SARS CoV-2 coronavirus / Covid-19 (No tin foil hat silliness please)

That'sHernandez said:
Rishi Sunak expected to increase tier 2 jobs support

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54639713

Funny how this comes in shortly after London goes into Tier 2 but the North has to beg and barter just to keep people in jobs while in Tier 3, having been in Tier 2 for weeks already.
Click to expand...
its good news in short, but long term then debt this country is going to be is scary. People need to understand the more support we get now, the less support and the bigger the cuts are going to be down the line.
 
My whole family recently recovered from Covid. My Dad only had mild fever for a couple of days, followed by a loss of taste for another couple of days and then he got better on his own. My mother and I were hit a little worse and had a fever for about 10-12 days before we got better. Never felt as tired as I did in those ten days, even getting up from my bed to go to the washroom seemed like running a 5k. The real scary part was not knowing whether our health would improve on it's own or if it will take a turn for the worse - thankfully it did.
 
acnumber9 said:
I’m a civil servant and even they were actively looking to give people warnings for sick absence and trying to bring referrals to occupational health as soon as somebody went off sick. There’s an attitude that people should drag themselves to work for anything short of a limb hanging off. That attitude has to completely change.

I think mask wearing if you go out with a cold etc is a good and fair compromise. I don’t think mandatory mask wearing at all times is.
Click to expand...

What’s absolutely insane to me is my memory or working in hospitals, when taking a day off sick was perceived as fecking over your colleagues and the doctor’s res was strewn with empty sachets of Lemsip every flu season.

And these were highly educated medical professionals who knew they would be in contact with vulnerable/sick patients. It’s almost as though we were in complete denial about the possibility that we could infect anyone else. Really strange.
 
acnumber9 said:
What would be a preferable change would be workplaces not forcing people to go to work when they’re sick. I don’t think the majority of people will want to wear masks for the rest of their lives.
Click to expand...
theirs also the opposite side to that argument though that people need to not take advantage of sick days when they aren't sick or just hungover, something we all know people do.
Problem is you get bad employers who take advantage of employees and bad employees that take advantage of employers.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
What’s absolutely insane to me is my memory or working in hospitals, when taking a day off sick was perceived as fecking over your colleagues and the doctor’s res was strewn with empty sachets of Lemsip every flu season.

And these were highly educated medical professionals who knew they would be in contact with vulnerable/sick patients. It’s almost as though we were in complete denial about the possibility that we could infect anyone else. Really strange.
Click to expand...

Obviously the consequences of health workers being sick at work are far higher than for most occupations but the almost competitive atmosphere many or even most workplaces foster around not taking sick.leave unless you are at death's door is bizarre.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
What’s absolutely insane to me is my memory or working in hospitals, when taking a day off sick was perceived as fecking over your colleagues and the doctor’s res was strewn with empty sachets of Lemsip every flu season.

And these were highly educated medical professionals who knew they would be in contact with vulnerable/sick patients. It’s almost as though we were in complete denial about the possibility that we could infect anyone else. Really strange.
Click to expand...
We’ve been conditioned to accept that it’s ours or other people’s fault if resources are stretched. Rather than the real reason being under investment leading to being under staffed.
 
Nytram Shakes said:
its good news in short, but long term then debt this country is going to be is scary. People need to understand the more support we get now, the less support and the bigger the cuts are going to be down the line.
Click to expand...

It doesn't really work that way. If we spend less now and as a direct result do more long-term harm to the economy (business closures, unemployment, productivity, growth, etc.) then we may have less debt to pay off, but we're less able to pay it off. It absolutely can be the case that paying a lot more now could mean we'll "pay" a lot less later.

A lot of economic theories are flimsy enough that you have people strongly in favour of one argument and others strongly in opposition, but it's universally agreed that some form of disaster relief payments is good not just because it's morally the right thing to do, but because it is in the interests of the entire economy.

