Corona virus on its own thread.

[Zab]

If that had been done when this thing appeared on the horizon then we could have saved lives.
Best ask the UK government why it wasn't.

It should have been back them, madness that it wasn’t. However it would still work now.

 

[Greenmachine]

We are fighting a losing battle against this virus and IMO this will become apparent in the next few months. You cannot control a virus once it is in a population, nor can you eliminate it. Lockdowns are a panic measure which just delay the inevitable and destroy the economy into the bargain, and there are many scientists who are now coming round to this view.

If we just locked everybody in the house for two or three months we would see a sharp decline in infections, then when they were allowed out, we would see a sharp increase in infections, and so it will go on. Like all infectious diseases it thrives on people mixing together...but that's what human beings do....they mix together. We have to interact with each other.

I have said it before, we are going to have to live with this virus forever. It's not going away and any fantasy about total elimination will be discredited very soon. A combination of population immunity, better treatment, and a vaccine will be the things which will eventually dampen it down meaning we can start to live normally again. Certainly not lockdowns IMO.

New Zealand cannot be compared to the UK. A rural, agricultural couple of islands of less than 5 million people thousands of miles from anywhere. Compared to the UK, a huge trading nation of 60 million with some of the biggest cities and population densities in Europe.

I actually have sympathy for all political leaders trying to play King Canute with this virus. They have no experience of this and the scientists they are listening to are struggling as well and many don't agree with each other. The thing is they know they are not accountable to the people, the politicians are.

 

[1875]

New Zealand cannot be compared to the UK. A rural, agricultural couple of islands of less than 5 million people thousands of miles from anywhere. Compared to the UK, a huge trading nation of 60 million with some of the biggest cities and population densities in Europe.

No but other than the problem of our next door neighbours and that open border, NZ is very like Scotland.

 

[HenryLB]

I could be massively over-simplifying this but it seems that the best way to deal with this pandemic would be to take advantage of the fact we are an island.... and essentially follow the New Zealand approach.

Ban all international travel for a month, with a serious isolation (i.e. made to stay in a secured hotel for 14 days) for anyone flying in after the ban is lifted. At the same time of the travel ban, have a national full lockdown for 3 weeks.

The virus would die off as it couldn’t be passed, deep cleans of everywhere could be done, and we could get back to a form of normal life.

But surely being an island is pretty irrelevant to modern modes of transport? Like how would your experience differ if you bought a flight to, say, Cyprus versus one to Madrid? Not in any way, surely? The key factor is numbers of visitors, number of interactions, simple weight of human traffic, and we have something like thirty times NZ’s.

New Zealand locked down one day after us and closed their schools a week after ours. For us to have done the equivalent in relation to when our first case appeared we would have had to shut down the country in mid February when there were six confirmed cases in the UK and none in Scotland.

Would that have been politically or practically possible in either Scotland or England? I’m not convinced.

 

[HenryLB]

No but other than the problem of our next door neighbours and that open border, NZ is very like Scotland.

On what date do you think independent Scotland would have closed the border?

 

[Steve20]

I could be massively over-simplifying this but it seems that the best way to deal with this pandemic would be to take advantage of the fact we are an island.... and essentially follow the New Zealand approach.

Ban all international travel for a month, with a serious isolation (i.e. made to stay in a secured hotel for 14 days) for anyone flying in after the ban is lifted. At the same time of the travel ban, have a national full lockdown for 3 weeks.

The virus would die off as it couldn’t be passed, deep cleans of everywhere could be done, and we could get back to a form of normal life.

As others have said, should have been done in March, but the UK government made a mess of it.

That’s not to say the Scottish Government has done a good job. They have not, Sturgeon is chucking stuff against a wall and hoping it works. Fair enough, she was left with a mess from the UK government not doing the right thing to start with and being too slow out the blocks, but yesterday was a disgrace and she knows it. As do the people who blindly agree with everything she says, deep down.

 

[1875]

On what date do you think independent Scotland would have closed the border?

I would suggest around the same time New Zealand did.

 

[greencol]

It looks like we are forgetting as to why these measures have been taken.
It's not to stop the virus, it is to stop hospitals being swamped with patients.
The R number is on an upward curve and it has to be curbed.
This thing is here until something is found to alleviate it in some manner.

 

[PILTONSTANY]

Interesting

 

[PILTONSTANY]

Interesting

Bars and cafes shut in European capitals as second wave takes hold

Brussels hardest-hit capital after Madrid, while the Netherlands prepares to send hospital patients to Germany

www.irishtimes.com

 

[EA2007]

Damage limitation for 3-6 months until timescale for vaccinations is clearer as doesn’t seem anywhere in Europe has got a good grip on how best to handle this??

 

[Rocky]

Interesting

It's good to see flu split out from pneumonia in that chart as they tend to be lumped together which leads to people implying that the majority of the deaths are flu related in support of their "Covid ain't that bad" hypothesis.

 

[greencol]

Damage limitation for 3-6 months until timescale for vaccinations is clearer as doesn’t seem anywhere in Europe has got a good grip on how best to handle this??

It may be an on/off situation.
Get the virus contained, ease off some restrictions until it looks like rising again,which it will.
The only difference may be that restrictions are adopted more quickly.

 

[Jack]

Damage limitation for 3-6 months until timescale for vaccinations is clearer as doesn’t seem anywhere in Europe has got a good grip on how best to handle this??

I don't think there is a best way to deal with this. Its all about damage limitation as far as I can see.

Its worth remembering its not been around a year yet so no-one knows what the cycle is yet, assuming it has an annual cycle.

 

[Zab]

Interesting

My problem with that is it doesn’t account for the entire peak period for influenza, which surely skews the figures.

Stat’s only show what people want them to show.

 

[Rocky]

My problem with that is it doesn’t account for the entire peak period for influenza, which surely skews the figures.

Stat’s only show what people want them to show.

It includes January and February. Even if we supposed that November and December were ten times higher than those months (which of course they weren't) you're still talking over ten times more Covid than flu deaths.

 

[greencol]

I don't think there is a best way to deal with this. Its all about damage limitation as far as I can see.

