[pmgreenwood]

Returning home from a party could be essential depending on how long the party had been going on, especially if the party started before the lockdown! Yes officer, would you have preferred me to drive home last Tuesday when I was still under the influence

[JNW1]

Originally Posted by thescouselander

The problem is everyone is getting too emotional about the issue. Things appear bad because they have been hyped up by the media and politicians - it's never good to see victims on the TV.

The real problem will come after the crisis when we total up the deaths, damage to the economy, job losses as a result of the lockdown policy and we compare that with deaths from COVID 19 which statistically speaking will be unremarkable compared with other common events that cause large numbers of deaths.

What is the scale of the problem? To date it's not that large just looking at the numbers. I predict there will be a real scandal when the handling of this situation is viewed in hindsight.

And again I see the point you're making. With the action that's being taken there's certainly a real danger of creating economic misery for hundreds of millions of people worldwide for years to come and hence there's an argument the cure's potentially far worse than the virus.

However, the flip side of the coin is to do nothing - and just let the virus take its course - would have resulted in a lot of lives being lost which could otherwise have been saved. The judgement was we couldn't allow that to happen in a civilised society and on balance I agree with that; however, I also understand the argument that the resultant economic consequences - which will in turn affect living standards and quite possibly death rates - might not be worth it.

[MashinBenzin]

Originally Posted by JNW1

And again I see the point you're making. With the action that's being taken there's certainly a real danger of creating economic misery for hundreds of millions of people worldwide for years to come and hence there's an argument the cure's potentially far worse than the virus.

However, the flip side of the coin is to do nothing - and just let the virus take its course - would have resulted in a lot of lives being lost which could otherwise have been saved. The judgement was we couldn't allow that to happen in a civilised society and on balance I agree with that; however, I also understand the argument that the resultant economic consequences - which will in turn affect living standards and quite possibly death rates - might not be worth it.

How we bounce back from the economic damage is up to us. But yes, if we carry on with the approach that it's fine to have a large chunk on benefits, tax dodges by multi-nationals, disappear up our own civil liberties arses, etc etc, then it will take an incredibly long time.

We need to take this as a wake up call to live a little differently, an opportunity to reevaluate our way of life and what's important.

[ZedsRedBaby]

Just coming back to the question of police powers and their reaction to the latest "rules", there's an interesting analysis here:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-52106843

[Broncho]

I’m taking the wife and kids out in the car to a park tomorrow.

We went round where we live today and it’s full of people we know, it makes social distancing more difficult.

Seems sensible to me.

[JNW1]

Originally Posted by MashinBenzin

How we bounce back from the economic damage is up to us. But yes, if we carry on with the approach that it's fine to have a large chunk on benefits, tax dodges by multi-nationals, disappear up our own civil liberties arses, etc etc, then it will take an incredibly long time.

We need to take this as a wake up call to live a little differently, an opportunity to reevaluate our way of life and what's important.

Many of us - including me - were condemning Labour's spending proposals prior to the recent General Election as complete madness and totally unaffordable; however, the UK - along with most other economies - are now throwing the sort of money at this problem that makes Corbyn's plans look like loose change.

From a humanitarian point of view I'm not saying what we're doing is wrong but the economic consequences will doubtless be very significant and they'll impact hundreds of millions of people worldwide for years to come. Some think that's not a price worth paying and, while on balance I don't agree with them, I can see their point of view.

[MashinBenzin]

Originally Posted by JNW1

Many of us - including me - were condemning Labour's spending proposals prior to the recent General Election as complete madness and totally unaffordable; however, the UK - along with most other economies - are now throwing the sort of money at this problem that makes Corbyn's plans look like loose change.

From a humanitarian point of view I'm not saying what we're doing is wrong but the economic consequences will doubtless be very significant and they'll impact hundreds of millions of people worldwide for years to come. Some think that's not a price worth paying and, while on balance I don't agree with them, I can see their point of view.

I think the key difference, though, is that Corbyn was simply wishing to spend on socialist ideals and vanity projects. The money being spent on this is different, there is no option but to spend. The alternative is quite possibly the collapse of society. I'd rather have an increased tax take than see starving people rioting on the street as they feel out of options.

Also, to my way of thinking, the virus is probably far worse than we are generally led to believe. That's what causes the governments to act as they are. We're not talking about 1-2% dying, mainly the elderly and those with underlying health problems. I suspect once health systems were utterly overwhelmed, the rate would be far higher, more young and healthy people would go and more people would also be left with seriously damaged long term health.

[JNW1]

Originally Posted by MashinBenzin

I think the key difference, though, is that Corbyn was simply wishing to spend on socialist ideals and vanity projects. The money being spent on this is different, there is no option but to spend. The alternative is quite possibly the collapse of society. I'd rather have an increased tax take than see starving people rioting on the street as they feel out of options.

