• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

We must enable the economy to recover as soon as practicable

Status
Not open for further replies.

richw

Veteran Member
Joined
10 Jun 2010
Messages
11,226
Location
Liskeard
That's a gov.uk figure, but you know what? If you want to go up to each and every one of the bereaved families and tell them that the loss they experienced was made up by the government, that is absolutely fine by me.

There's no reason for the government to exaggerate the death toll. The right-wing tabloids are trying to downplay it, not underline it.

On bbc it said Over 90% of deaths had underlying terminal conditions. Now to me that means that over 90% of the 30000 or so we’re going to die anyway, maybe accelerated their death maybe not. As post-mortems aren’t being conducted at present there is a good chance the remaining percentage had an undiagnosed illness too.
This view comes from doing a statistic degree and number crunching the figures.
I also know from a nurse at my local hospital they’ve only got 2 patients with positive covid at present, the rest returned negative results.
Patients without testing were assumed to have had it until proven otherwise and thus would have been recorded on assumption in the absence of post-mortems being carried out
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

causton

Established Member
Joined
4 Aug 2010
Messages
5,504
Location
Somewhere between WY372 and MV7
Likewise some seem to see a binary cut-off: you either die or you don't. In practice, there is a big grey area in the middle, where you survive, but spend five weeks in hospital and months off-work recovering.
And the other reason that was quoted at the start of the lockdown as to why you shouldn't aimlessly drive around all day every day; you might get into an unrelated accident, have to go to hospital, then contract the virus and whatever follows that...

Maccy's would have done plenty of business on takeaways and deliveries, though.
Definitely, a big shock that was to many! I can only assume there were a lot of franchisees saying they could not socially distance, or it needed extra equipment like PPE or screens, or they were concerned about any bad press if multiple people at one branch fell ill.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,784
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Definitely, a big shock that was to many! I can only assume there were a lot of franchisees saying they could not socially distance, or it needed extra equipment like PPE or screens, or they were concerned about any bad press if multiple people at one branch fell ill.

I suspect as a large American business they were concerned about being sued, basically.

Small businesses have responded rather differently. For instance my local Indian takeaway is operating totally as before with nothing changed whatsoever, whereas the chippy closed for a while and has now reopened with screens up, one person in at once and the staff looking rather like doctors in their attire.
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
23,367
Location
Bolton
I would be surprised if it wasn't once things had settled down.
Presumably they'll be open again on a wide scale once things have settled down?

It's safe to assume McDonald's are acting in the interest of their business, and doing so with better information than you have. It's should have been predicted that they and others would close. The government didn't even use their messaging to try to persuade them to remain open.
 

richw

Veteran Member
Joined
10 Jun 2010
Messages
11,226
Location
Liskeard
I've come across at least three people who, in simple terms, have said that the number of suicides from the stress of the lockdown 'is nothing' compared to the number of people who have died from the virus, and that those who suffer from depression/anxiety should just 'buck it up and deal with it'.
On a local news site on Facebook shaming people for buying gardening stuff i commented that some use gardening as therapy for addiction or self harm etc. Multiple replied That they’ll die either from suicide or covid so should just stay inside! I was disgusted by that attitude
 

Belperpete

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2018
Messages
1,646
I'm glad that the majority of people are starting to realise the strain that this is having on the economy, and more importantly, mental health.
I just hope that all those people wringing their hands about the rigours of the current lock-down never get cancer, and have to self-isolate for six months, a year, or longer, while undergoing treatment. Mind you, knowing that catching any infection, no matter how mild, could kill you, is a great incentive to maintaining your lock-down.
 

Mag_seven

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
1 Sep 2014
Messages
10,024
Location
here to eternity
Can I please remind everyone that the purpose of this thread is to discuss the proposal that we must reopen the economy asap. I have moved some posts about the media and their reporting of COVID deaths to this thread:

 

GRALISTAIR

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2012
Messages
7,877
Location
Dalton GA USA & Preston Lancs
I suspect as a large American business they were concerned about being sued, basically.
I live in the USA and can totally relate. Perhaps to really open the economy we may have to change the law in the UK (and USA?) so that the threat of being sued is lifted. If we opened up only when totally safe(not realistic) that may help in not getting sued but as discussed in plenty upthread, the world economy and hence everything that follows from that could not handle it.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,784
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I live in the USA and can totally relate. Perhaps to really open the economy we may have to change the law in the UK (and USA?) so that the threat of being sued is lifted. If we opened up only when totally safe(not realistic) that may help in not getting sued but as discussed in plenty upthread, the world economy and hence everything that follows from that could not handle it.