Exactly where and how much money should be spent is still very debatable but it definitely isn't true to say "the more we pay now, the more we pay later" due to basic principles of economic growth and the ripple effects of economic crises.
 
Nytram Shakes said:
theirs also the opposite side to that argument though that people need to not take advantage of sick days when they aren't sick or just hungover, something we all know people do.
Problem is you get bad employers who take advantage of employees and bad employees that take advantage of employers.
Click to expand...
Yeah. But a lot of workplace sickness is caused by bad workplaces to begin with.
 
acnumber9 said:
We’ve been conditioned to accept that it’s ours or other people’s fault if resources are stretched. Rather than the real reason being under investment leading to being under staffed.
Click to expand...

Definitely. Although there’s also an element of machismo. I remember us all sneering at nurse’s taking loads of sick days, while we took almost none, despite basically working for the same employer.

I also get the impression that public sector employees in general are more willing/able to take sick days than people who work in the private sector. So it’s arguably more about corporate culture than resourcing.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Definitely. Although there’s also an element of machismo. I remember us all sneering at nurse’s taking loads of sick days, while we took almost none, despite basically working for the same employer.

I also get the impression that public sector employees in general are more willing/able to take sick days than people who work in the private sector. So it’s arguably more about corporate culture than resourcing.
Click to expand...

That is not true in my experience. At least in my own division in NHS they have come down hard on absence levels in the past 4/5 years and several members of staff have been sacked as a result. In the past I think some people would not have thought twice about going off long term 6months+ every couple of years but that's all been knocked on the head now. I think generally our sickness level sits at about 2%.
 
balaks said:
That is not true in my experience. At least in my own division in NHS they have come down hard on absence levels in the past 4/5 years and several members of staff have been sacked as a result. In the past I think some people would not have thought twice about going off long term 6months+ every couple of years but that's all been knocked on the head now. I think generally our sickness level sits at about 2%.
Click to expand...

That’s interesting. My own NHS experience is from a long long time ago. So probably completely outdated.
 
acnumber9 said:
Yeah. But a lot of workplace sickness is caused by bad workplaces to begin with.
Click to expand...
yeah sometimes, but equally I've known people who take the mick at great work environments, but then I've had bosses who basically act like you have robbed them if you are genuinely ill.

It's a mutual thing both employees and employers need to treat each other with respect, unfortunately, people on both sides of that divide don't.
 
Brwned said:
It doesn't really work that way. If we spend less now and as a direct result do more long-term harm to the economy (business closures, unemployment, productivity, growth, etc.) then we may have less debt to pay off, but we're less able to pay it off. It absolutely can be the case that paying a lot more now could mean we'll "pay" a lot less later.

A lot of economic theories are flimsy enough that you have people strongly in favour of one argument and others strongly in opposition, but it's universally agreed that some form of disaster relief payments is good not just because it's morally the right thing to do, but because it is in the interests of the entire economy.

Exactly where and how much money should be spent is still very debatable but it definitely isn't true to say "the more we pay now, the more we pay later" due to basic principles of economic growth and the ripple effects of economic crises.
Click to expand...
it is basic, obviously, the more we borrow the more we have to pay back, but protecting jobs now can protect mean more people are going to be working and contributing tax towards paying that back. What the correct balance between racking up the debt now and protecting people in the short term, compared to being frugal now to not lumber future generations with debt will likely vary between economist to economist. I did political history at uni and there was a module economic history and the number of different views on Roosevelt's new deal was mind blogging, going from everything from it being a disaster that America was paying off till the 80's and America's economy was only saved from collapse by Europe suddenly starting to spend billions on arming itself in the second half of the 30's. But then there are views that say the money spent protected and supported the infrastructure that America is benefiting from today. So its never clear cut.

However, I just feel that too many people are acting like their isn't going to be a huge bill at the end of this government support and are just demanding more and more support without and thought of the long term costs or even understanding that there may be long term costs. And when those long term costs come they will be equally outraged and start blaming people.

