Could the Coronavirus 'burn out' in the UK?

[HH]

...I don't think a simplistic trying to put groups of people against each other - such as young vs. old - is helpful.

Hear, hear.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Hear, hear.

It's not great to do it, but the virus to some extent does it for you.

I do wonder how much views would be different if, like the Spanish Flu, it affected the young and strong (basically pretty much every case resulted in a cytokine storm, where a strong immune system is a huge disadvantage, whereas only a few COVID19 cases do that, and basically make up most of the relatively small number of young, healthy people who have died).

 

[yorkie]

But I don't think a simplistic trying to put groups of people against each other - such as young vs. old - is helpful.

But it's undeniable that the current restrictions (and, to a lesser extent, any lesser restrictions) are having a vastly disproportionate effect on, say, teenagers compared to, say, elderly people.

This balance needs to be redressed sooner, rather than later.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But it's undeniable that the current restrictions (and, to a lesser extent, any lesser restrictions) are having a vastly disproportionate effect on, say, teenagers compared to, say, elderly people.

I would probably say they're having the worst effect on people in their late teens or early 20s often in tiny flats in bad areas, or having to isolate in one room of a grim flatshare or a tiny student room. But also with peaks around year 11 and 13 due to fear about exams and their future.

 

[HH]

I would probably say they're having the worst effect on people in their late teens or early 20s often in tiny flats in bad areas, or having to isolate in one room of a grim flatshare or a tiny student room. But also with peaks around year 11 and 13 due to fear about exams and their future.

I'm unconvinced. They are not being confined to their accomodation, unlike those in isolation for 12 weeks (and counting). Now that would drive me bonkers.

I think anyone, of any age, who is stuck in a tiny apartment on their own is going to struggle, but surely it is worse if you can't even get out?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm unconvinced. They are not being confined to their accomodation, unlike those in isolation for 12 weeks (and counting). Now that would drive me bonkers.

I'd rather isolate for 12 weeks in a house with a garden than 1 week in a tiny student halls of residence flat, to be honest.

I think anyone, of any age, who is stuck in a tiny apartment on their own is going to struggle, but surely it is worse if you can't even get out?

Having said the above I am not sure I would fully comply. I might get someone to get my shopping for me (as supermarkets are fairly high risk - indoors and lots of people) but I'd probably set my alarm for 0530 and go for a decent walk well away from other people each day. Shielding is primarily about protecting the individual rather than others, and there is room for sensible personal choice in it - even the documentation says that.

 

[AM9]

I have believed for a good month now that once the unemployment and GDP are released in June/July it will be a wake-up call. Suddenly ~100,000 deaths will seem like a minor 'sacrifice' rather than a tragedy as the media have portrayed it to date.

By who?

The alternative is save a few - predominantly pensioners lives who may have died anyway even if there was not a Coronavirus outbreak - versus mass unemployment among the youth and working age population which will in turn lead to poverty and deaths. As morbid as it sounds it will re-focus minds. 'Money talks' after all.

It seems that money certainly is more important than peoples lives to you.[/QUOTE]

'Flattening the curve' to protect the health service makes sense. But we have gone above and beyond that now. There are thousands of cancer patients are not having treatment at the moment. Equally thousands of potential cancer cases are not being diagnosed due to people staying away from GPs and A&E which is going to undoubtedly lead to many deaths as diagnosing incidences of cancer early is absolutely vital. I cannot wait for July to arrive - I feel we'll have some context as to what a (a lot of which is self-inflicted) 'tragedy' really is.

The NHS is pleading for people with genuine health issues to present at A&E if necessary as they are currently seeing large reductions from normal levels of attendance. See here:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...t-point-since-records-began-amid-coronavirus/
( Daily Telegraph article: A&E attendances at lowest point since records began...).
GPs are putting in restictions because they do not want to risk their patients health - (and their own).

Let's get the under 40s back to work. Maintain physical distancing and the other measures such as hand-washing - but don't let this virus dictate our daily lives to the point it makes us housebound as it is not sustainable.

I guess that you just might be under 40.