Also, to my way of thinking, the virus is probably far worse than we are generally led to believe. That's what causes the governments to act as they are. We're not talking about 1-2% dying, mainly the elderly and those with underlying health problems. I suspect once health systems were utterly overwhelmed, the rate would be far higher, more young and healthy people would go and more people would also be left with seriously damaged long term health.

Yes, on balance I don't agree with the "it's just like the flu" opinion some still seem to hold; for the time being at least I think it's far worse than that and personally I think normality will only start to return properly once there's a vaccine available (which is probably at least 12 months away).

Of course the huge spending is being driven by need rather than political dogma but it doesn't alter the fact there'll be some very significant consequences associated with it. Doing nothing may have had significant repercussions of another sort so we've been between a rock and a hard place; personally I think we're trying to do the right thing but I can see why others may think we should have followed a different path.

[ZedsRedBaby]

Originally Posted by JNW1

Yes, on balance I don't agree with the "it's just like the flu" opinion some still seem to hold; for the time being at least I think it's far worse than that and personally I think normality will only start to return properly once there's a vaccine available (which is probably at least 12 months away).

Of course the huge spending is being driven by need rather than political dogma but it doesn't alter the fact there'll be some very significant consequences associated with it. Doing nothing may have had significant repercussions of another sort so we've been between a rock and a hard place; personally I think we're trying to do the right thing but I can see why others may think we should have followed a different path.

Interesting though that we've talked about little else for about a month and yet we have still to see a rise in deaths. That could well change when the next lot of figures come out.

The Beast from the East on the other hand probably wiped out several thousand and as far as I can tell most of the discussion at the time was about winter tyres.

Fingers crossed we've done enough to nip this one in the bud.

[MY340i]

Originally Posted by Bibbles

Which is odd as it's not stated anywhere that I can't do it. It's local and the only way I can guarantee to be at least 2m away from anyone when taking my dog for a walk or exercising outside.

Whilst i agree with you, overzealous police probably wouldn't!

[HighlandPete]

Originally Posted by JNW1

However, the flip side of the coin is to do nothing - and just let the virus take its course - would have resulted in a lot of lives being lost which could otherwise have been saved. The judgement was we couldn't allow that to happen in a civilised society and on balance I agree with that; however, I also understand the argument that the resultant economic consequences - which will in turn affect living standards and quite possibly death rates - might not be worth it.

Definitely between a rock and a hard place.

From my reading there have been a few leaders (no need to mention names), who had taken the stance that there is no need to do much at all. The 'economy first' approach. One by one they are changing to similar measures to control the death rate. Will be interesting to see how Brazil moves in the next few days.

My simple mind, it is not the death rate, (as that could likely to be much like a bad flu year), but the cost is in saving lives. A "still alive" figure we will never know, how can we know the total of lives saved by these extreme measures and cost?

Could the governments leave the virus to take its course? For example, have death rates something like the Spanish flu? For me, Italy is an example of how easily it has gone wrong, (overwhelmed medical services), when it appears not a fast (or severe) enough lockdown.

[isleaiw1]

I guess how you feel about the costs might depend if you are just interested in numbers or the people beneath it - which of course might be affected by whether one of your loved ones is amongst them and how much you would give to keep them alive.

If you are talking stats and numbers and economic costs you have probably never lost someone close....

[Sennen]

Originally Posted by isleaiw1

I guess how you feel about the costs might depend if you are just interested in numbers or the people beneath it - which of course might be affected by whether one of your loved ones is amongst them and how much you would give to keep them alive.

If you are talking stats and numbers and economic costs you have probably never lost someone close....

Exactly this, I lost my wife in 2017 and I don't want to lose my mother or son.

Life must come first and for anyone that feels differently I feel very sorry for them.

[thescouselander]

Originally Posted by isleaiw1

I guess how you feel about the costs might depend if you are just interested in numbers or the people beneath it - which of course might be affected by whether one of your loved ones is amongst them and how much you would give to keep them alive.

If you are talking stats and numbers and economic costs you have probably never lost someone close....

On the contrary. I lost my mum to bowel cancer - partly because of how long the NHS took to do the diagnosis. That's how I know how serious lack of funding can be in health.

There is no doubt that wrecking the economy will reduce funding for future NHS patients and cause more incidents like my mum's; these will be the unseen victims who have been sacrificed for better optics right now.

[MashinBenzin]

Originally Posted by thescouselander

On the contrary. I lost my mum to bowel cancer - partly because of how long the NHS took to do the diagnosis. That's how I know how serious lack of funding can be in health.

There is no doubt that wrecking the economy will reduce funding for future NHS patients and cause more incidents like my mum's; these will be the unseen victims who have been sacrificed for better optics right now.

And I lost my second daughter to an underfunded and underperforming NHS.

