big Days
"I'm fully aware some people thrive at home; I have (a small minority of) staff that absolutely do. They log in to our server at 5:30am and log off at 8pm"

I would suggest you re-evaluate your idea of what the word 'thrive' means. Because being logged on to 'work' from 5.30am to 8pm is not it.
Reminds me of a friend of mine who progressed relatively rapidly up the management ladder, he told me a few years ago the key to his success:

”Draft two emails every afternoon and two extra on Fridays, send one to someone in your management chain just as you get home or just before you go to bed and send one just as you wake up or while you’re having breakfast and then send the extra emails over the weekend“.
 

Sky1981

Fending off the urge
Joined
Apr 12, 2006
Messages
29,996
Location
Under the bright neon lights of sincity
Is that myth really pervasive though? I think most people know that the risk of death increases as you get older and if you have underlying conditions.

I guess it depends how you look at that data. To me that data says that only 1% of deaths are attributed to the under 45s that had no or were unknown to have had underlying health conditions; then only 3.5% of deaths attributed to the 44-65 year old age group of otherwise healthy individuals.

The other problem is that it only shows share of deaths and not how many people die out of how many people have been infected. As such I think it’s scaremongering to try to use it as evidence of the virus being ‘very deadly‘ to all ages.

I heard a statistician say that the chance of death from this virus for most people is roughly the same as your chance of dying in a year from any given cause. I don’t think it’s worth getting that worried about if you’re in good health.
Problem is people thinks they're young and healthy. It doesnt take much to be considered having a condition. High blood pressure. High sugar. High cholesterol. I doubt many of us can be categorized in healthy condition without asterisks. I had a friend who doesnt drink and doesnt smoke turns out he's diabetic

How many of you had conditions that you doesnt know you had before a full medical checkup?

Plus you can be caught when not in fit condition. Or getting infected and not knowing and not having it treated until it's too late.

If corona was given to a young healthy man in laboratory condition I'm sure it wont be as deadly as as in the open
 

Abizzz

Full Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2014
Messages
7,600
Is that myth really pervasive though? I think most people know that the risk of death increases as you get older and if you have underlying conditions.

I guess it depends how you look at that data. To me that data says that only 1% of deaths are attributed to the under 45s that had no or were unknown to have had underlying health conditions; then only 3.5% of deaths attributed to the 44-65 year old age group of otherwise healthy individuals.

The other problem is that it only shows share of deaths and not how many people die out of how many people have been infected. As such I think it’s scaremongering to try to use it as evidence of the virus being ‘very deadly‘ to all ages.

I heard a statistician say that the chance of death from this virus for most people is roughly the same as your chance of dying in a year from any given cause. I don’t think it’s worth getting that worried about if you’re in good health.
I guess it depends on what one counts as "very deadly" but from those figures it is the least deadly for people from 20-40 (at 0.2% of infections). But if you take into account the likelihood of infection without countermeasures (said to be somewhere around 70% in the long term, although highly debatable) you still reach 0.7*0.002*16.700.000 = 23.3 thousand deaths for the UK. (For reference that is about 15 times the total of road deaths any given year) just from this one disease in the two least hit age brackets (among adults). And as @Pogue Mahone has pointed out those numbers are based on the services not being overwhelmed yet.
 

finneh

Full Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2010
Messages
7,318
Again, preexisting conditions include hypertension and diabetes (among others). 1 in 4 adults have hypertension, much higher in over 50 group which is most vulnerable to virus. 1 in 10 or more in that group have diabetes. If anything this ‘almost exclusively people with preexisting conditions are dying’ is even more misleading than ‘elderly are dying’ because of what counts as a preexisting condition. If you look at full list you’d be hard pressed to find people over 50 who don’t suffer from any of them.
I don't disagree with any of that (although for context less than 2000 people under 60 have died full stop). However surely it isn't beyond the realms of possiblity to protect the people we know this virus kills (80+ and people with pre-existing conditions) whilst not destroying the livelihoods of tens of millions of others who aren't particularly at risk at the same time?