The fairly long Coronavirus Bill does actually include that for the NHS in relation to COVID. I wonder whether it needs extending more widely as you say.
 

richw

Veteran Member
Joined
10 Jun 2010
Messages
11,226
Location
Liskeard
Presumably they'll be open again on a wide scale once things have settled down?

It's safe to assume McDonald's are acting in the interest of their business, and doing so with better information than you have. It's should have been predicted that they and others would close. The government didn't even use their messaging to try to persuade them to remain open.
Many businesses who didn’t have to close but merely closed to adapt their business and premise to allow distance working distance queuing etc.
I’m sure (as you imply) their high profile directors are receiving more detailed information than any of us.
 

Bayum

Established Member
Joined
21 Mar 2008
Messages
2,904
Location
Leeds
On bbc it said Over 90% of deaths had underlying terminal conditions. Now to me that means that over 90% of the 30000 or so we’re going to die anyway, maybe accelerated their death maybe not. As post-mortems aren’t being conducted at present there is a good chance the remaining percentage had an undiagnosed illness too.
This view comes from doing a statistic degree and number crunching the figures.
I also know from a nurse at my local hospital they’ve only got 2 patients with positive covid at present, the rest returned negative results.
Patients without testing were assumed to have had it until proven otherwise and thus would have been recorded on assumption in the absence of post-mortems being carried out
But how many have been severely ill and hospitalised as a result? Mortality rate is one thing, but being on the brink of death and surviving is a completely different reality.
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
19,653
Location
Mold, Clwyd
I couldn’t agree more, and I fear the government are focusing so much on suppressing the virus that they’re not fully aware of the effect of the lockdown on people’s mental health and the economy on a whole, and I really am afraid that the next year will be practically economic suicide due to the government’s huge focus on suppression of the virus and the fact that their initial message that “if you go out, you will die and potentially kill your family” has worked too well to the point where people are afraid to go back to work even if they’re told it’s safe.

Added to which if we lag behind other economies which come out of lockdown earlier/quicker, we will lose out competitively in the upturn.
Our recession would then be longer/deeper than other countries.
Germany and Japan/Korea are leading in these stakes at the moment, having suppressed the virus better.
"World exemplar"? Pull the other one.
 

43066

Established Member
Joined
24 Nov 2019
Messages
9,374
Location
London



We need to act fast and reopen the economy.

Locking down forever isn't possible and wouldn't eliminate the virus even if we tried.

As well has having a hugely detrimental effect on mental health, the longer the lockdown goes on for, the more likely it is that many firms will not survive. There are many peoples' livelihoods at stake and cannot simply be dismissed by pro-lockdown lobbyists.

Almost everyone I've spoken to recently now recognises these facts. I know some people want the lockdown to go on indefinitely until a vaccine is available but that is not possible, and we are risking huge problems the longer we remain locked down for. Enough is enough.

Completely agree.

The modelling the government based the lockdown on has been widely discredited, from what I’ve read, (and as we know the scientist who produced much of it has breached the lockdown himself!).

My suspicion, right from the start, has been that the Swedish approach has been the most sensible. Isolate the elderly and vulnerable groups, impose sensible “social distancing” measures, but allow the healthy working age majority to continue to conduct their lives largely as normal.

I have a sneaking suspicion that, two years hence, the same number of people will have died of Covid-19, whatever measures are taken. Driving the economy off a cliff, in order to be seen to be doing something, is a choice the government is making.

Of course it’s regrettable that many elderly and infirm people, particularly those in care homes, will succumb to the virus, but the harsh reality is that these people are close to the end of their lives anyway. Is it really sensible to wreck the economy and destroy the livelihoods of working age people, with mortgages and families to provide for, and to whom the virus poses statistically very little risk, just to reduce a headline death rate amongst those who would likely pass away from other causes in a matter of weeks or months?
 
