Is the fix now worse than the problem?

This Forum is the main messageboard to discuss all things Claret and Blue and beyond
Elbarad
Posts: 521
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 5:46 pm
Been Liked: 149 times
Has Liked: 50 times

Re: Is the fix now worse than the problem?

Post by Elbarad » Tue Oct 20, 2020 11:00 pm

PeterWilton wrote:
Tue Oct 20, 2020 4:29 pm
I am fascinated by the way some people are going with this thing. Can you imagine if we were given the option of shutting down the economy or allowing a terrorist attack to kill 10,000 people? Does anyone seriously believe that we'd even think about keeping the economy open?

This thing is a natural disaster. A natural WMD. It is insane to me that people are still arguing that we shouldnt do everything to stop it/mitigate it even after we've watched it kill about 60-70,000 of us in just the first wave.
I guess it depends how long the terrorists were demanding you shut down the economy... one week, maybe the government would shut down the economy. A year? A decade?

Truthfully, it's really just a bad analogy because you can't arrest the virus like you would hope you could the terrorists. But even allowing the analogy to morph into a natural disaster I can't think of many that would last almost a year, so not sure what to do with your question.

If it was an enemy army, I think the answer is your government wouldn't allow them to destroy your way of life.

GodIsADeeJay81
Posts: 14566
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
Been Liked: 3435 times
Has Liked: 6339 times

Re: Is the fix now worse than the problem?

Post by GodIsADeeJay81 » Tue Oct 20, 2020 11:09 pm

AndrewJB wrote:
Tue Oct 20, 2020 10:54 pm
Actually - if all you’re doing is paying for food and basic utilities, as long as it covers the costs of the most expensive area - probably London - then everyone’s okay. Rent, mortgage, credit card bills - they’re all different, but when you take them out of the equation, we’re all quite similar. If you want to add transport - like when during a lockdown you have to go to Barnard Castle for an eye test - then let’s add some for transport too.

As you say mortgage payments were suspended. But banks didn’t go bust. The government basically took over lots of things - railways, and buses - so there’s no reason they couldn’t have loaned the banks a few quid too. I wouldn’t like to see the banking sector go bust.

Again - entirely workable, way less fraud than furlough (which had way more fraud than regular benefits - which people often complain is a massive drain on our economy), and nobody gets left behind. HoP legislates the economy begins again after we’ve beaten the disease, and businesses emerge from mothball.

Compare that to now.
Complains about fraud but thinks its a good idea to pay everyone across the country a flat rate that covers London living costs...

Just give it up, your idea wasn't workable, the gov method did the job.

AndrewJB
Posts: 3808
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:20 pm
Been Liked: 1159 times
Has Liked: 754 times

Re: Is the fix now worse than the problem?

Post by AndrewJB » Tue Oct 20, 2020 11:36 pm

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:
Tue Oct 20, 2020 11:09 pm
Complains about fraud but thinks its a good idea to pay everyone across the country a flat rate that covers London living costs...

Just give it up, your idea wasn't workable, the gov method did the job.
A flat rate for food and utilities isn’t fraud. For a lot of people what is fraud is some people getting 80% of their usual income for sitting at home, while other people get nothing and aren’t allowed to work, yet are still expected to pay their financial obligations.

If you had been let go rather than furloughed, where would you be right now?
I just think a system that looked after everyone would have been better.

GodIsADeeJay81
Posts: 14566
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
Been Liked: 3435 times
Has Liked: 6339 times

Re: Is the fix now worse than the problem?

Post by GodIsADeeJay81 » Tue Oct 20, 2020 11:40 pm

AndrewJB wrote:
Tue Oct 20, 2020 11:36 pm
A flat rate for food and utilities isn’t fraud. For a lot of people what is fraud is some people getting 80% of their usual income for sitting at home, while other people get nothing and aren’t allowed to work, yet are still expected to pay their financial obligations.

If you had been let go rather than furloughed, where would you be right now?
I just think a system that looked after everyone would have been better.
I wasn't let go, I work 13 out of every 14 days with 2 jobs and that carried on throughout the lockdown.

The system looked after very nearly everyone, I think your real issue is the gov in charge who put this in place.
They did something you didn't expect them to do and it worked fairly well.

Inchy
Posts: 2836
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2016 5:32 pm
Been Liked: 1334 times
Has Liked: 97 times

Re: Is the fix now worse than the problem?

Post by Inchy » Tue Oct 20, 2020 11:50 pm

I am astonished both on here and social media how confident people are on how we should manage this virus.


I have spent all day caring for covid patients. I have taken covid patients to ICU today. Not old either, 40s and 50s. I’m unsure who will survive. It’s hard to tell but there is a fair chance a fair number won’t. Young people who look well but are profoundly hypoxic. It’s really sad

200 deaths today. I can say with almost certainty that number will rise rapidly in the next few days based on what I’m seeing.

With my experience you would imagine I want total lockdown, but I don’t. Well it’s not I don’t l, it’s I don’t know what’s best. I’m a critical care nurse. I’m not an epidemiologist, or a virologist, or a economist. So my thoughts on what we should do are worthless and not at all based on science or evidence. They are based on what I’m seeing and I know that isn’t useful. If I can recognise that then why can’t others.

I get it if you work in a hospitality it’s crap but we should trust the experts and not trust the government because clearly, CLEARLY, they have been shambolic
These 5 users liked this post: CombatClaret KateR longsidepies Wadesawinger cricketfieldclarets

bfcmik
Posts: 3613
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2016 2:03 pm
Been Liked: 891 times
Has Liked: 1100 times
Location: Solihull Geriatric Centre

Re: Is the fix now worse than the problem?

