"We are suffering from a media epidemic"

[Scott777]

But according to the scientists who have modelled it, this is not a risk, it's pretty much a certainty, and we can see that from the examples of Italy and Iran

Which scientists?



Prof Walter Ricciardi, scientific adviser to Italy's minister of health:



"On re-evaluation by the National Institute of Health, only 12 per cent of death certificates (Italy) have shown a direct causality from coronavirus, while 88 per cent of patients who have died have at least one pre-morbidity - many had two or three."

[Barry]

Drama? No, not really Barry. Just a few scenarios, all within the realms of possiblity. Even the "best case" scenario (about the same as the one you describe) will see a deep contraction.



I can't help noticing that the 4 responses are all from retirees. Those probably with safe housing, reasonably secure pension arrangements and probably financially secure to a reasonable degree. Those least likely to be affected by the fall out from this disaster.



I appreciate that some of you regard this as a little callous, or even that we shouldn't even be talking about it. As if trying to get a better appreciation of the whole picture with regard to the response to this pandemic means I don't care about people dying or put it in second place. That isn't true. But we have to have an appreciation of all the negatives, not just those that affect us directly. I am not buying the "half a million deaths" stories, which if there is any drama, it's right there. I still believe that this "cure" is going to do far more damage and cause more suffering than the disease. I may be wrong, but that doesn't mean I don't care about those who succumb to this diesease. It's just that the fall out from this will be felt much more acutely by people who are younger than the average age of posters on this website.

I really do appreciate being safely cocooned because of my previous occupation and age, yet still allowed out because of my age. (65)

The really important thing is that I would hope other reasonably comfortable pensioners, like me, will believe that we need to pay more in taxes to fund people who have been disadvantaged by this knee jerk government reaction. I am grateful that our freedoms in this country have not been eroded quite as badly and nonsensically as Spain and Italy.

In other words, I'm happy to contribute. How the government will arrange that, I do not know.

[Scott777]

Apparently, tomorrow, the ONS release the number of deaths in March 2020.  That will be very interesting to compare to 2019 (43,946).  Will it be more or less, and by how much?  Anyone for hazarding a guess?  I'm plumping for roughly the same.

[Thomas]

To reassure one's followers, one is pleased to report from the idyllic setting of Foix in the French Pyrénées that calm and tranquility form the order of the day. One visits the boulangerie for one's daily baguette and naughtily sneaks into the pâtisserie to partake of a heavenly almond madelaine. The countess's staff are most accommodating and dinner is a joy. The simplicity of rural life and these days of self-isolation have proved highly refreshing. One recommends it.

Thats the spirit baron ! They`re no gonnae stop me taking a walking party up the conic hill!

[T00ts]

So we should ignore what data there is and carry on as if there is nothing happening? Sweden was trying this and are just now realising their mistake and belatedly warning of massive deaths. I am not afraid to die but I am afraid of blind stupidity. This is not an enemy that we can see, this is not an affliction we can cure or control other than to try and slow the rate at which people catch it and let's be honest as things stand we will all catch it at some point. We have no way of knowing who will get it mildly or who will need massive help. We have no way of knowing how, now the genie is out of the bottle, it will affect society as a whole. We have no real control at all. In an effort to preserve society in the long term it has been decided to protect the workforce as much as those who would over stretch the healers.



We will be in massive debt inevitably while some will make a fortune at the expense of others. What proof or evidence is there that by forgetting a lockdown and letting the virus rip through the population it will actually benefit us either economically or socially? Already they are talking mass graves and that's while doing their best to keep infection at a manageable level. This is not just an economic problem it is a worldwide pestilence that the economy cannot survive.

Some of us may well be retirees but we have families who are struggling but still see the value in the current action.

[Javert]

Where is the factual argument that half a million will die Javert? Not estimates based on unknown death rates, but Facts?



As for the WW2 analogy, isn't closing society down because (we don't know how many) people will die, like the UK saying in 1939 "we mustn't even take the risk of fighting a war"?



The only fact there is that we now have a society so pitifully risk averse that no matter how small that risk is, we cannot face it. Today's generation would not fight a WW2 for any reason, and you know it. Risk is a fact of life, Javert. Unless we relearn that, we will eventually be unable to step outside of a protective bubble ever again. To use an analogy Thomas would appreciate, I'd rather die on my feet than live like a frightened little rabbit.