People want all the support now and they will want it after and that isn't possible, and as a country, we need to start understanding that and work on getting the balance right.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Definitely. Although there’s also an element of machismo. I remember us all sneering at nurse’s taking loads of sick days, while we took almost none, despite basically working for the same employer.

I also get the impression that public sector employees in general are more willing/able to take sick days than people who work in the private sector. So it’s arguably more about corporate culture than resourcing.
Click to expand...
You would think so but from my experience of the public sector it’s got worse and worse. You could argue that’s fair but for me the Government should be setting the example for what the private sector should be doing. Not trying to follow their example.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Definitely. Although there’s also an element of machismo. I remember us all sneering at nurse’s taking loads of sick days, while we took almost none, despite basically working for the same employer.

I also get the impression that public sector employees in general are more willing/able to take sick days than people who work in the private sector. So it’s arguably more about corporate culture than resourcing.
Click to expand...
I worked for years on power station shutdowns where there might be a thousand extra workers on site from all over the country working 10 to 12 hour shifts , 7 days a week where it was (and still is) frowned upon to have any time off as if deadlines weren`t met it cost big time. Most firms had porta shed mess rooms where everyone uses the same fridge, burco, etc . I worked with a lot of guys that hadn`t had a day off sick for thirty years , and that won`t change. I know a few lads still at it and they still go to work now if they are unwell as the shutdown season is short and you have to take the money when its available as its all short term contract work .
 
Nytram Shakes said:
yeah sometimes, but equally I've known people who take the mick at great work environments, but then I've had bosses who basically act like you have robbed them if you are genuinely ill.

It's a mutual thing both employees and employers need to treat each other with respect, unfortunately, people on both sides of that divide don't.
Click to expand...
You will never be able to stop people who do that. I’m not going to sit and pretend I’ve never called in sick when fit for work. It’s human nature to take advantage on occasion. But I do believe that workplaces end up with the environment that they have created. If they show no appreciation for the work you do, or underpay you. Expect to be taken advantage of. Most people will go the extra mile if their employers treat them well.
 
Last edited:
balaks said:
That is not true in my experience. At least in my own division in NHS they have come down hard on absence levels in the past 4/5 years and several members of staff have been sacked as a result. In the past I think some people would not have thought twice about going off long term 6months+ every couple of years but that's all been knocked on the head now. I think generally our sickness level sits at about 2%.
Click to expand...
That’s been my experience in other parts of the civil service. No coincidence it’s got steadily worse under the current government. The financial crash in 2008 gave them the perfect excuse because the general public love a good story about lazy civil servants.
 
Nytram Shakes said:
its good news in short, but long term then debt this country is going to be is scary. People need to understand the more support we get now, the less support and the bigger the cuts are going to be down the line.
Click to expand...

They don't have to be - that is the great Tory lie but that's a discussion for another thread.
 
Nytram Shakes said:
it is basic, obviously, the more we borrow the more we have to pay back, but protecting jobs now can protect mean more people are going to be working and contributing tax towards paying that back. What the correct balance between racking up the debt now and protecting people in the short term, compared to being frugal now to not lumber future generations with debt will likely vary between economist to economist. I did political history at uni and there was a module economic history and the number of different views on Roosevelt's new deal was mind blogging, going from everything from it being a disaster that America was paying off till the 80's and America's economy was only saved from collapse by Europe suddenly starting to spend billions on arming itself in the second half of the 30's. But then there are views that say the money spent protected and supported the infrastructure that America is benefiting from today. So its never clear cut.

However, I just feel that too many people are acting like their isn't going to be a huge bill at the end of this government support and are just demanding more and more support without and thought of the long term costs or even understanding that there may be long term costs. And when those long term costs come they will be equally outraged and start blaming people.

People want all the support now and they will want it after and that isn't possible, and as a country, we need to start understanding that and work on getting the balance right.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it is definitely debatable how much, but it is worth noting that there is almost universal consensus that for this crisis, we do need to spend more.



