Coronavirus

[glasgowspur]

Obviously. The excessive week by week numbers though will show how far forward mortality has been pushed.

So it is valid to say in some weeks we see grossly excessive deaths in relation to the five year average. And counter to this, later in the year we may expect to see periods with a reduced number of deaths.

It’s an extremely useful and simple measure.

That is basically it.
You only die once, so at some stage the increased numbers now will be reflected in lower numbers later on.

 

[Mikey10]

I think it was too risky, politically and health wise (NHS) not to have a stringent lockdown (whenever that actually came).

It could be likely that if we protected everyone of retirement age and above plus the vulnerable ONLY there's a good chance things wouldn't look much different than now statistically, plus we'd have the economic, schooling etc benefits still intact to some degree.

BUT that is all with hindsight and preparing for the worst and hoping for the best is fine by me.

How we went about it is another conversation.

I just struggle with how you isolate only the old and the vulnerable. The old don’t all live in care homes; thousands and thousands of them live in multi-generational households, so for them to be protected those who live with them have to isolate too. Ditto for the vulnerable.

And who is most vulnerable? The data increasingly suggests that you are most likely to die from the virus if you are elderly, or obese, or suffer from hypertension, or are black; so many millions of people.

You can (quite rightly) imagine the reaction if Johnson announced on Sunday evening that’s it back to normal for everyone; “Oh, unless you’re old, fat, black or have high blood pressure - you and your families stay at home.”

 

[Parklaner81]

That is basically it.
You only die once, so at some stage the increased numbers now will be reflected in lower numbers later on.

With the key point, I assume, being how much later on.

 

[glasgowspur]

@glasgowspur No doubt. Where you can be more critical is how we prepared in Jan and Feb. As the virus hits in China and Iran, surely there are people in government who are 1. studying developments, learning all they can, and 2. auditing and preparing? That is where others like Germany etc were far better. If you were the PM you'd want to know that the UK is prepared.

The government's performance once the virus hit could be criticised too. Lacked leadership, was reactive rather than proactive. But I think they were all suffering from the virus themselves - not ideal if you need to work your socks off.

It is all understandable, and you could forgive it, were 10s of thousands of lives and peoples livelihoods not on the line. The stakes were extremely high, and by the time our government recognised this, it was too late.

You would have thought so. Doesn't seem like it though.

If you have a plan you stick to it until you are pretty certain it's wrong, they changed tack to quick imv. Especially when you aren't sure the new plan is any better.

I can understand if the delay was because they were preparing a plan, but it seems not.

 

[glasgowspur]

With the key point, I assume, being how much later on.

Yes, and we won't know that until 9-12 months down the road, at the earliest

 

[Legohamster]

I just struggle with how you isolate only the old and the vulnerable. The old don’t all live in care homes; thousands and thousands of them live in multi-generational households, so for them to be protected those who live with them have to isolate too. Ditto for the vulnerable.

And who is most vulnerable? The data increasingly suggests that you are most likely to die from the virus if you are elderly, or obese, or suffer from hypertension, or are black; so many millions of people.

You can (quite rightly) imagine the reaction if Johnson announced on Sunday evening that’s it back to normal for everyone; “Oh, unless you’re old, fat, black or have high blood pressure - you and your families stay at home.”

Because there has to be a balancing act.

Every day we stay in lockdown mode cancer diagnose are being missed, jobs going, companies going bust.

It’s all personal choice, if the old and at risk don’t wish the listen to it that’s fine.

You can’t force (nor should you) force one group to stay in

Personal choice and responsibility

 

[P.D.]

You would have thought so. Doesn't seem like it though.

If you have a plan you stick to it until you are pretty certain it's wrong, they changed tack to quick imv. Especially when you aren't sure the new plan is any better.

I can understand if the delay was because they were preparing a plan, but it seems not.

Interestingly some of the redacted parts in SAGE papers are about SAGE warning that the governments lockdown plans were too restrictive, apparently they wanted something more like France where you have a paper slip stating why you're out but SAGE said that would be too excessive.

