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

[redshaw]

Garden centres in England will be allowed to open on Wednesday, indoor cafes closed. I'm glad about the last bit, the one near me, the cafe is usually packed with old people. Shame about the social aspect of the virus though, as it's a very lively part of the garden centre, they're not quiet at all :.

 

[Sarni]

What is the economic impact of these deaths if they were to a much larger scale? These people are consumers and how many people in the service industry would lose their jobs if hundreds of thousands +65 died suddenly?

One of major politicians here has argued recently it would be great for the country if unproductive older people died as we wouldn’t have to pay out their pensions. Many people are using this logic here now. Same people who think virus is made up and doesn’t exist. Tin foil hatters are incredible species sometimes.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

That too. It beats me that people my age are trying to downplay this because ‘old people are dying’ as if it’s completely unimportant whether you pass at 65 or 85. My parents are 65 this year and both of their mothers are still alive at 88 and 95. In fact one of my grandmother’s siblings have all passed at 85 or older. The idea it wouldn’t matter if they all died 20 years earlier is crazy.

I think you maybe need to be aware of your own mortality to fully appreciate the value of the time we have left. I know I felt bomb proof right the way up until late in my thirties. Never crossed my mind that my time was finite. Now it’s all I can fecking think about. Every year is precious.

 

[cyberman]

It’s not a meaningless stat because a lot of very low risk people have become unduly worried about the level of danger they’re in. I’m not arguing against countermeasures only the idea that the virus is ‘very deadly’ to people under 40.

It is meaningless though, its the most common sense of all the common sense stats. The entire world knows its the elderly and feeble that are suffering the most. Its just rephrasing that fact.
A lot of those low risk people are worried about passing it onto older relatives or compromised friends and families, not dying thenselves. They dont want to be the one spreading the virus far and wide.
Being aware of social responsibility isnt being unnecessarily worried about a global pandemic.

 

[Smores]

We can argue the toss about the risk for 20-40 year olds all day but we can all agree that the risk is pretty damn significant for those who are 65+. The idea that we should knowingly allow thousands and thousands of 65+ year olds die 10, 15 or 20 years before their time - in distress, with no loved ones to comfort them - to avoid some economic hardship is actually pretty monstrous.

Some still quite can't grasp that lockdown isn't about self-preservation. You'd think given it was VE day yesterday that perhaps people might reflect that the sacrifice being asked of them now is embarrassingly small.

Let them die, let's not ruin our economy and way of living is such a disappointing view to have to read.

 

[JPRouve]

One of major politicians here has argued recently it would be great for the country if unproductive older people died as we wouldn’t have to pay out their pensions. Many people are using this logic here now. Same people who think virus is made up and doesn’t exist. Tin foil hatters are incredible species sometimes.

And then people will cry because there is a lot less people in their shops or there is a lot more foreigners that replaced their previous clients.

 

[jojojo]

What is the economic impact of these deaths if they were to a much larger scale? These people are consumers and how many people in the service industry would lose their jobs if hundreds of thousands +65 died suddenly?

I guess at its most brutal you could argue their money (and the spending on them by government) would go somewhere - like to the 40 somethings instead. Maybe even a positive one for younger ones trying to get a home. Not great if you actually like your family though.

 

[cyberman]

I guess at its most brutal you could argue their money (and the spending on them by government) would go somewhere - like to the 40 somethings instead. Maybe even a positive one for younger ones trying to get a home. Not great if you actually like your family though.

I was looking at buying a house and have been told to wait out the virus since there will be an influx of properties sold by relatives of deceased victims into a recession hit market.

 

[JPRouve]

I guess at its most brutal you could argue their money (and the spending on them by government) would go somewhere - like to the 40 somethings instead. Maybe even a positive one for younger ones trying to get a home. Not great if you actually like your family though.

Their money will never go to the people that need it, the local shop will close and no government will care. Wages won't be increased to compensate the loss in consumption because most of us are in the private sector, industries that are mainly working for this part of the population will lose everything too.