The fact that we are artificially preventing people from participating in the economy for a temporary period means this is very different to a normal question about how should be spend in a recession. It's how should we spend to get through the crisis. And generally speaking, people across the political spectrum agree that significant investment is necessary in disaster relief. And now is as good a time as any to use debt to fund that.

So people asking for us to spend more, on things that are genuinely essential to livelihoods, seems fair enough. But there will naturally be disagreement on the right number. And when it moves onto the next stage and people start to think about getting out of a recession, people's opinions diverge. That's where people's political attitudes start shaping their argument.
 
This is why we’re screwed.

Ireland went back to full lockdown today. Schools remain open but everyone supposed to be working from home unless providing “essential services” When the same guidance was issued in March the buses were all empty. Just goes to show that a lockdown is no longer a lockdown.

Six weeks of Level 5 was supposed to get us open for Christmas but that’s based on modelling of measures that are theoretical only and bear no resemblance to the reality on the streets.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
This is why we’re screwed.

Ireland went back to full lockdown today. Schools remain open but everyone supposed to be working from home unless providing “essential services” When the same guidance was issued in March the buses were all empty. Just goes to show that a lockdown is no longer a lockdown.

Six weeks of Level 5 was supposed to get us open for Christmas but that’s based on modelling of measures that are theoretical only and bear no resemblance to the reality on the streets.
Click to expand...
I cycled to Connolly hospital this morning at 7:30am to get my INR levels checked. About 6 busses passed me and I’d say 4 of them were 75% full of normal capacity. Where the heck is everyone going? Why can’t the drivers drive with the doors closed and the bus full sign if they have reached the 25% capacity.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
This is why we’re screwed.

Ireland went back to full lockdown today. Schools remain open but everyone supposed to be working from home unless providing “essential services” When the same guidance was issued in March the buses were all empty. Just goes to show that a lockdown is no longer a lockdown.

Six weeks of Level 5 was supposed to get us open for Christmas but that’s based on modelling of measures that are theoretical only and bear no resemblance to the reality on the streets.
Click to expand...
This is the exact opposite to what you should be doing, in Lithuania during the first lockdown we decreased the allowed capacity in the buses but made services to run more frequently.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Bear in mind that photo was taken after the “heart-wrenching hair loss”. And no, she’s not wearing a wig.
Click to expand...
‘Heart wrenching’ might be a bit hyperbolic, but to each their own.

I had never heard about hair loss being associated with covid & its after-effects before this.
 
Isn't hair loss a side-effect of some anti-virals? Or am I mixing things up.
 
I think its telogen effluvium, happens after a major stress like surgery or infection. Usually reversible over time.
 
Brwned said:
Yeah, it is definitely debatable how much, but it is worth noting that there is almost universal consensus that for this crisis, we do need to spend more.



The fact that we are artificially preventing people from participating in the economy for a temporary period means this is very different to a normal question about how should be spend in a recession. It's how should we spend to get through the crisis. And generally speaking, people across the political spectrum agree that significant investment is necessary in disaster relief. And now is as good a time as any to use debt to fund that.

So people asking for us to spend more, on things that are genuinely essential to livelihoods, seems fair enough. But there will naturally be disagreement on the right number. And when it moves onto the next stage and people start to think about getting out of a recession, people's opinions diverge. That's where people's political attitudes start shaping their argument.
Click to expand...

agreed that why we have a Tory government offering so much financial support something I never thought I would see. But of course, just because funding the country by acquiring debt is a necessity in the short term, that still has to be done with caution as its only a very short term solution, so the amount of debt acquired and how it is spent needs to be carefully considered.

I agree that people should ask for essentials and to protect lively hoods were it is possible, it was the essential element finishes that I think people are struggling with, peoples lives and livelihoods are going to have to change because of this that's just a fact, there will be people who loved their job before the pandemic who probably have to start finding other jobs. I don't think people, in general, are ready to accept that yet and are just demanding basically every industry be supported until things go back to normal, which simply isn't feasible.

