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

Hound Dog

Full Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2011
Messages
3,211
Location
Belgrade, Serbia
Supports
Whoever I bet on
I'd say if we get one or more vaccines things will have changed dramatically and as fast or faster than we could have hoped for. I know moral in the UK has unsuprisingly tanked so seeing any bright side is really hard at the moment. However, if a worldwide roll-out of a vaccine and better treatment puts us on the road back to normal by the end of 2021, and at or close to normal a year later then that would be a very dramatic recovery in my book.
I surely hope you are right.

What I am worried is that any benefit gained by a limited vaccine rollout could be canceled out or all but canceled out by changes in the behaviour of the general population, which will tend to get worse (from a pandemic-management perspective) over time.

What is happening down under is different, you guys get instructions such as "stay home for 6 weeks and then it will be Okay". However, for the vast majority of us, it is "stay home for six weeks than go out but do nothing you do not absolutely have to and then you will have to stay home again" and this is a never-ending loop. How long will people be willing to follow? Not sure.

What I am trying to say is that, from what I can tell, prevention measures will still be required once the vaccine comes and I just do not see people being able to follow them. This assumption is one of the driving philosophies behind what Sweden are/were trying to do.
 

Fingeredmouse

Full Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2014
Messages
5,644
Location
Glasgow
Although a combination of highly infectious and highly fatal tends to burn out too fast to become a pandemic - killing the host too fast for mass spread. There are unusual scenarios that this could happen e.g. long asymptomatic period of a highly infectious virus followed by a late onset high fatality rate, but covid is pretty much in the sweet spot for a pandemic.
Sure but a mortality rate of, say, 10% would still be entirely sustainable and catastrophic.
 

jojojo

JoJoJoJoJoJoJo
Staff
Joined
Aug 18, 2007
Messages
38,289
Location
Welcome to Manchester reception committee
Rishi Sunak expected to increase tier 2 jobs support

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54639713

Funny how this comes in shortly after London goes into Tier 2 but the North has to beg and barter just to keep people in jobs while in Tier 3, having been in Tier 2 for weeks already.
Agreed, this is very much the Manchester argument. Manchester has effectively been in Tier 2 (and even 2/3+ in some respects) for three months now. With no extra support to businesses or individuals to help them handle it.

Worse still, from a covid control perspective, Manchester's case rates and hospital admission numbers kept on going up. Instead of addressing the question of "why don't/didn't the old restrictions work?" and what might be making compliance difficult, we've just been given another dose of more of the same.

Last week, a couple of my teenage family members were sent home from school with an instruction to stay home for two weeks as a kid in their class had tested positive. That "two weeks" was changed two days later to "8 days in total" as whilst the test result had been reported to the school on the day it arrived, the test was from 5 days earlier. The instruction was then amended again as it was realised that they hadn't actually seen the kid for a couple of days before his test, as he was off school with symptoms.

The credibility of the system is shot full of holes by incidents like that. When it happens to an adult in a fragile or low paid job, a request to name your contacts can sound like, "ruin your mate's finances are well as yours."
 

Pogue Mahone

The caf's Camus.
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
133,929
Location
"like a man in silk pyjamas shooting pigeons
Ah, in the grand scheme of things my suffering is absolutely miniscule. I come from a large family (4 brothers, 4 sisters, 4 parents and countless close extended family members) with pretty diverse life experiences, philosophies, priorities and current realities, so it's pretty much impossible to get too down about things from my perspective. It's why I've never been sure what the right approach to deal with this is.

For those of us living alone there was the experience of social isolation that was previously unimaginable, for those of us with young kids there was the experience of an outrageous amount of juggling between work, childcare and selfcare (and in one case, a new and very difficult pregnancy on top!).

For those of us with normal jobs it's been an adjustment to new working conditions, stresses and job security, for those of us in hospitals it's all of that with an outsized responsibility and constant sense of impending doom, for those of us who were struggling to get jobs before the pandemic it's an absolute hammer blow to be competing against far more people for many fewer jobs, for those of us who are just about to leave education there's the prospect of one the worst job markets in a generation.

And while people are particularly quick to ignore or dismiss the lives of retirees on here, most of them haven't had as much to lose, but in many cases they've lost the only thing that really matters to them now: human bonding, particularly with grandkids. My granny's 89 living out in the country in an oversized house her late husband built, physically frail but mentally sharp, and she's essentially dealing with a kind of isolation that no-one in her lifetime had ever experienced before. And naturally changes in policy impact us all very differently too.