 

[golden_blunder]

I'm not doing that at all. From our latest death figures you can assume aminimum of around 20-30% of the population already HAS had the virus. In all likelyhood it's going to be something well above that as we have no fully accurate way of knowing how many people get it without showing symptoms. We're still getting over 4,000 new cases a day just from people who are being tested. From the number of recorded deaths, the virus IS running riot. It is going through care homes. It has infecting "at risk" people faster than our government has been able to test them.

And as I keep saying, I'm not suggesting coming out of lockdown and carrying on as normal is the right thing to do. I'm saying that what the UK is doing, is the wrong thing to do, because we don't even have a plan, we are plundering along and no matter how obvious it becomes that we need a plan one way or the other we just continue to plunder along, making up what we'll do next from one day to the other. Affecting everyone's day to day life and causing avoidable hardship for millions of people without even having a clear idea why we are doing it. It's quite ridiculous.

Staying in lockdown makes sense if you have a strategy like Germany have. They have been fully on top of knowinhg the number of infections the whole time, so know who it affects more, where it affects more, and how to contain and control it. They are down to only hundreds of new cases a day. By the time they come out of lockdown (which incidentally, will likely be less time than we're in it for) they will have the pandemic fully under control. They may even eridacte it completely, and will be in a position to try to contain it completely when it comes back. This in turn will be a massive help to getting their economy back on its feet. An example of what the whole point of going into a lockdown is meant to be.

Can you explain to me what we are doing? When we come out of lockdown, whether its next week, next month, whenever, we will be lucky if our testing is even keeping up with the number of new infections...we wont have anything under control. We wont have any kind of platform to keep the virus from continuing to cause damage. What we are doing only ever made sense from a short term perspective of protecting the NHS during it's busy period, by slowing the rate of infection and allowing our health service to cope. I presumed this must have been the idea because a) if we're trying to do anything beyond that then we are doing it VERY wrong, and b) this is what we were REPEATEDLY told the plan was at the start, before the narrative started to change every couple of hours.

Pogue I don't know what you are actually expecting to happen here. The numbers don't lie and what the numbers tell you is that our idea of lockdown doesn't actually work. You factor in the economic impacts, the fact the mortality of the virus mainly targets older, unwell people, the fact what we are doing doesn't actually include any effective way to control the virus or protect those people, and you're looking at a very ineffective plan that is causing major disruption to literally everything and everyone. It is creating situations where some people can't even get food to eat...and in a year's time you're going to be looking at a death toll that will be veyr similar to what would have been estimated had we done nothing at all.

The idea lockdown isn't a major effect on the economy is just obvious and complete bollocks. I mean come on now. The entire Swedish strategy was based around avoiding lockdown BECAUSE of the obvious long term effect it will have on the economy. People trying to at this point claim the opposite are living in a complete dream world...the reason I can't go to my office and work as normal has nothing to do with the virus. The reason my dad can't go out and buy himself food or get it delivered has nothing to do with the virus. The reason my brother's girlfriend no longer has a job has nothing to do with the virus. Lockdown is the reason for these things...you can argue it's necesary to combat the virus IF it actually combats the virus...but in order for that to be the case you kind of have to do the whole thing properly.

On the contrary, I think the plan is to let the virus do it’s thing through the population. The lockdown is just to control the rate. They know that a large part of the population will still do its own thing, and they are slowly drip feeding the rest back into the path of the virus

 

[Classical Mechanic]

It looks that way if you just look at the % and not have any context.

However, if we assume you have 0.2% chance of dying from this virus once you contract it if you are in the 20-40 age bracket, and assume you will contract it, it means you’re more likely to die from coronavirus than all other causes combined (annual risk of dying within the next year at 30 is 0.15%). Within a year more young people would die from covid than any other cause and it would probably increase mortality in that age group by at least 50%.

