Government advice discussion

[OneOffDave]

Well there will be the medical staff that could be utilised, and the rest could support a whole host of roles from administrative through to logistical. As more and more people feel the pinch, there is going to be more pressure on both local & central government services. Speaking as someone in the public sector reading my emails dialling into calls today, it is clear that it is going to be a massive challenge. We need all the help we can get right now.

The majority of military medical capability comes from reservists, most of whom work in the NHS. As for logistics, I'm not sure they could mesh into the systems of the organisations that move thousands of tons of food etc every day in a straight forward manner. Trying to write a MACA request for that would be more than a bit interesting. https://assets.publishing.service.g...loads/attachment_data/file/28469/JDP02Ed2.pdf is worth a read about using the military to support civilian responses

 

[DarloRich]

And if you are angry because of a cash flow problem, and can't get the essentials you need?

Having said that, elderly people shouldn’t be experiencing cash flow problems simply due to self isolation, as everyone over 70 should have a pension of one sort of other, and with people staying in outgoings ought really to be down not up.

An interesting question for me is CAN you get cash? What happens when the cash machines runs dry? will they be refilled?

 

[Meerkat]

Suppression would fail in Italy first and so a few weeks behind that and watching Chinese data we will know if isolation failure kills people.
Also peak boredom will probably coincide with the peak outbreak, when death rates will hit soil the bed levels and generate a lot of realism - people wanting to hideaway.

 

[Bletchleyite]

An interesting question for me is CAN you get cash? What happens when the cash machines runs dry? will they be refilled?

It would help, along other lines, if anyone who CAN pay by card now switches to doing so.

 

[Bantamzen]

Yes I agree - all that is quite likely to happen. It’s certainly not going to help.

Having said that, elderly people shouldn’t be experiencing cash flow problems simply due to self isolation, as everyone over 70 should have a pension of one sort of other, and with people staying in outgoings ought really to be down not up.

Obviously we wait to see what happens with the working-age sector of the population, that could be where problems start if people are laid off.

There's no if about it, people will get laid off. This is going to be a reality for an awful lot of people. And where people are just asked to take leave without pay, getting help through DWP/HMRC will become an increasingly lengthy process as more people turn to state help.

 

[Skymonster]

Locking down everyone is not going to end well - ignoring the rules and civil unrest being likely outcomes when people start to see their livelihoods being destroyed through losing their jobs. The majority in low-risk categories need to be allowed to continue to get on with their lives, other than taking sensible precautions already outlined. In reality we might have to accept some collateral damage in all of this. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few... or the one"

 

[bramling]

An interesting question for me is CAN you get cash? What happens when the cash machines runs dry? will they be refilled?

Yes an interesting point. We have to hope things don’t get that bad.

There's no if about it, people will get laid off. This is going to be a reality for an awful lot of people. And where people are just asked to take leave without pay, getting help through DWP/HMRC will become an increasingly lengthy process as more people turn to state help.

Yes I agree, things like the pub / restaurant industry will simply not be able to sustain 12 weeks of (what will be if guidance is followed to the letter) no turnover. Even if they don’t pay the staff there will still be fixed costs to bear.

Unfortunately there’s no solution to this - last week people were complaining that Boris’s strategy was going to risk deaths, now we have the problem of businesses potentially going under. Not a good position at all, and the government simply won’t be able to bail out everyone.

In reality the decisions seem to be being informed by NHS capacity. Clearly there’s been a realisation that the NHS simply has no chance of coping with a massive outbreak.

 

[Chris217]

I've noticed a lot less passengers on my bus!
So far,as far as I'm aware,most drivers seem to be ok atm,but our bus company suggests a big reduction in services is likely.
If all the staff seem ok,why would they reduce?

 

[Ivor]

There's no if about it, people will get laid off. This is going to be a reality for an awful lot of people. And where people are just asked to take leave without pay, getting help through DWP/HMRC will become an increasingly lengthy process as more people turn to state help.

Exactly & the so called SSP (Statutory Sick Pay) is great but self employed will struggle to get & zero hours agency staff (railway) like myself will get ‘diddly’ as rule is “earn an average of £118 a week before tax over the past 8 weeks”......if only!....in that period I’ve had three weeks of no shifts & two weeks earning a week less than that!

Don’t get me wrong I’m not looking for “ah poor you” as in this world billions with bigger problems & issues than the likes of me & other zero hour staff across different industries.

I’d like to look on the positive side that this will vanish as quickly as it arrived but we all have to be realistic.