Its worth remembering its not been around a year yet so no-one knows what the cycle is yet, assuming it has an annual cycle.

The cycle is......let folk out and about pleasing themselves ,and the infection rate rises.
And, we've been told by the boffins colder weather exacerbates the situation.
This is going to be a long haul.

 

[aggie]

We are fighting a losing battle against this virus and IMO this will become apparent in the next few months. You cannot control a virus once it is in a population, nor can you eliminate it. Lockdowns are a panic measure which just delay the inevitable and destroy the economy into the bargain, and there are many scientists who are now coming round to this view.

If we just locked everybody in the house for two or three months we would see a sharp decline in infections, then when they were allowed out, we would see a sharp increase in infections, and so it will go on. Like all infectious diseases it thrives on people mixing together...but that's what human beings do....they mix together. We have to interact with each other.

I have said it before, we are going to have to live with this virus forever. It's not going away and any fantasy about total elimination will be discredited very soon. A combination of population immunity, better treatment, and a vaccine will be the things which will eventually dampen it down meaning we can start to live normally again. Certainly not lockdowns IMO.

New Zealand cannot be compared to the UK. A rural, agricultural couple of islands of less than 5 million people thousands of miles from anywhere. Compared to the UK, a huge trading nation of 60 million with some of the biggest cities and population densities in Europe.

I actually have sympathy for all political leaders trying to play King Canute with this virus. They have no experience of this and the scientists they are listening to are struggling as well and many don't agree with each other. The thing is they know they are not accountable to the people, the politicians are.

Don't really post on the Cowshed any more, but couldn't let this pass – I think it's spot on – without at least adding another voice to "this side of the argument" as it were.

So just to add to it – have seen a post a bit earlier in this thread equating an apparent choice between "citizens vs economy" as somehow a "Tory thing". This is so hilariously misguided it's untrue – as if the two were separable. The economy is not some concrete "thing", rather it's a term denoting the abstract set of systems, practices and choices that we all live in. Stop and ask yourself if you have ever complained about the death toll of austerity, and you'll get my drift. The death toll of the worst depression for 300 years, which is what we are currently ushering in, will make austerity look like a picnic, and is also (IMO) going to usher in a mental health crisis the like of which we've never seen before. But because these deaths and deleterious effects are less easily identifiable and thus less easily quantifiable, and are also "deferred" a bit further down the line, no one seems that bothered. Rather, the Covid numbers are now literally all that matters, it appears.

It's my honest opinion that the current strategy of endlessly deferring the inevitable passage of the virus through the population, in the vague hope that science will provide the magic bullet of a vaccine, is now at least worthy of a reassessment and reevaluation. As GM rightly identifies, viruses gonna virus, basically. So the question remains, to my mind: what's the objective now? It's already been demonstrated that the NHS capacity is ample – empty nightingales etc, and very low rates of hospitalisation in general, relative to positive cases – so what are we trying to achieve, other than delaying the inevitable?

I ask, because if you expand the question from pure epidemiology to a more holistic understanding of public health, then we are faced with a choice, admittedly a hard one, but an unavoidable choice nevertheless. An epidemiologist's views are valuable and more than worthy of consideration, but they ultimately see the population as effectively data points on a graph, and devise strategies to alter those numbers in various directions and with various aims.

But there are more considerations than simply mere numbers: what of the futures of our school leavers and graduates? What about the absolutely catastrophic levels of unemployment that are coming inexorably down the pipe? And the associated costs of that devastation in both economic terms and in lives? What about whole sectors of both the economy and life in general that are currently being tossed aside as unviable in the New Normal?: sport, the arts, hospitality, etc, not to mention the simple joy of having your family and friends around to your house - aren't these the very things that make working worth doing, and indeed life worth living? Are they now to be considered unavoidably (and in perpetuity) casualties of a virus that, while of course highly contagious and lethal to a small percentage of people, is hardly the bubonic plague?

And before anyone steams in with the predictable and fatuous rejoinder "YoU dOn'T CarE AboUt LiVes", of course I do. But the fact is that Covid victims are very definitely not the only lives at stake now, far from it. All I am suggesting is that, IMHO, a hard but necessary conversation is long overdue about how to go forward, which entails 1) setting out a clear objective that does not ignore the reality that this virus cannot be eradicated, and also relatedly 2) an acknowledgment that we cannot endlessly (and ultimately futilely) kick the can down the road while incurring an increasingly cataclysmic (and in the case of some sectors likely irreversible) toll on the economy, because that is what ultimately underpins civil society itself.

There's no reason to my mind, for example, that we can't consider a strategy that focuses our efforts on protecting/shielding the small strata of people to whom Covid presents a clear and present danger – ie the elderly and those with co-morbidities – and let everyone else get moving again before the whole show gets crashed into a tree. The adoption of some general adjustments to behaviour – eg handwashing, masks in the supermarkets and on buses, etc – are also eminently plausible, and could and should be adopted without much resistance by all but the most cabin-in-the-woods libertarian crackpots.

But, again as GM has rightly observed, you simply cannot stop human beings mixing, mingling, bustling, hugging, bumping and grinding indefinitely, so this endless oscillation between lockdown, lockdown-lite, and arbitrary restrictions that are slowly killing the economy has to stop sometime – the only question is when.

I don't personally think it's "callous", "selfish", or indeed "trolling" to be thinking about these questions, quite the opposite in fact. It's just realistic.

 

[Smurf]

Don't really post on the Cowshed any more, but couldn't let this pass – I think it's spot on – without at least adding another voice to "this side of the argument" as it were.

So just to add to it – have seen a post a bit earlier in this thread equating an apparent choice between "citizens vs economy" as somehow a "Tory thing". This is so hilariously misguided it's untrue – as if the two were separable. The economy is not some concrete "thing", rather it's a term denoting the abstract set of systems, practices and choices that we all live in. Stop and ask yourself if you have ever complained about the death toll of austerity, and you'll get my drift. The death toll of the worst depression for 300 years, which is what we are currently ushering in, will make austerity look like a picnic, and is also (IMO) going to usher in a mental health crisis the like of which we've never seen before. But because these deaths and deleterious effects are less easily identifiable and thus less easily quantifiable, and are also "deferred" a bit further down the line, no one seems that bothered. Rather, the Covid numbers are now literally all that matters, it appears.

