Coronavirus Thread

[Magictv]

56 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8768129/Rishi-Sunak-announces-coronavirus-bailout-business.html

 

I dread to think of the tax we're gonna be paying for the rest of our lives.

I don't find it that crazy, I'd be tempted to be more generous than we are being if I was in the chancellors shoes.

 

Furlough cost estimate of 60bn according to here: https://www.ft.com/content/a39328ac-d998-4e51-a7cb-7b1ea5902856

 

32 million tax payers: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/number-of-individual-income-taxpayers-by-marginal-rate-gender-and-age

 

So £60bn / 32m = £1875

 

Assuming we can get away with an event like this every 40 or so years? Spread that £1875 out across the years and it's about £50 per year per taxpayer.

 

Guess the maths is more complicated than this really but I think it shows the scale of the numbers isn't that mental.

Edited 24 September 2020 by Magictv

[twoleftfeet]

25 minutes ago, Magictv said:

I don't find it that crazy, I'd be tempted to be more generous than we are being if I was in the chancellors shoes.

 

Furlough cost estimate of 60bn according to here: https://www.ft.com/content/a39328ac-d998-4e51-a7cb-7b1ea5902856

 

32 million tax payers: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/number-of-individual-income-taxpayers-by-marginal-rate-gender-and-age

 

So £60bn / 32m = £1875

 

Assuming we can get away with an event like this every 40 or so years? Spread that £1875 out across the years and it's about £50 per year per taxpayer.

 

Guess the maths is more complicated than this really but I think it shows the scale of the numbers isn't that mental.

plus the other costs vaccines, test etc  not to mention the loss in tax revenue

 

Edited 24 September 2020 by twoleftfeet

[Innovindil]

35 minutes ago, Magictv said:

I don't find it that crazy, I'd be tempted to be more generous than we are being if I was in the chancellors shoes.

 

Furlough cost estimate of 60bn according to here: https://www.ft.com/content/a39328ac-d998-4e51-a7cb-7b1ea5902856

 

32 million tax payers: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/number-of-individual-income-taxpayers-by-marginal-rate-gender-and-age

 

So £60bn / 32m = £1875

 

Assuming we can get away with an event like this every 40 or so years? Spread that £1875 out across the years and it's about £50 per year per taxpayer.

 

Guess the maths is more complicated than this really but I think it shows the scale of the numbers isn't that mental.

How much will coronavirus cost the UK?

 

We won't know how big the final bill will be until after the crisis is over. But the government will certainly have to borrow enormous amounts of money.

 

For the current financial year (April 2020 to April 2021), it could be anywhere from £263bn to £391bn, according to the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), which keeps tabs on government spending.

 

To put it into context: before the crisis, the government was expecting to borrow about £55bn for the whole financial year, but it borrowed £128bn in the first three months alone.

 

----

That was last months estimate. ^

 

The cost of furlough is only one segment of what we've had to borrow to deal with this crap. 

 

Plus we're probably still going to be splashing cash into next year on various schemes, and then we've still got the economy to fix, so will probably resort to investing money which will quickly run into billions creating some form of jobs for the hundreds of thousands lost. 

[Kopfkino]

17 hours ago, UniFox21 said:

Go on, enlighten me with why I'm too thick understand. 

Being flippant was unnecessary on my part, apologies. 

 

But I feel it is pretty clear that false positives is just the latest in a long line of, quite frankly, nonsense used by people desperately seeking to deny a problem or pretend that problem away. It started with 'it's just the flu' and has taken on many different iterations over the last 6 months. It's exactly the same as 'they would have died anyway', it exists to make everything so much easier and to avoid having to discuss and properly debate the rotten tradeoffs we face. False positives, something which can be a genuine problem but rarely in the way invoked, has been weaponised and it could well be detrimental if people start using it as a comfort blanket to ignore their positive test. 