Keep well all.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If all the staff seem ok,why would they reduce?

Because operating empty services is a bit of a waste of money?

 

[Belperpete]

I'm extremely worried and upset at where all this may be leading. I think the world is going to be a very different place at the other side of all this, whenever that may be. It may be hyperbole, but I genuinely fear we are headed into a dystopian end of days scenario. I feel hopeless, angry and upset.
But what sort of world we are living in by that point is anybody's guess. I suspect 1946 - 2020 will be seen as a paradise lost. I don't want to bring my kids up in this world, but I have to do the best I can. I'm really struggling. Already.

I think some people are beginning to over-react to this. Fear feeding on fear. While I don't want to under-play the seriousness of the situation, it is not the end of the world. For a sense of perspective, can I refer you to:
[URL="https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/coronavirus.201152/page-22#post-4484656"]Coronavirus.[/URL]

From an Asian perspective on this, well a Geordie living in Asia, we've had this thing in Hong Kong now for well over 2 months and life still goes on. People are going to work though it should be noted quite a few do still work from home, people will self isolate if ill, restaurants and shops are getting back to normal but some are still slow or closed (particularly in the Central business district), supermarkets are mostly well stocked and can't give loo roll away now but flights to/from HK are still decimated. Cathay Pacific had only 32 flights in the air around the whole word this afternoon (normally nearer a hundred) and over half or these 32 were cargo. Domestic transport is still a little disrupted, bus companies are parking buses up and giving staff unpaid leave - due to fewer commuters and no school kids, MTR trains are less frequent off-peak and schools remain closed til after Easter. As it stands schools may open for older students around Apr 20-ish. China is starting to open up also if only a little and factories are getting things done.
The Gov't here is now enforcing a quarantine for all incoming passengers from most of Europe, except UK - at least for now. They are more worried about imported cases now rather than home-grown as the domestic situation is fairly stable now. Long story short, this place is still basically locked down and little way in or out (nowhere to fly to !! ) but life within these walls is showing some semblance of normality, people are still working etc, and more returning to work week by week.
I do watch Sky News every day (The BBC stuff we get overseas is pants by comparison) to get the latest info on what is going on in UK and I honestly believe this is only the start based on what happened here. It will get worse there before it gets better but life will still go on, it has to.

 

[Wivenswold]

Locking down everyone is not going to end well - ignoring the rules and civil unrest being likely outcomes when people start to see their livelihoods being destroyed through losing their jobs. The majority in low-risk categories need to be allowed to continue to get on with their lives, other than taking sensible precautions already outlined. In reality we might have to accept some collateral damage in all of this. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few... or the one"

I guess by "Collateral damage" you're referring to people like me who have suppressed immunity or people in your family who are over 60. Shall we stop referring to people as "collateral damage" now?

 

[Darandio]

I guess by "Collateral damage" you're referring to people like me who have suppressed immunity or people in your family who are over 60. Shall we stop referring to people as "collateral damage" now?

Stay safe.

 

[DarloRich]

In reality the decisions seem to be being informed by NHS capacity. Clearly there’s been a realisation that the NHS simply has no chance of coping with a massive outbreak.

that is the key line in all of this

 

[trebor79]

I think some people are beginning to over-react to this. Fear feeding on fear. While I don't want to under-play the seriousness of the situation, it is not the end of the world. For a sense of perspective, can I refer you to:
Coronavirus.

Well that is reassuring, to a degree. But schools etc still shut so still far from normal. And Hong Kong is a single area, fairly well sealed off from the rest of the surroundings.
I think it's a bit different when talking about whole countries, indeed the entire world.

I am fearful, I don't mind admitting that. I'm really frightened and worried about what the future holds for my family and everyone I know and love.

 

[Bantamzen]

Locking down everyone is not going to end well - ignoring the rules and civil unrest being likely outcomes when people start to see their livelihoods being destroyed through losing their jobs. The majority in low-risk categories need to be allowed to continue to get on with their lives, other than taking sensible precautions already outlined. In reality we might have to accept some collateral damage in all of this. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few... or the one"

I wouldn't go so far as to call them collateral, I would like to target the more vulnerable to help them keep themselves safe & given a priority route into the system if they fall ill as a result. However it is so far true that most, if not all of the cases in the UK that has resulted in death have been with people with conditions that pre-existed them contracting the virus. It isn't however clear yet just how much a factor the virus played, that is another thing we need to understand.

