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

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

Look at the average age of the people admitted. Also you need to take into account comorbidities, so we can't really comment on the rates without more information.

Hasn’t changed since the start, average age 61.

Risk factors have barely changed either. 71% with risk factors, broken up into:

25% heart or lung sickness, 25% diabetes, 5% kidney disease, 40% high blood pressure.

https://www.svt.se/datajournalistik/corona-i-intensivvarden/

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Hasn’t changed since the start, average age 61.

Risk factors have barely changed either. 71% with risk factors, broken up into:

25% heart or lung sickness, 25% diabetes, 5% kidney disease, 40% high blood pressure.

https://www.svt.se/datajournalistik/corona-i-intensivvarden/

Are those the stats from ICU patients only? If so, those survival rates are remarkable. Have they changed the way they treat them? Maybe admitting much less severe cases to ICU than they did previously?

If the virus was getting weaker you’d expect a lower % admitted to ICU but everyone admitted to ICU should be similarly sick, unless they change the protocols for admission.

 

[Brwned]

For clarity, nowhere have I said that a disagree with lockdown, on principle or otherwise. I believe it was necessary in the circumstances, but also firmly believe and accept that it has (and will have) a significant economic impact. I believe that the effect of that should be factored into policy decisions going forward. I also did not say that I believe the way Sweden had dealt with this correctly, simply that at the moment, in my opinion we're not able to say.

As for the point in bold, I'm not. I'm doing the exact opposite and looking at the actual reality of running a business day to day.

I'm not going to get into a debate with you about the historic ramifications of pandemics, save to say that the last one on this scale was 100 years ago. The "reality of the situation" is that the "real numbers" that matter for an enormous number of businesses (with SME's accounting for a very significant percentage of employers in the UK) are not estimates of general economic contraction but the amount of cash flow they have on a daily, weekly and monthly basis.

I am involved in running a business and our first worry during the pandemic has been the ability to meet our own liabilities, despite being confident of our long term future in our market. I also (in a professional capacity) advise numerous businesses across various sectors. The people who run these businesses are not yet worrying about the general economic downturn which may follow, but keeping the business trading long enough to try and have a shot at trading through it.

A business which supplies services on 60 day payment terms (often common place and an industry norm), cannot supply anyone without product. It cannot produce product without labour. After furlough will have to pay its staff for at least two months before any money comes in. if it hasn't traded for months and it has no cash to do so, it's in trouble. It may also not be able to pay rent, following which the Landlord has the right to simply change the locks on the office. Liquidation is then an inevitability for that business. This is a problem being faced by many companies at this stage. Directors of companies have to act prudently to avoid personal liability and a lot are not prepared to borrow, or put their house on the line in times of uncertainty.

You are absolutely right to suggest that in the long term a general economic dip may well cause businesses to close their doors regardless of a lock down but businesses can, and often do trade through difficult times. However, the immediate problem of cash flow is what will kill a lot of the business that go under, even though they were profitable before and for a lot of business that is a direct impact of not being able to trade for three months.

You know what, I'm not going to argue with you. You have your views and that's fair enough.

You've said the lockdown was necessary in the circumstances, but also said that "the cure may be worse than the disease", the number of people dying from suicide, missed cancer screenings and various other ailments as a result of the lockdown may well be higher than the number dying from covid, and that the economic outcomes will lead to more death in the long run. If you look into that argument in any detail what you're really saying is the lockdown wasn't a good idea, as it's causing more damage than not going into lockdown.

If you were looking at the reality of the situation across the economy as a whole, rather than in a few instances close to you, you would at least assess the numbers presented. Here is the conclusion from the analysis of real transactional data:

This paper uses transaction data from a large bank in Scandinavia to estimate the effect of social distancing laws on consumer spending in the COVID-19 pandemic. The analysis exploits a natural experiment to disentangle the effects of the virus and the laws aiming to contain it: Denmark and Sweden were similarly exposed to the pandemic but only Denmark imposed significant restrictions on social and economic activities. We estimate that aggregate spending dropped by around 25 percent in Sweden and, as a result of the shutdown, by 4 additional percentage points in Denmark. This implies that most of the economic contraction is caused by the virus itself and occurs regardless of whether governments mandate social distancing or not. The age gradient in the estimates suggest that social distancing reinforces the virus-induced drop in spending for individuals with low health risk but attenuates it for individuals with high health risk by lowering the overall prevalence of the virus in the society.

link

I advise numerous businesses across numerous sectors in a professional capacity too. We don't have a different view because we're seeing different signals, it's because we're focusing on different elements.

