COVID-19 Pandemic

[snowdog]

This all feels so surreal at the moment. Looking out the window the sun is shining and all appears normal, but apart from the weather that’s where ‘normal’ life ends at the moment. Hubby has a cold. 99.9% sure that is all, but he has had to stay off work. He works at the local leisure centre/ gym. Time will tell whether the work place will close anyway?

 I wonder when life will return to normal! No doubt in a couple of years a film will be released. It will be the Americans that save the day. Specially 2 or 3 lead characters (good looking) that manage to fix everything!

[matty007]

7 minutes ago, snowdog said:

This all feels so surreal at the moment. Looking out the window the sun is shining and all appears normal, but apart from the weather that’s where ‘normal’ life ends at the moment. Hubby has a cold. 99.9% sure that is all, but he has had to stay off work. He works at the local leisure centre/ gym. Time will tell whether the work place will close anyway?

 I wonder when life will return to normal! No doubt in a couple of years a film will be released. It will be the Americans that save the day. Specially 2 or 3 lead characters (good looking) that manage to fix everything!

Gyms will almost certainly be amongst the first to close, I am afriad. This is what worries me most about this virus, the massive effects it will have on countless employees, and the self employed. If the governement do go for lockdowns, then they MUST subsidize everyone for lack of employment. If they don't, there is no doubt they they should be swept out of office. A pandemic is NOT the populations fault, and nobody should have to have their homes and livelihoods risked because of it.

This is emitting the fact that unfortunately, even those places that can remain open, will suffer serious lack of profits.

My thoughts and wishes are with you and your family, and everyone else's at this time.

Edited March 17, 2020 by matty007

[AWD]

Oxford must have a lot of people with essential travel requirements as the roads are very busy still. 

[Dami]

Girl Guiding has stopped all meetings as of now. So no more brownies for the foreseeable. Decided, as it's Mothers day coming up we won't go to swim school and have a family day.

My little one then turned to me and said 'I want to stay home with mummy and daddy, why can't I?'

 

[Methuselah]

4 minutes ago, AWD said:

Oxford must have a lot of people with essential travel requirements as the roads are very busy still. 

They must be scared of running-out of loo rolls...sometime before Christmas?

[matty007]

Just now, AWD said:

Oxford must have a lot of people with essential travel requirements as the roads are very busy still. 

Like anything, it will be a gradual reduction of daily life, not all at once. One must remember that we are still a month or more away from the peak of this outbreak. Alas, the UK is one of the very few countries majorly effected that is largely carrying on as normal. Well, almost.

I have many friends who have restaurants (catering is a secondary occupation for me) and most are reporting massive reductions in profits already. Given that most of these are self-employed and have no protection over the loss of employment, and indeed, are open to debt as a result of being sole traders, this is deeply worrying.

You won't see everything, but believe me, there are major economic effects already.

[Snipper]

7 hours ago, feb1991blizzard said:

My mate has just lost 20k off his pension value as it is FTSE linked.

A lot I expect lost a lot of value off their pensions from “ordinary” economic crashes in the past.

[matty007]

It will be interesting to see after extensive research is done, as to whether it is the L or S strain of this virus that becomes the most prominent. The initial Wuhan outbreak was the more virulent L strain, which would somewhat explain the higher mortality, and spread. Some have been tested and many show as the S strain, but a good number do exhibit the L strain.

Which one becomes more widespread will make a huge difference to the effects.

[Sky Full]

8 hours ago, kold weather said:

I 100% agree, there needs be a massive stimulus package, far beyond what the budget outlines. IMO they need to raise the SSP to at least £300 a week temporarily like Ireland did, and allow holidays for things like council tax, etc. Need some massive help for business of all kinds. Yes this is going destroy everything the conservatives did to bring down the deficit, but every country is in the same boat this time.

I am hearing that the chancellor is going to bring through a large package and is working on it now. He will be at the pressure briefing this week at some point so I expect he announce the measures at that point. 

The fact he is going to do that suggests that the lockdown won't be far away as they shift from their original. 