 

The last thing I will say on false positives, as I've just seen the most recent commentary from the ONS from it, is that the ONS's maximum possible FPR, based on their random testing, is 0.08% and that's if every single positive result they identified was false, though it could be higher than that. Given that most people getting a test in the UK are doing so because they have symptoms, the likelihood that a positive test is a genuine case is near as damn it guaranteed. Moreover, the proportion of people testing positive with no symptoms has remained stable. I know that you know that false positives is somewhat of a red herring and I also know that you know that detecting the virus at higher cycle does not necessarily mean it's not a genuine case, nor does it explain recent changes. What you rightfully did was agree with the exact details but you also end up amplifying the conclusions. The details exist to obfuscate and be seen to legitimise the conclusions but they more often than not don't support the conclusion because the conclusion was predetermined many moons ago. 

 

It particularly winds me up because I am of the mind that we need to face up to living with the virus before a vaccine comes on stream. Something along the lines of shielding the vulnerable but it's incumbent on people that think like that to show that is actually viable rather than just pretending various problems away. I recognise that so much is still uncertain and so I'm also uncertain as to whether that is the wisest move, I can't speak with the certainty that many seem to be able to. Many of the saner voices advocating for at least a robust debate on a less timid approach are drowned out by heaps of incognisant people regurgitating whatever drivel is flavour of the month that inevitably gets shown to be nonsense, adds absolutely nothing of substance and probably makes further restrictions far more likely. 

Edited 24 September 2020 by Kopfkino

[Nalis]

1 hour ago, Innovindil said:

How much will coronavirus cost the UK?

 

We won't know how big the final bill will be until after the crisis is over. But the government will certainly have to borrow enormous amounts of money.

 

For the current financial year (April 2020 to April 2021), it could be anywhere from £263bn to £391bn, according to the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), which keeps tabs on government spending.

 

To put it into context: before the crisis, the government was expecting to borrow about £55bn for the whole financial year, but it borrowed £128bn in the first three months alone.

 

----

That was last months estimate. ^

 

The cost of furlough is only one segment of what we've had to borrow to deal with this crap. 

 

Plus we're probably still going to be splashing cash into next year on various schemes, and then we've still got the economy to fix, so will probably resort to investing money which will quickly run into billions creating some form of jobs for the hundreds of thousands lost. 

We (and about 190 other countries) should sent a bill to China at the end of this.

Edited 24 September 2020 by Nalis

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Nalis said:

We (and about 190 other countries) should sent a bill to China at the end of this.

Why? Once the virus had gone international, the Chinese didn't make various world governments act like idiots while others did rather well.

 

Isn't it a hallmark of national sovereignty that the response to everything that goes on within the borders of a nation is the responsibility of that nation?

[RonnieTodger]

Pardon my ignorance but regarding track and trace in pubs, would the following be correct?
 

• I give my details to a pub as standard track & trace procedure
• Somebody who happened to be in the pub on the same day has since tested positive for coronavirus
• I get a phone-call informing me of that
• I now have to self-isolate and would not be allowed to travel abroad etc
   

As you've probably guessed, I'm planning on going on holiday in the coming weeks but don't want to risk heading to the pub if it can **** up my trip.

Edited 24 September 2020 by RonnieTodger

[filbertway]

9 minutes ago, RonnieTodger said:

Pardon my ignorance but regarding track and trace in pubs, would the following be correct?
 

• I give my details to a pub as standard track & trace procedure
• Somebody who happened to be in the pub on the same day has since tested positive for coronavirus
• I get a phone-call informing me of that
• I now have to self-isolate and would not be allowed to travel abroad etc
   

As you've probably guessed, I'm planning on going on holiday in the coming weeks but don't want to risk heading to the pub if it can **** up my trip.

I think in that case you wouldnt be asked to self isolate but more likely told to look out for symptoms. Much like you would be doing anyway haha

[RowlattsFox]

I've only been asked to give arrival time when going to the pub, but never asked to give anyone my departure. I would hope that if any track and trace contacted, they would give me an idea of when infected person was in the premises. 