I agree that a long-term economic dip is not particularly relevant to businesses struggling to pay their rent right now. The reality is there is already a short-term economic dip that does have immediate consequences for these businesses. Sweden's unemployment has increased by a historic amount irrespective of the lockdown because that economic hit was swift and expansive. The Swedish central bank expect unemployment to reach 10% this year, and it could reach its highest levels in the last 40 years. It isn't my opinion that the pandemic has been the main contributor to job losses, it's a simple summary of the evidence. Those aren't long drawn-out economic effects like a normal recession you're alluding to, Sweden are already at 9% after 1% increases in both April and May.

The reality is the UK has done unusually well at protecting employment so far, and at least part of that is because of the government measures directly tied to the lockdown. If they had let all businesses run as they want to then there would be no furlough programme and because of the collapse in consumer spending, the supply chain disruptions and the increase in running costs, a good chunk of people that were furloughed would have been laid off already. Many of those that are getting laid off now and over the next few months would have been laid off months ago. We do know that, conclusively, because Sweden have already experienced that. The UK would have seen a significantly greater increase in unemployment because the UK was hit harder by the virus too.

The lockdown brings its own obvious economic impact, it hurts businesses in different ways, but you're comparing it to a reality that we know wouldn't have existed. If you don't want to look at the transactional data comparing Sweden and Norway, you can look at the transactional data across the US. Take Texas for example. Clothes spending had fallen by 50% before the stay-at-home order was in place, and without the government assistance that came with the lockdown, lots of those businesses simply wouldn't have been able to survive. Overall spending had fallen by 10% by the time the first measure was implemented - public schools closing - and it is at the same level now, over two months after the stay at home order was removed, because the pandemic does cause massive economic damage. It isn't speculation at this point.

Companies that operate on razor-sharp margins couldn't have survived for months and months with revenue levels reduced to that degree, piled on top of the additional costs that came with essential public health measures. There's obviously nothing that could be done for international tourism and the various industries that rely on it either. The lockdown has created problems for businesses who didn't fall into those buckets because of the instant cash hit, and they're the businesses you're keen to focus on, but it protected other businesses who were absolutely certain to be decimated by the natural economic effects of the pandemic anyway. The model you have of trading through difficult times is a completely different economic reality to the one this virus posed. You don't want to believe that, nor do you want to assess the evidence, because it's easier to blame the lockdown.

 

[lynchie]

Looks like this week in Texas is when we get the answer to whether it was just more testing, or if the shit is hitting the fan. (spoiler alert: it's looking like the one with the fan)

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/usa/texas/

 

[Brwned]

Looks like this week in Texas is when we get the answer to whether it was just more testing, or if the shit is hitting the fan. (spoiler alert: it's looking like the one with the fan)

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/usa/texas/

Yeah daily deaths are up to 900 across the country on Tuesday and Wednesday this week compared to 700 at the same time last week, the first significant increase since back in April.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

Are those the stats from ICU patients only? If so, those survival rates are remarkable. Have they changed the way they treat them? Maybe admitting much less severe cases to ICU than they did previously?

If the virus was getting weaker you’d expect a lower % admitted to ICU but everyone admitted to ICU should be similarly sick, unless they change the protocols for admission.

Those stats are for ICU patients only. They are admitting many many less patients. If you visit:
https://www.svt.se/datajournalistik/corona-i-intensivvarden/

And scroll down to the graph, you’ll see ”Nya” which is new patients admitted to ICU per day and the trend line, and ”Antal” which is the current updated number of patients in ICU now. It’s updated every 30 minutes.

Blows me away still that 73% of those requiring ICU are men.

 

[JPRouve]

Hasn’t changed since the start, average age 61.

