If CV turns out to be less deadly than flu...

[TheDailyCarbuncle]

do you think you will still feel the restrictions were worth it?

Just asking out of curiosity really.

@LazydaysofSummer But the restrictions will lead to some people dying from the restriction conditions. It's not as simple as save one person from covid at the expense of the economy and mental health.

(there's been a potential murder with 4 people found dead today. There will be more due to abusers in isolation)

This is like a huge social experiment. With a potential huge backlash at the end of it. The impact on marriages, abuse, health from those not getting treated to tested, obesity, mental health.

And don’t get me started on the stasi curtain twitchers.

A fraught woman taking her crying baby out for a second walk with a prom and staying 2 metres away isn’t going to increase the number of cases. Her curtain twitch neighbour making her feel bad about it or ringing the police will cause harm.

The issue is we have some natural immunity to flu. All flus even if it is a new strain share some aspects of their RNA .

We have no natural immunity to this. None at all.

It’s probably going to be worse than seasonal Flu. But not as bad as Spanish Flu. Maybe similar to Hong Kong Flu.

I guess there is Flu and there is Flu. Depends what kind you are talking about.

Even just the direct spend of £45 billion by the uk government will lead to lives lost due to future austerity.

For example if the measues result in 100,000 lives saved that is a cost per life saved of £450,000.

When NICE calculates whether to pay for new medicines it typically uses a figure of £20,000 per quality of life year. So on the basis of average 80 years of life expectancy it will only be cost effective based on existing calculations to save those aged under 58 years old (22 years x £20,000 per year). If 50,000 lives are saved as a result it will only be cost effective to save those under 36 years old.

That's inadequate, because it doesn't take into account the effects of doing nothing, i.e. being in the middle of a humanitarian catastrophe with 500k people dying and the NHS stretched to breaking point, with many people bereaved and sick and the effects on the nation's mental health that would mean. It's delusional to think that society could go on as normal.

You've just imagined that number of 100000. In excess of 500000 is the modelled figure for no interventions.

Plus, with that number, you would need to find hospital care for 2.5 million. You would have gross absenteeism across the nation. Let's not pretend do nothing is a cost free solution to set against the inconvenient cost of saving people's lives.

I am not advocating either approach. Governments' need to find a balance but people saying that it is either a choice between lives or the economy is wrong. If the economy suffers then lives will be lost as a result. Spending billions now will lead to more deaths in the future when the debt will have have to be paid back and we will not be able to afford to spend on public services.

There are estimates that around 100,000 additional deaths were caused by the last wave of austerity www.bmj.com/company/newsroom/health-and-social-care-spending-cuts-linked-to-120000-excess-deaths-in-england/

The next wave of austerity as a result of coronavirus will be much worse and more protracted. The country's credit rating has already been downgraded and as a result the cost of servicing the debt will increase.

As the last election showed people in the UK tend to vote to keep taxes low. I am hoping that this pandemic makes people realise the value of public services over low taxation but taxes will need to go exceptionally high to service the debt and invest in the nhs to an acceptable level so I don't hold much hope.

Question

Do you have to have austerity? That's just the result of one economic theory about how the economy should be managed with low taxation low debt and small society

The whole economic system needs a reboot

There were riots in France in the 1960s with students complaining that economics was being restricted to one model and other models were possible and possibly better ...but not much changed in terms of economic theory and education

Money doesn't grow on trees, but at a society level, it does, it's just a piece of paper that says how much your contribution was valued and ties in with what valuable stuff you get back if you hand that paper over

@midgebabe

regarding money and austerity - are you asking "if we can suddenly access all this money for this emergency, why did we bother with austerity for the last 10 years? Can't we just create more money as we need it, for funding the NHS every year, and so on?"

there are no easy shortcuts; if the government creates too much money, just like that, how can they also expect anyone to think it's valuable?

there's is an out of copyright book about the new monetary system after the french revolution, of particular interest if you want to see how an economic reboot might pan out

www.gutenberg.org/files/6949/6949-h/6949-h.htm

it's from 1912, so very old-fashioned and stodgy writing, but it is aimed at a normal person, not an economist, and it is a detailed look instead of just a vague overview.

"Germany is reporting a 0.1% fatality rate"

Rubbish, I live in Germany and figures are currently 67,000 cases and 680 dead, so just over 1.0% compared to 0.02 - 0.1 % for flu (which depends on flu strain each year)

The previously lower German % was always expected to rise as more older people catch it
and also people who have been on ventilators for weeks die in greater numbers

Also, Germany is taking in critical care patients from France & Italy because their health systems are overloaded

• this has never happened with flu

German rate has been lower than almost any other country, but for a variety of reasons,
which include massive public health resources in testing, tracing and monitoring CV cases
plus 3 x the doctors, hospital beds etc per 100,000 population than the UK

i.e. we cannot expect same outcomes for the UK

For those arguing this lockdown may be too big an economic price to pay, I’m wondering how they think not locking down would’ve played out? Do they think the NHS would have coped, the rest of the world would have continued to let British people carry on with business as usual overseas, that the British public would not have concluded the state doesn’t care about human lives and chaos would not have ensued?

Just in case you are reading your thread, OP, I wanted to say what a strange person you must be.

