I’m more concerned about the economic fall out than the virus - anyone else?

[ACautionaryTale]

It’s not the virus that scares me but what we will do to our economies and what will be left afterwards.

I was brought up to be pragmatic about death and not avoid it. I know my mother, aunts and uncles and father in law are all high risk should they get it.

I don’t want them to die of course not. However they are mostly over 80 and In reality death is nearer than far regardless.

To a man, they have all pretty much said that they would not want the lives of everyone wrecked to give them a few more years.

I don’t think people calling for a mass shut down actually comprehend what that will do if it goes on for more than a couple of weeks (and that will be bad enough)

I’m sorry to be so blunt but we all need to sit down with our vulnerable relatives and have a frank talk about what they want. I have discussed it with DH who is 58 and he is convinced it’s going to “do” for him. If it was a choice between him and me or DS he has made it very clear that he is not the priority.
I lost my Dmum to cancer when I was in my 20s and Ddad a few years later. There was nothing science could do for them and we had to accept it. I think a lot of people will have to accept that no amount of money/care/lockdown is going to prevent the death of a loved one who is vulnerable. We could isolate ourselves until a vaccine is produced but that would be economical suicide and just not practical on so many levels.
The fallout from this pandemic is going to be massive. It’s not just those who die from the virus but think of all the people who will not be able to get essential medical treatment for newly and yet to be diagnosed treatable diseases that will ultimately kill them due to delay while we deal with Covid-19.
Perhaps I’m lucky that I’m not having to face the possible loss of parents but I would rather be facing losing them now aged 80+ than having missed out on them being around for the 20+ yrs

It's fair enough to be worried about jobs and the economy etc but it's horrible to say you'd prioritize that over someone's life.

The thing is that a shutdown and massive hit to the economy will also cost lives. Short term, there will be vulnerable elderly and infirm people who may be unable to get food and care if everyone is staying home. Then there are those on the breadline who will struggle to feed themselves and their families if they don’t work. Kids who depend on their one school meal a day as they have chaotic home lives and don’t get fed at home. Victims of domestic abuse (children and adults) who will be more vulnerable if they are home all day with their abuser and no one else is seeing them. Longer term if businesses go bust, jobs are lost, self employed people not working, that means GDP is lower and tax take is lower, plus more claiming benefits - that all hits life saving public services for the next year(s).

It’s not as simple as economy vs health.

Longer term if businesses go bust, jobs are lost, self employed people not working, that means GDP is lower and tax take is lower, plus more claiming benefits - that all hits life saving public services for the next year

Plus the mental health risk and increased suicide rate of the people affected by all the above. Not considering the impact on the economy is risking lives.

Economic shut down shifts the damage from the old to the poor. Is one group more worthy of protection?

YANBU.

I say this as someone who has a very elderly relative who I'm very close to. She's as tough as old boots, but something will take her in the next few years, pandemic or not.

I also have a small business that will fold if we see public gatherings cancelled during the summer; summer public gatherings are the backbone of my income. I could be street homeless if that happens.

It's not the old or the poor. Their fates are intertwined- lots of poorer people smoke and are more vulnerable then to respiratory infections/Covid-19. Lots of poorer people esp women work in min wage jobs in the care sector so more likely to have to keep going in even if sick, and if Covid-19 is endemic in a particular home, the carers are at particular risk.

This won't be an equal pandemic, that's for sure. Nothing in health ever is and that was true of more or less any other disease- flu, respiratory problems, COPD, heart disease, all of these have higher mortality in poorer groups.

I'm in Aus. Without Chinese visitors spending we are in massive trouble.

This, plus recent bushfires means a recession here is inevitable now.

And we've not even banned larged gatherings here yet. It will be a shit storm for us.

But you can't brag about staying out of a recession the longest without it coming back ten-fold.

A sensible discussion taking place on Politics Live now if anyone's interested.

Sadly some of us are in work (whilst we still can)

It's not nice thing to say or think but removing a huge swath of the population who rely on pension payments and social care budgets would take a lot of strain off of the governments finances.

That's actually a really disgusting thing to say.

That is disgusting bloomburger.

do your elderly relatives self isolate during the flu season?

They get the flu vaccine, as do I. There is no vaccine for covid, and it seems to be a lot more vicious than normal flu.

The lady on Politics Live said if we all stop going to work, that little coffee shop is going to close.

This is true, who would risk their own family's health by getting coffees when we don't need one! It's ludicrous to make millions of people every day go to physical offices when a good proportion don't need to just to maintain the coffee shop sector of the economy. Other sectors, like IT might do well out of this.

Asking people to work from home or stagger their travel times or to work in different patterns so minimising numbers in one place seems the least that can be put in place.

I agree with everyone that SSP is so low and so many people will be badly affected- this was the case before Corona-19 as well, with a huge rise in zero hours contracts, the poorest and most vulnerable being even further affected by benefit problems, but people voted again and again this approach and not a more comprehensive social sector in like in Nordic countries for 'economic reasons' so here we all are.

Exactly "Oh we have to sacrifice all the vulnerable people so that people on shitty zero hour job contacts with greedy companies making millions don't have to suffer."

Er no. How about making employers step up and use some of their vast profits to ensure their employees don't suffer. How about the government clamp down on some unpaid corporate taxes and use that to compensate small businesses.

The economy is already screwed. If you don't see that, it's because you are still underestimating the virus

Its probably the people on zero hours contracts who have no back up in terms of savings that will suffer first regardless of the government stepping in. The huge companies have ways of shoring themselves up and money to fall back on.

Obviously we shouldn't through our vulnerable to the wolves that is ridiculous

I'm actually fairly anti mass shut downs and optional quarantine instead.

Poor people can't expect others to die just to help them out....

No, I would take a huge economic downturn and the certainty that my close family will live any day!

If you want a shut down of everything regardless, would you be generally ok (SAHM, wealthy or DH with secure job, or on benefits anyway.

We will not be OK, no. DH is in the hotel business so it's already a total shitshow and only going to get much worse.

I'm still in the 'shut it all down now and flatten the curve' group, because otherwise we're looking at not only eventual economic meltdown but also hospitals unable to cope, potential shutdown of the country eventually, and a higher death rate.

I'm with you on this OP, we are already on the breadline and both self employed.
No one here seems to give a fuck if we can't work, lose our house, car afford to feed our kids. Just shut the lot down and fuck the poor. Once again.

Greysparkles loads if people gave said don’t shut down because it will affect the people at the bottom end the most. Every time someone says poxy economy or economy over lives I’ve said no economy is people’s livelihoods.

Well not every time as it gets said a lot but maybe they should teach economics at school (no idea if they do here).

Loads of people have said...

OP are you Boris Johnson?
Because caring more about the economy than the human cost means you are content for those you mentioned, mother, aunts and uncles and father in law, not only to die potentially prematurely but to potentially die on a trolley, without respiratory aid for breathing that feels like drowning.
Because 'taking it on the chin' means, in reality, letting the virus naturally build to a point where there are more patients than the NHS can cope with. Read up on Italy. They have a lot more critical care beds than we do. They have suspended operations, are using operating theatres as wards and can treat ONLY those who have no underlying morbidity.