Risk factors have barely changed either. 71% with risk factors, broken up into:

25% heart or lung sickness, 25% diabetes, 5% kidney disease, 40% high blood pressure.

https://www.svt.se/datajournalistik/corona-i-intensivvarden/

That's the median age not the average. From what I can see there is an evolution in terms of comorbities for example in April patients with heart and lung disease represented 27%, in May 25.3% and currently 24.3%.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

That's the median age not the average. From what I can see there is an evolution in terms of comorbities for example in April patients with heart and lung disease represented 27%, in May 25.3% and currently 24.3%.

You can see the age groups lower down the page.

60+: 1018
-60: 827

I’ve kept a very close eye on this since late March as it’s the best way by far to follow the pandemic, and those age groups have barely changed so that is certainly not the reason for the higher rate of ICU survival.
The difference from 19% to 4% just on 1.7% less heart/lung sickness is huge still.

 

[jojojo]

Just following up on the Greater Manchester numbers, as there were rumours last week that Rochdale/Oldham could become the next hotspots. For comparison, Leicester's rate was 137/100k when the local lockdown started there.

Things broadly heading in the right direction, with numbers now becoming small enough in most boroughs that even a rise of a couple of cases is noticeable.

In terms of hospital in-patients.
Non-ICU beds - down from 342 to 187 over the week
ICU beds - down from 24 to 22

https://www.manchestereveningnews.c...test-coronavirus-infection-rate-each-18564590

 

[JPRouve]

You can see the age groups lower down the page.

The difference from 19% to 4% just on 1.7% less heart/lung sickness is huge still.

I saw the age groups but it doesn't give me an evolution, my guess is that the virus isn't weaker but that the population hospitalized is slightly different which can make a big difference in terms of mortality. We are talking about a relatively small amount of people.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

I saw the age groups but it doesn't give me an evolution, my guess is that the virus isn't weaker but that the population hospitalized is slightly different which can make a big difference in terms of mortality. We are talking about a relatively small amount of people.

Can’t burn through a forest twice you mean? Absolutely, that could certainly be the case.

As for the evolution, you’ll have to take my word on it that the age groups represented and median age haven’t changed much since March.

 

[massi83]

That's the median age not the average. From what I can see there is an evolution in terms of comorbities for example in April patients with heart and lung disease represented 27%, in May 25.3% and currently 24.3%.

Here is a better age break-down. https://www.folkhalsomyndigheten.se...2020/covid-19-veckorapport-vecka-26-final.pdf

Page 13, figur 7b. Seems like to ratio stays quite the same.

Also page 9, figur 4b shows that all the other Nordic people feel safer and have been moving more than Swedes for the last 5 weeks.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

Kin ell Massi, do you have to be better than me at everything? Good job I’m a sub 3 hr marathoner.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

There's a difference between not wanting long term lockdown and no lockdown atall.

Your problem is you're one track minded, you've made a clear prefrence for lockdown for "aslong as it takes". Either you're naive to the problems and loss of life a battered economy will cause, or you know and don't give a shit, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt it's the former.

There are also more and more studies coming out that lockdowns are seriously affecting children, in so many ways.
Countries should think long and hard before going down that route again. I feel extremely sorry for the children of Melbourne, let’s hope they eradicate it this time so that they can get back on with their lives as Aus seems to have gone all in on trying to match NZ on this.

 

[africanspur]

Ah the old "if you don't agree with me and my party lines you're an apologist".

Are you trying to use this pandemic to build your profile Piers Morgan style?

Would you say its fair to say that if Wibble has taken a position which is one end of the spectrum (essentially perpetual lockdown until caseload is 0, almost regardless of geographical location or the country's circumstances), you have taken a view which is generally more towards the other end? While lockdown may be tolerated, you've felt that people are perhaps a bit too scared of the virus and that it may be balanced out by the negative effects of lockdown?

 

[Dancfc]

There are also more and more studies coming out that lockdowns are seriously effecting children, in so many ways.
Countries should think long and hard before going down that route again.

You've had it now man, according to @golden_blunder this makes you a Tory apologist.

But yes I agree, my 13 year old cousion started harming himself during this period and has probably developed mental health issues that's more than likely going to effect him for the rest of his life, that's why it doesn't sit well with me when the likes of Wibble, Pogue and Blunder effectively imply he's not important in all of this.