Better optics though? You've seriously not thought this through. This isn't some PR stunt, it's the best plan that they can come up with to save lives and livelihoods.

[isleaiw1]

Originally Posted by Sennen

Exactly this, I lost my wife in 2017 and I don't want to lose my mother or son.

Life must come first and for anyone that feels differently I feel very sorry for them.

Me neither - or my daughter, son in law or grandkids. As we speak, my 84 year old Mum is confined to bed with some virus, not ruling out the dreaded one, and I am struggling to think about costs and economic consequences tonight....

Sorry to hear of your loss, hope that you get through this unscathed. Its 5 years nearly since my wife died, 34 on April 27th since my Dad died. I dont need any more pain. Fuck the money...

[isleaiw1]

Originally Posted by isleaiw1

We have getting on for a million cases worldwide and heading for 40k deaths, and it hasn't hit its peak yet and you say not that large.... OK, its one view but not one that I subscribe to.

There is always a scandal after the event as people look for things to criticise rather than being happy with what was done - like moaning about infringement of social liberties. If all of my family and friends get through this in one piece there will be no complaints from me....

4.37 - heading for 40k deaths. 10.37 - over 41.5k deaths.

But lets focus on the economic costs....

[JNW1]

Originally Posted by MashinBenzin

And I lost my second daughter to an underfunded and underperforming NHS.

Better optics though? You've seriously not thought this through. This isn't some PR stunt, it's the best plan that they can come up with to save lives and livelihoods.

It is the best we can come up with and I'm sure it will saves lives in the short-term. However, there is undeniably a possibility that a wrecked economy will be unable to sustain even the under-funded NHS we've had for a number of years and if that's the case lost lives in the future may be the result. That doesn't mean we're wrong to take the action we are but equally I think it's fair for people like scouselander to point out there could be significant downsides.....

[ZedsRedBaby]

It's a difficult one and close to home for me. Following a TIA last year I was diagnosed with a "very large" hole in my heart. Left untreated this could result in a fatal stroke so I was quite keen to get it closed. That's now on hold indefinitely even though most hospitals outside London are currently half empty. If I could get the op there's a risk it might go pear-shaped and need open-heart followed by ICU. If the storm was to break I'm not sure that's where I'd want to be right now. On the other hand if this all proves to be a flash in the pan I might snuff it prematurely for no reason.

I've said this before but there's never a bloody crystal ball when you really need one.

[JD6]

Originally Posted by JNW1

It is the best we can come up with and I'm sure it will saves lives in the short-term. However, there is undeniably a possibility that a wrecked economy will be unable to sustain even the under-funded NHS we've had for a number of years and if that's the case lost lives in the future may be the result. That doesn't mean we're wrong to take the action we are but equally I think it's fair for people like scouselander to point out there could be significant downsides.....

I agree entirely. Right now, I suspect that the right decision on both the human front and the long-term economic one is to throw everything we can at the virus. The Imperial College analysis seems to suggest a huge loss of life if the peak of the virus isn’t flattened and pushed out. We have no other choice.

Despite supporting it, I do worry about the long-term consequences of this massive intervention. I can imagine that 3 years from now, NHS staff who have put their life on the line for this, will feel that they have been utterly betrayed by the cuts that are likely to have to follow. Just as the policy of post financial crash austerity was becoming unfashionable across the political spectrum, it will be replaced by post Coronavirus austerity...

[ZedsRedBaby]

Originally Posted by JD6

I agree entirely. Right now, I suspect that the right decision on both the human front and the long-term economic one is to throw everything we can at the virus. The Imperial College analysis seems to suggest a huge loss of life if the peak of the virus isn't flattened and pushed out. We have no other choice.

Despite supporting it, I do worry about the long-term consequences of this massive intervention. I can imagine that 3 years from now, NHS staff who have put their life on the line for this, will feel that they have been utterly betrayed by the cuts that are likely to have to follow. Just as the policy of post financial crash austerity was becoming unfashionable across the political spectrum, it will be replaced by post Coronavirus austerity...

But we'll all be in it together. Apart from the super-rich, the oligarchs, the landed gentry, the plutocrats, the hedge funds, the aristocracy, the celebs, the crimelords, the captains of industry, the sheikhs, the warlords, and probably the jihadis cos they just won't get it. It's gonna be so different, trust me.

[Hooded]

Originally Posted by Barsj111

Whilst i agree with you, overzealous police probably wouldn't!

Would be interesting to see how that would work out in court, as there’s apparently nothing in the legislation that says you can’t actually drive somewhere ‘Local’ to exercise. Obviously that doesn’t mean taking the piss and driving 20 miles to a local beauty spot.

I use a wood a couple of miles from my home to jog around and drive there and park up nearby (I don’t like road running on concrete), I will continue to do this as I’m less likely to come in contact with people in the wood than round my local streets.