It's my honest opinion that the current strategy of endlessly deferring the inevitable passage of the virus through the population, in the vague hope that science will provide the magic bullet of a vaccine, is now at least worthy of a reassessment and reevaluation. As GM rightly identifies, viruses gonna virus, basically. So the question remains, to my mind: what's the objective now? It's already been demonstrated that the NHS capacity is ample – empty nightingales etc, and very low rates of hospitalisation in general, relative to positive cases – so what are we trying to achieve, other than delaying the inevitable?

I ask, because if you expand the question from pure epidemiology to a more holistic understanding of public health, then we are faced with a choice, admittedly a hard one, but an unavoidable choice nevertheless. An epidemiologist's views are valuable and more than worthy of consideration, but they ultimately see the population as effectively data points on a graph, and devise strategies to alter those numbers in various directions and with various aims.

But there are more considerations than simply mere numbers: what of the futures of our school leavers and graduates? What about the absolutely catastrophic levels of unemployment that are coming inexorably down the pipe? And the associated costs of that devastation in both economic terms and in lives? What about whole sectors of both the economy and life in general that are currently being tossed aside as unviable in the New Normal?: sport, the arts, hospitality, etc, not to mention the simple joy of having your family and friends around to your house - aren't these the very things that make working worth doing, and indeed life worth living? Are they now to be considered unavoidably (and in perpetuity) casualties of a virus that, while of course highly contagious and lethal to a small percentage of people, is hardly the bubonic plague?

And before anyone steams in with the predictable and fatuous rejoinder "YoU dOn'T CarE AboUt LiVes", of course I do. But the fact is that Covid victims are very definitely not the only lives at stake now, far from it. All I am suggesting is that, IMHO, a hard but necessary conversation is long overdue about how to go forward, which entails 1) setting out a clear objective that does not ignore the reality that this virus cannot be eradicated, and also relatedly 2) an acknowledgment that we cannot endlessly (and ultimately futilely) kick the can down the road while incurring an increasingly cataclysmic (and in the case of some sectors likely irreversible) toll on the economy, because that is what ultimately underpins civil society itself.

There's no reason to my mind, for example, that we can't consider a strategy that focuses our efforts on protecting/shielding the small strata of people to whom Covid presents a clear and present danger – ie the elderly and those with co-morbidities – and let everyone else get moving again before the whole show gets crashed into a tree. The adoption of some general adjustments to behaviour – eg handwashing, masks in the supermarkets and on buses, etc – are also eminently plausible, and could and should be adopted without much resistance by all but the most cabin-in-the-woods libertarian crackpots.

But, again as GM has rightly observed, you simply cannot stop human beings mixing, mingling, bustling, hugging, bumping and grinding indefinitely, so this endless oscillation between lockdown, lockdown-lite, and arbitrary restrictions that are slowly killing the economy has to stop sometime – the only question is when.

I don't personally think it's "callous", "selfish", or indeed "trolling" to be thinking about these questions, quite the opposite in fact. It's just realistic.

And that's why I love this place and why you should keep posting when you can.

Absolutely brilliant. Sadly, I think too many are now viewing this too politically.

If you are on the left you are pro lockdown and pro facemasks. On the right you are anti lockdown and anti facemask.

Those on the left are sadly being opportunistic. Lots of deaths on Boris Johnson = He's out of office and we will get some socialist alternative. Only after #StarmerOut of course. And in Scotland it'll push on further, the now relentlessly growing Yes inevitability.

FFS wake up those on the left. Economic armageddon will have huge long lasting consequences on the poor. And destroy much much more than any pandemic.

Yes public health is the absolute priority. But that necessitates not just focus on ensuring folk don't catch Covid-19.

Brilliant post @aggie with your permission can I use it?

 

[Zab]

Don't really post on the Cowshed any more, but couldn't let this pass – I think it's spot on – without at least adding another voice to "this side of the argument" as it were.

So just to add to it – have seen a post a bit earlier in this thread equating an apparent choice between "citizens vs economy" as somehow a "Tory thing". This is so hilariously misguided it's untrue – as if the two were separable. The economy is not some concrete "thing", rather it's a term denoting the abstract set of systems, practices and choices that we all live in. Stop and ask yourself if you have ever complained about the death toll of austerity, and you'll get my drift. The death toll of the worst depression for 300 years, which is what we are currently ushering in, will make austerity look like a picnic, and is also (IMO) going to usher in a mental health crisis the like of which we've never seen before. But because these deaths and deleterious effects are less easily identifiable and thus less easily quantifiable, and are also "deferred" a bit further down the line, no one seems that bothered. Rather, the Covid numbers are now literally all that matters, it appears.

It's my honest opinion that the current strategy of endlessly deferring the inevitable passage of the virus through the population, in the vague hope that science will provide the magic bullet of a vaccine, is now at least worthy of a reassessment and reevaluation. As GM rightly identifies, viruses gonna virus, basically. So the question remains, to my mind: what's the objective now? It's already been demonstrated that the NHS capacity is ample – empty nightingales etc, and very low rates of hospitalisation in general, relative to positive cases – so what are we trying to achieve, other than delaying the inevitable?

I ask, because if you expand the question from pure epidemiology to a more holistic understanding of public health, then we are faced with a choice, admittedly a hard one, but an unavoidable choice nevertheless. An epidemiologist's views are valuable and more than worthy of consideration, but they ultimately see the population as effectively data points on a graph, and devise strategies to alter those numbers in various directions and with various aims.

But there are more considerations than simply mere numbers: what of the futures of our school leavers and graduates? What about the absolutely catastrophic levels of unemployment that are coming inexorably down the pipe? And the associated costs of that devastation in both economic terms and in lives? What about whole sectors of both the economy and life in general that are currently being tossed aside as unviable in the New Normal?: sport, the arts, hospitality, etc, not to mention the simple joy of having your family and friends around to your house - aren't these the very things that make working worth doing, and indeed life worth living? Are they now to be considered unavoidably (and in perpetuity) casualties of a virus that, while of course highly contagious and lethal to a small percentage of people, is hardly the bubonic plague?