There's absolutely no part of society that has avoided suffering, but the reality is my biggest sacrifice has just been my social life. I'd never realised how much I'd taken it for granted that my life relied on me being able to see mates essentially whenever and wherever I wanted. I've all sorts of freedom but I hadn't appreciated the value of that social network. So I'll appreciate that more going forward. But there's too many people in my circle that have sacrificed that and lost much more severe things. So I do take on their struggles to some degree, but it pales in comparison. And it is just the case that millions of people are losing a shitload.

That's what grates me about the extremes on either side. They can see the callousness of one side discounting the value of long, healthy lives in old age, and the other side can see the callousness in discounting the severity of human suffering that comes with not being able to afford to live, but neither side acknowledges those joint-truths. They just point out one aspect of callousness and use it to attack the other. We don't have the right answers, even the experts. Surely it's helpful in maintaining social unity during a crisis to at least accept that one basic truth.



Yeah, it's not so much a conscious thought as a general underlying belief. Not that different to a spiritual belief. Yeah you can point out specific instances where it's not true, but they're just the exceptions that prove the rule, or you're quibbling over details, it's the big picture that matters. It's a difficult one to wrestle with!
Great post. You’re obviously able to appreciate the full spectrum of hardship this fecking virus (and our response to it) is causing. It’s amazing to me how few people have the same sense of perspective.
 

calodo2003

Flaming Full Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2014
Messages
41,815
Location
Florida
There’s absolutely no doubt that life as we knew it will be altered forever. It’s just the degree to which it has been changed that is still unknown as of now.

The change might only be as minor having to get a vaccine every ‘X’ amount of time elapsed or having to wear a mask everywhere, but we unfortunately will never be returning to how we lived our lives in 2019.
 

That'sHernandez

Ominously close to getting banned
Joined
Oct 30, 2010
Messages
24,570
There’s absolutely no doubt that life as we knew it will be altered forever. It’s just the degree to which it has been changed that is still unknown as of now.

The change might only be as minor having to get a vaccine every ‘X’ amount of time elapsed or having to wear a mask everywhere, but we unfortunately will never be returning to how we lived our lives in 2019.
I am probably going to continue to wear a mask in public once this is over. If that helps prevent the spread of illnesses, I don't see why that shouldn't stay... No one seems to complain about doing it in Asian countries.
 

acnumber9

Full Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2006
Messages
22,292
I am probably going to continue to wear a mask in public once this is over. If that helps prevent the spread of illnesses, I don't see why that shouldn't stay... No one seems to complain about doing it in Asian countries.
What would be a preferable change would be workplaces not forcing people to go to work when they’re sick. I don’t think the majority of people will want to wear masks for the rest of their lives.
 

calodo2003

Flaming Full Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2014
Messages
41,815
Location
Florida
What would be a preferable change would be workplaces not forcing people to go to work when they’re sick. I don’t think the majority of people will want to wear masks for the rest of their lives.
That would be a great start.

Not saying that everyone wants to wear a mask forever, but that might be a condition in life going forward. It would be somewhat akin to the seatbelt law being enforced; it might irritate some initially, but doing so definitely benefits the greater good. And that’s what the primary focus should be.
 

Wibble

In Gadus Speramus
Staff
Joined
Jun 15, 2000
Messages
89,022
Location
Centreback
Sure but a mortality rate of, say, 10% would still be entirely sustainable and catastrophic.
I don't know anywhere near enough about the modelling but I'm sure you are right but the "worst" viruses do seem to be either highly infectious or highly deadly but not both.

I bet you could engineer something that was both particularly if you could offset the symptomatic/fatal stage long enough for it to spread.
 

Wibble

In Gadus Speramus
Staff
Joined
Jun 15, 2000
Messages
89,022
Location
Centreback
What would be a preferable change would be workplaces not forcing people to go to work when they’re sick. I don’t think the majority of people will want to wear masks for the rest of their lives.
That drove me nuts before the pandemic. If you have sick leave use it and don't infect me becoming tomorrow.

I do hope we start wearing masks when we have a cold from now on though.
 

calodo2003

Flaming Full Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2014
Messages
41,815
Location
Florida
That drove me nuts before the pandemic. If you have sick leave use it and don't infect me becoming tomorrow.