But according to the scientists who have modelled it, this is not a risk, it's pretty much a certainty, and we can see that from the examples of Italy and Iran - if there was no lockdown and no measures at all, hundreds of thousands will die prematurely.  If you choose not to believe that information, there's nothing else that can be said I guess.  Are you disputing the number of deaths happening in Italy and Iran and they are not happening?  Are you thinking that UK people are somehow genetically superior to Italians?  If not, I'm struggling to see a good reason for not beliveving it.



If you then say, well so be it - better for hundred thousands to die now rather than risk having my pension cut later or whatever, I suppose that's an argument but it's not one I share.

[T00ts]

Where is the factual argument that half a million will die Javert? Not estimates based on unknown death rates, but Facts?



As for the WW2 analogy, isn't closing society down because (we don't know how many) people will die, like the UK saying in 1939 "we mustn't even take the risk of fighting a war"?



The only fact there is that we now have a society so pitifully risk averse that no matter how small that risk is, we cannot face it. Today's generation would not fight a WW2 for any reason, and you know it. Risk is a fact of life, Javert. Unless we relearn that, we will eventually be unable to step outside of a protective bubble ever again. To use an analogy Thomas would appreciate, I'd rather die on my feet than live like a frightened little rabbit.

So we should ignore what data there is and carry on as if there is nothing happening? Sweden was trying this and are just now realising their mistake and belatedly warning of massive deaths. I am not afraid to die but I am afraid of blind stupidity. This is not an enemy that we can see, this is not an affliction we can cure or control other than to try and slow the rate at which people catch it and let's be honest as things stand we will all catch it at some point. We have no way of knowing who will get it mildly or who will need massive help. We have no way of knowing how, now the genie is out of the bottle, it will affect society as a whole. We have no real control at all. In an effort to preserve society in the long term it has been decided to protect the workforce as much as those who would over stretch the healers.



We will be in massive debt inevitably while some will make a fortune at the expense of others. What proof or evidence is there that by forgetting a lockdown and letting the virus rip through the population it will actually benefit us either economically or socially? Already they are talking mass graves and that's while doing their best to keep infection at a manageable level. This is not just an economic problem it is a worldwide pestilence that the economy cannot survive.

[cromwell]

Drama? No, not really Barry. Just a few scenarios, all within the realms of possiblity. Even the "best case" scenario (about the same as the one you describe) will see a deep contraction.



I can't help noticing that the 4 responses are all from retirees. Those probably with safe housing, reasonably secure pension arrangements and probably financially secure to a reasonable degree. Those least likely to be affected by the fall out from this disaster.



I appreciate that some of you regard this as a little callous, or even that we shouldn't even be talking about it. As if trying to get a better appreciation of the whole picture with regard to the response to this pandemic means I don't care about people dying or put it in second place. That isn't true. But we have to have an appreciation of all the negatives, not just those that affect us directly. I am not buying the "half a million deaths" stories, which if there is any drama, it's right there. I still believe that this "cure" is going to do far more damage and cause more suffering than the disease. I may be wrong, but that doesn't mean I don't care about those who succumb to this diesease. It's just that the fall out from this will be felt much more acutely by people who are younger than the average age of posters on this website.

Well to this first

I can't help noticing that the 4 responses are all from retirees. Those probably with safe housing, reasonably secure pension arrangements and probably financially secure to a reasonable degree. Those least likely to be affected by the fall out from this disaster.

I expect to be included there,and there's a lot of assumptions mostly wrong in my case,I may be logged on here doesn't mean I'm not working and still need to.

And now an assumption from me but based on things you said in the past I would guess your pension future is much better than mine.

I appreciate that some of you regard this as a little callous

No not  callous but wrong in some respects IMO

or even that we shouldn't even be talking about it. As if trying to get a better appreciation of the whole picture with regard to the response to this pandemic means I don't care about people dying or put it in second place.

Who has said we shouldn't be talking about it? of course we should it's a bloody forum,as far as you not caring or people dying those are motives you ascribe to yourself certainly not from me.

I am not buying the "half a million deaths"

Good for you ,it was a worst case guesstimate but I do think had these measures not been taken a lot more people would be dead.