Edited 24 September 2020 by RowlattsFox

[UniFox21]

Slightly off topic, but a member of staff was off from Monday - Wednesday feeling shite, but tested negative. She came back in today and I felt fairly uncomfortable her being in. Even if it wasn't Covid, chances are she can still transmit the cold she had and any one who gets it is then off for a test etc and causing more work for others 

 

Wouldn't have been ridiculous for her to wait to return until Monday. 

Edited 24 September 2020 by UniFox21

[dsr-burnley]

2 hours ago, Kopfkino said:

But I feel it is pretty clear that false positives is just the latest in a long line of, quite frankly, nonsense used by people desperately seeking to deny a problem or pretend that problem away. It started with 'it's just the flu' and has taken on many different iterations over the last 6 months. It's exactly the same as 'they would have died anyway', it exists to make everything so much easier and to avoid having to discuss and properly debate the rotten tradeoffs we face. False positives, something which can be a genuine problem but rarely in the way invoked, has been weaponised and it could well be detrimental if people start using it as a comfort blanket to ignore their positive test. 

Actually "they would have died anyway" is used the other way round.  I have never heard that phrase used by someone who wants restrictions relaxed; that phrase is used by people who don't want to discuss how many of the deaths would have been preventable.  As you say, it makes it easier to avoid having to discuss something - in this case, the value of the measures we are taking.

 

The point of your phrase "they would have died anyway" is that we do not know how many of these deaths were preventable.  If someone has terminal cancer and has 5 weeks to live, and after 5 weeks they catch coronavirus and die, that is not something that we need to wreck our economy to prevent.  If someone is fit and well and expected to live for fifty years but catches coronavirus and dies, that is something to be concerned about.  We are never told how many of the deaths were preventable.  To make proper decisions, the government needs useful, as opposed to blunt instrument, statistics.

[UniFox21]

3 hours ago, Kopfkino said:

Being flippant was unnecessary on my part, apologies. 

 

But I feel it is pretty clear that false positives is just the latest in a long line of, quite frankly, nonsense used by people desperately seeking to deny a problem or pretend that problem away. It started with 'it's just the flu' and has taken on many different iterations over the last 6 months. It's exactly the same as 'they would have died anyway', it exists to make everything so much easier and to avoid having to discuss and properly debate the rotten tradeoffs we face. False positives, something which can be a genuine problem but rarely in the way invoked, has been weaponised and it could well be detrimental if people start using it as a comfort blanket to ignore their positive test. 

 

The last thing I will say on false positives, as I've just seen the most recent commentary from the ONS from it, is that the ONS's maximum possible FPR, based on their random testing, is 0.08% and that's if every single positive result they identified was false, though it could be higher than that. Given that most people getting a test in the UK are doing so because they have symptoms, the likelihood that a positive test is a genuine case is near as damn it guaranteed. Moreover, the proportion of people testing positive with no symptoms has remained stable. I know that you know that false positives is somewhat of a red herring and I also know that you know that detecting the virus at higher cycle does not necessarily mean it's not a genuine case, nor does it explain recent changes. What you rightfully did was agree with the exact details but you also end up amplifying the conclusions. The details exist to obfuscate and be seen to legitimise the conclusions but they more often than not don't support the conclusion because the conclusion was predetermined many moons ago. 

 

It particularly winds me up because I am of the mind that we need to face up to living with the virus before a vaccine comes on stream. Something along the lines of shielding the vulnerable but it's incumbent on people that think like that to show that is actually viable rather than just pretending various problems away. I recognise that so much is still uncertain and so I'm also uncertain as to whether that is the wisest move, I can't speak with the certainty that many seem to be able to. Many of the saner voices advocating for at least a robust debate on a less timid approach are drowned out by heaps of incognisant people regurgitating whatever drivel is flavour of the month that inevitably gets shown to be nonsense, adds absolutely nothing of substance and probably makes further restrictions far more likely. 

Only reason I mentioned FP is having done the PCR protocol a fair amount in my master's year, I'd personally experienced the phenomena in a similar context and understood why it was occurring etc.

You're right, however, it's being used as a scapegoat, just as many other things have been over the past few months. 