Last edited:

Belperpete

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2018
Messages
1,646
My suspicion, right from the start, has been that the Swedish approach has been the most sensible. Isolate the elderly and vulnerable groups, impose sensible “social distancing” measures, but allow the healthy working age majority to continue to conduct their lives largely as normal.
I wish people would stop repeating the falsehood that life in Sweden is going on pretty much as normal. It isn't. The difference is that when Sweden introduced its advisory lockdown, most people followed it. When the UK government advised people, it was almost universally ignored, and a week later when the situation had got far more serious, they had to mandate. Long after that, there were still many, many people saying "I don't care what the guidelines say, it wasn't made illegal in the legislation so I am entitled to carry on".
 

Islineclear3_1

Established Member
Joined
24 Apr 2014
Messages
5,835
Location
PTSO or platform depending on the weather
I wish people would stop repeating the falsehood that life in Sweden is going on pretty much as normal. It isn't. The difference is that when Sweden introduced its advisory lockdown, most people followed it. When the UK government advised people, it was almost universally ignored, and a week later when the situation had got far more serious, they had to mandate. Long after that, there were still many, many people saying "I don't care what the guidelines say, it wasn't made illegal in the legislation so I am entitled to carry on".

Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that many people do not trust the UK government...
 

Bikeman78

Established Member
Joined
26 Apr 2018
Messages
4,550
I couldn’t agree more, and I fear the government are focusing so much on suppressing the virus that they’re not fully aware of the effect of the lockdown on people’s mental health and the economy on a whole, and I really am afraid that the next year will be practically economic suicide due to the government’s huge focus on suppression of the virus and the fact that their initial message that “if you go out, you will die and potentially kill your family” has worked too well to the point where people are afraid to go back to work even if they’re told it’s safe.
Yes you only have to look at the stream of posts on Facebook to see that you are right, e.g picture of family groups sitting in a park 20 metres from anyone else with the grim reaper superimposed on top. There are countless more examples.
 

43066

Established Member
Joined
24 Nov 2019
Messages
9,374
Location
London
I wish people would stop repeating the falsehood that life in Sweden is going on pretty much as normal. It isn't. The difference is that when Sweden introduced its advisory lockdown, most people followed it. When the UK government advised people, it was almost universally ignored, and a week later when the situation had got far more serious, they had to mandate. Long after that, there were still many, many people saying "I don't care what the guidelines say, it wasn't made illegal in the legislation so I am entitled to carry on".

Life in Sweden is one hell of a lot closer to “normal” than life in the UK.

We seem to have forgotten that we are still subject to the natural order. Every so often a disease will evolve which will kill a hell of a lot of people.

Trying to preserve life at all costs is irrational, particularly the lives of those who are sadly already close to death. As a result of these measures cancer diagnoses are down something like 70%, vital operations are being cancelled, people are unable to access rudimentary medical services due to the lockdown. Is anyone tallying up the death rate caused by these measures!? What about the effect on mortality rates of the forthcoming economic depression, the effect on the nation’s (already dire) mental health etc.

Anecdotally, living in London, I found that the “advisory” stage of the UK lockdown was very well observed. Pubs and restaurants had virtually no customers (I know that, because I was one of those customers, for which I make no apology).

Long after that, there were still many, many people saying "I don't care what the guidelines say, it wasn't made illegal in the legislation so I am entitled to carry on".

People making that statement were quite correct in doing so. It’s factually correct.

Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that many people do not trust the UK government...

Quite!

I say that as someone who voted for the current mob.
 

Bikeman78

Established Member
Joined
26 Apr 2018
Messages
4,550
We won't remain where we are forever. The simple thing about Covid-19 is, how contagious it is and there's no proof of any immunity if you've already had it. 2020 as a year is a write off and like much of the answers with this pandemic, we can't do anything until either a) there's a vaccine b) there a drug c) the virus mutates/dies out

There are some areas of the economy you could open up and I expect these to open up. However, those voicing their disdain at the lockdown and the economy are for areas of the economy where there shouldn't be any reducing of restrictions - retail, hospitality, tourism.