 

[Grays_1890]

I just struggle with how you isolate only the old and the vulnerable. The old don’t all live in care homes; thousands and thousands of them live in multi-generational households, so for them to be protected those who live with them have to isolate too. Ditto for the vulnerable.

And who is this most vulnerable? The data increasingly suggests that you are most likely to die from the virus if you are elderly, or obese, or suffer from hypertension, or are black; so many millions of people.

You can (quite rightly) imagine the reaction if Johnson announced on Sunday evening that’s it back to normal for everyone; “Oh, unless you’re old, fat, black or have high blood pressure - you and your families stay at home.”

But you can only go on the facts and the facts are for all to see that those are the most affected.

Your alternative is to continue to lock down the whole country still just to avoid the facts and literally continue to have 50% of the country on benefits?

On your last part it’s not Bojos fault on who the virus discriminates against, all he can do is stay the facts.

The rest as someone else says is personal choice and responsibility.

Let’s flip the last part, if you fell in the vulnerable list would you seriously want the rest of society to continue to grind to a halt to save you your feelings??

 

[glasgowspur]

Interestingly some of the redacted parts in SAGE papers are about SAGE warning that the governments lockdown plans were too restrictive, apparently they wanted something more like France where you have a paper slip stating why you're out but SAGE said that would be too excessive.

I'm not sure there is totally right or wrong way tbh.
Where I do think the government messed up is not planning earlier, not sticking to its guns and instead of debunking myths, rumours and general brick they actually helped spread some of the panic.
Instead of repeating the same 8 or 10 slides every evening and taking dumb questions from press and public (WTF?) they could have been explaining useful information that adults could use.

 

[Grays_1890]

I'm not sure there is totally right or wrong way tbh.
Where I do think the government messed up is not planning earlier, not sticking to its guns and instead of debunking myths, rumours and general brick they actually helped spread some of the panic.
Instead of repeating the same 8 or 10 slides every evening and taking dumb questions from press and public (WTF?) they could have been explaining useful information that adults could use.

Yeh would have been better for them to explain things in more layman terms.

One of the issues and this is not defence of the government is globally there still is no handle on what and where this virus might go, if we did we would have all acted the same way globally and we didn’t, a lot of countries followed its own path and will continue to do so till a vaccine or they learn more and the fact we are all on here thrashing out different opinions and how we all want this to proceed is proof enough that we don’t know how this is going to look in a year.

 

[Seedy Ron]

continue to have 50% of the country on benefits?

You've still not added any context to that stat. How many people receive benefits under normal circumstances?

 

[Legohamster]

But you can only go on the facts and the facts are for all to see that those are the most affected.

Your alternative is to continue to lock down the whole country still just to avoid the facts and literally continue to have 50% of the country on benefits?

On your last part it’s not Bojos fault on who the virus discriminates against, all he can do is stay the facts.

The rest as someone else says is personal choice and responsibility.

Let’s flip the last part, if you fell in the vulnerable list would you seriously want the rest of society to continue to grind to a halt to save you your feelings??

Quite

One side is going to feel excluded

Either the older/at risk

Or the ones that need to get back to work

The data we have suggests the numbers that are not at risk greatly out numbers the at risk - so logic dictates we shield the at risk and everyone else goes back

 

[Mikey10]

Because there has to be a balancing act.

Every day we stay in lockdown mode cancer diagnose are being missed, jobs going, companies going bust.

It’s all personal choice, if the old and at risk don’t wish the listen to it that’s fine.

You can’t force (nor should you) force one group to stay in

Personal choice and responsibility

But you can only go on the facts and the facts are for all to see that those are the most affected.

Your alternative is to continue to lock down the whole country still just to avoid the facts and literally continue to have 50% of the country on benefits?

On your last part it’s not Bojos fault on who the virus discriminates against, all he can do is stay the facts.