And before anyone steams in with the predictable and fatuous rejoinder "YoU dOn'T CarE AboUt LiVes", of course I do. But the fact is that Covid victims are very definitely not the only lives at stake now, far from it. All I am suggesting is that, IMHO, a hard but necessary conversation is long overdue about how to go forward, which entails 1) setting out a clear objective that does not ignore the reality that this virus cannot be eradicated, and also relatedly 2) an acknowledgment that we cannot endlessly (and ultimately futilely) kick the can down the road while incurring an increasingly cataclysmic (and in the case of some sectors likely irreversible) toll on the economy, because that is what ultimately underpins civil society itself.

There's no reason to my mind, for example, that we can't consider a strategy that focuses our efforts on protecting/shielding the small strata of people to whom Covid presents a clear and present danger – ie the elderly and those with co-morbidities – and let everyone else get moving again before the whole show gets crashed into a tree. The adoption of some general adjustments to behaviour – eg handwashing, masks in the supermarkets and on buses, etc – are also eminently plausible, and could and should be adopted without much resistance by all but the most cabin-in-the-woods libertarian crackpots.

But, again as GM has rightly observed, you simply cannot stop human beings mixing, mingling, bustling, hugging, bumping and grinding indefinitely, so this endless oscillation between lockdown, lockdown-lite, and arbitrary restrictions that are slowly killing the economy has to stop sometime – the only question is when.

I don't personally think it's "callous", "selfish", or indeed "trolling" to be thinking about these questions, quite the opposite in fact. It's just realistic.

Brilliant post Aggie, better than I could have ever put it.

To my mind this pandemic has been so badly handled due to the constant politicising of the issue from all sides. Lives matter, jobs matter, mental health matters, freedom matters. It all matters, it needs a collaborative approach to solve this.

 

[aggie]

And that's why I love this place and why you should keep posting when you can.

Absolutely brilliant. Sadly, I think too many are now viewing this too politically.

If you are on the left you are pro lockdown and pro facemasks. On the right you are anti lockdown and anti facemask.

Those on the left are sadly being opportunistic. Lots of deaths on Boris Johnson = He's out of office and we will get some socialist alternative. Only after #StarmerOut of course. And in Scotland it'll push on further, the now relentlessly growing Yes inevitability.

FFS wake up those on the left. Economic armageddon will have huge long lasting consequences on the poor. And destroy much much more than any pandemic.

Yes public health is the absolute priority. But that necessitates not just focus on ensuring folk don't catch Covid-19.

Brilliant post @aggie with your permission can I use it?

Course!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[1875]

Course!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I am with you Aggie. I hate seeing Covid and the shambles that has come from it painted with an overly political hue.

And that's why I love this place and why you should keep posting when you can.

Absolutely brilliant. Sadly, I think too many are now viewing this too politically.

If you are on the left you are pro lockdown and pro facemasks. On the right you are anti lockdown and anti facemask.

Those on the left are sadly being opportunistic. Lots of deaths on Boris Johnson = He's out of office and we will get some socialist alternative. Only after #StarmerOut of course. And in Scotland it'll push on further, the now relentlessly growing Yes inevitability.

FFS wake up those on the left. Economic armageddon will have huge long lasting consequences on the poor. And destroy much much more than any pandemic.

Yes public health is the absolute priority. But that necessitates not just focus on ensuring folk don't catch Covid-19.

Brilliant post @aggie with your permission can I use it?

By suggesting the left are pro lockdown, the right are anti lockdown etc, you too are falling into the trap of politicising things?

I would suggest its if you have a brain, give a shite about others, love the NHS and her staff you wear a mask and accept the lockdown measures, although you should question them if you feel measures are wrong. I fall into this bracket but I am equally aware were are on an economic precipice.

 

[Rocky]

I am with you Aggie. I hate seeing Covid and the shambles that has come from it painted with an overly political hue.



By suggesting the left are pro lockdown, the right are anti lockdown etc, you too are falling into the trap of politicising things?

I would suggest its if you have a brain, give a shite about others, love the NHS and her staff you wear a mask and accept the lockdown measures, although you should question them if you feel measures are wrong. I fall into this bracket but I am equally aware were are on an economic precipice.

Agreed, I literally don't know anyone who's "pro-lockdown". I know plenty who are in favour of taking the right measures to keep a lid on the virus so as not to end up back where we were in April though. But not to the exclusion of all other considerations such as jobs, mental health, socialising with other human beings, fitba etc etc etc.

 

[Rocky]

Don't really post on the Cowshed any more, but couldn't let this pass – I think it's spot on – without at least adding another voice to "this side of the argument" as it were.

So just to add to it – have seen a post a bit earlier in this thread equating an apparent choice between "citizens vs economy" as somehow a "Tory thing". This is so hilariously misguided it's untrue – as if the two were separable. The economy is not some concrete "thing", rather it's a term denoting the abstract set of systems, practices and choices that we all live in. Stop and ask yourself if you have ever complained about the death toll of austerity, and you'll get my drift. The death toll of the worst depression for 300 years, which is what we are currently ushering in, will make austerity look like a picnic, and is also (IMO) going to usher in a mental health crisis the like of which we've never seen before. But because these deaths and deleterious effects are less easily identifiable and thus less easily quantifiable, and are also "deferred" a bit further down the line, no one seems that bothered. Rather, the Covid numbers are now literally all that matters, it appears.

It's my honest opinion that the current strategy of endlessly deferring the inevitable passage of the virus through the population, in the vague hope that science will provide the magic bullet of a vaccine, is now at least worthy of a reassessment and reevaluation. As GM rightly identifies, viruses gonna virus, basically. So the question remains, to my mind: what's the objective now? It's already been demonstrated that the NHS capacity is ample – empty nightingales etc, and very low rates of hospitalisation in general, relative to positive cases – so what are we trying to achieve, other than delaying the inevitable?