WARNING  - CONTROVERSIAL POST ALERT!  I can't help thinking that the policy of protecting the NHS above all else may be wrong if by doing that substantial numbers of businesses throughout the whole country are brought to their knees by the enforced self-isolation of the work force.  This would leave the country in a very poor economic state for years to come.

Perhaps it would be better simply to let everyone carry on as normal and only those who contract the virus stay at home for a couple of weeks until they recover.  A majority of the population takes more than two weeks off for holidays anyway so this couldn't bring commerce to a halt on its own.

The NHS seems destined to be overwhelmed by this whatever we do so we must all be prepared to be denied a hospital bed if we get this virus but it seems most people are recovering at home without serious suffering.  

This is why it makes sense for only the most vulnerable groups to isolate themselves while everyone else gains immunity.  I would controversially suggest that very many over 70 and those with serious or life threatening illnesses are probably not working anyway so their isolation will make little or no difference to the running of the country.

[Snipper]

7 hours ago, HighPressure said:

I found it very hard to get the information I needed on how to protect my pension from the volatility of the daily and mostly downward direction of the markets, but anyone with pension portfolio's or government funds can move the money within it to protect it. I think the equity markets are going to drop lower still, cash is king at the moment and moving into cash based funds for the time being may save a lot of money, and buy back into equities when they are a bit more stable.

Fortunately most of my funds are in “cash” now as are my 104 year old mother’s who I act as attorney for.  Looks like the care home will continue to get what they are due.

[feb1991blizzard]

4 minutes ago, Snipper said:

A lot I expect lost a lot of value off their pensions from “ordinary” economic crashes in the past.

You could say as well that one has had time with this, it is not like you couldn't see this coming, you could have got out or if you had any cash you could have had a spread downbet shorting the FTSE.

[matty007]

Just now, Sky Full said:

WARNING  - CONTROVERSIAL POST ALERT!  I can't help thinking that the policy of protecting the NHS above all else may be wrong if by doing that substantial numbers of businesses throughout the whole country are brought to their knees by the enforced self-isolation of the work force.  This would leave the country in a very poor economic state for years to come.

Perhaps it would be better simply to let everyone carry on as normal and only those who contract the virus stay at home for a couple of weeks until they recover.  A majority of the population takes more than two weeks off for holidays anyway so this couldn't bring commerce to a halt on its own.

The NHS seems destined to be overwhelmed by this whatever we do so we must all be prepared to be denied a hospital bed if we get this virus but it seems most people are recovering at home without serious suffering.  

This is why it makes sense for only the most vulnerable groups to isolate themselves while everyone else gains immunity.  I would controversially suggest that very many over 70 and those with serious or life threatening illnesses are probably not working anyway so their isolation will make little or no difference to the running of the country.

Controversial, indeed. But, most likely, the best approach. At least in my opinion.

It is always tempting to lockdown a virus, but the economic repercussions can not be overstated. Many scientists fall into the trap of believing a lockdown will suffocate the virus, and for a time, they would be correct. But in a very contagious virus-like this, the probability of a surge once things return to normal is a highly likely one. This leaves you will less people infected for a time, but then a resurgence, which can go on for years.

At the end of the day, herd immunity will be more painful for a time, but after all is said and done, it is very likely to be the fastest way back to normality.

We don't want to lose anyone, especially the elderly, but we live in a time when the moral question between economy and lives is a very difficult one. Do you lose some more lives but keep the country somewhat economically healthy? Or do you lockdown and risk years of depression. This is a major problem of living in a highly economically dependant country. Months and months of the economic downturn would be disastrous.

It's a deeply difficult moral question.

[feb1991blizzard]

6 minutes ago, Sky Full said:

WARNING  - CONTROVERSIAL POST ALERT!  I can't help thinking that the policy of protecting the NHS above all else may be wrong if by doing that substantial numbers of businesses throughout the whole country are brought to their knees by the enforced self-isolation of the work force.  This would leave the country in a very poor economic state for years to come.

Perhaps it would be better simply to let everyone carry on as normal and only those who contract the virus stay at home for a couple of weeks until they recover.  A majority of the population takes more than two weeks off for holidays anyway so this couldn't bring commerce to a halt on its own.

