CV19 - Cure worse than the disease? (Vol 2)

[Eyersey1234]

REALIST123 said:

Rick1.8t said:

dmahon said:

The message is finally hitting the MSM:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-8290353...

I know the comments section is often full of lunatics but just look at them - many saying the article is callous, saying even one death is too many, etc etc - tides are turning though, it used to be the vast majority with this view and there are quite a number of people in opposition now at least.

I do maintain it’s still going to take some effort from govt and media to convince a huge number of the population to contemplate work / school again, let alone other aspects of life less essential.

Financial support being lifted the only way maybe?

Edited by Rick1.8t on Wednesday 6th May 07:38

Can you tell us where you get your information from? I don’t know a single person who doesn’t want to get back to work and get their kids back to school as soon as they can.

I think his comments are based on the amount of people on SM that have been screaming the lockdown must stay etc and if you try and have a debate with them about it they start on about you're putting money before lives etc.

[GGibbo]

I’ve had to turn off BBC news just now. At the end of every broadcast they now seem to have a story on either a family that has lost multiple members, a young person with a bad case or somebody sobbing that the felt really poorly for a while. All statistical outliers but never a mention of this fact.

[smashing]

GGibbo said:

I’ve had to turn off BBC news just now. At the end of every broadcast they now seem to have a story on either a family that has lost multiple members, a young person with a bad case or somebody sobbing that the felt really poorly for a while. All statistical outliers but never a mention of this fact.

Yep just had to do the same.

[ant1973]

Dr Z said:

isaldiri said:

Elysium said:

Still reading through the additional SAGE docs. This is a shocker:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...

SPI-M said:

It was agreed that a policy of alternating between periods of more and less strict social distancing measures could plausibly be effective at keeping the number of critical care cases within capacity. These would need to be in place for at least most of a year. Under such as policy, at least half of the year would be spent under the stricter social distancing measures.

16th March was the date the 500k death imperial model was published. That day a SAGE subgroup was debating a full year of restrictions, with strict social distancing for 6 months.

Then one week later Johnson announced a 3 week lockdown.

Sheer lies. No one would have accepted what was being proposed, so the Govt kept it secret from us.

I'm not entirely sure I get the outrage. What exactly is the lie and the shocker about that? SPI-M were asked to model something. They did. I don't see what the big deal is.

Yeah, me neither. Elysium is wrong, of course--lockdown scenarios were modelled and communicated prior to 16th March. It was one of the tools available to the govt alongside the strict social distancing & shielding. It is wrong to assume that we went into lockdown blind. There was more uncertainty about the R(t) being <1 prior to lockdown, i.e. there was more variation in the different modelling groups' estimations, so SAGE was more conservative in its advice.

I think the issue is really about transparency, mission creep and acts subsequent to imposing lockdown.

Telling people that you are "leveling with them" and will review the evidence on a three weekly basis when you already knew that your given solution (to a lesser or greater extent) was going to be a very lengthy affair is at best disingenuous and at worst downright dishonest.

The decision to lockdown was largely a function of London's ICU capacity being overwhelmed in early April. Indeed, it was said that it would probably happen irrespective of the measures taken. Flatten the curve and it's variants were the message of the day as a result. That was achieved but is no longer the mission statement. If this was disclosed at the outset, the media, public and parliament itself would have queried the need for the strategy, its effects, economic and social costs and the like. We are now told that to be free of the policy, something has to change. In other words, we are trapped at the mercy of the political class in determining when five wholly subjective tests are met. That does not reassure me.

[Bibbs]

4154QLD said:

So here in sunny Queensland we have been in lockdown for 5/6 weeks. As of today, the numbers are below

Tests Taken - 117,721
Total # of cases - 1043
Of those - 973 contracted overseas or or had close contact with a confirmed case, such as their partner or flatmate.
Deaths - 6
Mortality rate - 0.575% of confirmed cases..

Current Cases - 57 (population of QLD ~5.7M)
Currently Hospitalised - 9

Given that 65% of the QLD population live in the South East Corner (Brisbane/Gold Coast/Sunshine Coast approx 3.7M) the numbers are extremely low here (50 active cases in total) but we still have social distancing in place, all non-essential shops are closed, Uni's have closed campuses, 90% of those that can are working from home, schools are closed (for now), beaches are closed, parks are closed, can't go more than 50km (30 miles) from your home..

But, the govt. both state and federal have been pretty good with the communications so far and it's very easy to find out exactly what the numbers etc. are to date. Most states here are reporting 1/2 new cases per day, so 15-ish per day nationally in total.

https://www.health.gov.au/news/health-alerts/novel...

Other side of the island here.

Only 14 active cases (7 in hospital), no new cases in a week. Population 2m.

We have state borders closed, and inner state borders shut too. Mainly to protect remote communities.

Non essential shops are shut, but business are open.

I've been into the office a few times, usually take an hour walk up and down the beach of an afternoon.

Schools are open. 75% attendance rate.

We had a limit to numbers in groups and visitors, but they are being relaxed now. Also testing is now being done for FIFO and schools.

We even have masks, hand sanitiser and bog roll in the shops now.

