Coronavirus - how is it/has it affected you?

Ethan

Money List Winner
Joined
Jun 30, 2009
Messages
11,788
Location
Bearwood Lakes, Berks
Visit site
?? So we would have seen the econmy contract 12% this year if we had left the economy open for the 75% to continue operating and put massive resources areound shileding and looking after the vulnerable?

Paul, the right approach, as recommended to Govt at the start, was to see the health issue and the economic ones as going hand in hand. Hit the virus hard at the start and it would have made a big positive difference to both. Now we are still in a spiral created by web and delayed action, and it is not going to properly stop for another few quarters.
 

PNWokingham

Journeyman Pro
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
3,473
Location
Berks
Visit site
Paul, the right approach, as recommended to Govt at the start, was to see the health issue and the economic ones as going hand in hand. Hit the virus hard at the start and it would have made a big positive difference to both. Now we are still in a spiral created by web and delayed action, and it is not going to properly stop for another few quarters.

i don't disagree - wrong from the start and wrong choices at the wrong times throughout but, i as i said before, i still believe that a halfway house of sweden liberal model and strong focus on the 25% from March would have been infinitely better than the shiiite show we have had, which has been the worst on both measures
 

SwingsitlikeHogan

Major Champion
Joined
Jul 24, 2012
Messages
32,219
Visit site
Anyway heard this evening just an hour ago that my wife’s favourite aunt - her mum’s 90yr old twin sister - has COVID-19 and has refused to be moved from her care home to hospital. She’s in a grim little room, alone and on oxygen. Mrs and mil both very upset. Of course they can’t visit, so know they might never see her again...

Feels like it’s closing in on us all...?
...and so this morning, all of just over a week later, we hear that my wife’s favourite aunt - her mums twin sister - died last night of COVID-19. She was in her 91st year but generally fit and well. But the virus got into the home she has been in for some years.

And an irony I suppose is that my MIL is getting the vaccination this morning. We will let her have it before she’s told of her sister‘s passing. She will be devastated. Only recently saying to us that she was worried she’d never see her sister again - as she hadn’t seen her since March...

Ah dear. Fortunately this morning my wife is working on the breast cancer telephone helpline she works on - enabling her to be distracted from her own upset by helping women calling in with their breast cancer worries...and that is her passion...

But later today will be difficult.?
 

drdel

Tour Rookie
Joined
Aug 28, 2013
Messages
4,374
Visit site
I think you've hit on 2 key points there:


As it stands, segregation would not prevent that group catching it. However if you prioritised support and aid to those most at risk, it could be possible.

And protecting the NHS: BBC was reporting this morning that hospital admission for under 50's have gone up to almost 20% of the total admissions. Scary stuff!

Actually 80% of a much larger section of society are not taking hospital beds. I haven't run the numbers, but I would assume cases in the under 50's are dramatically higher than the over 50's. So it's even more misleading. So to protect the NHS, those most at risk, taking the majority of beds need to have stronger restrictions, because it currently isn't working.

Superfiçially an interesting thought that many academics in the 70s and 80s explored. Your assertion is somewhat devoid of robust knowledge of the velocity of money and basic economics in and across the UK's demographics and society.
 

bluewolf

Money List Winner
Joined
Nov 30, 2010
Messages
9,557
Location
St. Andish
Visit site
i don't disagree - wrong from the start and wrong choices at the wrong times throughout but, i as i said before, i still believe that a halfway house of sweden liberal model and strong focus on the 25% from March would have been infinitely better than the shiiite show we have had, which has been the worst on both measures
I have to really careful here as we’re comfortably straying into the realms of politics, so I’ll say this once and if it needs removing then I’ll accept it.

What this Government has done is to manage the pandemic along Populist Campaign lines......

See you all in a week ?
 

AmandaJR

Money List Winner
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
12,229
Location
Cambs
Visit site
...and so this morning, all of just over a week later, we hear that my wife’s favourite aunt - her mums twin sister - died last night of COVID-19. She was in her 91st year but generally fit and well. But the virus got into the home she has been in for some years.

And an irony I suppose is that my MIL is getting the vaccination this morning. We will let her have it before she’s told of her sister‘s passing. She will be devastated. Only recently saying to us that she was worried she’d never see her sister again - as she hadn’t seen her since March...

Ah dear. Fortunately this morning my wife is working on the breast cancer telephone helpline she works on - enabling her to be distracted from her own upset by helping women calling in with their breast cancer worries...and that is her passion...

But later today will be difficult.?

Sounds a tough time - thoughts with you and your wife :cry:
 
D

Deleted member 25172

Guest
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 ?

If the vaccination plan goes ahead as planned, by around mid to end of March, the groups that account for over 90% of the deaths have been vaccinated fully or partially.

I appreciate there are risks for us others as well, but I’d be fuming if the lockdown kept going past that.
 

SocketRocket

Ryder Cup Winner
Joined
Sep 12, 2011
Messages
18,116
Visit site
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?
How about we also lock away disabled, unemployed, BAME, homeless and anyone who is not economically productive.

Just because someone is over sixty doesn't mean they don't work or are Worther sucking, doddering techno retards. Many work well into their seventies and employ people.

Let's not look at punishing sections of society purely because they are dying and it would create an easier time for others.
 

bluewolf

Money List Winner
Joined
Nov 30, 2010
Messages
9,557
Location
St. Andish
Visit site
How about we also lock away disabled, unemployed, BAME, homeless and anyone who is not economically productive.