 

Your stats make sense, especially with our testing levels now compared to say April. Where instead of 22% of tests being positive it's down to around 1.7%.

[String fellow]

Reading the fairly long message above, are we to assume that Professor John Edmunds (one of the SAGE group) is an 'incognisant person regurgitating drivel' in advocating much stricter lock-down measures? 

[Mark 'expert' Lawrenson]

750000 jobs already lost according to a report on the news, very worrying times for numerous reasons.

[stix]

1 hour ago, RonnieTodger said:

Pardon my ignorance but regarding track and trace in pubs, would the following be correct?
 

• I give my details to a pub as standard track & trace procedure
• Somebody who happened to be in the pub on the same day has since tested positive for coronavirus
• I get a phone-call informing me of that
• I now have to self-isolate and would not be allowed to travel abroad etc
   

As you've probably guessed, I'm planning on going on holiday in the coming weeks but don't want to risk heading to the pub if it can **** up my trip.

 

1 hour ago, filbertway said:

I think in that case you wouldnt be asked to self isolate but more likely told to look out for symptoms. Much like you would be doing anyway haha

The two occasions we have had to track and trace when going out for food, once you’ve given your details, you’re then given a time slot. I am only assuming, but if then somebody else was in the same place as you, during the same time slot, and they later tested positive, you would be informed and told to self isolate until the 14 days are up since they tested positive. 
 

That’s what happened to us anyway. Luckily, we only had to self isolate for 4 days, so I am again, only assuming, that the person that tested positive, did so 14 days previous to our “release date”

Edited 24 September 2020 by stix

[UpTheLeagueFox]

2 hours ago, Mark 'expert' Lawrenson said:

750000 jobs already lost according to a report on the news, very worrying times for numerous reasons.

So many jobs and lives being lost to this damn virus.

Sadly, there's no perfect solution, even if people (unrealistically, IMHO) demand Governments around the world should be providing one.

[Paninistickers]

2 hours ago, UniFox21 said:

Slightly off topic, but a member of staff was off from Monday - Wednesday feeling shite, but tested negative. She came back in today and I felt fairly uncomfortable her being in. Even if it wasn't Covid, chances are she can still transmit the cold she had and any one who gets it is then off for a test etc and causing more work for others 

 

Wouldn't have been ridiculous for her to wait to return until Monday. 

Funnily enough, I can clearly recall a general attitude shift pre Covid with a colleague last January hauling himself in with a heavy cold,.playing the martyr....'look how dedicated I am'. 

 

He was roundly complained at and about and his boss have him a lecture about coming in unwell, underperforming and potentially  bringing the rest of the office down with him....I remember a the time commenting what a cultural shift from, say, 10 years prior when taking time off for a cold was seen as weak and skiving

[fuchsntf]

50 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

Funnily enough, I can clearly recall a general attitude shift pre Covid with a colleague last January hauling himself in with a heavy cold,.playing the martyr....'look how dedicated I am'. 

 

He was roundly complained at and about and his boss have him a lecture about coming in unwell, underperforming and potentially  bringing the rest of the office down with him....I remember a the time commenting what a cultural shift from, say, 10 years prior when taking time off for a cold was seen as weak and skiving

Some People were Scared to Take Time  off even for an heavy cold....in my Experience only running into the 80s,did most bosses really start to understand,that

a guy with flu,could take a group out....The Shop floor was more macho, & some People had to Take the  shit...

IT Computer rooms,then later  offices,couldnt afford to lose a team,because of One or two,not Reporting sick...Management Teams started to be more Sympathathetic....I was..

 

Edited 24 September 2020 by fuchsntf

[Chrysalis]

I feel it is inevitable pubs will close, they just waiting for the new job protection announcement so they can cover the carnage that will follow, the chief scientist coming out publically saying boris got it wrong says it all.

[Chrysalis]

13 hours ago, Sly said:

I thing the challenge is, that we need to learn to live with it and adjust accordingly. 
 