Post by bfcmik » Tue Oct 20, 2020 11:52 pm

UK Deaths ONS.jpg
UK Deaths ONS.jpg (63.29 KiB) Viewed 2459 times
UK total deaths ONS.jpg
UK total deaths ONS.jpg (71.1 KiB) Viewed 2459 times
Latest ONS statistics on all UK deaths 2020

Paul Waine
Posts: 9904
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 2350 times
Has Liked: 3178 times

Re: Is the fix now worse than the problem?

Post by Paul Waine » Wed Oct 21, 2020 12:01 am

bfcmik wrote:
Tue Oct 20, 2020 11:52 pm
UK Deaths ONS.jpg
UK total deaths ONS.jpg
Latest ONS statistics on all UK deaths 2020
So, the ONS stats that show all the "excess non-covid deaths" at home - that are quoted at the start of this thread - tell us what? That people died at home, whereas they would have previously died in hospital and/or care home?

Stay safe, everyone.

FactualFrank
Posts: 25445
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2016 12:46 am
Been Liked: 6930 times
Has Liked: 11660 times
Location: Leeds

Re: Is the fix now worse than the problem?

Post by FactualFrank » Wed Oct 21, 2020 12:01 am

Inchy wrote:
Tue Oct 20, 2020 11:50 pm
I am astonished both on here and social media how confident people are on how we should manage this virus.


I have spent all day caring for covid patients. I have taken covid patients to ICU today. Not old either, 40s and 50s. I’m unsure who will survive. It’s hard to tell but there is a fair chance a fair number won’t. Young people who look well but are profoundly hypoxic. It’s really sad

200 deaths today. I can say with almost certainty that number will rise rapidly in the next few days based on what I’m seeing.

With my experience you would imagine I want total lockdown, but I don’t. Well it’s not I don’t l, it’s I don’t know what’s best. I’m a critical care nurse. I’m not an epidemiologist, or a virologist, or a economist. So my thoughts on what we should do are worthless and not at all based on science or evidence. They are based on what I’m seeing and I know that isn’t useful. If I can recognise that then why can’t others.

I get it if you work in a hospitality it’s crap but we should trust the experts and not trust the government because clearly, CLEARLY, they have been shambolic
We might not be the best of friends, but you're someone I look out for on here. Someone I know is working through this and respect. Epidemiologist? Virologist? Economist? Doesn't matter. It's all about your experience. What you've been through, what you've learned and what you think.
These 2 users liked this post: KateR Zlatan

Paul Waine
Posts: 9904
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 2350 times
Has Liked: 3178 times

Re: Is the fix now worse than the problem?

Post by Paul Waine » Wed Oct 21, 2020 12:02 am

Inchy wrote:
Tue Oct 20, 2020 11:50 pm
I am astonished both on here and social media how confident people are on how we should manage this virus.


I have spent all day caring for covid patients. I have taken covid patients to ICU today. Not old either, 40s and 50s. I’m unsure who will survive. It’s hard to tell but there is a fair chance a fair number won’t. Young people who look well but are profoundly hypoxic. It’s really sad

200 deaths today. I can say with almost certainty that number will rise rapidly in the next few days based on what I’m seeing.

With my experience you would imagine I want total lockdown, but I don’t. Well it’s not I don’t l, it’s I don’t know what’s best. I’m a critical care nurse. I’m not an epidemiologist, or a virologist, or a economist. So my thoughts on what we should do are worthless and not at all based on science or evidence. They are based on what I’m seeing and I know that isn’t useful. If I can recognise that then why can’t others.

I get it if you work in a hospitality it’s crap but we should trust the experts and not trust the government because clearly, CLEARLY, they have been shambolic
Hi Inchy, good to read your post - adding valuable contribution to the thread. Take care of yourself - and your patients, as best you can.
This user liked this post: Wadesawinger

CombatClaret
Posts: 4382
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:09 pm
Been Liked: 1825 times
Has Liked: 930 times

Re: Is the fix now worse than the problem?

Post by CombatClaret » Wed Oct 21, 2020 12:04 am

infections.jpg
infections.jpg (155.59 KiB) Viewed 2437 times
Remember, it takes about three weeks from infection to death, so the 250 who died today likely caught it in the blue area. So now look at the infections today and think forward three weeks. No sign of infections slowing either.

CrosspoolClarets
Posts: 5333
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:00 pm
Been Liked: 1644 times
Has Liked: 400 times

Re: Is the fix now worse than the problem?

Post by CrosspoolClarets » Wed Oct 21, 2020 12:11 am

Re the OP

On one hand there are over 100,000 early deaths because of the lockdown (not all died yet, but will). Then there are all the kids suffering with schooling and the loss of their innocence, with a likely mental health crisis. Then we have the economic damage for all of us to bear, even those still in jobs and businesses.

On the other hand we have long covid affecting hundreds of thousands of people, in addition to the 50,000+ deaths, and the sufferers would be in the millions if we let it rip, doing untold damage to our NHS and to our economy / long term productivity, not to mention quality of life.

It’s the ultimate definition of a no win situation. No leader in their right mind would choose to serve during this. Its thankless, and impossible to get perfectly right.

Is the cure worse than the disease? Quite possibly. I do worry a lot about the above stuff. We haven’t got it right. But the failings in our state and civil service that some of us have been on about for years has made it impossible to get it right. At least we will have woken up now and be in better shape for the rest of the century.
This user liked this post: cricketfieldclarets

dsr
Posts: 15223
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 4575 times
Has Liked: 2264 times

Re: Is the fix now worse than the problem?

Post by dsr » Wed Oct 21, 2020 12:15 am

Where are the numbers for long covid? There must be some stats somewhere about how many people who caught the disease in March-April are still suffering. I doubt that there are as many as Crosspool estimates, which is at least 4 times the number of deaths.

CrosspoolClarets
Posts: 5333
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:00 pm
Been Liked: 1644 times
Has Liked: 400 times

Re: Is the fix now worse than the problem?

