Coronavirus - how is it/has it affected you?

[Reemul]

The reality is you cannot successfully isolate 10 million people while allowing the rest to go about their business as usual. It cannot be done, there is too much cross pollination.

A lot of people really fail to see and understand the bigger picture, they just look at from their own narrow perspective and assume widening it will work.

I spoke to someone the other day who said it's joke and we need to open up and we were talking about her parents who are elderly and I explained on the school run a large amount of kid pick ups were from the grand parents (she doesn't have kids) and she said well that will need to stop and I said it can't as the single parent is working and she is like well that's their fault, change jobs and I'm like what! one my friends is a nurse, her husband left her and grand parents collect otherwise she cannot work and we really need nurses.

No view of the bigger picture or issues at all.

 

[bluewolf]

The reality is you cannot successfully isolate 10 million people while allowing the rest to go about their business as usual. It cannot be done, there is too much cross pollination.

A lot of people really fail to see and understand the bigger picture, they just look at from their own narrow perspective and assume widening it will work.

I spoke to someone the other day who said it's joke and we need to open up and we were talking about her parents who are elderly and I explained on the school run a large amount of kid pick ups were from the grand parents (she doesn't have kids) and she said well that will need to stop and I said it can't as the single parent is working and she is like well that's their fault, change jobs and I'm like what! one my friends is a nurse, her husband left her and grand parents collect otherwise she cannot work and we really need nurses.

No view of the bigger picture or issues at all.

Or, the bigger picture is that these issues might be cheaper to sort than the costs of the full lockdown. I don’t know. Do you?

 

[PJ87]

How do you know it won't kill you? There have been a few reports on here from people like Homer, of healthy young people dying. Yes, instances are low but there are younger people being hospitalised. I think your recent posts come across as sod the elderly, just let them vegetate in isolation or die, so I can get on with my life as I have longer to live. Very selfish and arrogant viewpoint in my opinion. And I am still of working age.

Guy at work is 28 , he got covid back in march

He is ex army, fittest person around. Used to run marathons for fun

Fast forward to now..he gets out of breath walking up the hill from station , he isn't built anymore he is skin and bones. Gets tired a lot isn't allowed to work nights as they tire him out

Welcome long covid, like you say can happen to anyone

 

[PJ87]

Or, the bigger picture is that these issues might be cheaper to sort than the costs of the full lockdown. I don’t know. Do you?

These issues would be put on the person and not the nation we all know that

 

[Doon frae Troon]

Police checking on the A77 yesterday evening, good to see as it seemed very busy.

 

[bluewolf]

These issues would be put on the person and not the nation we all know that

Whilst I am certainly no fan of this government, or it’s handling of the pandemic ( best stop now else I’ll get a warning ?). My point was more a theoretical one and in my theory, our philanthropic leaders would shoulder the majority of the costs ?

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Or, the bigger picture is that these issues might be cheaper to sort than the costs of the full lockdown. I don’t know. Do you?

Totally agree if this was Lockdown 1 and Day 1 with the benefit of hindsight.

Majority of our feelings and opinions though have been shaped by the last 10 months.

 

[Deleted member 18588]

I think they sell Werthers on Amazon now ?

In all seriousness, I can see Dan’s point. At the moment, everyone is isolating. Would it be a better option to open up the economy, but spend half the current outlay on ensuring those most at risk could isolate safely and securely? Would reduce the pressure on the NHS and allow the currently failing economy to start recovery.
I haven’t thought about this in any real depth, but on the surface I can see some benefits.
And yes, I’m of working age. And also yes, if I was retired and over the age at which COVID becomes a real issue then I think I would accept an enforced lockdown if it improved the future prospects of my kids.

So the young go back to work ?

We have a heavy reliance upon the service sectors such as hospitality, catering, retail etc;

Who is there, Mon to Fri, 9.00 'til 6.00, for these sectors to serve?

So fewer (young) employees needed and so those that lose their jobs see no benefit and soon aren't contributing to the economy themselves.

And so on and so on.

The actions of us all are intertwined at so many levels that this type of isolation is totally impractical.

 

[PNWokingham]

Too right, elderly deaths are basically infinity higher than those in under 40, and they are still dying en masse. It's tragic. And indicates that the current system isn't working.

With that, let's change the wording of my point, for their own safety, the elderly could be further segregated from society. They could be given all they need to live life as comfortably as possible without ever coming into contact with a potential virus carrier. (EG: monopoly on home delivery slots, free sterile transportation to medical appointments. Internet and equipment for zoom calls.) 99% won't be working. Can't see family members, too right! I don't know how anyone can sleep if they've come into close contact with an elderly relative. Just sit in the front garden, and open a window if you have to do it. I just can't comprehend how someone who isn't working and is at high risk is catching the virus right now.