I do hope we start wearing masks when we have a cold from now on though.
Some of the anti-masker arguments in the States fall in line with what we heard as arguments from smokers who ultimately weren’t able to smoke indoors anymore. Their lives changed irreparably because of where they couldn’t smoke, but the overall good of everyone was improved due to this common sense changing of the law.
 

acnumber9

Full Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2006
Messages
22,292
That drove me nuts before the pandemic. If you have sick leave use it and don't infect me becoming tomorrow.

I do hope we start wearing masks when we have a cold from now on though.
I’m a civil servant and even they were actively looking to give people warnings for sick absence and trying to bring referrals to occupational health as soon as somebody went off sick. There’s an attitude that people should drag themselves to work for anything short of a limb hanging off. That attitude has to completely change.

I think mask wearing if you go out with a cold etc is a good and fair compromise. I don’t think mandatory mask wearing at all times is.
 

Compton22

Knows that he knows nothing.
Joined
Jul 27, 2014
Messages
3,389
I surely hope you are right.

What I am worried is that any benefit gained by a limited vaccine rollout could be canceled out or all but canceled out by changes in the behaviour of the general population, which will tend to get worse (from a pandemic-management perspective) over time.

What is happening down under is different, you guys get instructions such as "stay home for 6 weeks and then it will be Okay". However, for the vast majority of us, it is "stay home for six weeks than go out but do nothing you do not absolutely have to and then you will have to stay home again" and this is a never-ending loop. How long will people be willing to follow? Not sure.

What I am trying to say is that, from what I can tell, prevention measures will still be required once the vaccine comes and I just do not see people being able to follow them. This assumption is one of the driving philosophies behind what Sweden are/were trying to do.
I don't know so much. People in the main are very accepting about these new changes from what I have seen. Whether that was due to the sheer horror stories we all heard about during the first wave that has quite rightly caused most people to buck their ideas up I'm not sure.

We will certainly get more of an idea about how much normal life has to permanently change depending on the outcome of mass vaccination. If it turns out that immunity is quite short, say up to a few months worst case scenario, we'll see regular epidemics occur quite similar to seasonal flu but deadlier, which will require social distancing, mask wearing etc.

People's behaviour may well change if mass vaccination results in less overall infections. Then the worry is that people will let their guard down so to speak and will return to normal as soon as it is rolled out. Therefore, governments responsibility is to encourage the same behaviours even with a vaccine for a time and gradually lessen the restrictions to closer to normal.

I'm hopeful that this will not be a cycle of lockdowns when a vaccine is rolled out but we can't be sure straight away. I think most people would think the same, bar a naive minority but we will see.
 

That'sHernandez

Ominously close to getting banned
Joined
Oct 30, 2010
Messages
24,570
I’m a civil servant and even they were actively looking to give people warnings for sick absence and trying to bring referrals to occupational health as soon as somebody went off sick. There’s an attitude that people should drag themselves to work for anything short of a limb hanging off. That attitude has to completely change.

I think mask wearing if you go out with a cold etc is a good and fair compromise. I don’t think mandatory mask wearing at all times is.
Definitely agree. And every printer is touch screen, as soon as one person has a cold it spreads through the office like wildfire.

A few years ago my wife worked at a place that didn't pay for sick leave... so everyone went in while they were sick. The idea that people should just power through is mad really.
 

Nytram Shakes

cannot lust
Joined
Feb 2, 2014
Messages
5,272
Location
Auckland
Rishi Sunak expected to increase tier 2 jobs support

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54639713

Funny how this comes in shortly after London goes into Tier 2 but the North has to beg and barter just to keep people in jobs while in Tier 3, having been in Tier 2 for weeks already.
its good news in short, but long term then debt this country is going to be is scary. People need to understand the more support we get now, the less support and the bigger the cuts are going to be down the line.
 

Bestie07

Full Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2008
Messages
7,906
Location
He went by the name of Wayne Rooney
My whole family recently recovered from Covid. My Dad only had mild fever for a couple of days, followed by a loss of taste for another couple of days and then he got better on his own. My mother and I were hit a little worse and had a fever for about 10-12 days before we got better. Never felt as tired as I did in those ten days, even getting up from my bed to go to the washroom seemed like running a 5k. The real scary part was not knowing whether our health would improve on it's own or if it will take a turn for the worse - thankfully it did.
 