 

[horsechoker]

Kin ell Massi, do you have to be better than me at everything? Good job I’m a sub 3 hr marathoner.

Massi can do it in under 2

 

[africanspur]

There are also more and more studies coming out that lockdowns are seriously affecting children, in so many ways.
Countries should think long and hard before going down that route again. I feel extremely sorry for the children of Melbourne, let’s hope they eradicate it this time so that they can get back on with their lives as Aus seems to have gone all in on trying to match NZ on this.

I don't think national lockdowns are going to come back to be honest, barring a catastrophe.

Especially those countries that have already dealt with a horrible first wave, their public health apparatus will be better at dealing with things than when this first started and will be more adept at picking up when things are flaring in a particular area. Pretty sure France's new PM has been explicit in saying there will be no repeat of the national lockdown.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

Massi can do it in under 2

The Finnish Kipchoge.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

I don't think national lockdowns are going to come back to be honest, barring a catastrophe.

Me neither, countries have had the warning now and won’t get caught blindsided again. So yeah, I think mass lockdown time has passed.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

You've had it now man, according to @golden_blunder this makes you a Tory apologist.

But yes I agree, my 13 year old cousion started harming himself during this period and has probably developed mental health issues that's more than likely going to effect him for the rest of his life, that's why it doesn't sit well with me when the likes of Wibble, Pogue and Blunder effectively imply he's not important in all of this.

The feck are you on about?

 

[buchansleftleg]

Apologies if this has already been covered in the thread so far but I haven’t been able to find anything on it.

I was reading an article the other day (can’t find source but will post a different source at the end), and it said that for all the Covid-19 deaths in England and Wales, around two thirds had been suffering from a disability of some kind?

I have managed to find a separate source on the ONS site that from my inital viewing, backs up this claim and puts it at around 55% of all Covid related deaths in England and Wales. Is there a reason more hasn’t been made of this? Similar to the whole situation putting BAME in higher risk groups. I may have missed it but it doesn’t seem to be getting much press at all. I may have read the data wrong but the source is below.


https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...s-breakdown-of-covid-19-deaths-by-age-and-sex

This stat highlights another thing that seems to largely have been brushed over is the true nature of what are generally being lumped together as "care homes" in the media. These are largely being portrayed as just "Old peoples Homes" when in reality some will just specialise in Alzheimer's care, others will look after people of all ages with complex needs that require round the clock care to others where the staff provide supervision to people who would normally be trying to live as independent a life as possible.

I'll be charitable and say that maybe this is because "grannies" are more "relatable" to the public. However you do tend to get a foul whiff of Eugenics from this government's initial approach of "herd Immunity" when you consider they told everyone they would put a "ring of steel" around vulnerable groups in care homes. The actual reality that they sent plastic aprons and paper masks out way too late for them to be effective and actively tried to stop homes from isolating tells another story.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

Aye, in fairness Pogue has been the one all along who has appreciated Sweden’s approach when it comes to children, as he‘s struggled with his own missing out on sport etc.

 

[Organic Potatoes]

Looks like this week in Texas is when we get the answer to whether it was just more testing, or if the shit is hitting the fan. (spoiler alert: it's looking like the one with the fan)

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/usa/texas/

We knew from the start it wasn’t increased testing, that’s just a brain dead Trumper talking point. What we didn’t know was if it was going to be less lethal due to the average age skewing younger, more experience treating severe cases, etc.

 

[Dancfc]

Would you say its fair to say that if Wibble has taken a position which is one end of the spectrum (essentially perpetual lockdown until caseload is 0, almost regardless of geographical location or the country's circumstances), you have taken a view which is generally more towards the other end? While lockdown may be tolerated, you've felt that people are perhaps a bit too scared of the virus and that it may be balanced out by the negative effects of lockdown?

No, because the other end would be carry on as normal, I never suggested that although I'm sure that's next down on the list of what I'm going to get accused off.

As I said I was behind the initial lockdown, even the first extension, but after that I felt there needed to be a balance struck (for reference I even posted as much on here around 3 weeks in) because I felt that's when other problems and potential loss of life would really start coming home to roost (suicide, domestic violence, battered economy which leaves family's unable to put food on the table, self harm escalating etc).