I think the key throughout this has been the abject failure in messaging, communication and leadership. The initial herd immunity message, then the message about merely flattening the curve to prevent the health service being overrun, now we're talking about saving lives. Each I'm sure could be effective strategies, but all of them together seemingly changing with the wind of public opinion is a recipe for disaster.

I'd be against a harsh lockdown irrespective as I believe it's a fundamental breach of civil liberties, however if it was done early whilst testing was being increased I could at least understand the logic (despite it being too authoritarian for my taste). This mixed and confused "policy" resulting in the worst economic and social consequence baffles me.

I said previously that if someone had shown me the reaction to this virus without the statistics I'd assume by the reaction that it was at least 10x more deadly.

I heard a statistician say that the chance of death from this virus for most people is roughly the same as your chance of dying in a year from any given cause. I don’t think it’s worth getting that worried about if you’re in good health.
I heard this being discussed on the radio also but didn't hear what the source was. Interesting though.
 
Last edited:

Josep Dowling

Full Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2014
Messages
7,622
I find the notion that the government should have been somehow less transparent bizarre. If I hadn’t have been told anything I’d certainly be wondering why:
A man at work
A local legend
The owner of the local curry house had recently died of similar symptoms

and why:
My wife’s maid of honour,
Her flatmate,
A 30 something colleague of mine

had all been in hospital recently. Never mind the people I know who have had grandparents decimated by this.
I’d say you’re incredibly unlucky to know that many close people who have had it. I only know of one case which was a friend of a friend type thing.
 

Classical Mechanic

Full Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2014
Messages
35,216
Location
xG Zombie Nation
Problem is people thinks they're young and healthy. It doesnt take much to be considered having a condition. High blood pressure. High sugar. High cholesterol. I doubt many of us can be categorized in healthy condition without asterisks. I had a friend who doesnt drink and doesnt smoke turns out he's diabetic

How many of you had conditions that you doesnt know you had before a full medical checkup?

Plus you can be caught when not in fit condition. Or getting infected and not knowing and not having it treated until it's too late.

If corona was given to a young healthy man in laboratory condition I'm sure it wont be as deadly as as in the open
I agree that some people are deluded about their health and hopefully one thing that comes out of this is that people wake up to that. I doubt it though.

I guess it depends on what one counts as "very deadly" but from those figures it is the least deadly for people from 20-40 (at 0.2% of infections). But if you take into account the likelihood of infection without countermeasures (said to be somewhere around 70% in the long term, although highly debatable) you still reach 0.7*0.002*16.700.000 = 23.3 thousand deaths for the UK. (For reference that is about 15 times the total of road deaths any given year) just from this one disease in the two least hit age brackets (among adults). And as @Pogue Mahone has pointed out those numbers are based on the services not being overwhelmed yet.
Sorry but even by those measures it’s a very very long way from being ‘very deadly’, it’s actually very low risk at a micro level to individuals under 40. There are about 27 million people under 40 in the UK.
 

cyberman

Full Member
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
37,331
Is that myth really pervasive though? I think most people know that the risk of death increases as you get older and if you have underlying conditions.

I guess it depends how you look at that data. To me that data says that only 1% of deaths are attributed to the under 45s that had no or were unknown to have had underlying health conditions; then only 3.5% of deaths attributed to the 44-65 year old age group of otherwise healthy individuals.

The other problem is that it only shows share of deaths and not how many people die out of how many people have been infected. As such I think it’s scaremongering to try to use it as evidence of the virus being ‘very deadly‘ to all ages.

I heard a statistician say that the chance of death from this virus for most people is roughly the same as your chance of dying in a year from any given cause. I don’t think it’s worth getting that worried about if you’re in good health.
Thats a meaningless stat though. If the vast majority of people arent in danger from this virus then it stands to reason their odds of dying doesnt change with Corona around.
Its not those we are protecting.
 