Post by CrosspoolClarets » Wed Oct 21, 2020 12:24 am

Re Inchy’s post. The actual clinical stuff I don’t know enough about, I have helped manage ICUs in the past but the medical detail is more specialist and harder to grasp than almost any other clinical area, hats off to them. So I might be totally wrong on this, but I was pondering Inchy’s hypoxia point.

With the hypoxic dangers I made sure that when this crisis started I got a pulse oximeter off Amazon and put it in my medicine box, also one of those cold zyme sprays that coat the throat to slow down colds and flu spreading.

Might be about as much use as a chocolate teapot, but my thinking is that if I catch the thing, in middle age, keeping the viral load as low as possible and keeping an eye on my blood oxygen levels regularly are likely to be important (calling for help immediately if the latter shows a problem).

Like i say, might be nonsense, but what amazes me is that these scientists are not standing at podiums advising us what to do if we get ill. Surely, surely, there are ways of doing it right and doing it wrong? e.g. I heard Trumps doctor saying something about it being good for him to be up and walking around.

Anyway, just musing.

CrosspoolClarets
Posts: 5333
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:00 pm
Been Liked: 1644 times
Has Liked: 400 times

Re: Is the fix now worse than the problem?

Post by CrosspoolClarets » Wed Oct 21, 2020 12:26 am

dsr wrote:
Wed Oct 21, 2020 12:15 am
Where are the numbers for long covid? There must be some stats somewhere about how many people who caught the disease in March-April are still suffering. I doubt that there are as many as Crosspool estimates, which is at least 4 times the number of deaths.
A guess on my part (unlike most of my stats).

I see it as a spectrum, so I would use the term for all those who take months to fully recover. I personally know about a dozen, some really rough, some just at 75% months later.

bfcmik
Posts: 3613
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2016 2:03 pm
Been Liked: 891 times
Has Liked: 1100 times
Location: Solihull Geriatric Centre

Re: Is the fix now worse than the problem?

Post by bfcmik » Wed Oct 21, 2020 2:55 am

Paul Waine wrote:
Wed Oct 21, 2020 12:01 am
So, the ONS stats that show all the "excess non-covid deaths" at home - that are quoted at the start of this thread - tell us what? That people died at home, whereas they would have previously died in hospital and/or care home?

Stay safe, everyone.
Essentially yes. The 2 charts I put up were non location based all recorded deaths from all causes. It shows that apart from the 8 weeks, deaths from all other causes were showing above average numbers and then deaths where Covid was cited on the death certificate were piled on top.
This is the most telling graph for older people
Covid age.JPG
Covid age.JPG (51.07 KiB) Viewed 2399 times
Notice that it counts as a Covid death if it is mentioned as being present whether the person died of any cause. So if someone tests positive today then commits suicide tomorrow it would still be added to the Covid death count

Colburn_Claret
Posts: 8130
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 4:30 pm
Been Liked: 3079 times
Has Liked: 5044 times
Location: Catterick N.Yorks

Re: Is the fix now worse than the problem?

Post by Colburn_Claret » Wed Oct 21, 2020 6:47 am

Imo it doesn't serve anybody to shut the economy down, and it doesn't serve anybody to impact so hugely on our daily lives. As the first lockdiwn demonstrated, you can't stop this, only delay it. If we do enter another lockdiwn it will only rear its head again 2 months down the line.
Hindsight shows again imo, that it would have been better to put all the governments focus and energy, and money, into protecting those in the vulnerable bracket. Isolate the people at risk, and let us get on with our lives. Anyone who is in the at risk bracket but doesn't want isolating, then that's their choice and I'm fine with it.
People die everyday sadly. We don't ban cars because people get run over, we don't ban cigarettes when thousands die of lung cancer. The world has taken a knee jerk reaction to this virus, understandably in March. Its time we stopped running around like headless chickens and dealt with the real issue, which is protecting the vulnerable. You don't need to stop the country to achieve that.

mdd2
Posts: 6022
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2016 8:47 pm
Been Liked: 1665 times
Has Liked: 701 times

Re: Is the fix now worse than the problem?

Post by mdd2 » Wed Oct 21, 2020 7:12 am

You then have to decide who are the vulnerable. We know those more at risk are BAME, Obese, Diabetics, cancer patients, transplants, those on immunotherapy those over 60-90 with increasing risks-so who would you advise to protect themselves and would you pay their wages if working?
I suggest that would knock the economy and the NHS if a sizeable proportion of those downed tools.

Inchy
Posts: 2836
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2016 5:32 pm
Been Liked: 1334 times
Has Liked: 97 times

Re: Is the fix now worse than the problem?

Post by Inchy » Wed Oct 21, 2020 7:55 am

CrosspoolClarets wrote:
Wed Oct 21, 2020 12:24 am
Re Inchy’s post. The actual clinical stuff I don’t know enough about, I have helped manage ICUs in the past but the medical detail is more specialist and harder to grasp than almost any other clinical area, hats off to them. So I might be totally wrong on this, but I was pondering Inchy’s hypoxia point.

With the hypoxic dangers I made sure that when this crisis started I got a pulse oximeter off Amazon and put it in my medicine box, also one of those cold zyme sprays that coat the throat to slow down colds and flu spreading.

Might be about as much use as a chocolate teapot, but my thinking is that if I catch the thing, in middle age, keeping the viral load as low as possible and keeping an eye on my blood oxygen levels regularly are likely to be important (calling for help immediately if the latter shows a problem).

Like i say, might be nonsense, but what amazes me is that these scientists are not standing at podiums advising us what to do if we get ill. Surely, surely, there are ways of doing it right and doing it wrong? e.g. I heard Trumps doctor saying something about it being good for him to be up and walking around.

Anyway, just musing.