Pogue Mahone

The caf's Camus.
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
133,929
Location
"like a man in silk pyjamas shooting pigeons
I’m a civil servant and even they were actively looking to give people warnings for sick absence and trying to bring referrals to occupational health as soon as somebody went off sick. There’s an attitude that people should drag themselves to work for anything short of a limb hanging off. That attitude has to completely change.

I think mask wearing if you go out with a cold etc is a good and fair compromise. I don’t think mandatory mask wearing at all times is.
What’s absolutely insane to me is my memory or working in hospitals, when taking a day off sick was perceived as fecking over your colleagues and the doctor’s res was strewn with empty sachets of Lemsip every flu season.

And these were highly educated medical professionals who knew they would be in contact with vulnerable/sick patients. It’s almost as though we were in complete denial about the possibility that we could infect anyone else. Really strange.
 

UnrelatedPsuedo

I pity the poor fool who stinks like I do!
Joined
Apr 15, 2015
Messages
10,236
Location
Blitztown

Nytram Shakes

cannot lust
Joined
Feb 2, 2014
Messages
5,272
Location
Auckland
What would be a preferable change would be workplaces not forcing people to go to work when they’re sick. I don’t think the majority of people will want to wear masks for the rest of their lives.
theirs also the opposite side to that argument though that people need to not take advantage of sick days when they aren't sick or just hungover, something we all know people do.
Problem is you get bad employers who take advantage of employees and bad employees that take advantage of employers.
 

Wibble

In Gadus Speramus
Staff
Joined
Jun 15, 2000
Messages
89,022
Location
Centreback
What’s absolutely insane to me is my memory or working in hospitals, when taking a day off sick was perceived as fecking over your colleagues and the doctor’s res was strewn with empty sachets of Lemsip every flu season.

And these were highly educated medical professionals who knew they would be in contact with vulnerable/sick patients. It’s almost as though we were in complete denial about the possibility that we could infect anyone else. Really strange.
Obviously the consequences of health workers being sick at work are far higher than for most occupations but the almost competitive atmosphere many or even most workplaces foster around not taking sick.leave unless you are at death's door is bizarre.
 

acnumber9

Full Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2006
Messages
22,292
What’s absolutely insane to me is my memory or working in hospitals, when taking a day off sick was perceived as fecking over your colleagues and the doctor’s res was strewn with empty sachets of Lemsip every flu season.

And these were highly educated medical professionals who knew they would be in contact with vulnerable/sick patients. It’s almost as though we were in complete denial about the possibility that we could infect anyone else. Really strange.
We’ve been conditioned to accept that it’s ours or other people’s fault if resources are stretched. Rather than the real reason being under investment leading to being under staffed.
 

Brwned

Have you ever been in love before?
Joined
Apr 18, 2008
Messages
50,848
its good news in short, but long term then debt this country is going to be is scary. People need to understand the more support we get now, the less support and the bigger the cuts are going to be down the line.
It doesn't really work that way. If we spend less now and as a direct result do more long-term harm to the economy (business closures, unemployment, productivity, growth, etc.) then we may have less debt to pay off, but we're less able to pay it off. It absolutely can be the case that paying a lot more now could mean we'll "pay" a lot less later.

A lot of economic theories are flimsy enough that you have people strongly in favour of one argument and others strongly in opposition, but it's universally agreed that some form of disaster relief payments is good not just because it's morally the right thing to do, but because it is in the interests of the entire economy.

Exactly where and how much money should be spent is still very debatable but it definitely isn't true to say "the more we pay now, the more we pay later" due to basic principles of economic growth and the ripple effects of economic crises.
 

acnumber9

Full Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2006
Messages
22,292
theirs also the opposite side to that argument though that people need to not take advantage of sick days when they aren't sick or just hungover, something we all know people do.
Problem is you get bad employers who take advantage of employees and bad employees that take advantage of employers.
Yeah. But a lot of workplace sickness is caused by bad workplaces to begin with.
 

Pogue Mahone

The caf's Camus.
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
133,929
Location
"like a man in silk pyjamas shooting pigeons
We’ve been conditioned to accept that it’s ours or other people’s fault if resources are stretched. Rather than the real reason being under investment leading to being under staffed.
Definitely. Although there’s also an element of machismo. I remember us all sneering at nurse’s taking loads of sick days, while we took almost none, despite basically working for the same employer.