 

[MattA7]

My support worker who assists me to live independently due to Asperger’s syndrome contacted me on Thursday (to check everything was okay) and said it is a nightmare.
-Mental health crisis are through the roof (one of her service users attempted suicide and another hospitalized after self harming)

- anti social behavior is unbearable.
-Those who were recovering from alcohol dependency have relapsed

- because contractors refuse to enter people homes for repairs (unless it is a emergency that is a threat to life or property) when the lock down ends there will be a massive backlog.

- Not to mention the financial problems many service users are facing.

 

[yorkie]

It seems that money certainly is more important than peoples lives to you.

This is nonsense.

The reality is that for many people their job is crucial for their wellbeing. Don't underestimate this.

But those opportunities will still be there once the crisis is over and the economy recovers.....

We hope. If we do not let things be taken too far... but the danger cannot be underestimated.

 

[bramling]

I'd rather isolate for 12 weeks in a house with a garden than 1 week in a tiny student halls of residence flat, to be honest.



Having said the above I am not sure I would fully comply. I might get someone to get my shopping for me (as supermarkets are fairly high risk - indoors and lots of people) but I'd probably set my alarm for 0530 and go for a decent walk well away from other people each day. Shielding is primarily about protecting the individual rather than others, and there is room for sensible personal choice in it - even the documentation says that.

I’ve noticed when out for walks that there’s quite a few elderly people, either on their own or as a couple, out and about in the mid to late evening, even as late as 2200. Perhaps some are choosing to exercise at this time knowing they’re less likely to need to come close to anyone else?

Must admit the last two days I’ve had some very pleasant evening walks. On both days I took my time coming back and took the opportunity to do some wildlife and star gazing on what has been two fine evenings, deep in the countryside. Very enjoyable indeed.

 

[bramling]

This is nonsense.

The reality is that for many people their job is crucial for their wellbeing. Don't underestimate this.

Ultimately money keeps things ticking over, and without economic activity everything will grind to a halt. If that happens many more elderly people would die as the NHS would be unfunded.

In the absence of any breakthrough balance *has* to be struck for the medium term. Some of this old-versus-young playing off against the other is rather unfortunate in my view, this is pretty difficult for pretty much *everyone*, in different ways.

Like it or not the cost of furloughing alone is utterly staggering. Just doing the sums of what it might cost for given proportions of the population even for one month is eye-watering. Especially as it seems some businesses are now using it as a means of protecting themselves from reduced business, rather than from being physically unable to trade, which I’m not sure was the original intention (though I could be mistaken on this?).

 

[Romsey]

Two thoughts...

I have also taken to exercising later in the evening by cycling, there's no one about and it's possible to do a reasonable distance without slowing and weaving around people walking/drifting on cycleways. Also as Brambling said, there is more wildlife to be observed. I didn't know we had Tawny Owls around here, but in the quiet at 2145 a few evenings ago I could hear two pairs. Normally that would be drowned out by the continuous white noise of the M3.

Isn't this one of these occasions where being second or third in the decision making process is a good idea? That way we have a chance of learning from other countries mistakes - or confirming that the UK Government has (hopefully) chosen the least awful option.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Isn't this one of these occasions where being second or third in the decision making process is a good idea? That way we have a chance of learning from other countries mistakes - or confirming that the UK Government has (hopefully) chosen the least awful option.

Agreed, and knowing also the differences between our lockdown and Italy's yet both having achieved a pretty much identical curve.

It would be prudent not to make decisions until we see the effect of other countries unlocking.

 

[HH]

I'd rather isolate for 12 weeks in a house with a garden than 1 week in a tiny student halls of residence flat, to be honest.

How many people are isolating in a tiny student halls of residence flat? Have you seen modern halls of residence flats? And surely, most students have gone home - all the ones I know have.

 

[Bletchleyite]

How many people are isolating in a tiny student halls of residence flat? Have you seen modern halls of residence flats? And surely, most students have gone home - all the ones I know have.

If they are isolating they will not be in the shared areas.