The NHS seems destined to be overwhelmed by this whatever we do so we must all be prepared to be denied a hospital bed if we get this virus but it seems most people are recovering at home without serious suffering.  

This is why it makes sense for only the most vulnerable groups to isolate themselves while everyone else gains immunity.  I would controversially suggest that very many over 70 and those with serious or life threatening illnesses are probably not working anyway so their isolation will make little or no difference to the running of the country.

If we would have done the lockdown a lot sooner though then we might have got away with only a few weeks of it if hardly anyone had it, proactivity not reactivity.

[Azazel]

So i've arrived at work. I can absolutely work from home. Everyone so far is carrying on as normal. Should I say something? The official Government advice is to work from home if you can. I wan't to stay safe and keep others safe and I'm a little concerned we aren't going to be allowed because our branch manager doesn't trust us enough to work from home.

[kold weather]

5 minutes ago, matty007 said:

We don't want to lose anyone, especially the elderly, but we live in a time when the moral question between economy and lives is a very difficult one. Do you lose some more lives but keep the country somewhat economically healthy? Or do you lockdown and risk years of depression. This is a major problem of living in a highly economically dependant country. Months and months of the economic downturn would be disastrous.

It's a deeply difficult moral question.

There is no easy way out of this and I think its fair to say whatever we do is going to have a drastic impact on our lives.

I suspect once we come out of this the impact to the worlds economy might be so severe you may find quite considerable debt forgiveness happening as pretty much everyone will be in he same boat eventually.

The government have obviously decided that the mitigation tactic just isn't going to fly and 250,000 deaths are just too many. I think I have to agree with them, at that point your that far away from WW2 type figures.

[Snipper]

As I  see it.

1. The virus could infect a high percent of people.

2. Those who get it and recover will come back into the labour market whether it be paid or voluntary.

3. If the elderly and vulnerable are isolated and taken out of the equation for even a while it must help to some degree.

This of course does not help those who lose paid employment but surely those organisations that will keep going no matter what will be seeking staff. Obviously cannot train a doctor or a nurse by handing out a pamphlet but many will have more than adequate qualifications for other work.

Edited March 17, 2020 by Snipper

[Spikecollie]

1 hour ago, feb1991blizzard said:

Great - what if you don't have the internet?

I think you can probably get one from a Gendarmerie/Post Office/Mairie - if they stay open!

I've just cycled to my nearest client and back and nothing seems different here. People are out and about on foot buying their bread and there are the same number of cars and delivery truck/vans as any other morning. No Gendarmes in evidence in either village. Maybe things will change tomorrow when you have to have your papers...

[Methuselah]

7 minutes ago, feb1991blizzard said:

If we would have done the lockdown a lot sooner though then we might have got away with only a few weeks of it if hardly anyone had it, proactivity not reactivity.

The problem with that approach, feb, is that, for the most part, COVID-19 is invisible, asymptomatic and has an R0 of 2.2: once it's out and about, containment is nigh-on impossible...Our government could have put everyone under house-arrest, when the virus first appeared, but I doubt many folks would have liked that?

[matty007]

Can we ever say that this virus was ever containable? Probably not.

The only time it was somewhat possible is when cases of pneumonia spiked in Wuhan before the virus was discovered. Did the doctors act fast enough in regards to thinking outside the box as to what was causing it? We can't know for sure. If they acted sooner, it possibly could have been contained, but that is always easy to say in hindsight. And given that this virus spreads so quickly, and quietly, it may have been impossible to act fast enough anyway.

It sounds insensitive, but mother nature will always throw you a virus that seems tailormade for mass infection with no chance of containment. I am a firm believer that the 1918 Spanish Flu originated in Kansas. The patient zero (a chef) awoke with symptoms, likely after handling infected chicken, and by dinner time the following day, a whole army base was infected. It could NEVER have been contained.

We have been dealt with many a nasty illness, but this one certainly is nature's way of throwing us a dillema, which it seems to do on average, once a century.