Classical Mechanic

Full Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2014
Messages
35,216
Location
xG Zombie Nation
Thats a meaningless stat though. If the vast majority of people arent in danger from this virus then it stands to reason their odds of dying doesnt change with Corona around.
Its not those we are protecting.
It’s not a meaningless stat because a lot of very low risk people have become unduly worried about the level of danger they’re in. I’m not arguing against countermeasures only the idea that the virus is ‘very deadly’ to people under 40.
 

JPRouve

can't stop thinking about balls - NOT deflategate
Scout
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
65,330
Location
France
Thats a meaningless stat though. If the vast majority of people arent in danger from this virus then it stands to reason their odds of dying doesnt change with Corona around.
Its not those we are protecting.
Actually their odds of dying do change, if ICUs are saturated by Covid-19 alone then anyone having something critical unrelated to Covid-19 will have less chances to be taken care of as quickly.
 

Pogue Mahone

The caf's Camus.
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
133,268
Location
"like a man in silk pyjamas shooting pigeons
We can argue the toss about the risk for 20-40 year olds all day but we can all agree that the risk is pretty damn significant for those who are 65+. The idea that we should knowingly allow thousands and thousands of 65+ year olds die 10, 15 or 20 years before their time - in distress, with no loved ones to comfort them - to avoid some economic hardship is actually pretty monstrous.
 

jojojo

JoJoJoJoJoJoJo
Staff
Joined
Aug 18, 2007
Messages
38,120
Location
Welcome to Manchester reception committee
I find the notion that the government should have been somehow less transparent bizarre. If I hadn’t have been told anything I’d certainly be wondering why:
A man at work
A local legend
The owner of the local curry house had recently died of similar symptoms

and why:
My wife’s maid of honour,
Her flatmate,
A 30 something colleague of mine

had all been in hospital recently. Never mind the people I know who have had grandparents decimated by this.
Yes, I think different people have seen very different angles on the story. I've had three members of my extended family die, along with the father of a friend of mine.

I've also got family members whose cancer treatment was delayed and then relocated.

When I look closer at my family, a lot of them have a "condition" whether it's asthma, diabetes, high blood pressure, arthritis or indeed cancer. So the pre-existing condition thing doesn't offer me that much comfort, especially when I know at least one 30-something with young kids in that category.

For sure, this is partly an age thing, but prior to this I was still attending more weddings than funerals! Now, of course, I've had the weird experience of watching funerals on Teams.
 

Sarni

nice guy, unassuming, objective United fan.
Joined
Jan 21, 2004
Messages
57,402
Location
Krakow
Sorry but even by those measures it’s a very very long way from being ‘very deadly’, it’s actually very low risk at a micro level to individuals under 40. There are about 27 million people under 40 in the UK.
It looks that way if you just look at the % and not have any context.

However, if we assume you have 0.2% chance of dying from this virus once you contract it if you are in the 20-40 age bracket, and assume you will contract it, it means you’re more likely to die from coronavirus than all other causes combined (annual risk of dying within the next year at 30 is 0.15%). Within a year more young people would die from covid than any other cause and it would probably increase mortality in that age group by at least 50%.
 

Heardy

Full Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2009
Messages
8,850
Location
Looking for the answers...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52594023

Better late than never I guess, UK hasn't used their advantage as an island at all. Criminal that we've had the most deaths in Europe..

Follow the science was one of the many tories slogan bullshite. Cheltenham and Madrid vs Liv should never of happened unless behind closed doors, the latter Madrid fans couldn't even go to their own stadium and Madrid was becoming a hotspot but were allowed to fly over to the UK and go to a football match.

During the peak in Milan dozens of flights still came unchecked into the UK.
This should of been put into place months ago.
Ridiculous that it’s taken this long though!
 