The reasons why scientists and healthcare professionals are not standing up and advising on what to do is because there is very little you can do.

If a patient on the ward is deteriorating and I go to assess them, usually there are multiple things I can do and recommend to the home team clinicians which can assist in
Preventing further deterioration and admission to critical care. For example someone with sepsis can require loads of interventions to prevent deterioration. These patients are often already in multi organ failure


For covid patients there issue is single organ failure. Type 1 respiratory failure. That’s usually it, no other organ issues. By the time they are referred to me they usually are on 60% 02. Most people who need nearly 3 times the normal amount of 02 we function with are normally pretty sick and they look pretty sick. In general if someone looks sick they are very sick. This isn’t the case with covid. I’ve known patients take there 02 off to walk to the toilet (against the advise of the medics) because they feel fine, only for them to be peri-arrest on returning to their bed. I’ve known patient who have walked off the ward fed up because they feel well, with nurses chancing them to bring them back.

At the moment my advise to sick deteriorating covid patients is lay on your front as tolerated. That’s it. That’s the only thing that may help to prevent deteriorating. That and dexamethazone and possibly remdesivir, which they will already be on. That’s it! And with that it’s seem pot luck if you get better or not.

I’m not suggesting what someone should do if they get covid because i am not an expert, however having access to pulse oximetry isn’t a bad idea. I’ve heard stories of well looking people turning up in a and e with 02 levels not sustainable with life for long.

If I had covid and I was at home I would be laying on my front for periods every hour.

If I was overweight I would be doing something about it now. The vast majority of people I’ve taken to ICU are overweight men. Some huge but some just overweight. If you’re overweight you don’t ventilate as well as someone slim.

martin_p
Posts: 10371
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:40 pm
Been Liked: 3765 times
Has Liked: 696 times

Re: Is the fix now worse than the problem?

Post by martin_p » Wed Oct 21, 2020 7:56 am

bfcmik wrote:
Wed Oct 21, 2020 2:55 am
Notice that it counts as a Covid death if it is mentioned as being present whether the person died of any cause. So if someone tests positive today then commits suicide tomorrow it would still be added to the Covid death count
Only if it was mentioned on the death certificate under cause of death, which seems unlikely for a suicide.

martin_p
Posts: 10371
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:40 pm
Been Liked: 3765 times
Has Liked: 696 times

Re: Is the fix now worse than the problem?

Post by martin_p » Wed Oct 21, 2020 8:01 am

Colburn_Claret wrote:
Wed Oct 21, 2020 6:47 am
People die everyday sadly. We don't ban cars because people get run over, we don't ban cigarettes when thousands die of lung cancer. The world has taken a knee jerk reaction to this virus, understandably in March. Its time we stopped running around like headless chickens and dealt with the real issue, which is protecting the vulnerable. You don't need to stop the country to achieve that.
No, but we do take reasonable precautions to bring down the number of deaths, such as having zebra/pelican crossings and banning smoking in public places. In the case of COVID it was perfectly reasonable to lockdown to stop the NHS being overwhelmed and the virus running out of control just as it remains reasonable to be taking precautions now to prevent the same.

Inchy
Posts: 2836
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2016 5:32 pm
Been Liked: 1334 times
Has Liked: 97 times

Re: Is the fix now worse than the problem?

Post by Inchy » Wed Oct 21, 2020 8:17 am

If people want to know about the pressure critical care is facing this article explains it better than I could

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -nhs-covid

Corky
Posts: 1431
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 3:37 pm
Been Liked: 535 times
Has Liked: 414 times

Re: Is the fix now worse than the problem?

Post by Corky » Wed Oct 21, 2020 8:32 am

People on here are talking about a cure or a fix but until we have a successful vaccine there wont be one. So the question then becomes how do we manage it which brings into play a serious moral dilemma that can polarise views. We talk about the steps that need to be taken to protect the NHS which are all very laudable and need adhering to but over time should this drag on indefinitely then the economy could well have shrunk so much that we can no longer afford to fund the NHS. The country could go bankrupt and along with other countries be put in special measures by the IMF. We have been trying for 8 months to control this virus and have failed. So perhaps we do need another way of doing things. And however painful this may be I and my wife who is a high risk person herself are leaning towards opening up the economy whilst protecting the elderly and infirm. Before doing so I think it would also be prudent to open up the Nightingale Hospitals fully staffed to handle the influx whilst enabling regular hospitals to continue as near normal as possible. Also for me one of the key areas that needs improving is testing and tracing. One of the main reasons I have changed my view is due to some figure I saw that over the last few weeks the average age of those who have died of C19 was 83 years. I appreciate some will agree, some wont and that is as I say the dilemma.
This user liked this post: cricketfieldclarets

Colburn_Claret
Posts: 8130
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 4:30 pm
Been Liked: 3079 times
Has Liked: 5044 times
Location: Catterick N.Yorks

Re: Is the fix now worse than the problem?

Post by Colburn_Claret » Wed Oct 21, 2020 8:38 am

martin_p wrote:
Wed Oct 21, 2020 8:01 am
No, but we do take reasonable precautions to bring down the number of deaths, such as having zebra/pelican crossings and banning smoking in public places. In the case of COVID it was perfectly reasonable to lockdown to stop the NHS being overwhelmed and the virus running out of control just as it remains reasonable to be taking precautions now to prevent the same.
The nightingale hospitals never got used, and it's still a fact that 99.5% of people have little or no problems from contracting Covid. Shutting down the UK isn't saving anybody. As I said in my first post, at best it just knocks the issue 2 months down the line, so it is a pointless exercise.
Protect those that need shielding of course, but that's a lot easier to achieve when you understand that everyone else is potentially carrying Covid, than trusting that the people you meet have been abiding by the guidelines. It has to be simpler to protect 0.5% of the population, than 100%.

martin_p
Posts: 10371
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:40 pm
Been Liked: 3765 times
Has Liked: 696 times

Re: Is the fix now worse than the problem?