The stats Abizz posted would translate into roughly a 0.085% mortality rate for under 40s in the UK. Let round it up to 3% for arguments sake and you’d still only be a the risk of dying in a year for a 45 year old. I maintain that it’s scaremongering to claim that the under 40s are in any great danger. It’s detrimental to people’s mental health to suggest they are.

 

[Withnail]

I'm fully aware some people thrive at home; I have (a small minority of) staff that absolutely do. They log in to our server at 5:30am and log off at 8pm, using commuting time plus interest to work. However they are a small proportion. For every person I've seen who're 10% more productive there are 5 who're 30% less.

You bleedin slave driver!

No wonder you think people aren't productive if a 14.5hr work day is the benchmark.

I and all of my colleagues are finding it tough to adjust but we're getting there. I think long term you'd need one day in the office for face to face meetings.

I find the majority are just as productive working from home but we work 9 - 5:30 as that's what we are paid for.

How much are you paying these people?

 

[Classical Mechanic]

It is meaningless though, its the most common sense of all the common sense stats. The entire world knows its the elderly and feeble that are suffering the most. Its just rephrasing that fact.
A lot of those low risk people are worried about passing it onto older relatives or compromised friends and families, not dying thenselves. They dont want to be the one spreading the virus far and wide.
Being aware of social responsibility isnt being unnecessarily worried about a global pandemic.

We were talking about how deadly the virus is to people under 40 and that alone.

 

[Abizzz]

The stats Abizz posted would translate into roughly a 0.085% mortality rate for under 40s in the UK. Let round it up to 3% for arguments sake and you’d still only be a the risk of dying in a year for a 45 year old. I maintain that it’s scaremongering to claim that the under 40s are in any great danger. It’s detrimental to people’s mental health to suggest they are.

Perhaps my judgement is clouded by having had friends die of causes that were a lot less likely than 0.2% for their age, but I do maintain that 0.2% isn't to be chuffed at when it concerns death.

 

[golden_blunder]

We can argue the toss about the risk for 20-40 year olds all day but we can all agree that the risk is pretty damn significant for those who are 65+. The idea that we should knowingly allow thousands and thousands of 65+ year olds die 10, 15 or 20 years before their time - in distress, with no loved ones to comfort them - to avoid some economic hardship is actually pretty monstrous.

I wonder would those people think differently if there was a hint that this virus would keep coming back year on year taking all their parents early?

 

[Withnail]

I was looking at buying a house and have been told to wait out the virus since there will be an influx of properties sold by relatives of deceased victims into a recession hit market.

That's a sobering thought.

A lot of the landlords who've been using airbnb for the past few years will be desperate to sell as well.

There'll be a severe drop in the housing market either way.

 

[TMDaines]

The virus could have been snuffed out if the majority adhered to a hard lockdown. Not everyone needs to stay indoors. Essential services, and all the rest can be excluded (on the condition that they respect what's happening and take the proper precautions.)

C'mon. Tell me you agree. We could have beaten this thing.

Literally every household could hermetically isolate for 21 days with a perfect supply for magically delivered essentials and you still wouldn’t snuff out the virus. What do you think is happening in care homes and multi-person households? The virus spreads between carriers over that time and there would still be asymptomatic carriers after 21 days who would then spread it out into the public again.

Even your science fiction approach doesn’t beat this.

 

[Classical Mechanic]

Perhaps my judgement is clouded by having had friends die of causes that were a lot less likely than 0.2% for their age, but I do maintain that 0.2% isn't to be chuffed at when it concerns death.

I don’t think it should be chuffed at but I don’t think it’s conducive to good mental health for people to be unduly worried about their risk of dying. Admittedly it’s nigh on impossible to achieve any balance and for people to act rationally.

That's a sobering thought.

A lot of the landlords who've been using airbnb for the past few years will be desperate to sell as well.

There'll be a severe drop in the housing market either way.