I also get the impression that public sector employees in general are more willing/able to take sick days than people who work in the private sector. So it’s arguably more about corporate culture than resourcing.
 

balaks

Full Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2014
Messages
15,335
Location
Northern Ireland
Supports
Tottenham Hotspur
Definitely. Although there’s also an element of machismo. I remember us all sneering at nurse’s taking loads of sick days, while we took almost none, despite basically working for the same employer.

I also get the impression that public sector employees in general are more willing/able to take sick days than people who work in the private sector. So it’s arguably more about corporate culture than resourcing.
That is not true in my experience. At least in my own division in NHS they have come down hard on absence levels in the past 4/5 years and several members of staff have been sacked as a result. In the past I think some people would not have thought twice about going off long term 6months+ every couple of years but that's all been knocked on the head now. I think generally our sickness level sits at about 2%.
 

Pogue Mahone

The caf's Camus.
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
133,929
Location
"like a man in silk pyjamas shooting pigeons
That is not true in my experience. At least in my own division in NHS they have come down hard on absence levels in the past 4/5 years and several members of staff have been sacked as a result. In the past I think some people would not have thought twice about going off long term 6months+ every couple of years but that's all been knocked on the head now. I think generally our sickness level sits at about 2%.
That’s interesting. My own NHS experience is from a long long time ago. So probably completely outdated.
 

Nytram Shakes

cannot lust
Joined
Feb 2, 2014
Messages
5,272
Location
Auckland
Yeah. But a lot of workplace sickness is caused by bad workplaces to begin with.
yeah sometimes, but equally I've known people who take the mick at great work environments, but then I've had bosses who basically act like you have robbed them if you are genuinely ill.

It's a mutual thing both employees and employers need to treat each other with respect, unfortunately, people on both sides of that divide don't.
 

Nytram Shakes

cannot lust
Joined
Feb 2, 2014
Messages
5,272
Location
Auckland
It doesn't really work that way. If we spend less now and as a direct result do more long-term harm to the economy (business closures, unemployment, productivity, growth, etc.) then we may have less debt to pay off, but we're less able to pay it off. It absolutely can be the case that paying a lot more now could mean we'll "pay" a lot less later.

A lot of economic theories are flimsy enough that you have people strongly in favour of one argument and others strongly in opposition, but it's universally agreed that some form of disaster relief payments is good not just because it's morally the right thing to do, but because it is in the interests of the entire economy.

Exactly where and how much money should be spent is still very debatable but it definitely isn't true to say "the more we pay now, the more we pay later" due to basic principles of economic growth and the ripple effects of economic crises.
it is basic, obviously, the more we borrow the more we have to pay back, but protecting jobs now can protect mean more people are going to be working and contributing tax towards paying that back. What the correct balance between racking up the debt now and protecting people in the short term, compared to being frugal now to not lumber future generations with debt will likely vary between economist to economist. I did political history at uni and there was a module economic history and the number of different views on Roosevelt's new deal was mind blogging, going from everything from it being a disaster that America was paying off till the 80's and America's economy was only saved from collapse by Europe suddenly starting to spend billions on arming itself in the second half of the 30's. But then there are views that say the money spent protected and supported the infrastructure that America is benefiting from today. So its never clear cut.

However, I just feel that too many people are acting like their isn't going to be a huge bill at the end of this government support and are just demanding more and more support without and thought of the long term costs or even understanding that there may be long term costs. And when those long term costs come they will be equally outraged and start blaming people.

People want all the support now and they will want it after and that isn't possible, and as a country, we need to start understanding that and work on getting the balance right.
 

acnumber9

Full Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2006
Messages
22,292
Definitely. Although there’s also an element of machismo. I remember us all sneering at nurse’s taking loads of sick days, while we took almost none, despite basically working for the same employer.

I also get the impression that public sector employees in general are more willing/able to take sick days than people who work in the private sector. So it’s arguably more about corporate culture than resourcing.
You would think so but from my experience of the public sector it’s got worse and worse. You could argue that’s fair but for me the Government should be setting the example for what the private sector should be doing. Not trying to follow their example.
 

djembatheking

Full Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2013
Messages
4,054
Definitely. Although there’s also an element of machismo. I remember us all sneering at nurse’s taking loads of sick days, while we took almost none, despite basically working for the same employer.