I ask, because if you expand the question from pure epidemiology to a more holistic understanding of public health, then we are faced with a choice, admittedly a hard one, but an unavoidable choice nevertheless. An epidemiologist's views are valuable and more than worthy of consideration, but they ultimately see the population as effectively data points on a graph, and devise strategies to alter those numbers in various directions and with various aims.

But there are more considerations than simply mere numbers: what of the futures of our school leavers and graduates? What about the absolutely catastrophic levels of unemployment that are coming inexorably down the pipe? And the associated costs of that devastation in both economic terms and in lives? What about whole sectors of both the economy and life in general that are currently being tossed aside as unviable in the New Normal?: sport, the arts, hospitality, etc, not to mention the simple joy of having your family and friends around to your house - aren't these the very things that make working worth doing, and indeed life worth living? Are they now to be considered unavoidably (and in perpetuity) casualties of a virus that, while of course highly contagious and lethal to a small percentage of people, is hardly the bubonic plague?

And before anyone steams in with the predictable and fatuous rejoinder "YoU dOn'T CarE AboUt LiVes", of course I do. But the fact is that Covid victims are very definitely not the only lives at stake now, far from it. All I am suggesting is that, IMHO, a hard but necessary conversation is long overdue about how to go forward, which entails 1) setting out a clear objective that does not ignore the reality that this virus cannot be eradicated, and also relatedly 2) an acknowledgment that we cannot endlessly (and ultimately futilely) kick the can down the road while incurring an increasingly cataclysmic (and in the case of some sectors likely irreversible) toll on the economy, because that is what ultimately underpins civil society itself.

There's no reason to my mind, for example, that we can't consider a strategy that focuses our efforts on protecting/shielding the small strata of people to whom Covid presents a clear and present danger – ie the elderly and those with co-morbidities – and let everyone else get moving again before the whole show gets crashed into a tree. The adoption of some general adjustments to behaviour – eg handwashing, masks in the supermarkets and on buses, etc – are also eminently plausible, and could and should be adopted without much resistance by all but the most cabin-in-the-woods libertarian crackpots.

But, again as GM has rightly observed, you simply cannot stop human beings mixing, mingling, bustling, hugging, bumping and grinding indefinitely, so this endless oscillation between lockdown, lockdown-lite, and arbitrary restrictions that are slowly killing the economy has to stop sometime – the only question is when.

I don't personally think it's "callous", "selfish", or indeed "trolling" to be thinking about these questions, quite the opposite in fact. It's just realistic.

I agree wholeheartedly with the principles behind this post, although I disagree with a number of the conclusions. That's what I like about the bounce, people for the most part don't adopt entrenched positions and are open to discussing other viewpoints.

 

[Gareth]

That’s a really good post Aggie, I don’t agree with it but it’s a really good post.

First, I do think it’s the libertarian right that tend to present this as health versus economy, and this does often boil down to health versus the accumulation of profit. Paul Krugman (I think) recently pointed out that Jeff Bezos could give all Amazon employees $105,000 each and still be better off that when the pandemic started. Now that’s obviously an extreme example but if this situation doesn’t convince the unconvinced that there is a problem with the economic model we live under nothing will. But that doesn’t mean we should meekly accept it, and so accepting the need for profit set against impending health harms is why many of us think profit can wait. That also means though re-imagining our economy.



I have complained loudly about deaths resulting from austerity, most of those against the lockdown have not, indeed most of them it seems to me argued loudly against Corbyn’s pretty moderate plans to raise tax on the wealthy, so their sudden conversion to caring about deaths resulting from poverty are, I think, a bit disingenuous to say the least. IDS and others punching the air as the agree to yet another cut and we’re supposed to believe that they now care about the impacts of recession on the poor, rather than on the profits of the already wealthy?



The bit I most disagree with is your view that, to use BoJo’s terminology, we might have to simply ‘take this on the chin’. This for a start implies that we know exactly who will get very sick, and we can cordon them off. The small numbers you imply are I think just wrong. We are talking elderly and those with co-morbidities yes, but also the overweight and minority ethnic communities. And this of course is before we take into account the ongoing effects, the long-covid we are now hearing more about and how this is impacting both physical and mental health. Add to that the classed nature of who can work at a distance and I think this is really problematic. Send the prols to work while the rest work from home.



I also think your suggestion that we know NHS capacity is ample is just wrong. I heard a Greater Manchester NHS women this morning saying that on present direction in a month every ICU bed in Greater Manchester will be taken by a covid patient. Factor in a ‘normal’ flu outbreak and things could very quickly be at breaking point. My partner works in the NHS and the feeling here in Glasgow is that we are on a bit of a precipice at the moment, and Glasgow is no where near the worst in the UK.


I also don’t take the view that covid numbers are all that matters, and I am deeply concerned about mental health impacts, but that also works both ways. There have been some reports of mental breakdowns among people who think that their early behaviour has contributed to covid deaths, often of elderly loved ones. I agree there is no easy answer, but in general I think periodic and localised lockdowns alongside really good testing and tracing is the best we can do in an altogether crappy situation.



I agree with you that there are multiple harms emerging from this, and that its just a bit of a shitshow for everyone. As you know I have three primary aged kids, I have worried about the impact on them, but I also worry that they could contract the virus and infect their grandparents, and the impact that would have longer term. I also think sealing off their loved ones will have harms. That’s said, there is also part of me that wonders about the sense of elderly grandparents perhaps spending their final years without the loving touch of their families.



Overall, I just think that the drive, particularly by the right, to simply open up and allow the virus to spread because, lets me honest, they want profits to continue to flow into the bank accounts of the wealthy, is wrong. I think like all things in our economic system that the benefits of opening up will be extremely unequally shared, they will be greedily grasped by the wealthy while the least well off continue to be forced to physically go to work, and NHS staff are put at the frontline. The binary you complain of health and economy is just one of the binaries at play. The ending of lockdown or there will be mass unemployment with the accompanying misery is another. There is enough wealth in this country for that no to be the inevitable outcome of lockdown, but that is the binary that isn’t being talked about.



