Aibu - so many missing economic cost to health

[Puzzle500]

Possibly going to get flamed...but there seem to be such a large sector of the population who are clear they won't send their children back to school, go back to work etc because of the risk of the virus. On a simple level, I understand that - but why can no one see that if we end up in huge economic decline the health impact and death impact will actually be higher? The future for children in poverty terrifies me

I live in a place with lots of seasonal jobs, second homes, coastal businesses etc, and the whole local population is "keep everyone away forever" - is it just me thinking they are unreasonable on one level as when this is gone, what on earth will they have jobs doing? The town will die.

Puzzle500

Are you taking into account that many of these places have little or no health care services?

Where my sibling lives, they closed the very small, no ICU hospital and put the staff 1hr away in the nearest hospital to cope with C-19.

An influx of this virus on a good day would not be easy to cope with.

I think that posters forget that not everywhere has access to full hospital services.

I don't think people realise the NHS is reliant on a half decent economy.

I'm in my 30s & wasn't expecting the NHS to look how it looks now when I'm older & this was before covid.

The current situation is not sustainable. The cost of this is untenable. The economy is paralysed and the longer it goes on, the more businesses are facing an existential threat. Lockdown has to end.

More than half of Britain's adult population is now being bankrolled by the state amid warnings from the Chancellor that the furlough scheme could soon cost as much as the NHS. Analysis of official figures shows that 27 million people are being funded by the Government amid growing concern over the devastating impact inflicted on the economy by the coronavirus pandemic.The figure includes people being paid through the furlough scheme and those claiming benefits after being made unemployed because of the virus. The remainder are public sector workers and pensioners.On Monday night, Rishi Sunak, the Chancellor, said the cost was "clearly not a sustainable situation" and warned that Britain must get back to work.

www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2020/05/04/half-adults-now-paid-state/

@trust well I personally wouldn't believe what I see on FB. I would wager the vast majority of those furloughed are thinking like you.

I dont understand why ppl seem to want to look at those, who want to make the best out of a bad situation as out of touch or lazy.
It really is most appalling snooty attitude and in fact actually reflects these negative attitudes in the the posters themselves.
I am totally worried about the situation and how it will effect me and my family going forward, that doesn't mean I cant appreciate, the positive effects it has had, spending time with the family and trying to per sue things I didn't have time for. Why should I wallow in the negatives- how will that help me or my family.
At the end of the day there are alot of downsides to this virus, and the road we have taken to combat it. We have to trust that the scientist and Government are correct that the lock down action is the best, both for us individually but also as a nation.

Lots of people will absolutely refuse to go back to work unless furlough ends. And furlough must end, it is not sustainable, and borderline unethical for 50% of those working to continue to support the other 50% to sit at home doing nothing. I hope they announce a furlough end date soon so people can start being realistic about returning to work.

@BovaryX do you know what the figures are without furloughing, since we had pensioners, people working in the PS & some on benefits before Covid?

Yes I think many people underestimate the effect of a massive recession, perhaps because they came out of the last one relatively unscathed and they feel that they are financially buffered against the worst ravages of another recession so they are more concerned about a virus (which they are just as much as risk of catching as anyone else). Recessions and austerity disproportionately affect poorer people and you can just turn a blind eye to it if you are unaffected because it's not infectious!

Of course the lockdown itself will probably cause many deaths due to a lack of screening (breasts / cervixes etc.) and all of the people who are too worried to bother doctors with chest pains or new symptoms etc. plus all the medical investigative treatments have been cancelled.

It really is most appalling snooty attitude and in fact actually reflects these negative attitudes in the the posters themselves.

I do think there is an element of projection (‘I’d like to get paid to sit on my arse, therefore other people must be loving it’) and simplistic thinking (‘it’s not fair, why should those people get something I’m not getting’) - and some people will always complain about any public spending, without thinking very hard about how they, themselves, benefit from it.

@foggybits

Official figures released on Monday showed 6.3 million people in the UK – almost a quarter of all PAYE employees – have now been put on furlough by their employers at a cost of £8 billion in the first month. The NHS budget is approximately £11 billion a month.Therese Coffey, the Work and Pensions Secretary, disclosed to Parliament that a further 1.8 million people had made new claims for Universal Credit since the Covid-19 outbreak gripped the UK, with another 250,000 claims for Jobseeker's Allowance costing an extra £6.5 billion.Adding in figures for the numbers unemployed before the crisis (1.2 million), public sector workers (5.4 million) and 12.6  million receiving a state pension, there are now more than 27 million people benefiting from state funding out of an adult population of just over 52  million – equivalent to about 53 per cent

it is not sustainable, and borderline unethical for 50% of those working to continue to support the other 50% to sit at home doing nothing

Which 50% is that?

Prior to any of this, in 2019, the benefits bill excluding pensioners was 100 Billion. After a decade of 'austerity.'

