Jump to content

Covid 19 / Coronavirus


Digby
 Share

Recommended Posts

Step 1 - Forget about British exceptionalism, it's a myth.

Step 2 - Learn from the countries who are dealing with the pandemic better.

Step 3 - Copy them.

 

If we'd started this process months ago we would've been talking about deaths in the hundreds instead of the 10's of thousands and we wouldn't have had to wreck the economy doing it.

Edited by Capeesh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting article recently in The Scotsman. Covid-19 may well not be such a long lasting problem than has been thought.

 

When will coronavirus end?

 

It will last as long as the Governments want Lock downs to last!

We are going to see a significant reduction in incomes across the board with tourism and oil effectively on hiatus.

Mass unemployment and a reduction of wages inevitable people will not be able to resume mortgage payments or pay rents that now exceed their income.

 

a policy of renegotiating monthly payments to affordable levels to prevent a series of foreclosures and evictions is something that could prevent that.

 

But i have a feeling that's not going to happen.

pausing mortgages and rents for a month is reasonable and people can just pay when its over but if the government is going to do this for MONTHS or over a year than a long term solution is needed.

 

Keep in mind Taxpayer money is going to be given as housing assistance to pay for overpriced Buy to lets for months or even years and local councils would need to use eminent domain on the houses banks foreclosed on to house all the people foreclosed and evicted in the worst case scenario.

but i have a feeling they would rather let those people become destitute.

 

there will be plenty of cash prizes for banks but no moratorium on the monthly rate Mortgages and rents.

Edited by NullVoid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Step 1 - Forget about British exceptionalism, it's a myth.

Step 2 - Learn from the countries who are dealing with the pandemic better.

Step 3 - Copy them.

 

If we'd started this process months ago we would've been talking about deaths in the hundreds instead of the 10's of thousands and we wouldn't have had to wreck the economy doing it.

Never head of the concept mentioned in Step 1.

 

Which countries would I be supposed to include in those mentioned in Step 2. A definition of 'better' as used in the context of Step 2 would also be quite helpful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ Well there are 2 different ways to tackle this.

 

Sweden put their economy first by having no lockdown.

 

 

Iceland put public health first and actually supplied and funded it's hospitals and had a less Draconian minimal lockdown with most restrictions on those going into the country.

 

But to make a nice third option that combines the worst of both while removing the benefits of the strategy

Britain went for heard imunity first to ensure even spread then took a u turn and shut down all the so called "nonessential business" when Chairman Boris got the Kung flu and after putting half the country out of work chartered flights to bring in more workers because reasons.

 

Oh and you need to clap and wish for PPE fairly or something this is their way of dealing with how underfunded and ill equipped hospitals in the UK are

Edited by NullVoid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Ghostrider

I understand what you are saying and, in some ways, agree, but the consequences of having a million die and (possibly) another 50 million to ill to bury them in a six month period, doesn't bear thinking about.  Mass graves anyone ?

Hardly that bad. Even allowing for a 100% infection rate that's an average 366,000 new infections per day for the six months. Who knows how long an infected person remains 'ill' with this thing, so for the sake of argument, assume 30 days. That give just under 11 Million 'ill' people on any one given day for the 6 months.

 

1 Million deaths equals an average 5500 deaths per day for the six months. Yes, it would be an increase of 400% over average death rates in any 'normal' year, but I don't think its would tax undertakers that much to gear up to do five funerals for every one they do just now.

 

Certainly in practice the numbers wouldn't be a flat line like that, most probably they'd be a rising curve apexing in a sharp peak (Which, granted would very likely be a very messy but relatively short lived period) then tailing off slowly but steadily.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Ghostrider

I think that your numbers, for the scenario you propose, are way to optimistic.  Also, you seem to be assuming that, for some reason, undertakers have an immunity to the virus and that we have unlimited graveyard capacity. 

(Don't suggest cremation until you have considered what that would do for Global Warming.  :razz: .)

 

An uncontrolled exponential spread of the virus would be catastrophic.  What of all the "ill" people.  We simply do not have the facilities, equipment, infrastructure, or resources to try and treat so many at one time.  Would everyone just be left to die or, make do the best they can.?  It's akin to playing Russian Roulette with the whole population and my guess is that the result would be carnage on a biblical scale.

 

Herd immunity was "fine" until the "alphas" in the herd became ill.  :ponders:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ Optimistic or pessimistic, who can say for sure. That's much of the problem with all of this, folk can only play with numbers, and get some sort of answer that really isn't worth much of anything at all. There isn't data available of the type and quality that allows anyone get answers, and that includes those calling the shots.