It still frustrates me that we have the people that refuse to follow rules, like wearing mask, not social distancing etc. How do we police it though?
 

I thought the government had done a great job initially, however even as a conservative, I’m skeptical now. Unfortunately they can’t control the general public, as they’re tired. I’m not convinced anyone would have done a better job. They’re dammed if they do, dammed if they don’t. They in a lose / lose situation, as by imposing restrictions, they’ll always annoy someone. 
 

 

There is people breaking the rules and also a fight between economic and social safety.  Such as LL's pushing engineer boiler tests on people who are in the vulnerable group.

[Chrysalis]

On 23/09/2020 at 18:47, Col city fan said:

Just heard something which pretty much sums this country up at the moment....

Myself and Mrs Col are away on the second week of our holiday at the East Coast

I’ve just shopped around the local, mid-range food store and was chatting with the old gal on the till

She told me it was COMPANY POLICY not to challenge anyone who came in without a mask (across the whole chain of stores)

Not just ‘avoiding it’ but literally being warned NOT to challenge (and she said for fear of abuse etc). 
I said well what’s the point in having this rule now then? With which she shrugged her shoulders 

 

Brings me back again to you can have all the bloody rules and regs in place you want but who will enforce them? In this case, a policy of non-challenge 

 Contemporary Britain in a nutshell...

Many of our laws are not enforced, an awful lot of then rely on goodwill of the population to work.

[Chrysalis]

On 23/09/2020 at 19:03, Col city fan said:

You misunderstand me

Of course I’m not advocating the gal on the till takes it upon herself to challenge Neanderthals

The point I was making is how on earth can this be enforced in any way?

Perhaps there should be enforcement officers patrolling stores?  Those who fight it, should have severe punishment which then serves as a deterrent to others.

Edited 24 September 2020 by Chrysalis

[Chrysalis]

On 23/09/2020 at 19:57, Leicester_Loyal said:

 

Gov have long stopped listening to the science, its very doubtful the science advised the government to start opening up every industry.

[Chrysalis]

On 23/09/2020 at 17:17, UniFox21 said:

I just don't think closing schools for another large period is possible. That would mean they'd have lost nearly a full year of teaching, which has huge implications for decades. 

 

Edit: Even if those at older ages can learn at home via zoom etc, the younger ages need that social interaction to 'learn' how to be a 'person', how to socialise and all manner of things you indirectly learn by being at school and interacting with teachers and pupils. 

It does if there is no counter plan, but things can be changed to mitigate the problem, cancel future summer holidays, half term, apply home schooling for children with a parent that doesnt work, and for children with both parents working adapt libraries etc to classrooms so children are not all travelling to the same place in their 100s.   A year of teaching is extremely easy to recover.  We could also delay first year of teaching by a year, which would supply the staff to extend school leave date from 16 to 17.  In this country we unusually have early start school age.  Its obviously possible, but the question is will the population tolerate it.

 

I think if a proper long term plan was drawn up instead of just "send them all back", it could work.  It is about people accepting change though.

 

Bear in mind if uni's and schools were kept closed I dont think we would be having this conversation now, no talks of limiting hospitality, no curfews, I think this current sudden spike wouldnt have happened.  Closing up all these sectors and a potential new lockdown will also have implications for decades, so its basically picking one ill over the other.

Edited 24 September 2020 by Chrysalis

[UniFox21]

2 minutes ago, Chrysalis said:

It does if there is no counter plan, but things can be changed to mitigate the problem, cancel future summer holidays, half term, apply home schooling for children with a parent that doesnt work, and for children with both parents working adapt libraries etc to classrooms so children are all travelling to the same place in their 100s.   A year of teaching is extremely easy to recover.  We could also delay first year of teaching by a year, which would supply the staff to extend school leave date from 16 to 17.  In this country we unusually have early start school age.

I really disagree here. Schools struggle with numbers normally, another full school year on top would be horrendous in many establishments.

 

You just have to look at some posters here who realised home schooling was bloody tough. Education and our system in particular is very tough to just alter quickly