Glad you posted this Aggie, even if it is a lot of nonsense

 

[Jack]

Has anyone seen anywhere numbers around what percentage of workers in key industries would need to be off sick [with this virus] before they start failing?

By that I mean if x% of the NHS went off sick it would not be able to function or would be restricted?

The NHS is one that is incredibly important in fighting the actual virus but every industry, every business will have its breaking point and what happens then?

What happens when utilities can't continue? ESSO run out of drivers to transport fuel around the place? Would Tesco start shutting stores? What happens when the neds find out there's not enough police to maintain law and order?

When they say 'we can't let the virus run out of control' would this be the consequence?

I'm sure someone will crunched the numbers.

 

[GORDONSMITH7]

That’s a really good post Aggie, I don’t agree with it but it’s a really good post.

First, I do think it’s the libertarian right that tend to present this as health versus economy, and this does often boil down to health versus the accumulation of profit. Paul Krugman (I think) recently pointed out that Jeff Bezos could give all Amazon employees $105,000 each and still be better off that when the pandemic started. Now that’s obviously an extreme example but if this situation doesn’t convince the unconvinced that there is a problem with the economic model we live under nothing will. But that doesn’t mean we should meekly accept it, and so accepting the need for profit set against impending health harms is why many of us think profit can wait. That also means though re-imagining our economy.



I have complained loudly about deaths resulting from austerity, most of those against the lockdown have not, indeed most of them it seems to me argued loudly against Corbyn’s pretty moderate plans to raise tax on the wealthy, so their sudden conversion to caring about deaths resulting from poverty are, I think, a bit disingenuous to say the least. IDS and others punching the air as the agree to yet another cut and we’re supposed to believe that they now care about the impacts of recession on the poor, rather than on the profits of the already wealthy?



The bit I most disagree with is your view that, to use BoJo’s terminology, we might have to simply ‘take this on the chin’. This for a start implies that we know exactly who will get very sick, and we can cordon them off. The small numbers you imply are I think just wrong. We are talking elderly and those with co-morbidities yes, but also the overweight and minority ethnic communities. And this of course is before we take into account the ongoing effects, the long-covid we are now hearing more about and how this is impacting both physical and mental health. Add to that the classed nature of who can work at a distance and I think this is really problematic. Send the prols to work while the rest work from home.



I also think your suggestion that we know NHS capacity is ample is just wrong. I heard a Greater Manchester NHS women this morning saying that on present direction in a month every ICU bed in Greater Manchester will be taken by a covid patient. Factor in a ‘normal’ flu outbreak and things could very quickly be at breaking point. My partner works in the NHS and the feeling here in Glasgow is that we are on a bit of a precipice at the moment, and Glasgow is no where near the worst in the UK.


I also don’t take the view that covid numbers are all that matters, and I am deeply concerned about mental health impacts, but that also works both ways. There have been some reports of mental breakdowns among people who think that their early behaviour has contributed to covid deaths, often of elderly loved ones. I agree there is no easy answer, but in general I think periodic and localised lockdowns alongside really good testing and tracing is the best we can do in an altogether crappy situation.



I agree with you that there are multiple harms emerging from this, and that its just a bit of a shitshow for everyone. As you know I have three primary aged kids, I have worried about the impact on them, but I also worry that they could contract the virus and infect their grandparents, and the impact that would have longer term. I also think sealing off their loved ones will have harms. That’s said, there is also part of me that wonders about the sense of elderly grandparents perhaps spending their final years without the loving touch of their families.



Overall, I just think that the drive, particularly by the right, to simply open up and allow the virus to spread because, lets me honest, they want profits to continue to flow into the bank accounts of the wealthy, is wrong. I think like all things in our economic system that the benefits of opening up will be extremely unequally shared, they will be greedily grasped by the wealthy while the least well off continue to be forced to physically go to work, and NHS staff are put at the frontline. The binary you complain of health and economy is just one of the binaries at play. The ending of lockdown or there will be mass unemployment with the accompanying misery is another. There is enough wealth in this country for that no to be the inevitable outcome of lockdown, but that is the binary that isn’t being talked about.



Glad you posted this Aggie, even if it is a lot of nonsense

Brilliant post @Gareth with your permission can I use it?

Yours sycophantly

BIG G

 

[Rocky]

That’s a really good post Aggie, I don’t agree with it but it’s a really good post.

First, I do think it’s the libertarian right that tend to present this as health versus economy, and this does often boil down to health versus the accumulation of profit. Paul Krugman (I think) recently pointed out that Jeff Bezos could give all Amazon employees $105,000 each and still be better off that when the pandemic started. Now that’s obviously an extreme example but if this situation doesn’t convince the unconvinced that there is a problem with the economic model we live under nothing will. But that doesn’t mean we should meekly accept it, and so accepting the need for profit set against impending health harms is why many of us think profit can wait. That also means though re-imagining our economy.



I have complained loudly about deaths resulting from austerity, most of those against the lockdown have not, indeed most of them it seems to me argued loudly against Corbyn’s pretty moderate plans to raise tax on the wealthy, so their sudden conversion to caring about deaths resulting from poverty are, I think, a bit disingenuous to say the least. IDS and others punching the air as the agree to yet another cut and we’re supposed to believe that they now care about the impacts of recession on the poor, rather than on the profits of the already wealthy?



The bit I most disagree with is your view that, to use BoJo’s terminology, we might have to simply ‘take this on the chin’. This for a start implies that we know exactly who will get very sick, and we can cordon them off. The small numbers you imply are I think just wrong. We are talking elderly and those with co-morbidities yes, but also the overweight and minority ethnic communities. And this of course is before we take into account the ongoing effects, the long-covid we are now hearing more about and how this is impacting both physical and mental health. Add to that the classed nature of who can work at a distance and I think this is really problematic. Send the prols to work while the rest work from home.



I also think your suggestion that we know NHS capacity is ample is just wrong. I heard a Greater Manchester NHS women this morning saying that on present direction in a month every ICU bed in Greater Manchester will be taken by a covid patient. Factor in a ‘normal’ flu outbreak and things could very quickly be at breaking point. My partner works in the NHS and the feeling here in Glasgow is that we are on a bit of a precipice at the moment, and Glasgow is no where near the worst in the UK.