Post by martin_p » Wed Oct 21, 2020 8:44 am

Corky wrote:
Wed Oct 21, 2020 8:32 am
People on here are talking about a cure or a fix but until we have a successful vaccine there wont be one. So the question then becomes how do we manage it which brings into play a serious moral dilemma that can polarise views. We talk about the steps that need to be taken to protect the NHS which are all very laudable and need adhering to but over time should this drag on indefinitely then the economy could well have shrunk so much that we can no longer afford to fund the NHS. The country could go bankrupt and along with other countries be put in special measures by the IMF. We have been trying for 8 months to control this virus and have failed. So perhaps we do need another way of doing things. And however painful this may be I and my wife who is a high risk person herself are leaning towards opening up the economy whilst protecting the elderly and infirm. Before doing so I think it would also be prudent to open up the Nightingale Hospitals fully staffed to handle the influx whilst enabling regular hospitals to continue as near normal as possible. Also for me one of the key areas that needs improving is testing and tracing. One of the main reasons I have changed my view is due to some figure I saw that over the last few weeks the average age of those who have died of C19 was 83 years. I appreciate some will agree, some wont and that is as I say the dilemma.
According to economists we’re nowhere near the tipping point on public finances yet. Figures out this morning show that government borrowing for the first six months of the financial year is actually below what was forecast by the OBR, although the year end figure is expected to be higher than forecast but not by a great deal.

Grumps
Posts: 4145
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:15 am
Been Liked: 954 times
Has Liked: 359 times

Re: Is the fix now worse than the problem?

Post by Grumps » Wed Oct 21, 2020 8:50 am

martin_p wrote:
Wed Oct 21, 2020 7:56 am
Only if it was mentioned on the death certificate under cause of death, which seems unlikely for a suicide.
Wrong.... The figures are people who die within 28 days of a positive test, whatever causes the death, not people who die of Covid. It's been confirmed many times, and I've been told the same by various medical professionals

martin_p
Posts: 10371
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:40 pm
Been Liked: 3765 times
Has Liked: 696 times

Re: Is the fix now worse than the problem?

Post by martin_p » Wed Oct 21, 2020 8:53 am

Grumps wrote:
Wed Oct 21, 2020 8:50 am
Wrong.... The figures are people who die within 28 days of a positive test, whatever causes the death, not people who die of Covid. It's been confirmed many times, and I've been told the same by various medical professionals
No, the ONS figures, represented in the graphs posted above, are based on registered deaths and the accompanying certificates.

Grumps
Posts: 4145
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:15 am
Been Liked: 954 times
Has Liked: 359 times

Re: Is the fix now worse than the problem?

Post by Grumps » Wed Oct 21, 2020 9:02 am

martin_p wrote:
Wed Oct 21, 2020 8:53 am
No, the ONS figures, represented in the graphs posted above, are based on registered deaths and the accompanying certificates.
The example given was correct

Inchy
Posts: 2836
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2016 5:32 pm
Been Liked: 1334 times
Has Liked: 97 times

Re: Is the fix now worse than the problem?

Post by Inchy » Wed Oct 21, 2020 9:08 am

All the nightingale are is space to put people. Creating space is the easy bit. Finding the thousands of medical professionals to staff them is the real issue.


A couple of weeks ago Boris said “the nightingales are being prep and will be ready to go. It will be up the local hospitals how they are used”. Smart move Boris. Clearly you have no idea how they can be used without anyone to staff them, so shift that impossible conundrum to the NHS.

Corky
Posts: 1431
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 3:37 pm
Been Liked: 535 times
Has Liked: 414 times

Re: Is the fix now worse than the problem?

Post by Corky » Wed Oct 21, 2020 9:09 am

martin_p wrote:
Wed Oct 21, 2020 8:44 am
According to economists we’re nowhere near the tipping point on public finances yet. Figures out this morning show that government borrowing for the first six months of the financial year is actually below what was forecast by the OBR, although the year end figure is expected to be higher than forecast but not by a great deal.
Fine, pleased to hear that. But what will happen before we have difficulties funding the NHS. All sorts of less essential but still valued public services will likely suffer. I am thinking more long term here. Now I don't think we will get a handle on the virus unless we get vaccine so what do we do. Just like the common cold and the flu we will have to learn to live with it. And of course shape our lives around it.

martin_p
Posts: 10371
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:40 pm
Been Liked: 3765 times
Has Liked: 696 times

Re: Is the fix now worse than the problem?

Post by martin_p » Wed Oct 21, 2020 9:10 am

Grumps wrote:
Wed Oct 21, 2020 9:02 am
The example given was correct
Not when discussing an ONS graph and figures (which the post i responded to was) as they count differently and it isn’t dependent on a positive test, that’s why their figures are higher than the daily government count

martin_p
Posts: 10371
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:40 pm
Been Liked: 3765 times
Has Liked: 696 times

Re: Is the fix now worse than the problem?

Post by martin_p » Wed Oct 21, 2020 9:15 am

Corky wrote:
Wed Oct 21, 2020 9:09 am
Fine, pleased to hear that. But what will happen before we have difficulties funding the NHS. All sorts of less essential but still valued public services will likely suffer. I am thinking more long term here. Now I don't think we will get a handle on the virus unless we get vaccine so what do we do. Just like the common cold and the flu we will have to learn to live with it. And of course shape our lives around it.

But it’s more deadly than flu. Once we have a vaccine we should be able to manage it but until then we need to take other measures.

PeterWilton
Posts: 847
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2020 2:17 am
Been Liked: 111 times
Has Liked: 71 times

Re: Is the fix now worse than the problem?