 

How many folk in total have been infected? Nobody knows, there is no blanket testing being done, and according to some sources no test that could tell anyway.

 

How many/what percentage of those infected have had symptoms so mild they didn't know they had anything wrong with them, or brushed it off as 'some bug' after feeling a bit under the weather for two or three days? See above, same answer!

 

How many/what percentage of those infected required hospital treatment? Again, see above, same answer!

 

How many/what percentage of those requiring hospitalisation died? Well, maybe that data exists, but its not exactly being made public in any way that's helpful to anyone, and maybe it doesn't really exist.

 

There are numerous claims out there that even where a patient is currently displaying symptoms the test used does not specifically identify Covid-19 as being present, rather it identifies the cause as being something belonging to a group of which Covid-19 is only one.

 

Furthermore, there are also claims being made that without a Covid-19 specific test being performed, what is happening in reality is that anybody dying from any respiratory related condition is being tallied as a 'Covid-19 death'. This would seem to be supported by the change in rhetoric from the NHS in later death figures where they are usually stated to be 'xxx deaths of patients with Covid-19 related symptoms'.

 

People die from respiratory related conditions all the time, but especially during winter and early spring, ie. right now. Pneumonia, Bronchitis and Pleurisy thrives. If, as appears to be the case, deaths, from those and other less well known respiratory conditions are all being added to the genuine Covid-19 fatality numbers, the mortality rate of Covid-19 is being grossly over-stated.

 

Then lets not get in to how many of those death totals were people who were in the advanced stages of a terminal condition and weren't realistically expected to live beyond a few weeks to a few months anyway, and those who were either living with a significant health issue or were of such a level of frailty either through sheer old age or some other reason that it mattered not one jot what it was they got. Whatever it was, down to something simple that anyone could get any day, like food poisoning, or even the common cold for some, was going to take them off.

 

Maybe every single person who has genuinely contracted Covid-19 has required hospitalisation, and those who were among the early cases which were all tested who were told they had it but didn't need hispitalisation were false positives. But equally maybe the vast majority of the population has already had it, or have it right now, and know nothing about it. we have no way of knowing.

 

The Government and NHS throw figures around and punt statements or presumption and assumption like they were factual, when they do not have because they cannot have the data required to make them. Their figures have no more worth or relation to reality than mine do, all are just exercises in hypotheticals, as that's all anyone is capable of with the data that currently exists. The NHS are winging it and making it up as they go along, and the Government is all bluster trying to make it sound like and that they know what they're doing, when in reality none of them have any clue more than your or I or anyone else.

 

Slowing the spread seems to have been accepted by the majority as the 'sensible' way to handle this, so that public infrastructure and the public are bought more tie to cope with it, and thats fine *if* it burns out before it come round a second time next winter, but it is a massive gamble. It is gambling on the fact that the virus will not mutate in to an even more deadly variant - The nations hardest hit by the first version of the 1918-20 flu, which was no more fatal than any other flu, fared much better than those with low incidences of it. As when the mutated second version came along some months later, which was the extremely deadly version, it never really got a foothold in the nations with a high incidence of the first version, as it had given them immunity to both versions, but other nations were decimated.

 

On a final note, if London could manage to satisfactorily dispose of its dead in 1665 when an estimated 25% of its population perished, I'm not really seeing why any significant insurmountable issues should arise if we have to dispose of a much smaller percentage of ours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Ghostrider

 

Hard to argue with any of you last post because, with the exception of the last paragraph, it's all conjecture.

 

However

"On a final note, if London could manage to satisfactorily dispose of its dead in 1665 when an estimated 25% of its population perished, I'm not really seeing why any significant insurmountable issues should arise if we have to dispose of a much smaller percentage of ours."

 

I think that you might find, that in order to dispose of almost 1/4 of it's population, Londoners performed mass burials in pits.  

Also, the population of London in 1665 was estimated to be 800,000 - 900,000 of which an estimated 200,000 died.

 

The population of London today is somewhere around 9 million.  On a pro-rata basis, that would give a figure of above 2 million deaths in London alone.  A slightly different problem ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49f.png

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/apr/28/sturgeon-urges-scots-to-wear-coronavirus-face-masks-for-shopping-and-travel
 

Nicola Sturgeon has announced new guidance recommending that the Scottish public should wear face masks in enclosed spaces where social distancing is difficult to achieve, for example while shopping or using public transport

 

.


16351f783f7965a751370b844fe3f13f.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • admin changed the title to Covid 19 / Coronavirus

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...