I also don’t take the view that covid numbers are all that matters, and I am deeply concerned about mental health impacts, but that also works both ways. There have been some reports of mental breakdowns among people who think that their early behaviour has contributed to covid deaths, often of elderly loved ones. I agree there is no easy answer, but in general I think periodic and localised lockdowns alongside really good testing and tracing is the best we can do in an altogether crappy situation.



I agree with you that there are multiple harms emerging from this, and that its just a bit of a shitshow for everyone. As you know I have three primary aged kids, I have worried about the impact on them, but I also worry that they could contract the virus and infect their grandparents, and the impact that would have longer term. I also think sealing off their loved ones will have harms. That’s said, there is also part of me that wonders about the sense of elderly grandparents perhaps spending their final years without the loving touch of their families.



Overall, I just think that the drive, particularly by the right, to simply open up and allow the virus to spread because, lets me honest, they want profits to continue to flow into the bank accounts of the wealthy, is wrong. I think like all things in our economic system that the benefits of opening up will be extremely unequally shared, they will be greedily grasped by the wealthy while the least well off continue to be forced to physically go to work, and NHS staff are put at the frontline. The binary you complain of health and economy is just one of the binaries at play. The ending of lockdown or there will be mass unemployment with the accompanying misery is another. There is enough wealth in this country for that no to be the inevitable outcome of lockdown, but that is the binary that isn’t being talked about.



Glad you posted this Aggie, even if it is a lot of nonsense

Agree with all of that, I think it pretty much sums up all of my areas of agreement and disagreement with Aggie's post.

I'd add a couple of points:
- Regarding the NHS having ample capacity, the country locked down on 23 March but ICU bed occupancy didn't start to slow down until 4th April, and didn't peak until 14th April at 208. Considering the infection rates were supposedly doubling every 4 days at that time I think it's reasonable to assume that we would have hit ICU bed requirement of over 1,000 within a few weeks. And if I recall correctly ICU bed capacity was only about 250 beds at the beginning of the pandemic (I think they got it up to 600 quite quickly but of course you can't treble the number of doctors / nurses / anaesthetists so quickly).
- Other health impacts are exacerbated by Covid cases in hospitals. This tweet thread sums it up quite well I think. Basically, if all of your high dependency capacity is taken up by Covid cases you ain't carrying out non-emergency cancer operations etc.
- I don't think we need to be looking at a binary choice between lockdown or letting the virus rip through. There's tons of options in the middle ground that can be fine tuned. Even if a blunt instrument like a one week lockdown every month was used I don't think it would be too miserable an existence. In fact I rather like the idea of having a week a month where I can just chill on the sofa with a bag of cans and a plate of pies.

 

[GORDONSMITH7]

That’s a really good post Aggie, I don’t agree with it but it’s a really good post.

First, I do think it’s the libertarian right that tend to present this as health versus economy, and this does often boil down to health versus the accumulation of profit. Paul Krugman (I think) recently pointed out that Jeff Bezos could give all Amazon employees $105,000 each and still be better off that when the pandemic started. Now that’s obviously an extreme example but if this situation doesn’t convince the unconvinced that there is a problem with the economic model we live under nothing will. But that doesn’t mean we should meekly accept it, and so accepting the need for profit set against impending health harms is why many of us think profit can wait. That also means though re-imagining our economy.



I have complained loudly about deaths resulting from austerity, most of those against the lockdown have not, indeed most of them it seems to me argued loudly against Corbyn’s pretty moderate plans to raise tax on the wealthy, so their sudden conversion to caring about deaths resulting from poverty are, I think, a bit disingenuous to say the least. IDS and others punching the air as the agree to yet another cut and we’re supposed to believe that they now care about the impacts of recession on the poor, rather than on the profits of the already wealthy?



The bit I most disagree with is your view that, to use BoJo’s terminology, we might have to simply ‘take this on the chin’. This for a start implies that we know exactly who will get very sick, and we can cordon them off. The small numbers you imply are I think just wrong. We are talking elderly and those with co-morbidities yes, but also the overweight and minority ethnic communities. And this of course is before we take into account the ongoing effects, the long-covid we are now hearing more about and how this is impacting both physical and mental health. Add to that the classed nature of who can work at a distance and I think this is really problematic. Send the prols to work while the rest work from home.



I also think your suggestion that we know NHS capacity is ample is just wrong. I heard a Greater Manchester NHS women this morning saying that on present direction in a month every ICU bed in Greater Manchester will be taken by a covid patient. Factor in a ‘normal’ flu outbreak and things could very quickly be at breaking point. My partner works in the NHS and the feeling here in Glasgow is that we are on a bit of a precipice at the moment, and Glasgow is no where near the worst in the UK.


I also don’t take the view that covid numbers are all that matters, and I am deeply concerned about mental health impacts, but that also works both ways. There have been some reports of mental breakdowns among people who think that their early behaviour has contributed to covid deaths, often of elderly loved ones. I agree there is no easy answer, but in general I think periodic and localised lockdowns alongside really good testing and tracing is the best we can do in an altogether crappy situation.



I agree with you that there are multiple harms emerging from this, and that its just a bit of a shitshow for everyone. As you know I have three primary aged kids, I have worried about the impact on them, but I also worry that they could contract the virus and infect their grandparents, and the impact that would have longer term. I also think sealing off their loved ones will have harms. That’s said, there is also part of me that wonders about the sense of elderly grandparents perhaps spending their final years without the loving touch of their families.



Overall, I just think that the drive, particularly by the right, to simply open up and allow the virus to spread because, lets me honest, they want profits to continue to flow into the bank accounts of the wealthy, is wrong. I think like all things in our economic system that the benefits of opening up will be extremely unequally shared, they will be greedily grasped by the wealthy while the least well off continue to be forced to physically go to work, and NHS staff are put at the frontline. The binary you complain of health and economy is just one of the binaries at play. The ending of lockdown or there will be mass unemployment with the accompanying misery is another. There is enough wealth in this country for that no to be the inevitable outcome of lockdown, but that is the binary that isn’t being talked about.