The rest as someone else says is personal choice and responsibility.

Let’s flip the last part, if you fell in the vulnerable list would you seriously want the rest of society to continue to grind to a halt to save you your feelings??

The point I was trying to make is it’s unworkable and overly simplistic to say isolate the old and vulnerable and let everyone else get on with it - if it worked governments around the world would be doing it.

You can’t get life or the economy back to anything resembling normal with very large sections of society isolated at home for an indefinite period and the virus allowed to spread through the rest of the population in an unmanaged way.

As for ‘personal choice and responsibility’, there wouldn’t be much choice for many in vulnerable groups. They’d have to go to work to earn money to survive. And it wouldn’t be their ‘feelings’ on the line - it would potentially be their lives.

Of course we can’t stay in lockdown forever. But we can stay there until the infection rate decreases further, and we can ease out very incrementally - and tighten again as and when needed. Which is what will happen.

There really isn’t another sensible option yet - which is why you will see very little lockdown leeway given by the government on Sunday evening.

 

[Legohamster]

The point I was trying to make is it’s unworkable and overly simplistic to say isolate the old and vulnerable and let everyone else get on with it - if it worked governments around the world would be doing it.

You can’t get life or the economy back to anything resembling normal with very large sections of society isolated at home for an indefinite period and the virus allowed to spread through the rest of the population in an unmanaged way.


Of course we can’t stay in lockdown forever. But we can stay there until the infection rate decreases further, and we can ease out very incrementally - and tighten again as and when needed. Which is what will happen.

There really isn’t another sensible option yet - which is why you will see very little lockdown leeway given by the government on Sunday evening.

You can extend the furlough for the at risk which will stop us paying out billions - easy to prove via doctors and the older don’t work.

“As for ‘personal choice and responsibility’, there wouldn’t be much choice for many in vulnerable groups. They’d have to go to work to earn money to survive. And it wouldn’t be their ‘feelings’ on the line - it would potentially be their lives.“

It’s easier and cheaper to look after these finically than covering everyone which we are currently doing and you can cover these people longer.

How about those that are needing money to survive now? Businesses going bust?

Those people are in the majority I’m afraid and should be treated like it - whilst looking after the at risk of course.

 

[Grays_1890]

You can extend the furlough for the at risk which will stop us paying out billions - easy to prove via doctors and the older don’t work.

“As for ‘personal choice and responsibility’, there wouldn’t be much choice for many in vulnerable groups. They’d have to go to work to earn money to survive. And it wouldn’t be their ‘feelings’ on the line - it would potentially be their lives.“

It’s easier and cheaper to look after these finically than covering everyone which we are currently doing and you can cover these people longer.

How about those that are needing money to survive now? Businesses going bust?

Those people are in the majority I’m afraid and should be treated like it - whilst looking after the at risk of course.

Exactly, business won’t survive us being on lockdown longer.

I

 

[Mikey10]

Exactly, business won’t survive us being on lockdown longer.

I

I get the feeling they are going to have to.

 

[Mikey10]

You can extend the furlough for the at risk which will stop us paying out billions - easy to prove via doctors and the older don’t work.

“As for ‘personal choice and responsibility’, there wouldn’t be much choice for many in vulnerable groups. They’d have to go to work to earn money to survive. And it wouldn’t be their ‘feelings’ on the line - it would potentially be their lives.“

It’s easier and cheaper to look after these finically than covering everyone which we are currently doing and you can cover these people longer.

How about those that are needing money to survive now? Businesses going bust?

Those people are in the majority I’m afraid and should be treated like it - whilst looking after the at risk of course.

I still don’t understand how it works. How do you isolate potentially millions of people (the obese, the elderly, those with hypertension - and all of those who live with those groups - the black community) for an indefinite period and the economy and society function in a normal way?

I’m happy to go with it if you explain it to me.