You won't see many people going clothes shopping in the near future - if they do it'll be online (places like asos etc). Pubs? You won't see me in one until after this has ended. Tourism? I'll save my money thanks - holiday when I now there's no risk of a virus that can kill healthy people as young as teenagers.
Road accidents kill people of all ages. It's a tiny risk but it kills 1700 people a year. So far roughly 300 people under 45 in the UK have died from the virus. Same order of magnitude if you multiply it up to a year. Personally I'd take the risk.
 

duncanp

Established Member
Joined
16 Aug 2012
Messages
4,856
Meanwhile


Men who have recovered from coronavirus should abstain from sex in order to avoid passing the virus on via their semen, a new study suggests.
Patients in China who donated samples several days after virus symptoms had faded were found to show evidence of Covid-19.
The findings have left scientists worried that the deadly disease could be sexually transmitted, raising the prospect of health chiefs advising people to avoid having sex for a set time after the end of their symptoms.
One of the patients in the study, at Shangqui Municipal Hospital in Henan Province, tested positive for Covid-19 in his semen 16 days after coming down with the virus and three days after clinical recovery.
"Abstinence or condom use might be considered as preventative means for these patients," the study, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, said.

The research team said Covid-19 could be seeded to the male reproductive tract, especially where there is local inflammation.
"Even if the virus cannot replicate in the male reproductive system it may persist, possibly resulting from the privileged immunity of testes," they said.
Other experts have pointed out that the study, comprising 38 patients, is relatively small, and that only six of these patients had tested positive for the virus in their semen. Until now, researchers had previously found only 27 viruses in human semen.
It is not known whether the presence of Covid-19 in the testes affects men's reproductive capability.
Professor Richard Sharpe, from the MRC Centre for Reproductive Health at the University of Edinburgh, said: "As the authors point out, this finding raises the possibility that Covid-19 might also be transmissible via semen – and thus via sexual contact – perhaps including during the recovery phase, which would have disease management implications.
"Whilst this is a small study, that leaves many important questions unanswered – how long after Covid-19 infection does detectable virus persist in semen in those with a semen-positive result?
"It suggests that obtaining answers to such questions should be an additional priority considering our global need to understand the dynamics of person-to-person transmission of Covid-19."
So far, the means of transmission focused on by scientists is via droplets coming out of infected people's noses and mouths and entering bodies of other people via their mouths, noses or eyes.

The majority of the public health guidance to suppress transmission has focused on keeping people apart – ideally at least two metres, according to the UK Government – and hand-washing.
Officials warn people not to have sex if they have symptoms of coronavirus, but only to avoid transmission via droplets.
Allan Pacey, a professor of andrology at the University of Sheffield, said: "This is an interesting paper that shows that RNA for the virus responsible for Covid-19 can be detected in the semen of a proportion – 15.8 per cent – of men with a confirmed infection.
"This opens up the possibility that one route of infection may be through sexual contact, although this was not confirmed in the paper."
The new research contradicts previous findings that did not detect Covid-19 in the semen of infected patients, and scientists agree that bigger and more detailed studies are now needed.
Dr James M. Hotaling, from the University of Utah, which has previously investigated the question, said last month: "If a disease like Covid-19 were sexually transmittable, that would have major implications for disease prevention and could have serious consequences for a man's long-term reproductive health.
"

I can just imagine what would happen if the government tried to put limits on the number of times people could have sex per month, especially Boris himself and Professor Pantsdown.
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
23,367
Location
Bolton
I couldn’t agree more, and I fear the government are focusing so much on suppressing the virus that they’re not fully aware of the effect of the lockdown on people’s mental health and the economy on a whole, and I really am afraid that the next year will be practically economic suicide due to the government’s huge focus on suppression of the virus and the fact that their initial message that “if you go out, you will die and potentially kill your family” has worked too well to the point where people are afraid to go back to work even if they’re told it’s safe.
The initial focus wasn't on suppression, it was on 'herd immunity', which is why the UK has so many cases...
 

HH

Established Member
Joined
31 Jul 2009
Messages
4,505
Location
Essex
Road accidents kill people of all ages. It's a tiny risk but it kills 1700 people a year. So far roughly 300 people under 45 in the UK have died from the virus. Same order of magnitude if you multiply it up to a year. Personally I'd take the risk.
As they say, there's lies, damn lies, and statistics. It's only due to the lockdown that the deaths are at 300; with no lockdown then the number would have been far larger.
 