To conclude, I am and was more than happy to go along with it when it actually was protecting the NHS and saving lives infact I put my self in voluntary lockdown a week before the actual announcement (for reference there's proof on here as I had a debate on this very thread with someone about whether we should still be allowed to go out for a walk as I was going out to the woodlands near by once a day as a mental reset and was worried that was going to be taken off me), the part where I do become "anti lockdown" is when it not only stops protecting the NHS and saving lives, but does the complete opposite. I'm still firmly sticking with SD and sticking to all the appropiate precautions.

 

[RK]

I guess it is something to do with the environment. Studies have already shown the virus is killed very quickly in simulated summer sunlight vs winter for example.

Direct sunlight would be an interesting study at large scale given that temperature alone hasn't been proven to have a significant effect on transmission (AFAIK).

 

[redshaw]

I always remember the South Korean doctor saying how children's education is top priority. Children of all ages are missing important development.

I'm a little taken aback at some of the hostility in the UK and US by parents and teachers about going back.

 

[Stack]

Direct sunlight would be an interesting study at large scale given that temperature alone hasn't been proven to have a significant effect on transmission (AFAIK).

Here in NZ our lockdown happened during our Autumn but it was a strangely warm and sunny Autumn that stayed sunny for longer than usual. You have me wondering if thats another factor where we got lucky and it helped us.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Here in NZ our lockdown happened during our Autumn but it was a strangely warm and sunny Autumn that stayed sunny for longer than usual. You have me wondering if thats another factor where we got lucky and it helped us.

That’s weird. Our lockdown was during a freakishly warm/sunny spring. The best anyone can remember.

Since we started coming out of lockdown the weather has been shite. Supposed to be mid summer but much more like autumn/spring. Cool, wet and windy. Which is a worry. Although according to the guy on the podcast, the seasonality is almost weather independent. There’s no weather related reason why some viruses surge in late autumn/early winter and others in late winter/early spring.

 

[fergieisold]

Direct sunlight would be an interesting study at large scale given that temperature alone hasn't been proven to have a significant effect on transmission (AFAIK).

I’ll dig up the study but they exposed the virus in saliva to simulated sunlight for summer and winter levels (I think!).

winter sunlight 19mins to kill 90%
sunmer sunlight 6mins to kill 90%

 

[africanspur]

No, because the other end would be carry on as normal, I never suggested that although I'm sure that's next down on the list of what I'm going to get accused off.

As I said I was behind the initial lockdown, even the first extension, but after that I felt there needed to be a balance struck (for reference I even posted as much on here around 3 weeks in) because I felt that's when other problems and potential loss of life would really start coming home to roost (suicide, domestic violence, battered economy which leaves family's unable to put food on the table, self harm escalating like in my little cousions case etc).

To conclude, I am and was more than happy to go along with it when it actually was protecting the NHS and saving lives infact I put my self in voluntary lockdown a week before the actual announcement (for reference there's proof on here as I had a debate on this very thread with someone about whether we should still be allowed to go out for a walk as I was going out to the woodlands near by once a day as a mental reset and was worried that was going to be taken off me), the part where I do become "anti lockdown" is when it not only stops protecting the NHS and saving lives, but does the complete opposite. I'm still firmly sticking with SD and sticking to all the appropiate precautions.

Apologies, that was clunky wording.

I did not mean that you are at the complete opposite end to him (as you said, that would mean you're basically Bolsonaro) but more that you fell more on that side (we have to be very careful with lockdown, people are a little too scared), than the other (perpetual lockdowns till 0 cases). If that is a misrepresentation, I apologise.

I am honestly not trying to attack you or call you a Tory or someone who wants old people to die or whatever other slurs others have resorted to on here for those who don't agree with them.

I've been vocal from the beginning that while I think the Australasian countries have done an amazing job (albeit with different circumstances to European ones) but that there is no point judging how different countries have done on a long term basis because we don't know what's going to happen. And that lockdowns, whether national, lockdown or a complete shutoff as those 2 countries look likely to enact, while useful (and I've been in support in the UK) have their negatives. Which people need to acknowledge, rather than just shouting 'lives are more important than money' every time someone says anything other than a a totally pro-lockdown viewpoint.