Some have gone home but some haven't, it's been made clear this is not essential travel and will likely be refused at the main railway stations by the BTP.

 

[bramling]

Agreed, and knowing also the differences between our lockdown and Italy's yet both having achieved a pretty much identical curve.

Have we? I'd say we're catching up with Italy quicker than we possibly should be given we should have been able to derive at least some benefit from seeing what was going on there.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Have we? I'd say we're catching up with Italy quicker than we possibly should be given we should have been able to derive at least some benefit from seeing what was going on there.

That we aren't doing better is a bit disappointing, but if you check the COBR slides it can be seen that we're tracking their curve very closely indeed (it's the last slide on this pack). I believe most countries are only reporting hospital cases though I'm not 100% sure for Italy.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/881217/2020-04-24_COVID-19_Press_Conference_Slides.pdf

If you aren't watching the press conferences, the slides seem to be posted here, sometimes a few days afterwards:

Latest from Coronavirus (COVID-19): UK government response - GOV.UK

 

[HH]

If they are isolating they will not be in the shared areas.

Some have gone home but some haven't, it's been made clear this is not essential travel and will likely be refused at the main railway stations by the BTP.

You didn't answer my question as to how many are isolating, and I might add to that, in a flat with other students, as otherwise they have the full run of the flat. I would say that the number is very small indeed. Do you disagree? If so why? If not, why are you making such a big thing of it?

Those that went home went early; Students are generally sensible and if they're not then their parents are. And most would have been picked up by their parents.

 

[bramling]

That we aren't doing better is a bit disappointing, but if you check the COBR slides it can be seen that we're tracking their curve very closely indeed (it's the last slide on this pack). I believe most countries are only reporting hospital cases though I'm not 100% sure for Italy.

This is what I mean, we're tracking them very closely, and it seems quite probable we'll be overtaking them in terms of deaths fairly shortly. To my mind that's not good, as like you say it's disappointing as we should have been able to do at least a bit better - especially as we don't seem to have suffered the overwhelmed health service that they have.

Obviously this makes no allowance for any variations in reporting, but even if there are differences the curves are still disappointingly similar.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You didn't answer my question as to how many are isolating, and I might add to that, in a flat with other students, as otherwise they have the full run of the flat. I would say that the number is very small indeed. Do you disagree? If so why? If not, why are you making such a big thing of it?

How am I supposed to know the number? But the number is irrelevant, I made a point about which situation I'd rather be in, not how many there are. I know for absolute certain that the number is nonzero.

 

[HH]

How am I supposed to know the number? But the number is irrelevant, I made a point about which situation I'd rather be in, not how many there are. I know for absolute certain that the number is nonzero.

In other words you know one person in this situation. You also know the overall number will be very small, which is why you keep skipping around it. The whole country can't have a policy based on the problems of a handful of people. There are also elderly people in small flats and they often don't have access to all the modern technology that the young take for granted.

I'm going to add here that my daughter and her partner are living in a one-bedroom, one kitchen/lounge flat in London, with no garden. They are both working from home, have both been asked to take pay cuts (even though my duaghter is working about 60 hours a week) which they've had to (riskily) refuse as they are in the middle of a house purchase and the lender will not go ahead with the mortgage if they do. The lease on the flat runs out in June. Plenty of stress there, but they are probably coping better than my c.80 in-laws, despite the fact that they have a garden and no financial or job worries.

 

[Bantamzen]

Regardless of ethics, it simply won’t be practicable to do it, as the public finances will collapse, which will have consequences for everyone not least pensioners.

The lockdown is a tool for getting things under control (and as you know I think we should have gone a bit further so as to try and really get a grip of the situation, which thusfar hasn’t quite happened), but ultimately in the absence of a known end-point it’s not sustainable.

The furloughing scheme alone could well end up costing the equivalent of several Crossrails, to put things in perspective.