And yes, elderly people have gone through bad times. But i'm not sure there has ever been an event where almost 20% of the country have been on furlough. Many millions more have been forced to benefits because their contracts don't allow furlough payments. What do you do if you are a graduate from 2020? You have spent almost a year on benefits, if you don't have parents you are homeless unless you've been lucky enough to find council housing.

If those most at risk were segregated like above, and young people are in-fact going to have to "chance it" without a vaccine. Why wouldn't you open up everything now, what are we waiting for? Get the majority of the population back to work, stop damaging kids futures.

Obviously that won't be popular on here with the demographic. But if it wasn't such an emotive subject, logically it's an interesting line of investigation.

just what i said a while back but got shot down. I totally agree with this approach. Sweden for the under 60s with a massive approach to defend and care for those that would be asked to isolate. Surely must be better focusing our efforts on isolating, protecting and helping the minority than shutting down the whole economy. Would we still have had a lot of elderly deaths? No doubt. Higher or lower than we have had? Who knows. But if done well you would hope an imorovement and a massive saving of money that will cripple us for the next 50 years - some of which (tens of billions) of which could be put into the whole NHS/ Care Home, Supply chain. logistics chain etc that will help if we ever go through this again

 

[DanFST]

How do you know it won't kill you? There have been a few reports on here from people like Homer, of healthy young people dying. Yes, instances are low but there are younger people being hospitalised. I think your recent posts come across as sod the elderly, just let them vegetate in isolation or die, so I can get on with my life as I have longer to live. Very selfish and arrogant viewpoint in my opinion. And I am still of working age.

It didn't kill me last time! I'd be surprised if it was worse the second time around.

What of the effect upon the economy?

Isolating the over 65's would deny it of the benefit of a section of the community with one of the highest levels of available and disposable income.

The economy is now fubar. I'm unsure how isolating those with more disposable income, as opposed to everyone as of right now is going to make it worse? Do you think the tax from that disposable income covers all the furlough payments and benefits?

Because some of ”these” elderley and at risk people are the rich/powerful people in this Country and they will never ever go in to quarantine with the scroats.

MP’s, The Queen? Won’t happen, complete non-starter.

Your method needed implementing on day 1 with the correct resources to even have a chance, nobody is going to change tack after 10 months.

If anyhting, it's the opposite. We didn't contain this thing, a full lockdown was far too late. Now a year on might be the time to change tact.

Guy at work is 28 , he got covid back in march

He is ex army, fittest person around. Used to run marathons for fun

Fast forward to now..he gets out of breath walking up the hill from station , he isn't built anymore he is skin and bones. Gets tired a lot isn't allowed to work nights as they tire him out

Welcome long covid, like you say can happen to anyone

That sucks, but if we are to go out without a vaccine as is most likely to happen, the same thing would have happened to him.

So the young go back to work ?

We have a heavy reliance upon the service sectors such as hospitality, catering, retail etc;

Who is there, Mon to Fri, 9.00 'til 6.00, for these sectors to serve?

So fewer (young) employees needed and so those that lose their jobs see no benefit and soon aren't contributing to the economy themselves.

And so on and so on.

The actions of us all are intertwined at so many levels that this type of isolation is totally impractical.

I'm not sure many elderly people are propping up London's retail and hospitality industry midweek. As stated previously, I seldom see an *at risk* person in canary wharf, but thousands of hospitality and retail staff have lost their jobs there, as there is no demand because offices are shut. I'd hazard a guess the working population spend more after office hours than the non working population throughout the rest of the day.

 

[Deleted member 18588]

It didn't kill me last time! I'd be surprised if it was worse the second time around.



The economy is now fubar. I'm unsure how isolating everyone, as opposed to just the section with more disposable income is going to make it worse? Do you think the tax from that disposable income covers all the furlough payments and benefits?




If anyhting, it's the opposite. We didn't contain this thing, a full lockdown was far too late. Now a year on might be the time to change tact.



That sucks, but if we are to go out without a vaccine as is most likely to happen, the same thing would have happened to him.





I'm not sure many elderly people are propping up London's retail and hospitality industry midweek. As stated previously, I seldom see an *at risk* person in canary wharf, but thousands of hospitality and retail staff have lost their jobs there, as there is no demand because offices are shut. I'd hazard a guess the working population spend more after office hours than the non working population throughout the rest of the day.

And there in a nutshell you have summed up this issue.

You are viewing it solely from a London centric, financial services viewpoint.

Since 2008 not the most reliable view.?