I just also think people are just acting like the government is just been stingy that not every aspect of every industry isn't fully financed every person not fully supported, we live in a country that constantly votes in Tory governments as it likes low taxes, but then complains about the lack of funding to public services people want there cake and to eat it. I worry the same is happening now people demanding the government borrow and borrow with no care of the consequences for that. And there have to be consequences you can't just rack up this amount of debt without it affecting the countries finances for years to come.
 
golden_blunder said:
I cycled to Connolly hospital this morning at 7:30am to get my INR levels checked. About 6 busses passed me and I’d say 4 of them were 75% full of normal capacity. Where the heck is everyone going? Why can’t the drivers drive with the doors closed and the bus full sign if they have reached the 25% capacity.
Click to expand...
Most retail services, shops, cafes are still open in some capacity this time.
 
calodo2003 said:
There’s absolutely no doubt that life as we knew it will be altered forever. It’s just the degree to which it has been changed that is still unknown as of now.

The change might only be as minor having to get a vaccine every ‘X’ amount of time elapsed or having to wear a mask everywhere, but we unfortunately will never be returning to how we lived our lives in 2019.
Click to expand...
Not being rude but how do you justify such a finite perspective? I'm trying to understand why so many people are buying into this pre-destined scenario that is being pushed for a number of reasons in addition to the obvious health-medical ones.
Recent data from the USA shows that deaths from Covid-19 alone were around 9,000 while the other cases of the 200,000 plus were those of the elderly including those already sick, the medically obese, those with serious conditions that would be vulnerable to flu as well as covid-19 including cancer, hiv, etc.

The USA has a population of around 300,00 million people and the regrettable deaths of over 200,000 people doesn't even come close to those that have occurred from influenza over the years. Despite have flu vaccinations, the effectiveness of which depend on the strain of flu yet different ones are resistant therefore the death toll each year in the world including developed countries from flu. And where did flu go this year? Probably it co-existed with covid-19 in some of the cases of serious infection and the number of deaths.

I don't apologise for saying that the economic vandalism as well as rise in suicides that has been recorded in a number of countries, the disruption to normal social life etc etc has been and is proving to be excessive for a new virus that is far less fatal than the Hong Kong flu for example that caused millions of deaths or the Spanish Flu which is being trotted out as a kind of guide by some 'authorities' to impose lockdowns and masks as well as serious economic destruction and mental health problems in many countries. Despite the fact the Spanish Flu targeted the young rather than the old whereas covid-19 targets the old, those with fairly serious to serious pre-existing conditions, etc.

Why the panic? It is one thing to be very very cautious in the initial stages of a new virus and to understand how certain groups are very vulnerable as we saw in the over loaded hospitals of Europe for example. It is another to be witnessing just how this new virus has worked its way through populations without causing anything like deaths from other pandemics in recent history and in fact is having less serious casualties than different kinds of flu which governments and societies accepted as having a death toll each year higher than covid-19. Regardless of available vaccines.

This is a re-set - emissions have gone down by around 30 percent since air traffic was mostly halted, the appalling debt and inadequate economic policies of most govts and their failure to address the fact we are now living in the 21st century will be dealt with by this crisis whether the solutions will be good or not, and surveillance in a number of forms once thought of as intruding on human rights and civil liberties are becoming accepted outside of countries such as China.

Influential, unelected organisations and individuals are using this new virus to impose change that was not possible before. There will be serious attempts to render cash obsolete and impose world-wide digital IDS - the 'covid-free' digital passport is not a theory, it has been developed. All it takes is for enough govts to co-operate and as govts and politicians usually seek to cement their power, I doubt many will resist.