Jayden99

Member
Joined
24 Feb 2020
Messages
95
Location
Bucks
I do think it's dangerous to go down the road of "The people dying would probably have died anyway" that I've seen in this thread, because that massively devalues the human cost of this pandemic. It's very hard to get people back to work if everyone's grieving, and I can't try to imagine the effect on our collective mental health that would come from a mass culling of our loved ones
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,754
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
I do think it's dangerous to go down the road of "The people dying would probably have died anyway" that I've seen in this thread, because that massively devalues the human cost of this pandemic. It's very hard to get people back to work if everyone's grieving, and I can't try to imagine the effect on our collective mental health that would come from a mass culling of our loved ones

Being brutally objective, a lot depends on how many would have “died anyway”, and in what timescale that would have happened.

There’s been surprisingly little in this respect in the wall-to-wall media coverage.
 

Mogster

Member
Joined
25 Sep 2018
Messages
905
I wish people would stop repeating the falsehood that life in Sweden is going on pretty much as normal. It isn't. The difference is that when Sweden introduced its advisory lockdown, most people followed it. When the UK government advised people, it was almost universally ignored, and a week later when the situation had got far more serious, they had to mandate. Long after that, there were still many, many people saying "I don't care what the guidelines say, it wasn't made illegal in the legislation so I am entitled to carry on".

There have been plenty of pictures from Swedish towns and cities over the last month. Crowded shopping streets, people sat in groups, bars and restaurants open. It certainly looks very close to normal.
 

trebor79

Established Member
Joined
8 Mar 2018
Messages
4,446
I do think it's dangerous to go down the road of "The people dying would probably have died anyway" that I've seen in this thread, because that massively devalues the human cost of this pandemic. It's very hard to get people back to work if everyone's grieving, and I can't try to imagine the effect on our collective mental health that would come from a mass culling of our loved ones
Nonsense. That didn't happen during the war for example, when millions lost their lives abroad and thousands were randomly blown to bits in bombing raids. And it didn't happen in Germany where, despite cases such as Dresden (firestorm killing 40,000 people in one night) area bombing did little to supress the will of the people and prevent them going to work. Even in Dresden, there was relatively little impact on industrial output, despite all of the death and people living in ruins.
Human populations are much more resilient than you might think. Even in hopeless cases such as Syria, people still go to work, start families etc.
Being brutally objective, a lot depends on how many would have “died anyway”, and in what timescale that would have happened.

There’s been surprisingly little in this respect in the wall-to-wall media coverage.
Indeed. Private Eye has been making this point for the past few weeks. Decent article on the BBC today two - the charts say it all, Especially "Chance of dying from Coronavirus Vs Normal Annual Risk".

I do think the government has lost its way a bit. It's clear they were briefing for a relaxation after the bank holiday, but it appears that position is starting to be rowed back today because Wee Jimmy Krankie and her counterparts have threatened to kick up a fuss. I had to smile when Sturgeon complained she hadn't been briefed before it appeared in the papers, when she herself has pre-empted Westminster on several occasions in the past few weeks.
I'm concerned we're heading into a few weeks of muddle, with the economy still shafted, kids not being educated and making little meaningful progress on the health issue. This is not going to end well.

Johnson needs to grow some balls and get people back into work and back into school. A good start would be to restrict the furlough scheme only to those businesses which are explicitly prohibited from operating by the Coronavirus legislation. Lots of businesses have furloughed out of convenience, because they think it will be difficult to run profitably at present. They need to start up again pronto.
Leave the lockdown rules as they are for another couple of weeks and start planning to get the kids back into school.
Sturgeon et al would have little to complain about as the rules wouldn't have changed, but we'd make at least some progress in staunching the damage to the economy.
 
Last edited:

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
8,426
Location
nowhere
Being brutally objective, a lot depends on how many would have “died anyway”, and in what timescale that would have happened.

There’s been surprisingly little in this respect in the wall-to-wall media coverage.

That's where the 'excess deaths' figure comes in. From the start of the year to week ending 20th March there had been about 5000 fewer deaths than would have been expected from the 5 year average. That 5000 was 'made up' by week ending 10th April. As of the 1st of May, there were 33,660 more deaths registered in the UK than would have been expected based on the 5 year average. I expect that we will see a few years with a lower average as a result of all this however

Weekly Registered Deaths.png
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top