JPRouve

can't stop thinking about balls - NOT deflategate
Scout
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
65,330
Location
France
We can argue the toss about the risk for 20-40 year olds all day but we can all agree that the risk is pretty damn significant for those who are 65+. The idea that we should knowingly allow thousands and thousands of 65+ year olds die 10, 15 or 20 years before their time - in distress, with no loved ones to comfort them - to avoid some economic hardship is actually pretty monstrous.
What is the economic impact of these deaths if they were to a much larger scale? These people are consumers and how many people in the service industry would lose their jobs if hundreds of thousands +65 died suddenly?
 

Sarni

nice guy, unassuming, objective United fan.
Joined
Jan 21, 2004
Messages
57,402
Location
Krakow
We can argue the toss about the risk for 20-40 year olds all day but we can all agree that the risk is pretty damn significant for those who are 65+. The idea that we should knowingly allow thousands and thousands of 65+ year olds die 10, 15 or 20 years before their time - in distress, with no loved ones to comfort them - to avoid some economic hardship is actually pretty monstrous.
That too. It beats me that people my age are trying to downplay this because ‘old people are dying’ as if it’s completely unimportant whether you pass at 65 or 85. My parents are 65 this year and both of their mothers are still alive at 88 and 95. In fact one of my grandmother’s siblings have all passed at 85 or older. The idea it wouldn’t matter if they all died 20 years earlier is crazy.
 

redshaw

Full Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2015
Messages
9,573
Garden centres in England will be allowed to open on Wednesday, indoor cafes closed. I'm glad about the last bit, the one near me, the cafe is usually packed with old people. Shame about the social aspect of the virus though, as it's a very lively part of the garden centre, they're not quiet at all :):.
 

Sarni

nice guy, unassuming, objective United fan.
Joined
Jan 21, 2004
Messages
57,402
Location
Krakow
What is the economic impact of these deaths if they were to a much larger scale? These people are consumers and how many people in the service industry would lose their jobs if hundreds of thousands +65 died suddenly?
One of major politicians here has argued recently it would be great for the country if unproductive older people died as we wouldn’t have to pay out their pensions. Many people are using this logic here now. Same people who think virus is made up and doesn’t exist. Tin foil hatters are incredible species sometimes.
 

Pogue Mahone

The caf's Camus.
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
133,268
Location
"like a man in silk pyjamas shooting pigeons
That too. It beats me that people my age are trying to downplay this because ‘old people are dying’ as if it’s completely unimportant whether you pass at 65 or 85. My parents are 65 this year and both of their mothers are still alive at 88 and 95. In fact one of my grandmother’s siblings have all passed at 85 or older. The idea it wouldn’t matter if they all died 20 years earlier is crazy.
I think you maybe need to be aware of your own mortality to fully appreciate the value of the time we have left. I know I felt bomb proof right the way up until late in my thirties. Never crossed my mind that my time was finite. Now it’s all I can fecking think about. Every year is precious.
 

cyberman

Full Member
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
37,331
It’s not a meaningless stat because a lot of very low risk people have become unduly worried about the level of danger they’re in. I’m not arguing against countermeasures only the idea that the virus is ‘very deadly’ to people under 40.
It is meaningless though, its the most common sense of all the common sense stats. The entire world knows its the elderly and feeble that are suffering the most. Its just rephrasing that fact.
A lot of those low risk people are worried about passing it onto older relatives or compromised friends and families, not dying thenselves. They dont want to be the one spreading the virus far and wide.
Being aware of social responsibility isnt being unnecessarily worried about a global pandemic.
 

Smores

Full Member
Joined
May 18, 2011
Messages
25,487
We can argue the toss about the risk for 20-40 year olds all day but we can all agree that the risk is pretty damn significant for those who are 65+. The idea that we should knowingly allow thousands and thousands of 65+ year olds die 10, 15 or 20 years before their time - in distress, with no loved ones to comfort them - to avoid some economic hardship is actually pretty monstrous.
Some still quite can't grasp that lockdown isn't about self-preservation. You'd think given it was VE day yesterday that perhaps people might reflect that the sacrifice being asked of them now is embarrassingly small.

Let them die, let's not ruin our economy and way of living is such a disappointing view to have to read.
 