I also get the impression that public sector employees in general are more willing/able to take sick days than people who work in the private sector. So it’s arguably more about corporate culture than resourcing.
I worked for years on power station shutdowns where there might be a thousand extra workers on site from all over the country working 10 to 12 hour shifts , 7 days a week where it was (and still is) frowned upon to have any time off as if deadlines weren`t met it cost big time. Most firms had porta shed mess rooms where everyone uses the same fridge, burco, etc . I worked with a lot of guys that hadn`t had a day off sick for thirty years , and that won`t change. I know a few lads still at it and they still go to work now if they are unwell as the shutdown season is short and you have to take the money when its available as its all short term contract work .
 

acnumber9

Full Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2006
Messages
22,292
yeah sometimes, but equally I've known people who take the mick at great work environments, but then I've had bosses who basically act like you have robbed them if you are genuinely ill.

It's a mutual thing both employees and employers need to treat each other with respect, unfortunately, people on both sides of that divide don't.
You will never be able to stop people who do that. I’m not going to sit and pretend I’ve never called in sick when fit for work. It’s human nature to take advantage on occasion. But I do believe that workplaces end up with the environment that they have created. If they show no appreciation for the work you do, or underpay you. Expect to be taken advantage of. Most people will go the extra mile if their employers treat them well.
 
Last edited:

acnumber9

Full Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2006
Messages
22,292
That is not true in my experience. At least in my own division in NHS they have come down hard on absence levels in the past 4/5 years and several members of staff have been sacked as a result. In the past I think some people would not have thought twice about going off long term 6months+ every couple of years but that's all been knocked on the head now. I think generally our sickness level sits at about 2%.
That’s been my experience in other parts of the civil service. No coincidence it’s got steadily worse under the current government. The financial crash in 2008 gave them the perfect excuse because the general public love a good story about lazy civil servants.
 

That'sHernandez

Ominously close to getting banned
Joined
Oct 30, 2010
Messages
24,570
its good news in short, but long term then debt this country is going to be is scary. People need to understand the more support we get now, the less support and the bigger the cuts are going to be down the line.
They don't have to be - that is the great Tory lie but that's a discussion for another thread.
 

Brwned

Have you ever been in love before?
Joined
Apr 18, 2008
Messages
50,848
it is basic, obviously, the more we borrow the more we have to pay back, but protecting jobs now can protect mean more people are going to be working and contributing tax towards paying that back. What the correct balance between racking up the debt now and protecting people in the short term, compared to being frugal now to not lumber future generations with debt will likely vary between economist to economist. I did political history at uni and there was a module economic history and the number of different views on Roosevelt's new deal was mind blogging, going from everything from it being a disaster that America was paying off till the 80's and America's economy was only saved from collapse by Europe suddenly starting to spend billions on arming itself in the second half of the 30's. But then there are views that say the money spent protected and supported the infrastructure that America is benefiting from today. So its never clear cut.

However, I just feel that too many people are acting like their isn't going to be a huge bill at the end of this government support and are just demanding more and more support without and thought of the long term costs or even understanding that there may be long term costs. And when those long term costs come they will be equally outraged and start blaming people.

People want all the support now and they will want it after and that isn't possible, and as a country, we need to start understanding that and work on getting the balance right.
Yeah, it is definitely debatable how much, but it is worth noting that there is almost universal consensus that for this crisis, we do need to spend more.


The fact that we are artificially preventing people from participating in the economy for a temporary period means this is very different to a normal question about how should be spend in a recession. It's how should we spend to get through the crisis. And generally speaking, people across the political spectrum agree that significant investment is necessary in disaster relief. And now is as good a time as any to use debt to fund that.

So people asking for us to spend more, on things that are genuinely essential to livelihoods, seems fair enough. But there will naturally be disagreement on the right number. And when it moves onto the next stage and people start to think about getting out of a recession, people's opinions diverge. That's where people's political attitudes start shaping their argument.
 

Pogue Mahone

The caf's Camus.
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
133,929
Location
"like a man in silk pyjamas shooting pigeons
This is why we’re screwed.

Ireland went back to full lockdown today. Schools remain open but everyone supposed to be working from home unless providing “essential services” When the same guidance was issued in March the buses were all empty. Just goes to show that a lockdown is no longer a lockdown.

Six weeks of Level 5 was supposed to get us open for Christmas but that’s based on modelling of measures that are theoretical only and bear no resemblance to the reality on the streets.