Post by PeterWilton » Wed Oct 21, 2020 9:27 am

dsr wrote:
Tue Oct 20, 2020 4:46 pm
No, I can't. Please give me some sort of plausible scenario where that could happen and that choice could apply, and I'll try and imagine it.

When you put it your way, of course, the answer is easy. Because you're asking the question with the unspoken assumption that stopping people from dying is the only thing that matters. If you factor in the other side of the equation - the job losses, the dementia, the depression, the people dying of other illnesses, the hit to the economy, the enforced austerity - then the answer is less easy.
It's a hypothetical that doesn't need more details. If given the choice would you choose 10,000 dead people, or a closed economy for a while? Its not a difficult hypothetical to understand.

PeterWilton
Posts: 847
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2020 2:17 am
Been Liked: 111 times
Has Liked: 71 times

Re: Is the fix now worse than the problem?

Post by PeterWilton » Wed Oct 21, 2020 9:31 am

Burnley1989 wrote:
Tue Oct 20, 2020 4:50 pm
I think the question is, without a cure how long can we survive anyway without an economy?

What if I told you that the economy isn't the most important thing in the world? Imagine if we decided to treat human lives as more important than money.

Capitalism doesn't work in all scenarios, like scenarios where lives matter more than money, so maybe we should look to at least dial the capitalism back a bit for times like these.

I feel like we've sleepwalker into believing that the role of government is to maintain capitalism, when really it should be to maintain society.

CombatClaret
Posts: 4382
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:09 pm
Been Liked: 1825 times
Has Liked: 930 times

Re: Is the fix now worse than the problem?

Post by CombatClaret » Wed Oct 21, 2020 9:33 am

Corky wrote:
Wed Oct 21, 2020 9:09 am
Now I don't think we will get a handle on the virus unless we get vaccine so what do we do. Just like the common cold and the flu we will have to learn to live with it.
Until we have a vaccine we'll have to learn to live with it, just like influenza... which we have a vaccine for. :?

PeterWilton
Posts: 847
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2020 2:17 am
Been Liked: 111 times
Has Liked: 71 times

Re: Is the fix now worse than the problem?

Post by PeterWilton » Wed Oct 21, 2020 9:35 am

cricketfieldclarets wrote:
Tue Oct 20, 2020 5:12 pm
The problem is most pro lock downers think its lockdown or nothing. Most anti lockdowners think the opposite.

The reality is most people sit in the middle of those two camps and just want some logic and balance.

What's the alternative to lockdown? We ****** it up already so we can't open up unless we're willing to accept an unacceptable number of deaths. New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, they nailed it. We didn't. This is entirely our fault but that doesn't mean we have to just accept that the economy matters more than hundreds of thousands of lives.

We have a choice. The economy or human lives. What you prefer we do tells us what you value more.

claretonthecoast1882
Posts: 10165
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2018 1:59 pm
Been Liked: 4185 times
Has Liked: 57 times

Re: Is the fix now worse than the problem?

Post by claretonthecoast1882 » Wed Oct 21, 2020 9:38 am

PeterWilton wrote:
Wed Oct 21, 2020 9:31 am
What if I told you that the economy isn't the most important thing in the world? Imagine if we decided to treat human lives as more important than money.

Capitalism doesn't work in all scenarios, like scenarios where lives matter more than money, so maybe we should look to at least dial the capitalism back a bit for times like these.

I feel like we've sleepwalker into believing that the role of government is to maintain capitalism, when really it should be to maintain society.

That is fine so long as you aren't expecting monthly cash handouts while sat at home then others paying it back at a later date on your behalf. There are too many people in this country who want to do nothing and get paid for it while at the same time being resentful and jealous of someone who has been a success.

Greenmile
Posts: 3165
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2016 8:50 pm
Been Liked: 1081 times
Has Liked: 4254 times

Re: Is the fix now worse than the problem?

Post by Greenmile » Wed Oct 21, 2020 9:39 am

PeterWilton wrote:
Wed Oct 21, 2020 9:35 am
What's the alternative to lockdown? We ****** it up already so we can't open up unless we're willing to accept an unacceptable number of deaths. New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, they nailed it. We didn't. This is entirely our fault but that doesn't mean we have to just accept that the economy matters more than hundreds of thousands of lives.

We have a choice. The economy or human lives. What you prefer we do tells us what you value more.
It not a binary choice though. A severe hit to the economy will cost lives. On the other hand though (and this is a point which seems to have been missed by many), allowing the pandemic to just run its course will have a severe impact on the economy anyway.

PeterWilton
Posts: 847
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2020 2:17 am
Been Liked: 111 times
Has Liked: 71 times

Re: Is the fix now worse than the problem?

Post by PeterWilton » Wed Oct 21, 2020 9:57 am

Greenmile wrote:
Wed Oct 21, 2020 9:39 am
It not a binary choice though. A severe hit to the economy will cost lives. On the other hand though (and this is a point which seems to have been missed by many), allowing the pandemic to just run its course will have a severe impact on the economy anyway.
A severe hit to the economy will only cost lives because we choose to let it cost lives. We can choose to feed and house people, if we want to.

PeterWilton
Posts: 847
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2020 2:17 am
Been Liked: 111 times
Has Liked: 71 times

Re: Is the fix now worse than the problem?

Post by PeterWilton » Wed Oct 21, 2020 10:06 am

claretonthecoast1882 wrote:
Wed Oct 21, 2020 9:38 am
That is fine so long as you aren't expecting monthly cash handouts while sat at home then others paying it back at a later date on your behalf. There are too many people in this country who want to do nothing and get paid for it while at the same time being resentful and jealous of someone who has been a success.
I'm happy for my taxes to help provide the bare minimum required for others to avoid dying. Why aren't you? And if they choose to earn more and contribute back then great. If not, fine. No skin off my nose. Starvation and homelessness shouldn't be acceptable, regardless of whether someone wants to contribute to society or not. And neither should letting people die of a terrible disease just to protect your feeling of moral superiority over the poor.

dsr
Posts: 15223
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 4575 times
Has Liked: 2264 times

Re: Is the fix now worse than the problem?