On one hand we are being daily spooked by media stories about how the virus comes back and people get re-infected yet on the other hand the 'covid-free digital passport' for you and me and everyone to be able to leave their countries and travel elsewhere is being touted as the best thing since sliced bread. Wake up. we are being played here as the power grab is similar to that after 9/11. The surveillance web created by Bush and his masters profoundly changed our world for the worst.

All the 'it will never be the same' for a new virus that is proving to be highly infectious but less harmful than many strains of influenza and other viruses shows just how easily people can be swayed by the constant barrage of internet memes. Thinking for yourself is almost being elevated to a crime with the left side of politics leading the charge most of the time. This is very worrying as the left used to be the side skeptical of govt power grabs and the huge corporations' influence.
The World Economic Forum, containing such models of democracy and free thought as Mastercard and a host of other cynical exploiters is all up in this 'Oooh, life has changed forever!' Think about the messages coming from the unelected as well as the elected.

As for masks, I live in Japan and while masks can be useful I don't think they are much of the story about why Japan has managed to avoid lockdowns. We avoided them here as well as the worst effects of covid-19 because to put it quite simply and truthfully, Japan is not a multi-cultural country with the massive mobility of immigrant countries in the west, no double or more passports, no living in one country for some time each year then coming back as normal practice, etc. Viruses rely on mobility to spread and that of western countries including the USA has much to do with it as well as the different strains brought in to western countries by this continous mobility.

As for Japan being a model of virtue because the Japanese wear masks and 'selfish' westerners don't - it is easy to get infected by your mask if you don't take precautions all the time and judging by the Japanese I see putting their masks down on uncleaned desks, tables, or even train seats, I'd say masks are only as good as how clean they are. Remember too that covid-19 is mild for many people so I have no doubt the recorded infections in Japan and non-recorded infections have something to do with the mask wearing culture.

To end, this summarises the 'noble' Japanese attitude to mask wearing - in surveys, most respondents have said that wearing masks because everybody else is, is the number one priority for them. Not stopping viral infections. The hive mind perfectly summarised and this hive mind should not be admired in western countries with histories of philosophers and other thinkers who inspired democratic institutions and societies no matter how imperfect. There is no equivalent in Japan.
 
That'sHernandez said:
They don't have to be - that is the great Tory lie but that's a discussion for another thread.
Click to expand...
Of course, it doesn't have to be, people could share wealth and prosperity equally but people don't.

There is also the possibility that if you invest more you grow your GDP more to offset your debt payment but in order to do that you need to borrow more and invest correctly which is an incredibly tricky tightrope to walk

You can also raise taxes, to pay the income, but as huge majority of British people pretty much lose their minds at any tax rise that not very viable.
 
calodo2003 said:
‘Heart wrenching’ might be a bit hyperbolic, but to each their own.

I had never heard about hair loss being associated with covid & its after-effects before this.
Click to expand...

People have been known to lose hair (some not all) from any kind of illness which causes high fevers. Including Spanish flu.

I understand the motivation because we do need people who face very little risk from covid (i.e. young people) to be scared of it for the benefit of others but all the “long covid” horror stories are getting quite tiresome. It’s a nasty viral illness and nasty viral illnesses can feck you up in all sorts of ways which can take a very long time to recover from. SARS-COV-2 is by no means unique in this regard.

EDIT: Not having a go at you for sharing btw. Just feeling general long covid fatigue.
 
Last edited:
acnumber9 said:
You will never be able to stop people who do that. I’m not going to sit and pretend I’ve never called in sick when fit for work. It’s human nature to take advantage on occasion. But I do believe that workplaces end up with the environment that they have created. If they show no appreciation for the work you do, or underpay you. Expect to be taken advantage of. Most people will go the extra mile if their employers treat them well.
Click to expand...
I think you have a far more positive outlook on people than I do, I think there are too many people who will take every liberty they can, both as an employer and employee. Maybe it is more exaggerated in good and bad work places but ultimately because there are too many people on both sides who abuse any system put in place it will never be fair.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.