Coronavirus outbreak

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

Salty seadog

Space Cadet...(3rd Class...)
I wonder how much the message is ignored because of who is giving it? We know there are a lot of people don't like the Tories and would maybe resent being told what to do by them. Similarly if I were being ordered to do things by a Corbyn/McDonnell/Abbott government there's a strong chance I would have just thought "fark off". Certainly after the Cummings debacle the number of serious breaches of lockdown seemed to increase showing a lack of respect for the government.

I remember thinking at the outset the daily briefing should have been from a civil servant - rather like Ian wotsisname who had the task of reading out the daily losses in the Falklands War. It makes the message apolitical.

On the other hand, Sturgeon is seeing a growth in approval because she has delivered the message personally every day and took ownership of the crisis. A lot of people respect that.

I don't agree with you on disobeying lockdown rules bases on your voting preference. It is the terminally unaware or terminally don't care that are causing the problem. You and I will continue to act responsibly, I know that. The message is muddle. The whole handling has been wing on a prayer.
 

MntnMan62

Über Member
Location
Northern NJ
New Jersey has just placed restrictions on who can enter the state. The restrictions apply to people coming from states that have a 10% or higher positive test rate over a seven day rolling average. The states that come under that restriction are Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas and Utah. Definitely a pattern established here. Mostly red states, if not all of them. Clearly significant levels of stupidity in those red states.
 

SkipdiverJohn

Deplorable Brexiteer
Location
London
(Its my opinion, while the company has spent lots, put lots of effort into distancing etc, it simply cannot achieve a safe environment and should have reduced its output to meet the safe environment it's workforce needs. Spanish company, very aggressive commercially, fat chance....in fact its picked up more work because responsible companies who did reduce orders...have now possibly made a commercial faux pas and our company picks up the business...at even more cost to its workforce. Its brutal reality, doing the right thing can be a mistake for companies.

I would not class shutting up shop and putting people out of work as "doing the right thing". I bet if you were to ask a hundred people if they would prefer risking a dose of the virus to being on the dole, a majority of them would prefer to take their chances with the virus and still have a job to go to.
The government can't keep the economy in suspended animation forever with the furlough, and a lot of jobs require physical attendance at the workplace and close contact with other people. Your employer might have acted out of pure commercial self interest, but ultimately the employees will still have a livelihood afterwards where other more "worthy" employers will take the government's furlough money for now, then dump the staff they don't want once they have to pick up the tab for their wages.
I reckon a lot of hospitality businesses will not actually open at the start of next month, having taken a calculated decision that they will not be able make any profit until social distancing is completely abolished. Financially it will make more sense to stay shut and let the government keep paying the wage bill.
 

marinyork

Resting in suspended Animation
Location
Logopolis
3. I said months ago that the press briefings should have been officer only. So I'd also agree with criticising this Government for being control freaks desperate for their fifteen minutes on prime time BBC 1, but basically variously clueless, innumerate or hypocritical.

Them being daily without fail after around middle of April was damaging to public confidence. Also the sheer damn length of them.
 

gbb

Legendary Member
Location
Peterborough
I would not class shutting up shop and putting people out of work as "doing the right thing". I bet if you were to ask a hundred people if they would prefer risking a dose of the virus to being on the dole, a majority of them would prefer to take their chances with the virus and still have a job to go to.
The government can't keep the economy in suspended animation forever with the furlough, and a lot of jobs require physical attendance at the workplace and close contact with other people. Your employer might have acted out of pure commercial self interest, but ultimately the employees will still have a livelihood afterwards where other more "worthy" employers will take the government's furlough money for now, then dump the staff they don't want once they have to pick up the tab for their wages.
I reckon a lot of hospitality businesses will not actually open at the start of next month, having taken a calculated decision that they will not be able make any profit until social distancing is completely abolished. Financially it will make more sense to stay shut and let the government keep paying the wage bill.
You may have misunderstood my sentiment. A reduction in output was the phrase, not shutting up shop, to try to make the workplace safe and achieve proper social distancing. Output reduction was mooted early on by my employers but as soon as they realised other companies were doing so, they took on the work the supermarkets were effectively tendering out to fill the gaps, therefore putting their staff at even greater risk.