[monkfish1]

TurnedEmo said:

Elysium said:

Quite a strong front page in The Times tomorrow:

https://twitter.com/cjsnowdon/status/1257792759160...

As the sane people here have been saying for a couple of weeks - cut the furlough, and my other one is threaten the income tax increases. That will swing public opinion in a big way.

Ok, right!

You seem to be operating on the basis, cut furlough, everyone goes back towork.

But thats not whats going to happen.

What will actually happen, cut furlough, a number of millions(you guess) are immediately handed a P45.

Ive asked before, do YOU think the government is going to permit several million extra unemployed on their watch?

[ant1973]

HorneyMX5 said:

Tlandcruiser said:

It’s disappointing that there are MPs accusing people of liking the 80% and being work shy. The people furloughed did not have a choice to be furloughed and they don’t have a choice in the matter to remain furloughed. But it’s working on turning the public on each other instead I guess, as evident even in this thread.

Exactly. The decision on whether we go back to work rests with our employer. Our only choices are wait for either return or redundancy, or to quit and find a new job.

I think it's more nuanced than has been portrayed as well. Some people are scared, some people are lazy, some people are indifferent and no doubt some are desperate to get back to work. It's really about how the Furlough ends. If the government is refusing to allow you to operate your business will they switch it off? If the government will permit you to operate but in a manner which is uneconomic (i.e. social distancing) will you continue to be given a subsidy?

[EddieSteadyGo]

monkfish1 said:

What will actually happen, cut furlough, a number of millions(you guess) are immediately handed a P45.

Ive asked before, do YOU think the government is going to permit several million extra unemployed on their watch?

Why would cutting furlough to 60% rather than 80% as is being considered cause millions of redundancies?

[markcoznottz]

sim72 said:

Fubar1977 said:

You put it better than I did OldGermanHeaps. My original post may have come across a bit on the harsh side to be honest but all the noise is coming from the LockDown advocates and the Angry Karens whilst those of us who are, frankly, terrified for our future are drowned out or cast as "Plague Spreaders" who want everyone to die apparently.

You can't blame Angry Karen really. Angry Karen has been shut in her house for seven weeks but is still watching a 5pm briefing every day saying that hundreds of people are still dying. Angry Karen therefore computes that anyone who is outside must be spreading the virus, because otherwise we'd have sorted this by now. The nuances of the issue are beyond Angry Karen, but let's face it, everyone who Angry Karen knows agrees with her, so she must be right (see also: Jeremy Corbyn is a terrible threat to the country).

Best place for angry Karen posts is itvs news thread on Facebook, open comments. Tories, disabled etc bla bla, but more pertinently, almost universal ' my kids are staying home until it's safe' etc.

[ant1973]

monkfish1 said:

TurnedEmo said:

Elysium said:

Quite a strong front page in The Times tomorrow:

https://twitter.com/cjsnowdon/status/1257792759160...

As the sane people here have been saying for a couple of weeks - cut the furlough, and my other one is threaten the income tax increases. That will swing public opinion in a big way.

Ok, right!

You seem to be operating on the basis, cut furlough, everyone goes back towork.

But thats not whats going to happen.

What will actually happen, cut furlough, a number of millions(you guess) are immediately handed a P45.

Ive asked before, do YOU think the government is going to permit several million extra unemployed on their watch?

I actually don't know the answer to this question. On a superficial level, it's obvious from a political point of view that the question would be answered in the affirmative. However, if you think about it, in its present form it is economically unsustainable - fulled by money printing or otherwise. It will also create a category of political and economic have and have nots. Unemployed on 27th February - Universal Credit. Furloughed on 28th March - Furlough. Such a distinction is socially unsustainable. That points to some sort of tapering which is no more of a deferral of the problem since those who are already unemployed but just don't know it will stay on the scheme as many employer's can avoid the cost of redundancy by doing so. It's a pointless act and for that reason, I am not sure that a wholesale cut to 60% is likely. I think more likely is a targeting of resources to those who need it most. There is no happy ending in this story. Pain now or pain later probably does not make a huge difference politically.

[HorneyMX5]

The focus needs to be in helping business bring back furloughed employees. Cutting it to 60% will help with bill, but it won’t change the number of people furloughed.

[hyphen]

Sambucket said:

I had zero take up for furlough at 80% when I asked for volunteers, so just in my experience most people want to work, given the chance.

Did you ask for volunteers for furlough at 100%...

[Stay in Bed Instead]

GGibbo said:

I’ve had to turn off BBC news just now. At the end of every broadcast they now seem to have a story on either a family that has lost multiple members, a young person with a bad case or somebody sobbing that the felt really poorly for a while. All statistical outliers but never a mention of this fact.

Sky have been doing that for weeks.

[monkfish1]

EddieSteadyGo said:

monkfish1 said:

What will actually happen, cut furlough, a number of millions(you guess) are immediately handed a P45.

Ive asked before, do YOU think the government is going to permit several million extra unemployed on their watch?

Why would cutting furlough to 60% rather than 80% as is being considered cause millions of redundancies?

That wasnt what TurnedEmo suggested.