If I recall correctly, the furloughing alone for the planned 3 months was estimated at costing somewhere between £40-50 billion. I'm not sure if this was up front costs of the scheme, or took into account the loss of tax revenue. Either way that is considerably more than the NHS budget for the same time scale in the 2019-2020 budget (£35bn out of an annual budget of £141Bn). So yeah an extended lockdown is going to put serious strain on finances, something we really can't afford if we are to keep NHS capacity to a level where it does not become overwhelmed from covid or non-covid cases.

 

[BRX]

If I recall correctly, the furloughing alone for the planned 3 months was estimated at costing somewhere between £40-50 billion. I'm not sure if this was up front costs of the scheme, or took into account the loss of tax revenue. Either way that is considerably more than the NHS budget for the same time scale in the 2019-2020 budget (£35bn out of an annual budget of £141Bn). So yeah an extended lockdown is going to put serious strain on finances, something we really can't afford if we are to keep NHS capacity to a level where it does not become overwhelmed from covid or non-covid cases.

I think it's important to think carefully about where this money goes, and what it actually means.

For example: apparently the average brit spends something like £1700 a year on holidays, which potentially translates to something like three-months' worth of income for a family holiday. It seems likely that many people simply won't get to go on holiday this year. And there is going to be an extended time where no-one is spending money on restaurants and pubs and any number of other leisure activities. Of course, this same fact is one of the reasons that many people's incomes have potentially disappeared - and the gap is being largely filled by the state, and yes of course furloughing represents a large amount of money going from the state to individuals, and there is a cost to that, and it will have to be "paid for" in some sense. Maybe it has to be paid for through tax increases. Well, there will be some people who come out of this all having taken quite a financial hit, and there will be many who have had 80% of their salaries paid, whilst also seeing a significant reduction in spending. Maybe in some ways they'll even come out of it with more money than they would have otherwise - but then be subject to an increase in taxation. Who knows

Anyway - the point is, it's not simply the case that this will all have to be 'paid for' afterwards. Some of it is effectively being 'paid for' now - through the fact that people aren't spending on things they normally would be. Losing this year's foreign summer holiday will be the way many people 'pay' for some of the loss. When someone doesn't go on holiday, and the hotel doesn't cook them breakfast, then that's not work that actually has to be replaced - it's simply work that didn't need to be done this summer. That's a different category of work to the farmer harvesting crops - if that doesn't happen, we potentially go hungry, and have to look for food supplies from elsewhere. But a large proportion of that kind of work *is* carrying on.

What this all means for the economy is rather complicated. It's an oversimplification to talk about the economy grinding to a halt. It's more that it's doing something different to what it usually does - with probably a greater proportion of its 'work' going into essential rather than non-essential processes than is normal.

 

[HH]

What this all means for the economy is rather complicated. It's an oversimplification to talk about the economy grinding to a halt. It's more that it's doing something different to what it usually does - with probably a greater proportion of its 'work' going into essential rather than non-essential processes than is normal.

Thanks for talking sense.

There's also the fact that the government is printing money and that people I know in the building trades tell me that the cost of materials is going through the roof (if you will pardon the pun). Perhaps our £s will buy a bit less when we come out the other side.

 

[Bantamzen]

I think it's important to think carefully about where this money goes, and what it actually means.

For example: apparently the average brit spends something like £1700 a year on holidays, which potentially translates to something like three-months' worth of income for a family holiday. It seems likely that many people simply won't get to go on holiday this year. And there is going to be an extended time where no-one is spending money on restaurants and pubs and any number of other leisure activities. Of course, this same fact is one of the reasons that many people's incomes have potentially disappeared - and the gap is being largely filled by the state, and yes of course furloughing represents a large amount of money going from the state to individuals, and there is a cost to that, and it will have to be "paid for" in some sense. Maybe it has to be paid for through tax increases. Well, there will be some people who come out of this all having taken quite a financial hit, and there will be many who have had 80% of their salaries paid, whilst also seeing a significant reduction in spending. Maybe in some ways they'll even come out of it with more money than they would have otherwise - but then be subject to an increase in taxation. Who knows

Anyway - the point is, it's not simply the case that this will all have to be 'paid for' afterwards. Some of it is effectively being 'paid for' now - through the fact that people aren't spending on things they normally would be. Losing this year's foreign summer holiday will be the way many people 'pay' for some of the loss. When someone doesn't go on holiday, and the hotel doesn't cook them breakfast, then that's not work that actually has to be replaced - it's simply work that didn't need to be done this summer. That's a different category of work to the farmer harvesting crops - if that doesn't happen, we potentially go hungry, and have to look for food supplies from elsewhere. But a large proportion of that kind of work *is* carrying on.