Given all of what I just said, I personally believe this virus to be virtually impossible to contain. Lockdowns will reduce the cases for a time, but there are still many cases circulating. It will resurface. It is simply too contagious and widespread.

Edited March 17, 2020 by matty007

[nick sussex]

1 hour ago, Spikecollie said:

From tomorrow, here in France, we all have to carry an "attestation" that you download from the Interior Ministry when going out. You have to provide one of very few valid reasons for being out and about on the form. It feels a litle like something from an "Iron Curtain" movie. Weird times to be living through.

People can just make up something anyway .

How are they going to enforce this , have groups of attestation police marauding the streets .

The interior ministry given present circumstances  also sounds a bit 1983. What next the new ministry of propaganda.

[Evening thunder]

https://www.buzzfeed.com/alexwickham/coronavirus-uk-strategy-deaths

Quote

An "intensive intervention package" will have to be "maintained until a vaccine becomes available (potentially 18 months or more)", the report said, painting an extraordinary picture of what life could be like in the UK for the next year and a half.

So would this be like current UK measures, or could it be a stronger lockdown approach like Italy, Spain, France etc, where you can only leave your house for essential reasons?

How many of those under 50 or so, where the death rate is apparently comparable to the flu (and the symptoms often not as bad), would be willing to live under lockdown for that long? I guess you'd have to hope they all understand the wider issue and have the patience.

Even if they do, how many of the elderly would actually want to say sod it lets see what happens, instead of living a possibly significant amount of the time they have left in isolation?

Could the effect of such a prolonged period of lockdown or aggressive measures actually be nearly as bad or worse than the virus itself?

Mind you, The BBC's live reporting link quoted for France:

Quote

From Tuesday, people should stay at home unless they are buying groceries, travelling to work, exercising or seeking medical care, Mr Macron said.

Probably a lot of things can be justified under 'exercising'.

Can I go surfing/kitesurfng? Not in Portugal apparently as the beaches are closed, but I doubt surfers living on the coast are going to stay out of the water for 18 months or more! Seems a low risk activity unless the virus can spread through sea water?

Is driving 8 miles in my car non-essential travel?

A selfish concern? Maybe. A trivial concern compared to many who run business etc? Probably. But then exercise and well-being isn't that trivial over such a long period.

[Captain Shortwave]

Just now, General Cluster said:

The problem with that approach, feb, is that, for the most part, COVID-19 is invisible, asymptomatic and has an R0 of 2.2: once it's out and about, containment is nigh-on impossible...Our government could have put everyone under house-arrest, when the virus first appeared, but I doubt many folks would have liked that?

Unfortunately far too many people were not taking this seriously at that point. It really didn’t help that we had one of the most powerful men in the world saying it wasn’t serious for weeks on end. 
Regarding said “controversial post”, when someone needs to be in hospital for this virus then they will be at the point where there is a risk that it could kill them. The point is if we are turning people away then we are way past saturation point at treating people for this illness, not to mention that most of the healthcare resources will be poured into this crisis, so anyone who picks up a different infection or has a serious accident could now be at a much higher risk of dying as well. The economic argument kind of falls apart with most of the world shutting down anyway, not to mention mass infection could paralyse the economy anyway as employers will be unable to staff their premises enough to function anyway. All of this for a hypothetical endgame that we have no real idea will actually materialise. Better to give the world enough time to fight this properly, if only to provide more healthcare resources for a start as clearly no country is even remotely prepared to fight this.

[Snipper]

There is a steady stream of traffic past our house but the not the usual queues.

My mother’s care home have asked for something that I wil l deliver latter but not go in.

I told them they should stop visiting prior to them actually doing so. 

[feb1991blizzard]

10 minutes ago, General Cluster said:

The problem with that approach, feb, is that, for the most part, COVID-19 is invisible, asymptomatic and has an R0 of 2.2: once it's out and about, containment is nigh-on impossible...Our government could have put everyone under house-arrest, when the virus first appeared, but I doubt many folks would have liked that?

True but they would prefer it to an early grave.

[Snipper]

1 minute ago, feb1991blizzard said:

True but they would prefer it to an early grave.

For the vast majority it won’t be.