The lives/ money dichotomy some seem to have fallen into is also just not accurate anyway. I doubt there is a healthcare system in the world for example that will fund all life-extending treatments for all patients, regardless of the cost.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

This warms my cockles.

 

[horsechoker]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

This warms my cockles.

They've come such a long way. Bergamo and Brescia have suffered greatly during this crisis.

 

[Dancfc]

Apologies, that was clunky wording.

I did not mean that you are at the complete opposite end to him (as you said, that would mean you're basically Bolsonaro) but more that you fell more on that side (we have to be very careful with lockdown, people are a little too scared), than the other (perpetual lockdowns till 0 cases). If that is a misrepresentation, I apologise.

I am honestly not trying to attack you or call you a Tory or someone who wants old people to die or whatever other slurs others have resorted to on here for those who don't agree with them.

I've been vocal from the beginning that while I think the Australasian countries have done an amazing job (albeit with different circumstances to European ones) but that there is no point judging how different countries have done on a long term basis because we don't know what's going to happen. And that lockdowns, whether national, lockdown or a complete shutoff as those 2 countries look likely to enact, while useful (and I've been in support in the UK) have their negatives. Which people need to acknowledge, rather than just shouting 'lives are more important than money' every time someone says anything other than a a totally pro-lockdown viewpoint.

The lives/ money dichotomy some seem to have fallen into is also just not accurate anyway. I doubt there is a healthcare system in the world for example that will fund all life-extending treatments for all patients, regardless of the cost.

Apologies I didn't mean you were going to accuse me of it I meant the usual suspects.

The "scaring people" thing is also part of a balance that was needed and missed in my opinion. Ofcourse they had to drum the stay at home message back in March but i think they did it almost too well if that's makes sense, when you put a mental barrier there it doesn't just go away even if/when the cause does. It's going to take some people years in some cases therapy until they feel comfortable with anything resembling normal life again. I'm probably underestimating just how hard it was striking that balance but I do feel it could have been done a lot better than it was. The quick u turn defiently didn't help, to go from business as usual to you have to stay home and stay 2m from people to save lives within days took the phrase one extreme to another to whole new dimensions and the sharpness of the switch played a huge part in inciting such panic, again in my opinion.

I think who does the best job is largely down to when a vaccine comes (and assuming there's immunity). If one comes in September or October as hoped then tragically so many people worldwide have died for quite literally nothing, if the vaccine takes atleast 18 months then the counties that went "hard and early" are all of a sudden are in a whole load of shit, one way or another.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

They've come such a long way. Bergamo and Brescia have suffered greatly during this crisis.

What’s really mad is how quick this thing has happened. Just over four months from first patient, to complete end of days melt-down, to no patients at all. That’s kind of mind-blowing.

 

[africanspur]

What’s really mad is how quick this thing has happened. Just over four months from first patient, to complete end of days melt-down, to no patients at all. That’s kind of mind-blowing.

This is great news!! Really heart-warming to see.

 

[Wumminator]

There’s been a lot of talk about children’s mental health during this crisis. From what I understand there’s absolutely no indication that students have been reporting increased levels of anxiety. As a matter of fact, at my wife’s school the overriding feeling is kids are doing better than ever. Ask most 16 year olds what their biggest stress would be and it would inevitably be the relentless pursuit of GCSEs which is doing harm to our youngsters but this has been alleviated by the crisis. If I was a teenager now who had video lessons provided to learn and could see my mates at night I’d be fecking buzzing.

 

[africanspur]

Apologies I didn't mean you were going to accuse me of it I meant the usual suspects.

The "scaring people" thing is also part of a balance that was needed and missed in my opinion. Ofcourse they had to drum the stay at home message back in March but i think they did it almost too well if that's makes sense, when you put a mental barrier there it doesn't just go away even if/when the cause does. It's going to take some people years in some cases therapy until they feel comfortable with anything resembling normal life again. I'm probably underestimating just how hard it was striking that balance but I do feel it could have been done a lot better than it was. The quick u turn defiently didn't help, to go from business as usual to you have to stay home and stay 2m from people to save lives within days took the phrase one extreme to another to whole new dimensions and the sharpness of the switch played a huge part in inciting such panic, again in my opinion.