What this all means for the economy is rather complicated. It's an oversimplification to talk about the economy grinding to a halt. It's more that it's doing something different to what it usually does - with probably a greater proportion of its 'work' going into essential rather than non-essential processes than is normal.

Yes, the economy is complicated. However make absolutely no mistake, a prolonged lockdown will adversely effect our economy & our ability to raise funds in future for key services like the NHS. The cost of this crisis is already vast, and a lot of it will be paid for in the future. People not spending money on holidays (which by the way holiday companies are currently working with people already booked to simply book dates later this year or next, so that's not as helpful as you might think) will not even begin to fill the hole left in lost revenue (income tax, VAT, NI etc). And the longer the lockdown goes on for, the more businesses will go under adding even more longer term damage. The IMF have grimly predicted the global economy will see a recession at least as bad as the one a century ago and leave 400-600 million more people globally in poverty.

And you can't just turn off what you deem as "non-essential" work and move people into "essential" work, that takes time & money to achieve, both of which are in short supply.

Thanks for talking sense.

There's also the fact that the government is printing money and that people I know in the building trades tell me that the cost of materials is going through the roof (if you will pardon the pun). Perhaps our £s will buy a bit less when we come out the other side.

Printing money will devalue the pound, which when you consider we are currently trying to source PPE from overseas sources really doesn't make a whole lot of sense on the face of it.

 

[HH]

Yes, the economy is complicated. However make absolutely no mistake, a prolonged lockdown will adversely effect our economy & our ability to raise funds in future for key services like the NHS. The cost of this crisis is already vast, and a lot of it will be paid for in the future. People not spending money on holidays (which by the way holiday companies are currently working with people already booked to simply book dates later this year or next, so that's not as helpful as you might think) will not even begin to fill the hole left in lost revenue (income tax, VAT, NI etc). And the longer the lockdown goes on for, the more businesses will go under adding even more longer term damage. The IMF have grimly predicted the global economy will see a recession at least as bad as the one a century ago and leave 400-600 million more people globally in poverty.

And you can't just turn off what you deem as "non-essential" work and move people into "essential" work, that takes time & money to achieve, both of which are in short supply.

Absolutely this is going to have a major effect for years - it will be part of the new normal. It will also take time for the economy to re-align itself, but it's pretty clear that there will be, and will have to be, some re-alignment.

Printing money will devalue the pound, which when you consider we are currently trying to source PPE from overseas sources really doesn't make a whole lot of sense on the face of it.

I don't think further QE was called for and I can't see how it will help. It was possibly a knee-jerk reaction.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Printing money will devalue the pound, which when you consider we are currently trying to source PPE from overseas sources really doesn't make a whole lot of sense on the face of it.

PPE is not expensive.

 

[Bantamzen]

Absolutely this is going to have a major effect for years - it will be part of the new normal. It will also take time for the economy to re-align itself, but it's pretty clear that there will be, and will have to be, some re-alignment.

In a global market, and it will still be one, re-alignment may not be that easy. Even a weakening pound may not be enough to make us competitive against economies like India & China, or even the US. There is a reason our economy has been shifting more into retail, service and leisure sectors. There is unlikely to be any dialling back the clock to an earlier style economy.

​

I don't think further QE was called for and I can't see how it will help. It was possibly a knee-jerk reaction.

It was, and is a bad mistake.

PPE is not expensive.

It is in the numbers we are going to need.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It is in the numbers we are going to need.

Not such that it would make quantitative easing a bad idea.

 

[Bantamzen]

Not such that it would make quantitative easing a bad idea.

Are you sure about that? And don't forget, its not just PPE we import.....