I’m sceptical that there will be that much of a drop, in the UK at least. Labour famously accused the Tories of causing 120000 excess deaths over 10 years of austerity but the house prices continued to rise pretty much everywhere apart from the South East which was a bubble. In the UK the majority of rental properties are inherited second homes too so many of the properties may not enter the sales market anyway.

 

[BootsyCollins]

I was very against the scaremongering for those who have little change of dying from this in the beginning, but have now changed a little. The scarier you average 28 year old think this is the less are the chances you see stupid things like block parties and stuff.

People need to understand that lockdowns and other things we do are not to protect just you. Its to protect those who really should not be getting this and also to hinder the spread to quickly swift over society. People need to stop taking the virus personally, its about humanity and the society as a whole, not about you or me. At least thats how i see it.

 

[RedC]

I'm fully aware some people thrive at home; I have (a small minority of) staff that absolutely do. They log in to our server at 5:30am and log off at 8pm, using commuting time plus interest to work. However they are a small proportion. For every person I've seen who're 10% more productive there are 5 who're 30% less.

Working for more than half of the hours of the day is not 'thriving', that is disgusting, and if that is the metric you used to judge people that work for you, I seriously pity your staff.

 

[SilentWitness]

The economy is a concept, people aren't.

 

[arnie_ni]

The original post has been edited but you can still view the message in one of the posts that quoted the original post:

Spoiler

https://www.redcafe.net/threads/sar...or-memes-please.452816/page-253#post-25409354

He actually hasn't been on since the 17th March......

 

[sun_tzu]

That's a sobering thought.

A lot of the landlords who've been using airbnb for the past few years will be desperate to sell as well.

There'll be a severe drop in the housing market either way.

I wouldn't expect a Housing apocalypse

We have been told for years of a mass housing shortage so the supply demand equation won't change significantly

If people have buy to let's with a mortgage they won't sell in negative equity in a market that still has housing needs

If people own the rental outright they have no need to sell

I can see transactions slowing down and mortgage companies wanting more deposit etc ...a lot of chains falling apart due to job losses and reduced hours

Probably a small blip in pricing say 10 to 15 percent but mostly recovering over the next year would be my gut feel... Basically a great time to be a cash buyer for renovating and flipping a project

 

[arnie_ni]

"I'm fully aware some people thrive at home; I have (a small minority of) staff that absolutely do. They log in to our server at 5:30am and log off at 8pm"

I would suggest you re-evaluate your idea of what the word 'thrive' means. Because being logged on to 'work' from 5.30am to 8pm is not it.

Yea absolute madness. I think ive read posts of this guys before thinking he would be terrible to work for

 

[Hammerfell]

People are so fecking stupid.

 

[TMDaines]

In my experience annoyingly however it just doesn't work productively on the whole. For myself for example I've never (maybe once a year) taken a lunch in the office but from home find myself taking a lengthy lunch daily and procrastinating far more frequently.

I'm fully aware some people thrive at home; I have (a small minority of) staff that absolutely do. They log in to our server at 5:30am and log off at 8pm, using commuting time plus interest to work. However they are a small proportion. For every person I've seen who're 10% more productive there are 5 who're 30% less.

Probably some reflection is due on just these two snippets alone. Never taking a break isn’t anything to admire; it’s utter indiscipline and stupidity. Why would you not want to keep yourself mentally refreshed and fuelled? Why are you working through time, or expecting others to, that is unpaid for a reason?

Anyone working 5:30 to 20:00 in my organisation would be given a serious intervention and support to understand why. Either the organisation has screwed up in creating a job role that is far too demanding for one ably skilled and qualified person, or that individual is creating serious inefficiencies that will be detracting from the quality of the most important parts of their role, and this may well be either be because of, or contributing to, serious mental health issues. I’ve had to manage a staff member through this and it took a massive amount of my time to do so. Ignoring it was never an option however.

Possibly there’s a more innocent explanation and that is that the individual is just working some funky flexible hours to suit their lifestyle, but that’s not working 5:30 to 20:00.