Yes an interesting point. We have to hope things don’t get that bad.



Yes I agree, things like the pub / restaurant industry will simply not be able to sustain 12 weeks of (what will be if guidance is followed to the letter) no turnover. Even if they don’t pay the staff there will still be fixed costs to bear.

Unfortunately there’s no solution to this - last week people were complaining that Boris’s strategy was going to risk deaths, now we have the problem of businesses potentially going under. Not a good position at all, and the government simply won’t be able to bail out everyone.

In reality the decisions seem to be being informed by NHS capacity. Clearly there’s been a realisation that the NHS simply has no chance of coping with a massive outbreak.

Then surely we should be redirecting resources to increase the capacity for dealing with the virus, rather than simply creating an even bigger problem that in itself could cause more trouble for the NHS? Because that's the road we are on now, a rapidly shrinking economy will cause financial hardship, and an extended lock-down could cause issues in the supply train, both of which could mean shortages. And shortages for the poorest can often lead to poor health, and potentially NHS intervention. Which again is why we need to be proactive towards those most at risk, helping them mitigate the risk so that they minimise their potential exposure, but if they do that they can be identified quickly and easily to maximise survival potential. Locking them away to wait and see could just be storing up more trouble, especially if in the meantime you are creating a whole new health problem.

 

[bramling]

I wouldn't go so far as to call them collateral, I would like to target the more vulnerable to help them keep themselves safe & given a priority route into the system if they fall ill as a result. However it is so far true that most, if not all of the cases in the UK that has resulted in death have been with people with conditions that pre-existed them contracting the virus. It isn't however clear yet just how much a factor the virus played, that is another thing we need to understand.



Then surely we should be redirecting resources to increase the capacity for dealing with the virus, rather than simply creating an even bigger problem that in itself could cause more trouble for the NHS? Because that's the road we are on now, a rapidly shrinking economy will cause financial hardship, and an extended lock-down could cause issues in the supply train, both of which could mean shortages. And shortages for the poorest can often lead to poor health, and potentially NHS intervention. Which again is why we need to be proactive towards those most at risk, helping them mitigate the risk so that they minimise their potential exposure, but if they do that they can be identified quickly and easily to maximise survival potential. Locking them away to wait and see could just be storing up more trouble, especially if in the meantime you are creating a whole new health problem.

That is in essence what Boris has tried to do. Until now it has largely been business nearly as usual.

We now have the over 70s advised to isolate which economically is probably sustainable - at a cost to those businesses who heavily rely on elderly people for business. I don’t think there’s realistically much which could or can be done to get around that it we don’t wish to see a massive number of deaths amongst the elderly population.

For everyone else it *is* still an attempt at business at usual with the exception of mass gatherings. Again this is probably unavoidable. We *have* to attempt business as usual as otherwise it will quickly degenerate into a chain reaction of supermarkets / transport / essential services closing through lack of staff. There are clearly going to be challenges when people do become infected or for those groups who are working age but high risk (my place already has numerous isolations in this category). Naturally we have to hope that the understanding is correct that younger healthier people aren’t at risk - either initially or should the virus leave them with a longer-term weakness as a few outlets have hinted at.

The impact on certain industries of the mass gathering restrictions is going to be extremely unfortunate, but what’s the alternative? If these places are hit beds for spreading the virus then we’d be faced with a worse situation when things we really *need* close down due to lack of staff.

Likewise we don’t appear to have the option to allow the NHS to be clogged up with cases which could have been avoided, as quite simply people will die - not just due to this issue but people with other issues for whom the service doesn’t have the capacity to treat.

I’d say the current response is proportionate in the circumstances. Yes we need to maintain a sense of perspective, but equally no one should kid themselves that this is going to be anything other that painful.

 

[DarloRich]

Then surely we should be redirecting resources to increase the capacity for dealing with the virus, rather than simply creating an even bigger problem that in itself could cause more trouble for the NHS? Because that's the road we are on now, a rapidly shrinking economy will cause financial hardship, and an extended lock-down could cause issues in the supply train, both of which could mean shortages. And shortages for the poorest can often lead to poor health, and potentially NHS intervention. Which again is why we need to be proactive towards those most at risk, helping them mitigate the risk so that they minimise their potential exposure, but if they do that they can be identified quickly and easily to maximise survival potential. Locking them away to wait and see could just be storing up more trouble, especially if in the meantime you are creating a whole new health problem.