 

[PNWokingham]

So the young go back to work ?

We have a heavy reliance upon the service sectors such as hospitality, catering, retail etc;

Who is there, Mon to Fri, 9.00 'til 6.00, for these sectors to serve?

So fewer (young) employees needed and so those that lose their jobs see no benefit and soon aren't contributing to the economy themselves.

And so on and so on.

The actions of us all are intertwined at so many levels that this type of isolation is totally impractical.

p,lenty of people - our coffee shops, market food stalls etc are solidly busy - when we are allowed out and they are open. People working from home like to get out and meet up in the day to get away from the screens

 

[bluewolf]

For the avoidance of doubt. I’m not saying that the shielding of the vulnerable, whilst the “young” go free is the right option. But I do think it’s now become a debate with having.

I agree with Paul that the first lockdown was far too late, and far too lenient. Subsequent decisions have been suspiciously poor and have made very little actual difference. However, we are where we are now.

As the vaccine is rolled out, there will come a point at which a decision must be made. Open up, whilst protecting the most vulnerable. Or keep everything shut and incur further debts.
As someone of working age (46), with school/college age kids, and a vulnerable parent, I think I know what I’d prefer.

 

[Deleted member 18588]

p,lenty of people - our coffee shops, market food stalls etc are solidly busy - when we are allowed out and they are open. People working from home like to get out and meet up in the day to get away from the screens

Maybe they won't be working from home in view of the stats questioning the efficiency of that practice.

 

[DanFST]

And there in a nutshell you have summed up this issue.

You are viewing it solely from a London centric, financial services viewpoint.

Since 2008 not the most reliable view.?

But as London financial services contributed 66 Billion to the economy, and 29 billion in tax. It's one that you dismiss as invalid, because you don't like bankers. Also it's projected to reach more than 950% of GDP in the next 30 years.....

 

[Deleted member 18588]

Mrs Thatcher clearly left a greater legacy than I thought.

"There is no such thing as society!"

Clearly not, just our own self interests.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

For the avoidance of doubt. I’m not saying that the shielding of the vulnerable, whilst the “young” go free is the right option. But I do think it’s now become a debate with having.

I agree with Paul that the first lockdown was far too late, and far too lenient. Subsequent decisions have been suspiciously poor and have made very little actual difference. However, we are where we are now.

As the vaccine is rolled out, there will come a point at which a decision must be made. Open up, whilst protecting the most vulnerable. Or keep everything shut and incur further debts.
As someone of working age (46), with school/college age kids, and a vulnerable parent, I think I know what I’d prefer.

Surely the whole “plan” is/has been to open up at a certain point? That point is now on the horizon, looking to change tact at this point would be irresponsible looking at the money already spent.

As for we’ll be paying it back for the next 30/50/70 years, so what? The Country will be continually in debt and those at the bottom will suffer the most, people talk about the economic impact as if we’d all be affected equally, almost as if they really do care about someone else rather than themselves.

Better a debt ridden Country that forces us to get our priorities right and looks after all rather than the reliance on those decision makers who see no further than pounds, shillings & pence.

 

[bluewolf]

Mrs Thatcher clearly left a greater legacy than I thought.

"There is no such thing as society!"

Clearly not, just our own self interests.

I take great offence at being compared to the milk snatcher ?

I politely disagree with the point of your post. The debate is about what’s best for Society as a whole. Not what’s best for a section of it.

 

[Deleted member 18588]

But as London financial services contributed 66 Billion to the economy, and 29 billion in tax. It's one that you dismiss as invalid, because you don't like bankers. Also it's projected to reach more than 950% of GDP in the next 30 years.....

Unlike yourself I dismiss no section of society or the economy.

I prefer to take a broader view that includes us all.

 

[bluewolf]

Surely the whole “plan” is/has been to open up at a certain point? That point is now on the horizon, looking to change tact at this point would be irresponsible looking at the money already spent.

As for we’ll be paying it back for the next 30/50/70 years, so what? The Country will be continually in debt and those at the bottom will suffer the most, people talk about the economic impact as if we’d all be affected equally, almost as if they really do care about someone else rather than themselves.

Better a debt ridden Country that forces us to get our priorities right and looks after all rather than the reliance on those decision makers who see no further than pounds, shillings & pence.

I fully agree that the burden of debt will disproportionately fall on those at the bottom of the ladder. ‘Twas ever thus. But that’s a different fight (that I’m right by your side in the trenches on).

The debate I’m interested in is the one that decides at which point the restrictions start to be lifted. Do we wait for 70-80% of the population to be vaccinated? Is it 20-30% plus shielding the vulnerable?
I’m genuinely interested in hearing people’s views ?