JPRouve

can't stop thinking about balls - NOT deflategate
Scout
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
65,330
Location
France
One of major politicians here has argued recently it would be great for the country if unproductive older people died as we wouldn’t have to pay out their pensions. Many people are using this logic here now. Same people who think virus is made up and doesn’t exist. Tin foil hatters are incredible species sometimes.
And then people will cry because there is a lot less people in their shops or there is a lot more foreigners that replaced their previous clients.
 

jojojo

JoJoJoJoJoJoJo
Staff
Joined
Aug 18, 2007
Messages
38,120
Location
Welcome to Manchester reception committee
What is the economic impact of these deaths if they were to a much larger scale? These people are consumers and how many people in the service industry would lose their jobs if hundreds of thousands +65 died suddenly?
I guess at its most brutal you could argue their money (and the spending on them by government) would go somewhere - like to the 40 somethings instead. Maybe even a positive one for younger ones trying to get a home. Not great if you actually like your family though.
 

cyberman

Full Member
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
37,331
I guess at its most brutal you could argue their money (and the spending on them by government) would go somewhere - like to the 40 somethings instead. Maybe even a positive one for younger ones trying to get a home. Not great if you actually like your family though.
I was looking at buying a house and have been told to wait out the virus since there will be an influx of properties sold by relatives of deceased victims into a recession hit market.
 

JPRouve

can't stop thinking about balls - NOT deflategate
Scout
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
65,330
Location
France
I guess at its most brutal you could argue their money (and the spending on them by government) would go somewhere - like to the 40 somethings instead. Maybe even a positive one for younger ones trying to get a home. Not great if you actually like your family though.
Their money will never go to the people that need it, the local shop will close and no government will care. Wages won't be increased to compensate the loss in consumption because most of us are in the private sector, industries that are mainly working for this part of the population will lose everything too.
 

golden_blunder

Site admin. Manchester United fan
Staff
Joined
Jun 1, 2000
Messages
119,268
Location
Dublin, Ireland
I'm not doing that at all. From our latest death figures you can assume aminimum of around 20-30% of the population already HAS had the virus. In all likelyhood it's going to be something well above that as we have no fully accurate way of knowing how many people get it without showing symptoms. We're still getting over 4,000 new cases a day just from people who are being tested. From the number of recorded deaths, the virus IS running riot. It is going through care homes. It has infecting "at risk" people faster than our government has been able to test them.

And as I keep saying, I'm not suggesting coming out of lockdown and carrying on as normal is the right thing to do. I'm saying that what the UK is doing, is the wrong thing to do, because we don't even have a plan, we are plundering along and no matter how obvious it becomes that we need a plan one way or the other we just continue to plunder along, making up what we'll do next from one day to the other. Affecting everyone's day to day life and causing avoidable hardship for millions of people without even having a clear idea why we are doing it. It's quite ridiculous.

Staying in lockdown makes sense if you have a strategy like Germany have. They have been fully on top of knowinhg the number of infections the whole time, so know who it affects more, where it affects more, and how to contain and control it. They are down to only hundreds of new cases a day. By the time they come out of lockdown (which incidentally, will likely be less time than we're in it for) they will have the pandemic fully under control. They may even eridacte it completely, and will be in a position to try to contain it completely when it comes back. This in turn will be a massive help to getting their economy back on its feet. An example of what the whole point of going into a lockdown is meant to be.

Can you explain to me what we are doing? When we come out of lockdown, whether its next week, next month, whenever, we will be lucky if our testing is even keeping up with the number of new infections...we wont have anything under control. We wont have any kind of platform to keep the virus from continuing to cause damage. What we are doing only ever made sense from a short term perspective of protecting the NHS during it's busy period, by slowing the rate of infection and allowing our health service to cope. I presumed this must have been the idea because a) if we're trying to do anything beyond that then we are doing it VERY wrong, and b) this is what we were REPEATEDLY told the plan was at the start, before the narrative started to change every couple of hours.