That is what the government plans are designed to do! They are designed to ensure that the limited ( Very limited compared to possible numbers) NHS resources can be used to treat those in dire need. The plan is also to try and stop the vulnerable from getting the virus and becoming a consumer of those valuable resources unless absolutely unavoidable

Government are trying to increase available NHS resources ( ventilators/staff/drugs etc) but that will take time. That time has to be bought by isolation and, sadly, potential economic damage.

 

[bramling]

That is what the government plans are designed to do! They are designed to ensure that the limited ( Very limited compared to possible numbers) NHS resources can be used to treat those in dire need. The plan is also to try and stop the vulnerable from getting the virus and becoming a consumer of those valuable resources unless absolutely unavoidable

Government are trying to increase available NHS resources ( ventilators/staff/drugs etc) but that will take time. That time has to be bought by isolation and, sadly, potential economic damage.

Absolutely.

The NHS was never going to be set up to cope with the worst-case scenarios. A difficult decision has had to be taken, and the trade-off costs will have to be borne and managed.

I do however get a perception, perhaps wrongly, that there has been a slowness to start getting seriously prepared. Has everyone been taken back by Italy’s situation, including the experts?

 

[DarloRich]

The NHS was never going to be set up to cope with the worst-case scenarios. A difficult decision has had to be taken, and the trade-off costs will have to be borne and managed.

People should look ta some of the transition to war arrangements for a nuclear conflict. Informative.

I do however get a perception, perhaps wrongly, that there has been a slowness to start getting seriously prepared. Has everyone been taken back by Italy’s situation, including the experts?

I know a couple of NHS logistics people and they say they HAVE been buying up enhanced levels of materials and equipment on the quiet for most of the year. The problem is much of it comes from abroad and cash is tight.....................

 

[bramling]

People should look ta some of the transition to war arrangements for a nuclear conflict. Informative.



I know a couple of NHS logistics people and they say they HAVE been buying up enhanced levels of materials and equipment on the quiet for most of the year. The problem is much of it comes from abroad and cash is tight.....................

Presumably there’s also a major problem that much of the world is also attempting to do the same. Again, no easy answers.

 

[DarloRich]

Presumably there’s also a major problem that much of the world is also attempting to do the same. Again, no easy answers.

Hence, i suspect the call to JCB and Rolls Royce and others to help.

 

[Bantamzen]

That is in essence what Boris has tried to do. Until now it has largely been business nearly as usual.

We now have the over 70s advised to isolate which economically is probably sustainable - at a cost to those businesses who heavily rely on elderly people for business. I don’t think there’s realistically much which could or can be done to get around that it we don’t wish to see a massive number of deaths amongst the elderly population.

For everyone else it *is* still an attempt at business at usual with the exception of mass gatherings. Again this is probably unavoidable. We *have* to attempt business as usual as otherwise it will quickly degenerate into a chain reaction of supermarkets / transport / essential services closing through lack of staff. There are clearly going to be challenges when people do become infected or for those groups who are working age but high risk (my place already has numerous isolations in this category). Naturally we have to hope that the understanding is correct that younger healthier people aren’t at risk - either initially or should the virus leave them with a longer-term weakness as a few outlets have hinted at.

The impact on certain industries of the mass gathering restrictions is going to be extremely unfortunate, but what’s the alternative? If these places are hit beds for spreading the virus then we’d be faced with a worse situation when things we really *need* close down due to lack of staff.

Likewise we don’t appear to have the option to allow the NHS to be clogged up with cases which could have been avoided, as quite simply people will die - not just due to this issue but people with other issues for whom the service doesn’t have the capacity to treat.

I’d say the current response is proportionate in the circumstances. Yes we need to maintain a sense of perspective, but equally no one should kid themselves that this is going to be anything other that painful.

The thing is that a large proportion of our economy, rightly or wrongly, is based around those very areas now affected. The loss of revenue and subsequently jobs is going to have a massive effect going forward, perhaps larger than the effect on the NHS as a result of the virus because the NHS needs the economy to be doing well. Keeping perspective is all very well until the bills start rolling in and the money dries up, then the mind refocuses rather sharply. And in a few short weeks, long before this crisis will be declared over, a new, bigger crisis will start to emerge.