You begin a thread presumably with the intention of starting an argument, stoke the fire with disingenuous comments and your own provocative opinions presented as absolute truth - then when you have caused sufficient upset, anger, disagreement and unhappiness, you cheerfully say that you are buggering off and may read the comments but not respond.

I presume, like others, you get your enjoyment in life from causing arguments at a safe distance, anonymously, and then revelling in the escalating anger.

This situation has revealed so much good in so many people, all those going out of their way to help others, or even just doing their best to cope and carry on for the benefit of people more vulnerable.

Of course the isolation and restrictions will bring their own problems, no one would deny this, and there will be consequences to deal with for a long time to come, but most of us are just doing our best to get through and consider others.

It's a pity a few people choose to create arguments and dissention rather than choosing to be kind, understanding that life at the moment is uncertain and most people - even governments - are doing their best with only partial and constantly-evolving information.

The actions of governments - and individuals - will be assessed and judged with hindsight. Some decisions will have been right, some wrong, as humans are making them and there are so many shades of grey. Perhaps lessons will be learned that will inform responses to future crises. Perhaps there will be permanent changes in how we live .. or not, as humans forget quickly.

I hope you will feel happy with the choices you have made, OP, such as creating this thread. I'm guessing that you will.

If anyone is tempted to believe the nonsense More or Less, on radio 4 this morning, had a nice explanation of why OP is fibbing. You can get it on iPlayer, first 10 minutes of the show.

I presume, like others, you get your enjoyment in life from causing arguments at a safe distance, anonymously, and then revelling in the escalating anger.

I've explained the mistakes in OP's claims to them several times on various threads before this one.

Obviously there is lots about CV which is uncertain and up for speculation; but OP knows full well that much of what they are saying is false. Either it is, as you say, someone being mendacious or they are completely irrational and fixated on this idea that CV is no worse than flu.

Ultimately, we may end up with the same number of deaths (though I greatly doubt it), but they will not all be happening at the same time - so the system won't be overloaded, and at least we won't be having to have mass funerals.

Today I led my first funeral during this crisis (not a corvid-19 death - just someone who had died, but could not have a "proper" funeral due to the current crisis).

It was heartbreaking - a wonderful woman who had many friends - none of whom could attend because their age made it too dangerous; a husband who is in a care home on lockdown; all family in another part of the country, and unable to travel. There was myself and the funeral service staff, who came in to participate in the new shortened service out of respect for the deceased.

The truncated service is very reverential, and "tweakable" to make it personal. Normally, the service is directed towards the family and other mourners - but this time, for the first time, I thought about the commendation and who it was directed to and addressed it directly to the deceased.

It wasn't the farewell from all who loved her that her family and friends would have wanted for her, nor the one she deserved, but I hope I managed to make it one which was meaningful and reverential. Despite the restrictions it was a service of loving farewell, and of hope in the future.

At present, the maximum number of people permitted at the services is fifteen. The last service I presided at had over 300 mourners. That is how much has changed.

Would we really want a situation where people were dying at such a rate that we effectively had to have "plague pits" to cope with the number of bodies? Or like Italy - no mourners at all? Imagine how that would feel if it was your beloved relative who had died.

Rubbish, I live in Germany and figures are currently 67,000 cases and 680 dead,

Someone might respond that there are likely to be many who have/have had it who aren’t in the figures, but to offset that, sadly many of those 67,000 will die in the coming days and weeks.

These are the correct figures for Germany - along with stats on fatalities.

www.rki.de/DE/Content/InfAZ/N/Neuartiges_Coronavirus/Situationsberichte/2020-03-30-en.pdf?__blob=publicationFile

WhatHoJeeves - I agree with you about hindsight - it truly is a marvellous thing. The "powers that be" will be criticised whatever happens and are surely doing their best.

I don't know enough about anything to comment on the right or wrong course of action. I apply, in relation to the restrictions on our lives at present - "it is better to have and not need, than to need and not have".

SchadenfreudePersonified - thank you for making the service for that lady meaningful. I hope the coming weeks and months are not too distressing.

I think TheDailyCarbuncle has given me food for thought and it’s always interesting to see a different perspective.

I was very keen on lockdown; I suppose from my middle class comfortable perspective of already knowing lots of people who work and run businesses from home, it didn’t seem so much of an issue. In my bubble I completely disregarded the vast swathe of poorly paid and zero hours workers who are completely fucked by lockdown. I also was totally surprised by the whole panic buying thing.

In hindsight, I believe the vulnerable should have been isolated, with financial and practical help put in place to enable that, while the rest of society carried on. For healthy people, only a tiny percentage get sick enough to require hospitalisation and the NHS should be able to cope with that.

Sadly many vulnerable people didn’t take it all very seriously at the beginning and probably wouldn’t have isolated. They would in future though, if we come out of lockdown and the virus resurges.

For healthy people, only a tiny percentage get sick enough to require hospitalisation and the NHS should be able to cope with that.

5% of those hospitalised are under 50. Do you think the country could cope with one in twenty people under 50 being hospitalised in a year, alongside all of the other people who need to use NHS services?

Do you realise that the vulnerable is about 1/3 to 1/2 of society?

5% of those hospitalised are under 50. But that’s not to say that those 5% are not also part of the vulnerable group despite being under 50. What percentage of people with no other health condition are hospitalised?

Do you realise that the vulnerable is about 1/3 to 1/2 of society?. I actually don’t believe this. Where is your evidence?