Post by dsr » Wed Oct 21, 2020 10:18 am

PeterWilton wrote:
Wed Oct 21, 2020 9:57 am
A severe hit to the economy will only cost lives because we choose to let it cost lives. We can choose to feed and house people, if we want to.
Do you choose to? Regardless of coronavirus, there are millions of people around the world literally starving to death who could be saved if we gave some of our money to them. I have a comfortable house and could sell it and live in a tent, and use the money to save human lives - and I choose not to. I plan to retire in the not too distant future and draw a pension and live off that - I could keep on working and use the pension to support the NHS or the poorer people in this country or the genuinely starving abroad.

I choose not to do that. So, I suspect, do you. I choose to put my own personal comfort and my own personal economy over the lives of others.

Why? Partly selfishness, of course. My moral objections to living off the fat of the land aren't so strong that I will give it all up and become one of the billions of poor. It's not fair that I (and everyone else on here) am among the richest 10% of the world's population, but there it is.

But also there is a practical element. If I bankrupt myself to feed the poor, then how do I feed myself later? If we all bankrupt ourselves to keep everyone alive for the next 6 months, then how do we pay for the NHS for the next umpty years? It's all very well saying that we must do all it takes now to keep coronavirus deaths to a minimum and to hell with the cost, but then when income tax rises to 40% and pension ages rises to 70 and beyond and benefits and services are cut, lives are affected then.

Yes, you correctly say that even in a wrecked economy we can and will choose to feed people and house people. There may be several millions of people who will be among that underclass who have no work and who have food and shelter but nothing else, because that's all we can afford to do. Do you think that you will be one of those people? Would you volunteer to become one of those people?

martin_p
Posts: 10371
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:40 pm
Been Liked: 3765 times
Has Liked: 696 times

Re: Is the fix now worse than the problem?

Post by martin_p » Wed Oct 21, 2020 10:22 am

dsr wrote:
Wed Oct 21, 2020 10:18 am
Do you choose to? Regardless of coronavirus, there are millions of people around the world literally starving to death who could be saved if we gave some of our money to them. I have a comfortable house and could sell it and live in a tent, and use the money to save human lives - and I choose not to. I plan to retire in the not too distant future and draw a pension and live off that - I could keep on working and use the pension to support the NHS or the poorer people in this country or the genuinely starving abroad.

I choose not to do that. So, I suspect, do you. I choose to put my own personal comfort and my own personal economy over the lives of others.

Why? Partly selfishness, of course. My moral objections to living off the fat of the land aren't so strong that I will give it all up and become one of the billions of poor. It's not fair that I (and everyone else on here) am among the richest 10% of the world's population, but there it is.

But also there is a practical element. If I bankrupt myself to feed the poor, then how do I feed myself later? If we all bankrupt ourselves to keep everyone alive for the next 6 months, then how do we pay for the NHS for the next umpty years? It's all very well saying that we must do all it takes now to keep coronavirus deaths to a minimum and to hell with the cost, but then when income tax rises to 40% and pension ages rises to 70 and beyond and benefits and services are cut, lives are affected then.

Yes, you correctly say that even in a wrecked economy we can and will choose to feed people and house people. There may be several millions of people who will be among that underclass who have no work and who have food and shelter but nothing else, because that's all we can afford to do. Do you think that you will be one of those people? Would you volunteer to become one of those people?
We’re nowhere near bankrupting ourselves, stop it with the drama queenery!

PeterWilton
Posts: 847
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2020 2:17 am
Been Liked: 111 times
Has Liked: 71 times

Re: Is the fix now worse than the problem?

Post by PeterWilton » Wed Oct 21, 2020 10:24 am

dsr wrote:
Wed Oct 21, 2020 10:18 am
Do you choose to? Regardless of coronavirus, there are millions of people around the world literally starving to death who could be saved if we gave some of our money to them.

...
Based on the dictionary definition of "money" I don't believe there is a legal tender in the world that is edible.

Yes. We could end world hunger, if we chose to. We have the literal means to do it. We just don't want to because capitalism is a zero-sum game. For every person who has 100 times as much as they need there needs to be 99 others with nothing.

PeterWilton
Posts: 847
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2020 2:17 am
Been Liked: 111 times
Has Liked: 71 times

Re: Is the fix now worse than the problem?

Post by PeterWilton » Wed Oct 21, 2020 10:47 am

martin_p wrote:
Wed Oct 21, 2020 10:22 am
We’re nowhere near bankrupting ourselves, stop it with the drama queenery!

In a way we are, but not in order to feed the poor. We're bankrupting ourselves to make the rich richer.

And claretonthecoast1882 is almost right when it comes to railing against jealously, only he's railing against jealousy of the rich while at the same time exhibiting jealously of the poor if they are able to feed and house themselves without earning it.

They way we run our economy means we need to constantly be "growing" it, or shareholders get mad at the politicians they buy and instead buy new ones. But when you own the world's resources, and you've turned all the autocratic regimes into wage slave states where is that constant growth gonna come from? And to answer that question I point you towards the growth in wealth inequality here at home and in most of the "rich" countries.

We don't need to bankrupt ourselves to feed the poor, and we don't need to be jealous of the poor for being able to live on an unearned fraction of what we choose to earn. But it requires that we stop constraining our thinking to only capitalist solutions. Capitalism can't solve poverty because it requires poverty.

Erasmus
Posts: 761
Joined: Tue May 17, 2016 1:46 pm
Been Liked: 574 times
Has Liked: 44 times

Re: Is the fix now worse than the problem?