Also, your solution ignores perhaps the major reason we did lockdown in the first place: 20% of those who contract this virus will require hospital treatment to recover. So the NHS would be very quickly overwhelmed if we just let everyone else get on with their everyday lives as the virus spread through society.

I’ll go back to my original point. If it was that easy desperate governments all over the world would be doing it. So why are they not?

 

[Grays_1890]

I still don’t understand how it works. How do you isolate potentially millions of people (the obese, the elderly, those with hypertension - and all of those who live with those groups - the black community) for an indefinite period and the economy and society function in a normal way?

I’m happy to go with it if you explain it to me.

Also, your solution ignores perhaps the major reason we did lockdown in the first place: 20% of those who contract this virus will require hospital treatment to recover. So the NHS would be very quickly overwhelmed if we just let everyone else get on with their everyday lives as the virus spread through society.

I’ll go back to my original point. If it was that easy desperate governments all over the world would be doing it. So why are they not?

But if reports are correct and this was about with in November we were not overwhelmed and in Germany 2m had it and they didn’t get hospitalised apparently.

The Younger who have it don’t need hospitalisation one every case a large percentage has mild cases.

If the majority of younger and healthy people go back to the city, back to work and start the money moving back round, starting to invest back in cafes and shops the economy has a better chance to survive.

The reason it hasn’t happened is one, we were going to and the uproar was so great the Government changed it’s mind (there are examples on here at the start where people wanted lockdown over Sweden style) so it changed our tact and we have had to spend any time we had navigating that plan.

No one is saying it’s “easy” at the very least it’s a hard convo to have.

But your alternative nearly for certain kills the economy and the long term losses and in my opinion far greater in numbers and hurt. In my opinion.

 

[Legohamster]

I still don’t understand how it works. How do you isolate potentially millions of people (the obese, the elderly, those with hypertension - and all of those who live with those groups - the black community) for an indefinite period and the economy and society function in a normal way?

I’m happy to go with it if you explain it to me.

Also, your solution ignores perhaps the major reason we did lockdown in the first place: 20% of those who contract this virus will require hospital treatment to recover. So the NHS would be very quickly overwhelmed if we just let everyone else get on with their everyday lives as the virus spread through society.

I’ll go back to my original point. If it was that easy desperate governments all over the world would be doing it. So why are they not?

I don’t think anyone said it was easy?

If we stay as we are people die and the economy dies taking more people.

Go in the direction I’m suggesting and the economy doesn’t and potentially less people die in the long run.

We have to be real, this thing has been with us at least a month earlier than we thought. Thousands, of not millions have had it and it didn’t over work the NHS -

Im thinking some governments will be regretting the lockdown behind the scenes rather than shielding when the damage becomes clear and the unemployment rate rockets and being still die.

You can make care homes no go areas, or test visitors before they arrive/antibody tests before visits etc

People are going to be lockdown which ever way you do it.

 

[Grays_1890]

I don’t think anyone said it was easy?

If we stay as we are people die and the economy dies taking more people.

Go in the direction I’m suggesting and the economy doesn’t and potentially less people die in the long run.

We have to be real, this thing has been with us at least a month earlier than we thought. Thousands, of not millions have had it and it didn’t over work the NHS -

Im thinking some governments will be regretting the lockdown behind the scenes rather than shielding when the damage becomes clear and the unemployment rate rockets and being still die.

You can make care homes no go areas, or test visitors before they arrive/antibody tests before visits etc

People are going to be lockdown which ever way you do it.

Yep, there are way we can make this work and we may have made it sound over simplistic and it will be tough however this is a football forum, I’m sure those that can will plan it out to make it work.

At the end of the day the fact we are able to categorise who suffers most from this is a win, it’s not us discriminating it’s fact and what is the point of collecting all this statistical data and not using it.

We tried the scientific route and we should continue to take advice but all of the data points overwhelmingly to who this really is a danger too.

There was a great article I posted on here where the guy said these are all difficult conversations to have when your looking at deaths but they are not conversation you should shy away from.