Frankly I don't know exactly what the answer is, quite what balance is to be struck. But I am very mindful that these long term effects on potentially millions of people is being underplayed. Yes we do need to look after the vulnerable, and we need to offer them whatever support we can. But at the same time we cannot throw millions of people under the economic bus, which is why I firmly believe that we should be diverting resources in to allow much more attention to the vulnerable above and beyond what the NHS can currently offer, whilst still allowing working people to earn a living. These resources may not be direct medical attention, at least whilst they are not ill with the virus, more to ensure they know & understand what they must do to minimise the risk to themselves, and how to engage with family & friends to make sure they know the same. And its also about letting them know when they should make it known to their medical professionals when they think they need attention.

This is a very emotional subject, but I fear a whole lot worse is to come.

 

[bramling]

Hence, i suspect the call to JCB and Rolls Royce and others to help.

Indeed. Much derided by some, but seems like better than nothing. We’re clearly into that territory it seems.

 

[Meerkat]

If the “collateral damage” was old folk fading away at home it might be vaguely politically acceptable if shutdown was shown to be too damaging.
But battlefield triage with thousands of old folk dying untreated in makeshift hospital wards in an escalating catastrophe is just politically impossible.

 

[DarloRich]

Frankly I don't know exactly what the answer is, quite what balance is to be struck. But I am very mindful that these long term effects on potentially millions of people is being underplayed

it isnt that it is being underplayed just that is a problem for tomorrow. There is a bigger problem to fix today and we don't have the resources to fix both now.

Yes we do need to look after the vulnerable, and we need to offer them whatever support we can. But at the same time we cannot throw millions of people under the economic bus, which is why I firmly believe that we should be diverting resources in to allow much more attention to the vulnerable above and beyond what the NHS can currently offer, whilst still allowing working people to earn a living.

We might HAVE to throw people under the economic bus to survive as a country. It is that blunt. It isnt nice but it is, potentially, reality. We have to be honest about that.

 

[Bantamzen]

it isnt that it is being underplayed just that is a problem for tomorrow. There is a bigger problem to fix today and we don't have the resources to fix both now.

We might HAVE to throw people under the economic bus to survive as a country. It is that blunt. It isnt nice but it is, potentially, reality. We have to be honest about that.

But have we been honest about that, I don't think we have because this hasn't occurred to most people, at least yet? It remains to be seen what the Chancellor has to say later today, if he shakes the magic money tree and finds the cash to prop up businesses through the next few weeks (and will have to be in terms of weeks to also be blunt), then just maybe he can minimise the decline. But if he doesn't, people will turn very, very quickly. Would you go out and say to millions would they mind being thrown into potential poverty for years over a virus that probably won't effect themselves too badly? If people are willing to practically riot over loo roll.... Like it or not, we have to consider all in this instance, try to look after those that fall badly ill but don't destroy those that won't. This is a political, economical, and social triage right now.

Of course the Chancellor could shake another magic money tree, the one involving complex tax laws, and plough the much needed resources into the NHS a lot quicker. I mean this is a crisis yes, so the top of the tree would surely not mind....???

 

[bramling]

it isnt that it is being underplayed just that is a problem for tomorrow. There is a bigger problem to fix today and we don't have the resources to fix both now.



We might HAVE to throw people under the economic bus to survive as a country. It is that blunt. It isnt nice but it is, potentially, reality. We have to be honest about that.

Absolutely. No one is relishing throwing the hospitality sector under the bus, but reality is if we had elderly people dying by the thousand in hospital corridors then I suspect it would lead to such a general panic (and, let’s face it, disruption) amongst the wider population that we’d end up with the economy under the bus anyway, but with the added benefit of no food supplies, no essential services and the like.

This really is lesser of two evils territory, we all need to be realistic and honest about this.

 

[Bantamzen]

Absolutely. No one is relishing throwing the hospitality sector under the bus, but reality is if we had elderly people dying by the thousand in hospital corridors then I suspect it would lead to such a general panic (and, let’s face it, disruption) amongst the wider population that we’d end up with the economy under the bus anyway, but with the added benefit of no food supplies, no essential services and the like.

This really is lesser of two evils territory, we all need to be realistic and honest about this.

Today's hospitality sector, is tomorrow's starving kids queuing outside of empty food banks....

 

[bramling]

Today's hospitality sector, is tomorrow's starving kids queuing outside of empty food banks....

Yes it is. Unfortunately this is a risk when an economy places a heavy reliance on services.

I just can’t see the government having the means to bail the sector out either, when we have others like the rail industry already talking about needing support.

As posted elsewhere, those who have been fortunate and/or sensible enough to have been able to save will be in a better position. It is *very* unfortunate that this hasn’t been widely encouraged for very many years.