[monkfish1]

Sambucket said:

I had zero take up for furlough at 80% when I asked for volunteers, so just in my experience most people want to work, given the chance.

It has to be the employers choice anyway, so I can't see how cutting wages 20% is going to spur people into work. If the employer doesn't have enough work for them, 20% wage cut isn't going to change that.

Edited by Sambucket on Wednesday 6th May 08:42

For possibly the first time, i agree with you.

Cut the furlough payment to any number you like, if your employer doesnt, want/need, afford to have you back, then you still have no work.

[Elysium]

isaldiri said:

Elysium said:

Still reading through the additional SAGE docs. This is a shocker:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...

SPI-M said:

It was agreed that a policy of alternating between periods of more and less strict social distancing measures could plausibly be effective at keeping the number of critical care cases within capacity. These would need to be in place for at least most of a year. Under such as policy, at least half of the year would be spent under the stricter social distancing measures.

16th March was the date the 500k death imperial model was published. That day a SAGE subgroup was debating a full year of restrictions, with strict social distancing for 6 months.

Then one week later Johnson announced a 3 week lockdown.

Sheer lies. No one would have accepted what was being proposed, so the Govt kept it secret from us.

I'm not entirely sure I get the outrage. What exactly is the lie and the shocker about that? SPI-M were asked to model something. They did. I don't see what the big deal is.

Really?

The solution being discussed by the scientists was a full year of interventions with a 6 month period of strict social distancing (ie lockdown).

The public would not have accepted that and I don't belileve it would have been a lawful proportionate restriction of our freedoms. It was not a viable solution and so should have been rejected.

However, the Govt decided to start us on that journey, telling us that it would be for an 'initial period of 3 weeks', in the knowledge that they would not easily be able to change course.

That is 'bait and switch' tactics. Commiting us to an unacceptable course of action through deceit and stealth.

They were not following the science. The plan was to do it for a little while and hope a better idea turned up.

[EddieSteadyGo]

monkfish1 said:

EddieSteadyGo said:

monkfish1 said:

What will actually happen, cut furlough, a number of millions(you guess) are immediately handed a P45.

Ive asked before, do YOU think the government is going to permit several million extra unemployed on their watch?

Why would cutting furlough to 60% rather than 80% as is being considered cause millions of redundancies?

That wasnt what TurnedEmo suggested.

He said 'cut furlough'. The government's proposal is to cut furlough to 60% starting in July. I presumed that is what he meant.

[monkfish1]

HorneyMX5 said:

The focus needs to be in helping business bring back furloughed employees. Cutting it to 60% will help with bill, but it won’t change the number of people furloughed.

Correct.

But how? What can be done to replace the lost buisness? It will take years in many cases, if ever, to get back to pre Covid.

How does cutting it to 60% help "the bill"? The money comes in and goes straight out to the employee. Nothing changes for the business, so no improvement there, but the employee now has less income. Many can probably cope at 80%, 60% starts to become more of a problem.

If you keep reducing it, then eventaually the inevitable happens. Mortgage and rent defaults.

Sure, you can say the redundancies havent happened, but the effects will be the same.

[Elysium]

Ridgemont said:

Elysium said:

This is the big one:

18th March - London only lockdown discussed:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...

20th March - concern that ICU capacity would be breached by the end of the month. R thought to be running at 2 or 3

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...

1st April - realisation that R was already below 1 and that it had begun to reduce Mid March. This document is also heavily redacted:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...

So they locked down because they thought the infection was out of control in London, then realised by 1st April that it was well under control and that pre-lockdown measures had been working.

Johnson was in hospital from the 6th to the 13th April. The first lockdown review was 16th April. At that point the Govt knew that the restrictions were no longer necessary to protect the NHS, but they had no plan to exit lockdown and no political will to act whilst Johnson was in hospital.

So they evaded and extended lockdown by 3 weeks.

Elysium: have a lot of time for your posts but look at the timelines. We are talking about the space of a week or two or days between the reports. They are situational.
Where we are now, with developing understanding of the situations here, Sweden, Italy and say New Zealand is probably going to exhaust journals for years to come. In retrospect. Trying to manage government policy on the fly with ultra responsive policy calls is... well expecting government to work at the speed of something other than government works at.

The SAGE view is heavily caveated with caution so expecting a ‘aha!’ Partridge moment from the gov, desperately trying to wed themselves to guidance, is unlikely. It hardly makes them the bds you are portraying.

I agree. I don't think I am being particularly accusatory with this post, just laying out the timeline as it happened.

However, a great many people, particularly those with responsibility for businesses, were working full time on mitigation strategies in those early weeks. It is significant that Govt appear to have already been 'stuck' by their own policy. They did not want to talk about an exit strategy, because they had not idea what to do.

[monkfish1]

EddieSteadyGo said:

monkfish1 said:

What will actually happen, cut furlough, a number of millions(you guess) are immediately handed a P45.

Ive asked before, do YOU think the government is going to permit several million extra unemployed on their watch?

Why would cutting furlough to 60% rather than 80% as is being considered cause millions of redundancies?

See my other post above. Same consequences as redundancy, but not calling it redunadancy.