I think who does the best job is largely down to when a vaccine comes (and assuming there's immunity). If one comes in September or October as hoped then tragically so many people worldwide have died for quite literally nothing, if the vaccine takes atleast 18 months then the counties that went "hard and early" are all of a sudden are in a whole load of shit, one way or another.

That is fair. I'll be honest and say that I looked at the responses of the East Asian nations with some envy. While I don't subscribe fully to the (in my view, slightly offensive) view that they just follow what they're told, they do certainly have more of a collectivist attitude than in the West. And I guess the populations were both scarred by SARS and PH infrastructures far better suited to combating respiratory viruses with pandemic potential because of that. It seems that many more of our populations did need to be scared into action and I wish even now more people would wear a mask when going outside.

I agree. If in the next 2 months we develop a good vaccine, their approaches will be a masterstroke. If we're in 2025, no vaccine or particularly effective treatment in place and most of the rest of the world has learned to cope with a seasonal spike in Covid cases but otherwise live life (relatively) normally in a socially distanced manner etc, then its not quite so great.

Though my opinion is that we have bumbled through every single step in an incompetent manner and any long term benefit we'll have gained will have been totally by accident.

 

[Maticmaker]

The Chancellor is making a valiant effort to kick start the economy again with all these schemes/plans, but changing the countries mind set will be difficult after something like the Covid-19 pandemic and all the urgent requirements placed on the public to conform, especially when clearly this pesky virus is not going away anytime soon.

Changing public perceptions from positive to negative is fairly easy to do, because its the nature of many people to believe the worst, turning it back the other way is much more difficult because with something like this everything that a few weeks back was a 'no, no' now becomes a 'yes please' and do it quickly as well. The Grand old Duke of York's plan to "march his men to the top of the hill and then march them down again", is child's play compared with what the Government now needs to do.

 

[africanspur]

There’s been a lot of talk about children’s mental health during this crisis. From what I understand there’s absolutely no indication that students have been reporting increased levels of anxiety. As a matter of fact, at my wife’s school the overriding feeling is kids are doing better than ever. Ask most 16 year olds what their biggest stress would be and it would inevitably be the relentless pursuit of GCSEs which is doing harm to our youngsters but this has been alleviated by the crisis. If I was a teenager now who had video lessons provided to learn and could see my mates at night I’d be fecking buzzing.

I think this has been part of what @noodlehair for instance has been at pains to emphasise, though at times perhaps more forcefully than he intends to.

I feel like lockdown has been lived in a very different manner by different groups. For instance, within my circles of friends (who are obviously all distinguished people...though I think I've butchered that particular joke ), most of them are doctors or nurses, with cast-iron job security or professionals who have jobs they can do quite competently from home. They're people who may go on holidays, eat out yada yada and for them, lockdown has been actually quite easy on their finances, especially those who can work from home. Their salaries are the same, just no longer spending as much so they're actually saving more money than usual currently. Their kids are spending time with their families, watching online lessons on good laptops with good internet connections. Generally, they're in supportive home environments. Etc etc. I suspect that many of the people advocating for the strictest, most indefinite lockdowns etc on here tend to be in this camp themselves.

There are of course many many others in the UK though who aren't living that lifestyle. They may have been let go or furloughed, with severe worry as to whether their job will still exist in a few months time. They may have been worrying about how to feed their children without school vouchers. How they will feed their kids after furlough ends. What if there aren't enough devices to go round for the family for online lessons? What if they have limited internet speeds? What if they don't have their own space to study in and have to share it with 2-3 other loud kids?

There's already evidence that, even moving away from these stark extremes, kids from richer households are doing much more education per day currently than poorer kids.

Then of course we may have the kids who are in abusive households, without their usual outlet from this.

I think it is very important to not forget about these latter groups.

Also, surely if you're supposed to be taking your GCSEs and you're not sure when they'll happen or how months without proper education will impact on your ability to take them, that's quite a big stressor?