Post by Erasmus » Wed Oct 21, 2020 10:53 am

No need for anyone to bankrupt themselves, but most of us could manage losing 5% of our income. The moral argument for doing so appears unassailable. We just have to be honest with ourselves, and do a little more than we are doing already.

CombatClaret
Posts: 4382
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:09 pm
Been Liked: 1825 times
Has Liked: 930 times

Re: Is the fix now worse than the problem?

Post by CombatClaret » Wed Oct 21, 2020 10:54 am

There comes a point where a lockdown is the only way to stop the virus from spreading too fast, it's a blunt and economically damaging tool but doing nothing is more damaging once you reach the point where nothing else will work. Yes there can be a happy medium between doing nothing and total lockdown but you have to have a relatively low number of cases to implement this, we were there in the summer but we ballsed it up.

How does overwhelming the NHS with Covid cases help people get their cancer treatments and diagnosis?
How do you give people the confidence to frequent hospitality businesses if the virus is rampant and uncontrolled?

claretonthecoast1882
Posts: 10165
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2018 1:59 pm
Been Liked: 4185 times
Has Liked: 57 times

Re: Is the fix now worse than the problem?

Post by claretonthecoast1882 » Wed Oct 21, 2020 10:55 am

PeterWilton wrote:
Wed Oct 21, 2020 10:47 am
In a way we are, but not in order to feed the poor. We're bankrupting ourselves to make the rich richer.

And claretonthecoast1882 is almost right when it comes to railing against jealously, only he's railing against jealousy of the rich while at the same time exhibiting jealously of the poor if they are able to feed and house themselves without earning it.

They way we run our economy means we need to constantly be "growing" it, or shareholders get mad at the politicians they buy and instead buy new ones. But when you own the world's resources, and you've turned all the autocratic regimes into wage slave states where is that constant growth gonna come from? And to answer that question I point you towards the growth in wealth inequality here at home and in most of the "rich" countries.

We don't need to bankrupt ourselves to feed the poor, and we don't need to be jealous of the poor for being able to live on an unearned fraction of what we choose to earn. But it requires that we stop constraining our thinking to only capitalist solutions. Capitalism can't solve poverty because it requires poverty.
Quit with the ******** turtle.

My comments were aimed more at the people who fraudulently claimed last time round which will cost people a lot more going forward.

In true turtle fashion though, with you getting the Trump thread closed you will now turn this into a thread for polishing your halo and trying to make others look in the wrong with your holier than thou internet etiquette.
These 2 users liked this post: Murger FactualFrank

ten bellies
Posts: 674
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2016 10:53 pm
Been Liked: 237 times
Has Liked: 1283 times

Re: Is the fix now worse than the problem?

Post by ten bellies » Wed Oct 21, 2020 11:06 am

CombatClaret wrote:
Tue Oct 20, 2020 4:52 pm
Trolling or woefully ignorant
Beautiful irony.

AndrewJB
Posts: 3808
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:20 pm
Been Liked: 1159 times
Has Liked: 754 times

Re: Is the fix now worse than the problem?

Post by AndrewJB » Wed Oct 21, 2020 11:09 am

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:
Tue Oct 20, 2020 11:40 pm
I wasn't let go, I work 13 out of every 14 days with 2 jobs and that carried on throughout the lockdown.

The system looked after very nearly everyone, I think your real issue is the gov in charge who put this in place.
They did something you didn't expect them to do and it worked fairly well.
The furlough scheme has looked after 9.6 million out of a population of 65 million. A lot of people lost their jobs rather than being furloughed. That’s not “looked after nearly everyone.”

You defend nearly everything this government does. While taxpayers have forked out £40 billion ensuring people continue to pay their mortgages and credit card bills, you’ll no doubt insist we can’t afford to pay for free school meals throughout the coming half term.

CombatClaret
Posts: 4382
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:09 pm
Been Liked: 1825 times
Has Liked: 930 times

Re: Is the fix now worse than the problem?

Post by CombatClaret » Wed Oct 21, 2020 11:12 am

ten bellies wrote:
Tue Oct 20, 2020 4:46 pm
After the failure of the original lockdown to eradicate the virus, there was only one sensible option - herd immunity.
The arrival of a second wave and the realisation of the challenges ahead has led to renewed interest in a so-called herd immunity approach, which suggests allowing a large uncontrolled outbreak in the low-risk population while protecting the vulnerable. Proponents suggest this would lead to the development of infection-acquired population immunity in the low-risk population, which will eventually protect the vulnerable.

This is a dangerous fallacy unsupported by scientific evidence.


https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanc ... X/fulltext

CombatClaret
Posts: 4382
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:09 pm
Been Liked: 1825 times
Has Liked: 930 times

Re: Is the fix now worse than the problem?

Post by CombatClaret » Wed Oct 21, 2020 11:14 am

Any pandemic management strategy relying upon immunity from natural infections for COVID-19 is flawed. Uncontrolled transmission in younger people risks significant morbidity and mortality across the whole population. In addition to the human cost, this would impact the workforce as a whole and overwhelm the ability of health-care systems to provide acute and routine care. Furthermore, there is no evidence for lasting protective immunity to SARS-CoV-2 following natural infection, and the endemic transmission that would be the consequence of waning immunity would present a risk to vulnerable populations for the indefinite future. Such a strategy would not end the COVID-19 pandemic but result in recurrent epidemics, as was the case with numerous infectious diseases before the advent of vaccination. It would also place an unacceptable burden on the economy and health-care workers, many of whom have died from COVID-19 or experienced trauma as a result of having to practise disaster medicine. Additionally, we still do not understand who might suffer from long COVID.
Last edited by CombatClaret on Wed Oct 21, 2020 11:16 am, edited 1 time in total.

Locked