Seperately, one thing I often say, to those who wanted an earlier or longer lockdown , you have to accept it would reduce the virus...but at great cost to perhaps hundreds of thousands, maybe more, of jobs. They'd soon complain then.
 

MntnMan62

Über Member
Location
Northern NJ
I would not class shutting up shop and putting people out of work as "doing the right thing". I bet if you were to ask a hundred people if they would prefer risking a dose of the virus to being on the dole, a majority of them would prefer to take their chances with the virus and still have a job to go to.
The government can't keep the economy in suspended animation forever with the furlough, and a lot of jobs require physical attendance at the workplace and close contact with other people. Your employer might have acted out of pure commercial self interest, but ultimately the employees will still have a livelihood afterwards where other more "worthy" employers will take the government's furlough money for now, then dump the staff they don't want once they have to pick up the tab for their wages.
I reckon a lot of hospitality businesses will not actually open at the start of next month, having taken a calculated decision that they will not be able make any profit until social distancing is completely abolished. Financially it will make more sense to stay shut and let the government keep paying the wage bill.

Not just financially better but it will save many more lives. Apologies if you already said that.
 

MntnMan62

Über Member
Location
Northern NJ
The lockdown was only ever a brief window to give the government the breathing space to ramp up their intensive care bed capacity. Anyone who thinks that the population is going to tolerate not being able to go about their normal routines until the virus eventually disappears is frankly deluded. If the government have got behavioral scientists advising them they will know the longer this goes on the more fed up people will get and the less notice they will take. Close contact between people is already increasing massively, in shops, in the street, in the park, on the beach, and at work. Plenty of bus passengers are ignoring the mask edict, and either don't have one or don't wear it as intended. The genie is out of the bottle, and it's not going back in now summer is here!. What happens next is going to depend very much how much the real infection numbers up until now compare with the official ones. My own belief is that they are massively understating the true numbers, and a substantial proportion of the population have already been infected, so the virus now has a significantly smaller target audience left to infect.

A second wave of some magnitude is inevitable and in fact, is really necessary, in order to get the worst of it over and done with before the winter flu season kicks in. Trying to actually stop the virus is futile and pushing it further and further back in the calendar simply means the NHS will be overwhelmed in six months time instead, when it still has all the coronavirus cases - plus the usual flu/pneumonia/broken bones from falls etc to deal with.

That may make sense if there is immunity to be had from having the virus. But if there isn’t any, it won’t matter. We are doomed and should do everything we can to save lives now.
 

SkipdiverJohn

Deplorable Brexiteer
Location
London
Definitely a pattern established here. Mostly red states, if not all of them. Clearly significant levels of stupidity in those red states.

How do you explain the massive levels of the coronavirus in places like New York State and California then? They didn't support Trump but they did do a very good job of infecting each other with the virus!
The USA is such a big place that the outbreak was always going to take some time to spread everywhere, which it is now doing in places that escaped lightly at the start.
Personally I think Trump and those governors who want to get back to business as usual are doing the right thing. No other disease epidemic in history has resulted in such widespread government intervention and intentional economic disruption. It's highly questionable whether the outcome in the long run will prove to be any better, as virus deaths avoided may well be offset by increased mortality from other things, plus a likely cut in general life expectancy due to falling living standards as a result of higher lockdown-induced economic damage.
 

MntnMan62

Über Member
Location
Northern NJ
How do you explain the massive levels of the coronavirus in places like New York State and California then? They didn't support Trump but they did do a very good job of infecting each other with the virus!
The USA is such a big place that the outbreak was always going to take some time to spread everywhere, which it is now doing in places that escaped lightly at the start.
Personally I think Trump and those governors who want to get back to business as usual are doing the right thing. No other disease epidemic in history has resulted in such widespread government intervention and intentional economic disruption. It's highly questionable whether the outcome in the long run will prove to be any better, as virus deaths avoided may well be offset by increased mortality from other things, plus a likely cut in general life expectancy due to falling living standards as a result of higher lockdown-induced economic damage.

The reasons are no different. But NY and CA are much more crowded and therefor easier to pass the virus around. NYC itself is actually seeing lower numbers and CA is only shutting down the portions of the state that are effected. But the states I listed are targeted in their entirety by our state because the entire state has elevated levels. My point remains valid.
 