 

[Sarni]

The stats Abizz posted would translate into roughly a 0.085% mortality rate for under 40s in the UK. Let round it up to 3% for arguments sake and you’d still only be a the risk of dying in a year for a 45 year old. I maintain that it’s scaremongering to claim that the under 40s are in any great danger. It’s detrimental to people’s mental health to suggest they are.

To have one cause of death almost double your risk of dying at a certain age is very significant.

 

[C'est Moi Cantona]

I was looking at buying a house and have been told to wait out the virus since there will be an influx of properties sold by relatives of deceased victims into a recession hit market.

Really? surely it will be barely a ripple, and only in certain areas anyway.

I'm asking out of personal interest as I am right at the end game of buying a house, (deal done pre virus), all set to exchange as soon as is practically possible, I will admit I am extremely nervous about buying something that will very quickly be shown to worth alot less than I will have paid, but then again am constantly told prices will soon bounce back even if that happens.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

People need to understand that lockdowns and other things we do are not to protect just you. Its to protect those who really should not be getting this and also to hinder the spread to quickly swift over society. People need to stop taking the virus personally, its about humanity and the society as a whole, not about you or me. At least thats how i see it.

Precisely.

The UK (and US) are burying hundreds of their dead every day as a downstream consequence of young people who didn’t take this seriously. All those crowded bars, spring break parties, concerts and sporting events after the virus has started to spread has been the difference between the countries worst and least affected. With most of those crowds consisting of young people who were convinced “it’s just a bad flu”.

 

[RedRover]

We can argue the toss about the risk for 20-40 year olds all day but we can all agree that the risk is pretty damn significant for those who are 65+. The idea that we should knowingly allow thousands and thousands of 65+ year olds die 10, 15 or 20 years before their time - in distress, with no loved ones to comfort them - to avoid some economic hardship is actually pretty monstrous.

Isn't that the major issue though? What does "some" look like?

It's a very uncomfortable truth that (at least as far as I understand it) the vast majority of people who die with (and possibly directly from) Covid are not just older, but have other serious health issues which would likely have resulted in death in a relatively short time frame thereafter from some cause linked to existing conditions. We are, therefore trading off damage to the economy to give those people "more" life and the question is, at what point the measures we have in place regarding lockdown, and to a lesser extent social distancing tip the balance the other way.

It seems the lockdown will cause loss of life from other issues such as mental health, or un-diagnosed cancers etc due to lack of screening. A recession also causes reduced lifespan, mostly at the bottom end of society and has far reaching effects decades down the line.

It's obviously difficult to balance this up. In some online forums you can't raise this argument without people suggesting you're a "sociopath" (as I was called on here last week) or suggesting that you think it's fine for old people to die so that I can go to the pub. Clearly that is not what I'm saying. Any death caused by the virus is tragic and I'm sure most of us will have it affect us directly. We need to minimise deaths and try and keep a balance which allows the economy to function so that thousands of others don't suffer now and in the future from the after effects.

I saw an article online the other day, the content of which I didn't agree with particularly but it raised a point I though was relevant. Humans don't like to think about death, accept that it is inevitable or think about the fact that the best we can hope for is to grow old and die peacefully from whatever illness (or illnesses) eventually take us. A bit profound but there you go. It makes having the discussion above, which the Governments around the world must be doing more difficult to accept.

 

[arnie_ni]

One of major politicians here has argued recently it would be great for the country if unproductive older people died as we wouldn’t have to pay out their pensions. Many people are using this logic here now. Same people who think virus is made up and doesn’t exist. Tin foil hatters are incredible species sometimes.

I brought this up earlier. I bet someone in the government is tasked with doing that calculation. How much they are saving in pension to offset what they are spending in furlough

 

[Sweet Square]

People are so fecking stupid.

Honestly this country is beyond satire.

 

[Brwned]

Isn't that the major issue though? What does "some" look like?

It's a very uncomfortable truth that (at least as far as I understand it) the vast majority of people who die with (and possibly directly from) Covid are not just older, but have other serious health issues which would likely have resulted in death in a relatively short time frame thereafter from some cause linked to existing conditions.