It's just that the fall out from this will be felt much more acutely by people who are younger than the average age of posters on this website.

Oh well  another opinion,but any economic hit will be felt by all but then that's just mine.

[DeppityDawg]

Then there is the argument that by crashing the economy, more people will die in the long run than half a million. Well, that would be the same argument as to why we should have sued for peace with Germany in 1940

Where is the factual argument that half a million will die Javert? Not estimates based on unknown death rates, but Facts?



As for the WW2 analogy, isn't closing society down because (we don't know how many) people will die, like the UK saying in 1939 "we mustn't even take the risk of fighting a war"?



The only fact there is that we now have a society so pitifully risk averse that no matter how small that risk is, we cannot face it. Today's generation would not fight a WW2 for any reason, and you know it. Risk is a fact of life, Javert. Unless we relearn that, we will eventually be unable to step outside of a protective bubble ever again. To use an analogy Thomas would appreciate, I'd rather die on my feet than live like a frightened little rabbit.

[Scott777]

As regards having a lockdown only for vulnerable people, we already have that - they have been told to stay at home for 12 weeks.  Those people often don't live on their own, and by definition of them being vulnerable, they often require close up medical / social help on a daily basis from others.  Practically how are you proposing this lockdown of vulnerable people will work without them coming into contact with others, but without them starving of suffering medical issues from not getting what they need?  It sounds a good idea at first but it's not practical.

Considering it would be ten times less costly than the current lockdown (or much less), I'm sure ways can be found.  Over a million people have applied for Universal Credit recently, so why can't the government implement a strategy - maybe high-risk people can somehow register for assistance (don't forget, most people have family and friends), and they will be supplied with food and medicine.  Why would they get infected?  Can they not use gloves when receiving deliveries, wash their hands, etc.....

[cromwell]

I will be very surprised if the lockdown is lifted in mid April.  The peak demand for ventilators in intensive care is likely to happen in mid May if you do that maths.



As regards having a lockdown only for vulnerable people, we already have that - they have been told to stay at home for 12 weeks.  Those people often don't live on their own, and by definition of them being vulnerable, they often require close up medical / social help on a daily basis from others.  Practically how are you proposing this lockdown of vulnerable people will work without them coming into contact with others, but without them starving of suffering medical issues from not getting what they need?  It sounds a good idea at first but it's not practical.



As regards the accuracy of current information, it's entirely correct to suggest that it may turn out, that the lockdown is not needed for as long as the worst case, or that it was more than what was needed.  However, there is no way of knowing this until more data is available about the prevalence of asymptomatic cases, length and extent of immunity in the general population etc.  If it turns out that a large % of the population are already immune (unlikely), then Scott777 will be able to claim (wrongly) that he was right all along, but the reality will be that the government took the appropriate action on the currently available data, then amended it when the data changed.



Until that data is available, they are assuming that the level of asymptomatic sufferers and general herd immunity is low.  If that proves wrong, that will be good news, but it certainly won't be proof that it was a wrong decision to implement the lockdown.



I'm also struggling to see what the motive would be for the government shutting down the whole economy without good reason if it's not to save lives?



If the government released the lockdown for everyone except the vulnerable, this wouldn't work because the vulnerable would be infected by everyone else who needs to help them daily.  Further, if half a million people do die because the worst case prediction comes true, will the people of the country then accept the government saying "well we thought it would be fine so that's ok - goodbye peeps".



Then there is the argument that by crashing the economy, more people will die in the long run than half a million.  Well, that would be the same argument as to why we should have sued for peace with Germany in 1940.  We have to do the right thing now, and then in the long run, if people and the government do the right thing, we will help those other people as well - if you start out by saying, let's save the hypothetical lives of people in future years by killing half a million people, I would submit that you are not in a good moral attitude to save people in the future either.



It's also worth mentioning that most economies in the world are being equally trashed, so in the end, the losses are just numbers on a balance sheet - the people who actually do the productive activities in society are still there and things will still start up again, either in their existing business, or a new business formed after one goes bust.

Excellent  :hattip  :hattip

[cromwell]

Actually Ollie, I think that you will find that a lot of other folk think that it is a lot of undignified fuss over not very much. But I suspect that I am older than you and in worse health so am more likely to be struck down by this fashionable bug. And if that should happen and I die I will make provision for you to raise a glass in my memory and say, "Ha bloody ha. I told you I was right."