Glad you posted this Aggie, even if it is a lot of nonsense

I read this critique, of the excellent Oxfam report published last month. I think you may have alluded to the report.

Bloodsucking billionaires have profited from the pandemic | The Communist

A recent report by Oxfam has shown how the capitalist class has grown ever richer from the coronavirus crisis. Meanwhile, ordinary people are faced with unemployment, poverty, and homelessness. This rotten system must be overthrown.

www.socialist.net

BIG G

 

[Gareth]

Brilliant post @Gareth with your permission can I use it?

Yours sycophantly

BIG G

No way g. Get your own

 

[Scoobie]

“FFS wake up those on the left. Economic armageddon will have huge long lasting consequences on the poor. And destroy much much more than any pandemic.”

The economy won’t be much use to them after they’re dead.

 

[GORDONSMITH7]

I read this critique, of the excellent Oxfam report published last month. I think you may have alluded to the report.

Bloodsucking billionaires have profited from the pandemic | The Communist

A recent report by Oxfam has shown how the capitalist class has grown ever richer from the coronavirus crisis. Meanwhile, ordinary people are faced with unemployment, poverty, and homelessness. This rotten system must be overthrown.

www.socialist.net

BIG G

I read this again. People have been used by the Capitalists and subservient governments. Not only to make mega profits but to aid super exploitation. Profits before people. Anyone who gives the ridiculous 'this should not be or is too political' a crisis should read this and get a grip on themselves.

BIG G

 

[aggie]

Glad you posted this Aggie, even if it is a lot of nonsense

Thanks. And I am always grateful to be afforded the privilege of your sanctimonious politics lectures.

 

[moathibby]

It looks like we are forgetting as to why these measures have been taken.
It's not to stop the virus, it is to stop hospitals being swamped with patients.
The R number is on an upward curve and it has to be curbed.
This thing is here until something is found to alleviate it in some manner.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[moathibby]

All these latest measures are about “saving the economy “ and nothing about saving the populace.By “saving the economy “what we are really talking about here is saving Capitalism.Nobody seems to have noticed the big capitalist endeavour have been raking it in over the past few months.It is all these people that are bleating about cafes and pubs nobody mentions that pubs run to make profits and that the folk who might lose their jobs were on a pittance anyway.
Nobody mentions the fact that we head to the pub because under Capitalism we head to the pub or head to the fitba’ or to the church because it’s the one thing that stops us from slashing our wrists at the end of the day.
It’s because of Capitalism that Serco are running our drive in testing just as they do our prisons.It’s because of Capitalism that we don’t have adequate PPE and why our earderly die in care homes and why our nurses get he haw whilst our MPs have just awarded themselves another 3 thousand quid.If the world was run not to make profit but run to save lives the billions spent on armaments could have been spent on vaccine research.
But no we’d rather be talking about trade deals than why our country can be stopped from being under water come November.Most of us on here are going to sigh a sense of relief if Biden gets in even though we know ifBiden’s the solution it must have been a shite question.
We saw a glimpse of what could be achieved during lockdown when we started to look out for our neighbours when we set up community action groups when thousands of us rushed to join aUnion to protect jobs.I’m sorry but I for one am not that enamoured with Nicola’s efforts over the past few months. The record on deaths per head of population is nothing to write home about and right now it does strike me as whistling in the dark.We all know we are heading towards another lockdown it’s just a matter of when rather than if.But the truth of the matter is that under capitalism the vaccine is unlikely to be found anytime soon.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Gareth]

Thanks. And I am always grateful to be afforded the privilege of your sanctimonious politics lectures.

Not sure there was any more sanctimony in my response than in your post. Never mind

 

[GORDONSMITH7]

Breaking: proof govt has told track and trace agents NOT to trace contacts of school staff or pupils or pass details to local health teams

A leaked document sent by NHS staff ‘bank’ NHS Professionals to contact tracers has exposed the Department of Health and Social Care’s (DHSC) instructions not to trace contacts of…

skwawkbox.org

 

[Jack]

Breaking: proof govt has told track and trace agents NOT to trace contacts of school staff or pupils or pass details to local health teams

A leaked document sent by NHS staff ‘bank’ NHS Professionals to contact tracers has exposed the Department of Health and Social Care’s (DHSC) instructions not to trace contacts of…

skwawkbox.org

I wonder if its the same elsewhere in the UK.

And as far as I'm aware the system in England is being run by Serco, not the NHS - although they are keen to avoid making that well known and muddy the waters as best they can by not being clear who does what exactly. There are NHS workers who are ragin at being associated with this shambles!

 

[GORDONSMITH7]

Any word on Typhoid Annie MP for Rutherglen and Hamilton West 'Working Together' , 'Doing The Right Thing '. I doubt it. See she intervened in a debate remotely yesterday. It looks like it is not just the Covid19 Special from London to Edinburgh that she cannae get off. The Westminster Gravy Train seems to be another.....


Scottish First Minister : Come on now Margaret, do the right thing, resign.

Margaret Ferrier: Fuck off. Covid makes you do things out of character.

SNP Leader in Westminster : Come on now Margaret, do the right thing, resign.

Margaret Ferrier: Fuck off. Covid makes you do things out of character.


It certainly does Margaret. It is called premature death.


BIG G

 

[1875]

Any word on Typhoid Annie MP for Rutherglen and Hamilton West 'Working Together' , 'Doing The Right Thing '. I doubt it. See she intervened in a debate remotely yesterday. It looks like it is not just the Covid19 Special from London to Edinburgh that she cannae get off. The Westminster Gravy Train seems to be another.....


Scottish First Minister : Come on now Margaret, do the right thing, resign.

Margaret Ferrier: Fuck off. Covid makes you do things out of character.

SNP Leader in Westminster : Come on now Margaret, do the right thing, resign.

Margaret Ferrier: Fuck off. Covid makes you do things out of character.


It certainly does Margaret. It is called premature death.


BIG G

Not them and us-ing it, as she is an idiot and should stand down, but was a Tory MP not caught doing a similar thing but it has been pretty much ignored by all?