Just because someone is over sixty doesn't mean they don't work or are Worther sucking, doddering techno retards. Many work well into their seventies and employ people.

Let's not look at punishing sections of society purely because they are dying and it would create an easier time for others.

Strange response, but Ok. I’m not sure I ever said anything of the sort really. I specifically referred to those vulnerable and over the age at which COVID becomes a significantly bigger problem.
And I clearly stated that I would like a discussion of the issue as I hadn’t really considered it overly up to now.

Why the passive aggressive response to my post?
 

Papas1982

Tour Winner
Banned
Joined
Jan 21, 2013
Messages
8,556
Location
Canterbury
Visit site
How about we also lock away disabled, unemployed, BAME, homeless and anyone who is not economically productive.

Just because someone is over sixty doesn't mean they don't work or are Worther sucking, doddering techno retards. Many work well into their seventies and employ people.

Let's not look at punishing sections of society purely because they are dying and it would create an easier time for others.


And yet we’ve “punished” what percentage of the population who’ve contributed les than 5% of death....

imo a cut of point has to come soon whereby we allow people to choose what they want. We can’t wait for the entire country to be vaccinated before allowing those less at risk to live.
 

Ethan

Money List Winner
Joined
Jun 30, 2009
Messages
11,788
Location
Bearwood Lakes, Berks
Visit site
i don't disagree - wrong from the start and wrong choices at the wrong times throughout but, i as i said before, i still believe that a halfway house of sweden liberal model and strong focus on the 25% from March would have been infinitely better than the shiiite show we have had, which has been the worst on both measures

The Sweden model has been unravelling, though. Much much worse death rates but no better economic performance than its immediate neighbours.
 

DanFST

Head Pro
Joined
Feb 5, 2014
Messages
1,785
Location
Canary Wharf
Visit site
And yet we’ve “punished” what percentage of the population who’ve contributed les than 5% of death....

imo a cut of point has to come soon whereby we allow people to choose what they want. We can’t wait for the entire country to be vaccinated before allowing those less at risk to live.

Not sure of the exact age where hospitalisations increase rapidly. But if we went off 65+. There's 12 million over 65's out of a population 66.5 million. And people are still dying in record numbers after a year.
 

Ethan

Money List Winner
Joined
Jun 30, 2009
Messages
11,788
Location
Bearwood Lakes, Berks
Visit site
There is another interesting question looming. What accommodations should be made for vaccine refusers? As society reopens, there will be an expectation that people are vaccinated, in some jobs (NHS, Pimlico Plumbers), to travel by air and possibly for admission into some entertainment venues. Assuming there are very few who have a genuine medical reason not to get any form of vaccination, how should we deal with the rest? They will still get Covid circulating amongst themselves, need ICU admission etc, although in relatively small numbers.

My default position is that they have made a choice and need to live with the consequences, not travel, not go to whatever entertainment venues require vaccination, not work in the NHS or Pimlico Plumbers, etc. Perhaps they should pay some extra tax for the healthcare costs that may result?
 

bluewolf

Money List Winner
Joined
Nov 30, 2010
Messages
9,557
Location
St. Andish
Visit site
There is another interesting question looming. What accommodations should be made for vaccine refusers? As society reopens, there will be an expectation that people are vaccinated, in some jobs (NHS, Pimlico Plumbers), to travel by air and possibly for admission into some entertainment venues. Assuming there are very few who have a genuine medical reason not to get any form of vaccination, how should we deal with the rest? They will still get Covid circulating amongst themselves, need ICU admission etc, although in relatively small numbers.

My default position is that they have made a choice and need to live with the consequences, not travel, not go to whatever entertainment venues require vaccination, not work in the NHS or Pimlico Plumbers, etc. Perhaps they should pay some extra tax for the healthcare costs that may result?
I agree that they should obviously be restricted in what they can do. I’m really REALLY uncomfortable with the idea of an NHS tax though. Where does that end? Smoke? - tax. Drink? - tax.
 

DanFST

Head Pro
Joined
Feb 5, 2014
Messages
1,785
Location
Canary Wharf
Visit site
There is another interesting question looming. What accommodations should be made for vaccine refusers? As society reopens, there will be an expectation that people are vaccinated, in some jobs (NHS, Pimlico Plumbers), to travel by air and possibly for admission into some entertainment venues. Assuming there are very few who have a genuine medical reason not to get any form of vaccination, how should we deal with the rest? They will still get Covid circulating amongst themselves, need ICU admission etc, although in relatively small numbers.

My default position is that they have made a choice and need to live with the consequences, not travel, not go to whatever entertainment venues require vaccination, not work in the NHS or Pimlico Plumbers, etc. Perhaps they should pay some extra tax for the healthcare costs that may result?

Also what is the NHS going to do to make sure BAME communities take the vaccine? I saw a recent poll stated only 28% in such communities would take the vaccine, despite being at much higher risk.
 

DanFST

Head Pro
Joined
Feb 5, 2014
Messages
1,785
Location
Canary Wharf
Visit site
I agree that they should obviously be restricted in what they can do. I’m really REALLY uncomfortable with the idea of an NHS tax though. Where does that end? Smoke? - tax. Drink? - tax.

I would say smokers and drinkers are already taxed sufficiently.

I think smokers contribute more in tax than they take out due to smoke related illness.
 
Top