Do they? Good for them,they and you are entitled to that view as am I and am expressing that it if it's all the same to you.

[Javert]

I will be very surprised if the lockdown is lifted in mid April.  The peak demand for ventilators in intensive care is likely to happen in mid May if you do that maths.



As regards having a lockdown only for vulnerable people, we already have that - they have been told to stay at home for 12 weeks.  Those people often don't live on their own, and by definition of them being vulnerable, they often require close up medical / social help on a daily basis from others.  Practically how are you proposing this lockdown of vulnerable people will work without them coming into contact with others, but without them starving of suffering medical issues from not getting what they need?  It sounds a good idea at first but it's not practical.



As regards the accuracy of current information, it's entirely correct to suggest that it may turn out, that the lockdown is not needed for as long as the worst case, or that it was more than what was needed.  However, there is no way of knowing this until more data is available about the prevalence of asymptomatic cases, length and extent of immunity in the general population etc.  If it turns out that a large % of the population are already immune (unlikely), then Scott777 will be able to claim (wrongly) that he was right all along, but the reality will be that the government took the appropriate action on the currently available data, then amended it when the data changed.



Until that data is available, they are assuming that the level of asymptomatic sufferers and general herd immunity is low.  If that proves wrong, that will be good news, but it certainly won't be proof that it was a wrong decision to implement the lockdown.



I'm also struggling to see what the motive would be for the government shutting down the whole economy without good reason if it's not to save lives?



If the government released the lockdown for everyone except the vulnerable, this wouldn't work because the vulnerable would be infected by everyone else who needs to help them daily.  Further, if half a million people do die because the worst case prediction comes true, will the people of the country then accept the government saying "well we thought it would be fine so that's ok - goodbye peeps".



Then there is the argument that by crashing the economy, more people will die in the long run than half a million.  Well, that would be the same argument as to why we should have sued for peace with Germany in 1940.  We have to do the right thing now, and then in the long run, if people and the government do the right thing, we will help those other people as well - if you start out by saying, let's save the hypothetical lives of people in future years by killing half a million people, I would submit that you are not in a good moral attitude to save people in the future either.



It's also worth mentioning that most economies in the world are being equally trashed, so in the end, the losses are just numbers on a balance sheet - the people who actually do the productive activities in society are still there and things will still start up again, either in their existing business, or a new business formed after one goes bust.

[DeppityDawg]

Did someone speak?

Seriously, I'm reading it all. Don't be a  :dmq:   ::

I expect the lockdown will be lifted towards the end of April. We will bounce back rapidly.

We should be particularly productive in August when the kids should be in school to compensate for their early holiday.

Drama? No, not really Barry. Just a few scenarios, all within the realms of possiblity. Even the "best case" scenario (about the same as the one you describe) will see a deep contraction.



I can't help noticing that the 4 responses are all from retirees. Those probably with safe housing, reasonably secure pension arrangements and probably financially secure to a reasonable degree. Those least likely to be affected by the fall out from this disaster.



I appreciate that some of you regard this as a little callous, or even that we shouldn't even be talking about it. As if trying to get a better appreciation of the whole picture with regard to the response to this pandemic means I don't care about people dying or put it in second place. That isn't true. But we have to have an appreciation of all the negatives, not just those that affect us directly. I am not buying the "half a million deaths" stories, which if there is any drama, it's right there. I still believe that this "cure" is going to do far more damage and cause more suffering than the disease. I may be wrong, but that doesn't mean I don't care about those who succumb to this diesease. It's just that the fall out from this will be felt much more acutely by people who are younger than the average age of posters on this website.

[Borchester]

It isn't a joke,you may laugh but for these measures a lot more people would be dying and that ain't funny



I get that you and a few others think this is nothing more than a few runny noses but you're wrong.

Actually Ollie, I think that you will find that a lot of other folk think that it is a lot of undignified fuss over not very much. But I suspect that I am older than you and in worse health so am more likely to be struck down by this fashionable bug. And if that should happen and I die I will make provision for you to raise a glass in my memory and say, "Ha bloody ha. I told you I was right."