Pogue I don't know what you are actually expecting to happen here. The numbers don't lie and what the numbers tell you is that our idea of lockdown doesn't actually work. You factor in the economic impacts, the fact the mortality of the virus mainly targets older, unwell people, the fact what we are doing doesn't actually include any effective way to control the virus or protect those people, and you're looking at a very ineffective plan that is causing major disruption to literally everything and everyone. It is creating situations where some people can't even get food to eat...and in a year's time you're going to be looking at a death toll that will be veyr similar to what would have been estimated had we done nothing at all.

The idea lockdown isn't a major effect on the economy is just obvious and complete bollocks. I mean come on now. The entire Swedish strategy was based around avoiding lockdown BECAUSE of the obvious long term effect it will have on the economy. People trying to at this point claim the opposite are living in a complete dream world...the reason I can't go to my office and work as normal has nothing to do with the virus. The reason my dad can't go out and buy himself food or get it delivered has nothing to do with the virus. The reason my brother's girlfriend no longer has a job has nothing to do with the virus. Lockdown is the reason for these things...you can argue it's necesary to combat the virus IF it actually combats the virus...but in order for that to be the case you kind of have to do the whole thing properly.
On the contrary, I think the plan is to let the virus do it’s thing through the population. The lockdown is just to control the rate. They know that a large part of the population will still do its own thing, and they are slowly drip feeding the rest back into the path of the virus
 

Classical Mechanic

Full Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2014
Messages
35,216
Location
xG Zombie Nation
It looks that way if you just look at the % and not have any context.

However, if we assume you have 0.2% chance of dying from this virus once you contract it if you are in the 20-40 age bracket, and assume you will contract it, it means you’re more likely to die from coronavirus than all other causes combined (annual risk of dying within the next year at 30 is 0.15%). Within a year more young people would die from covid than any other cause and it would probably increase mortality in that age group by at least 50%.
The stats Abizz posted would translate into roughly a 0.085% mortality rate for under 40s in the UK. Let round it up to 3% for arguments sake and you’d still only be a the risk of dying in a year for a 45 year old. I maintain that it’s scaremongering to claim that the under 40s are in any great danger. It’s detrimental to people’s mental health to suggest they are.
 

Withnail

Full Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2019
Messages
29,252
Location
The Arena of the Unwell
I'm fully aware some people thrive at home; I have (a small minority of) staff that absolutely do. They log in to our server at 5:30am and log off at 8pm, using commuting time plus interest to work. However they are a small proportion. For every person I've seen who're 10% more productive there are 5 who're 30% less.
You bleedin slave driver!

No wonder you think people aren't productive if a 14.5hr work day is the benchmark.

I and all of my colleagues are finding it tough to adjust but we're getting there. I think long term you'd need one day in the office for face to face meetings.

I find the majority are just as productive working from home but we work 9 - 5:30 as that's what we are paid for.

How much are you paying these people?
 

Classical Mechanic

Full Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2014
Messages
35,216
Location
xG Zombie Nation
It is meaningless though, its the most common sense of all the common sense stats. The entire world knows its the elderly and feeble that are suffering the most. Its just rephrasing that fact.
A lot of those low risk people are worried about passing it onto older relatives or compromised friends and families, not dying thenselves. They dont want to be the one spreading the virus far and wide.
Being aware of social responsibility isnt being unnecessarily worried about a global pandemic.
We were talking about how deadly the virus is to people under 40 and that alone.
 

Abizzz

Full Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2014
Messages
7,600
The stats Abizz posted would translate into roughly a 0.085% mortality rate for under 40s in the UK. Let round it up to 3% for arguments sake and you’d still only be a the risk of dying in a year for a 45 year old. I maintain that it’s scaremongering to claim that the under 40s are in any great danger. It’s detrimental to people’s mental health to suggest they are.
Perhaps my judgement is clouded by having had friends die of causes that were a lot less likely than 0.2% for their age, but I do maintain that 0.2% isn't to be chuffed at when it concerns death.