^Paying benefits to people of working age is a big part of what the government does. In fact, it spends more on these benefits than it does on education or national defence and policing.
They account for roughly £1 in every £8 the government spends, or about £100bn a year. This is on top of the £120bn that is spent on benefits for pensioners.A look at the size of the bill and who gets these benefits reveals big changes over time. Most people will receive benefits
There are about 1.8 million households of working age who get at least 80% of their income from benefits.But there are two reasons why the system is far wider than this.First, many more households get smaller income top-ups from it.About half of all working-age households currently receive some benefits. Even excluding child benefit - which all but the highest-income families are eligible for - the figure is about one in three^.

www.bbc.com/news/business-47623277

@BovaryX my point exactly, it's wasn't a tiny figure before Covid.

Adding in figures for the numbers unemployed before the crisis (1.2 million), public sector workers (5.4 million) and 12.6  million receiving a state pension, there are now more than 27 million people benefiting from state funding out of an adult population of just over 52  million – equivalent to about 53 per cent

No way are there just 5.4 million public sector workers out of an adult population of 52 million, @BovaryX . That statistic is out by multiples. Hugely inaccurate.

I think you are underestimating the impact of letting the virus run unchecked

except nobody is suggesting that should happen, nor is that whats happening now. The government have advised a slow re opening of schools, shops etc. And it will be slow. If the numbers dont match, it wont happen.

Theyre not just re opening everything tomorrow and hoping for best ffs!

@foggybits
How long do you imagine the government can continue bankrolling 8 billion per month for 25 percent of PAYE employees to stay home?

Official figures released on Monday showed 6.3 million people in the UK – almost a quarter of all PAYE employees – have now been put on furlough by their employers at a cost of £8 billion in the first month

No way are there just 5.4 million public sector workers out of an adult population of 52 million, @BovaryX . That statistic is out by multiples. Hugely inaccurate

Well, the NHS is the fifth largest employer on the planet wedged between Walmart and China's National Petroleum Company, so yep. That number seems very low....

Well, the NHS is the fifth largest employer on the planet wedged between Walmart and China's National Petroleum Company, so yep. That number seems very low....

Which makes it look suspiciously as though those figures are being manipulated to an agenda (easy to do if you choose to county outsourced binmen, school cleaners and hospital porters etc as private sector, which they really aren’t).

So I don’t trust any of those figures, or anything the Telegraph has cobbled together to suit their prejudices.

No way are there just 5.4 million public sector workers out of an adult population of 52 million, @BovaryX . That statistic is out by multiples. Hugely inaccurate

But it turns out it's accurate @ArriettyJones.

www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/publicsectorpersonnel/bulletins/publicsectoremployment/december2019.

The furlough vs unfurloyghed situation is quite odd.

Literally as though its them vs us. But that comes from both sides.

I know people who love furlough. They spend more on their commute than they are missing from their wage. They are no worse off. They don't want to go back to work. Are they thinking sensibly about the future. Maybe not. But some feel that without furlough, they would have been made redendant earlier so are enjoying this time of getting paid but not working.

Some people hate it and are worried about job security etc.

But its not a walk in the park for non furloughed colleagues. Who are trying to do their best. Might be a bit jealous of coworkers constantly bragging about sunbathing or the work they are doing in the garden, whilst having a decent amount of money.

Those people are also worried about theie jobs. They may be in work now, but no one knows the long-term impact of this. People working do not have secure jobs.

Peolle need to stop sniping at each other. Maybe be a bit more careful about bragging to co workers, in different positions. If you are working dont go implying your job is safe to colleagues and theirs isn't. If you are furloughed, dont text colleagues bragging about how you love lockdown.

Which makes it look suspiciously as though those figures are being manipulated to an agenda (easy to do if you choose to county outsourced binmen, school cleaners and hospital porters etc as private sector, which they really aren’t)

The figures are accurate. @ArriettyJones.

Yes, there is going to be a huge economic hit.
However, people don't seem to realise that if we hadn't had lockdown, or we have a 2nd spike, and it gets out of control, there will literally be thousands and thousands who die. Many others would be seriously ill and the rest of the population who would become terrified of disease. The effect would have been the same...people would stay inside, stay away from everything, businesses will go bust. The economic fallout from such a worse-case scenario is actually greater than what we are risking currently....
Therefore, keeping illness and death figures down is actually an economic decision by politicians, not for their 'caring' nature for the general public.
And from a purely individual perspective, it is possible to ride an economic depression, on the other hand, you spend a lot of time dead....

So I don’t trust any of those figures, or anything the Telegraph has cobbled together to suit their prejudices

If you choose not to believe the accurate figures quoted by the Telegraph and cited in the ONS link? That says alot about your agenda and political prejudice @ArriettyJones