What exactly is a relatively short time frame? Almost none of the pre-existing conditions are terminal.

 

[Stactix]

How is the self quarantine after travel enforced?

It's not, left to your own devices. Even more so, many arrived with no notice to self qurrantine. Almost as if the pandemic wasn't happening.

 

[Dumbstar]

I guess at its most brutal you could argue their money (and the spending on them by government) would go somewhere - like to the 40 somethings instead. Maybe even a positive one for younger ones trying to get a home. Not great if you actually like your family though.

If a government for the people, run by the people (well voted in and supported by the people) don't care about a section of that people (over 65s) then why do you think they (the selfish people and government) will care about any other section or age group of the people?

The dystopia we're headed towards is a lot worse than people are imagining.

 

[finneh]

Probably some reflection is due on just these two snippets alone. Never taking a break isn’t anything to admire; it’s utter indiscipline and stupidity. Why would you not want to keep yourself mentally refreshed and fuelled? Why are you working through time, or expecting others to, that is unpaid for a reason?

Anyone working 5:30 to 20:00 in my organisation would be given a serious intervention and support to understand why. Either the organisation has screwed up in creating a job role that is far too demanding for one ably skilled and qualified person, or that individual is creating serious inefficiencies that will be detracting from the quality of the most important parts of their role, and this may well be either be because of, or contributing to, serious mental health issues. I’ve had to manage a staff member through this and it took a massive amount of my time to do so. Ignoring it was never an option however.

Possibly there’s a more innocent explanation and that is that the individual is just working some funky flexible hours to suit their lifestyle, but that’s not working 5:30 to 20:00.

I didn't say they never took a break. Likewise I didn't say they were working solidly for nearly 15 hours, they did take numerous breaks (I of course checked). I also didn't say they weren't keeping mentally refreshed or fueled. They worked longer hours than they would at work (unlike most in my experience), but did it more flexibly.

This is also ignoring the fact that sometimes working a 60-70 hour week is not the end of the world, particularly in seasonal businesses where more flexibility is granted in less busy times. There isn't always a systemic problem if for a month every year you have to work a few heavy weeks back-to-back.

The overriding point was that in my experience only a small minority of staff are more productive when working from home.

 

[iKnowNothing]

Crikey, this seems like ages ago now.

It was also a great reply from @UnrelatedPsuedo

Yup, that was a great response by @UnrelatedPsuedo. I did not want to quote his post directly because I didn’t want others to confuse him with that poster.

 

[Stactix]

Pretty shocking if true. Incompetent tory cnuts.

 

[esmufc07]

 

[Withnail]

I didn't say they never took a break. Likewise I didn't say they were working solidly for nearly 15 hours, they did take numerous breaks (I of course checked). I also didn't say they weren't keeping mentally refreshed or fueled. They worked longer hours than they would at work (unlike most in my experience), but did it more flexibly.

This is also ignoring the fact that sometimes working a 60-70 hour week is not the end of the world, particularly in seasonal businesses where more flexibility is granted in less busy times. There isn't always a systemic problem if for a month every year you have to work a few heavy weeks back-to-back.

The overriding point was that in my experience only a small minority of staff are more productive when working from home.

It is important to ascertain what you think is a normal and acceptable productive working day when validating your opinion on the efficiency of working from home.

The question is why are they working longer hours than they would at work and why is there a need for them to be logged in for 14.5hrs in a 24hr period?

You say they took breaks but did they take a break of oh say 6hrs during this period or are you paying them over-time?

This wasn't presented as a once-off busy week either. It seems to be the norm.

If some of your staff are apparently flogging themselves working most of their waking hours and others are only 10% productive, effectively doing nothing, and you're the manager then I'd suggest you're not a very good one and don't have the best interests or well-being of your staff in mind at all.

This is my reading of the way the information was presented so happy to be wrong but this looks really bad at the moment.