Low Gear Guy

Veteran
Location
Surrey
Many hospitality businesses will have fewer customers when they reopen. In particular you would expect the vulnerable and their carers to stay home. With tight margins this will make the difference between profit and loss. This will continue until we have a vaccine or immunity. It is worth considering that pensioners have on average higher disposable income that working families.

It is not possible to go back to business as normal at this point in time
 

classic33

Leg End Member
My mistake, its Wisbeach, Princes factory. BBC local news, Cambridgeshire. 14 cases, plant closed temporarily. Staff 'forgetting themselves' when at breaks. In other words (IMHO) as soon as they're left to their own devices, they just revert to type, same as they do here. The agency responsible here has tried to modify their behaviour but it's an unbelievably hard task.
Mixed feeling it only being a 24 hour closure. Is it enough, are they screening to identify other cases ? On the selfish side, staff here were concerned if had been a longer closure, we'd have likely seen some of them appearing here.
Closer to home than that.
https://www.dewsburyreporter.co.uk/...cleckheaton-test-positive-coronavirus-2895808
 

MntnMan62

Über Member
Location
Northern NJ
Many hospitality businesses will have fewer customers when they reopen. In particular you would expect the vulnerable and their carers to stay home. With tight margins this will make the difference between profit and loss. This will continue until we have a vaccine or immunity. It is worth considering that pensioners have on average higher disposable income that working families.

It is not possible to go back to business as normal at this point in time

Here in the US restaurants need about 70% of their full business to break even. High overhead, labor and cost of food makes it nearly impossible to truly open at the levels mandated by government.
 
How do you explain the massive levels of the coronavirus in places like New York State and California then? They didn't support Trump but they did do a very good job of infecting each other with the virus!
The USA is such a big place that the outbreak was always going to take some time to spread everywhere, which it is now doing in places that escaped lightly at the start.
Personally I think Trump and those governors who want to get back to business as usual are doing the right thing. No other disease epidemic in history has resulted in such widespread government intervention and intentional economic disruption. It's highly questionable whether the outcome in the long run will prove to be any better, as virus deaths avoided may well be offset by increased mortality from other things, plus a likely cut in general life expectancy due to falling living standards as a result of higher lockdown-induced economic damage.
Well done, you got us, there is no answer to the question "how do you explain the massive levels of coronavirus in California, a highly urbanised state with the highest population in the country and all of the US's main transit hubs to Asia, and New York, a state with the fourth highest population in the country and which has the densest metropolitan area in the country and all of the US's main transit hubs to Europe?"

It's baffling, it must be that the governor in Idaho, his 20 farmer friends and their 13 billion pounds of potatoes knows something the people in New York don't. (I'm not picking on Idaho in particular.)

(Edit: I shouldn't have mentioned farmers, another entry in the spreadsheet. :cry:)
 

SkipdiverJohn

Deplorable Brexiteer
Location
London
Well done, you got us, there is no answer to the question "how do you explain the massive levels of coronavirus in California, a highly urbanised state with the highest population in the country and all of the US's main transit hubs to Asia, and New York, a state with the fourth highest population in the country and which has the densest metropolitan area in the country and all of the US's main transit hubs to Europe?"

So you therefore blame the aviation industry for bringing the coronavirus into the USA and fully support Trump when he issued various travel bans into the states then? :laugh:

I know I believe the majority of the blame for bringing the virus into the UK lies fairly and squarely with the aviation industry. The same lot that are bleating about needing a government bailout to save themselves from the chaos they were largely the cause of!
 

mjr

Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
A second wave of some magnitude is inevitable and in fact, is really necessary, in order to get the worst of it over and done with before the winter flu season kicks in. Trying to actually stop the virus is futile and pushing it further and further back in the calendar simply means the NHS will be overwhelmed in six months time instead, when it still has all the coronavirus cases - plus the usual flu/pneumonia/broken bones from falls etc to deal with.
Why is it futile to defer some cases until there are more treatments? There are two working drugs now and more may be found.

Why is it futile to defer some cases until after there is a working vaccine?
 
Top Bottom