Coronavirus.

[DarloRich]

I am used to disagreeing with you; I am used to your view not changing. It goes without saying!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/51995907


I am so worried about the mental health of some young people I know (who I fear would NOT survive if they had to remain indoors for 3 months; they are clearly not you!) I was in tears on Friday night. I won't say any more on the subject as I know I am not going to change your mind and I also can't go into too much detail of my concerns for reasons of confidentiality.

I am sorry to say my response will not be user friendly so I will say they might HAVE to stay in for 3 months and find a way to survive. That is coming precisely because people, some here, have been unable to follow the rules

I will also point out that you are not the only one concerned about people.

We aren't all you though and just because you say it's wrong doesn't mean it is. The Government have said it's OK for people to go out an exercise and that is it. Also, some of us still have to go to work, the shops, visit friends and family who may need assistance. Personally, I've been informed that my place of work has been marked as Critical Infrastructure because it supplies the Food industry and the NHS. Should I just stay in my house until this all blows over and probably starve to death because, as far as you're concerned nobody should leave their house for any reason?! Not a chance!

Can we try to be rational please? My view is that AT THIS PRECISE TIME exercise is not essential. We can survive for a period without it. Yes that might store up problems for the future but we have a more pressing issue to deal with now. That should be the focus.

I think that people should follow the guidance.

The guidance isn't working.

 

[DarloRich]

I now face the prospect of spending many weeks in a house where my work space (i.e. kitchen table) and time is inherently shared with family space and time...and with a 1 & 3 year old about it is unavoidably going to be stressful. The latter is currently on a late bedtime cycle whilst the former is stuck on early rising mode. So both children in bed is basically only when I need to be in bed as well.

Being able to occasionally leave the house for a short walk, both for my wife and myself, and entirely with stated social distancing guidelines, is going to be essential to maintaining our state of mental health and the level of care our kids require.

We might be told to remain in the house for long periods of time. 1m+ people are to be told that by letter this week. What then? We have to be ready for that. It has to be about mindset. What si the pkan if you are told to remain in the house.

I have mine: Jobs, DIY, cleaning, reading anything to give a task list and some goals. I did the under stair cup board yesterday. Took all day but looks great. Might have gone early with that one!

 

[CM]

I am sorry to say my response will not be user friendly so I will say they might HAVE to stay in for 3 months and find a way to survive. That is coming precisely because people, some here, have been unable to follow the rules

I will also point out that you are not the only one concerned about people.



Can we try to be rational please? My view is that AT THIS PRECISE TIME exercise is not essential. We can survive for a period without it. Yes that might store up problems for the future but we have a more pressing issue to deal with now. That should be the focus.



The guidance isn't working.

Rational, you are the one that's not being rational telling everyone we are supposed to just sit in the house for 3 months and vegetate. Not everyone will have the ability to do this as it can and will affect them both physically and mentally.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Part of the 'going out for a walk' business is physical health, and part mental health.

People who are still going to work, or talking to colleagues on-line, or live with others (family or shared houses) are probably in a better place from the mental health point of view if they have to stay in 24/7.

Those who live alone, and who have to self-isolate, or are forced to stay at home in DarloRich's world, may well now be looking forward to having no contact with another human being for at least 12 weeks. That will potentially have an appalling toll on their mental health. It is widely recognised as a problem for the elderly already, without the current crisis. It is also widely recognised for those living on a limited income who cannot afford to socialise. Those recently made redundant, will have instantly lost a large part of their social activity - ie eight hours per day at work.

All those single households, who look forward to their weekly trip to the pub to talk, the bit of chat at the shop counter, the weekly group activity eg rambling or cycling club etc. now don't heave a great deal to look forward to. The guidelines suggest avoiding visiting friends or having them visit you. If you take away the ability to even walk around the block for some fresh air and a change of scenery, there will be serious problems ahead.

 

[Bletchleyite]

We may all have to eat things we don't like.

 

[Ianno87]

We might be told to remain in the house for long periods of time. 1m+ people are to be told that by letter this week. What then? We have to be ready for that. It has to be about mindset. What si the pkan if you are told to remain in the house.

I don't know. Answers on a postcard please. Parenting books strangely enough don't have a "Global Pandemic" section in them. And those nicey-nicey BBC 'how to work from home' pages don't cover young kids, as nobody has any idea, frankly.

One origimal plan was to take one kid to one grandma's house to spread the load...but clearly no longer sensible to do that

Plough on and hopefully not make ourselves physically unwell in the process, hopefully... is the plan.

I have mine: Jobs, DIY, cleaning, reading anything to give a task list and some goals. I did the under stair cup board yesterday. Took all day but looks great. Might have gone early with that one!

Good for you. Do them then. None of those are practical for us when doing a full time job and full time parenting **at the same time**, whilst also leaving time to sleep and eat and wash.

 

[yorkie]

Please bear this in mind people:

Fun Facts About the Immune System
A couple of key extracts:

Stress damages your immune system
Your immune system is ready for anything you can throw at it. But it can only handle so much.

Stress has a significant effect on your immune system. During stress, a series of events release cortisol, adrenaline, and other stress hormones from the adrenal gland. Together they help your body cope with stress. Normally, cortisol is helpful because it decreases the inflammation in the body that results from the immune responses caused by stress.

But if a person is chronically stressed, stress hormones can affect the way the body functions over time. This increases your risk of health problems, including:

• anxiety
• depression
• digestive issues
• heart disease
• sleep disorders
• weight gain
• problems with memory and concentration

Keeping your immune system strong
Your immune system works hard to protect you every day, but there are things you can do to help it out:

• Get a good night’s sleep. Your body can’t function correctly if you aren’t sleeping well.
• Practice good hygiene. Washing your hands regularly can prevent infections.
• Eat a balanced diet and get plenty of exercise. Eating nutritious food and staying active will help your body fight off infections.

Last week I could hardly sleep. But I am now finally getting more sleep, so that's good. I am trying NOT to stress about things I cannot control. In the past week I have slowly managed to convince myself that there is a huge difference I can make to a lot of people if I can try to minimise the worries about things I can't control and try to concentrate on things I can control.

I've not been seriously ill in a long time and I know exactly why that is; one of the biggest reasons for that is being physically active. I absolutely must maintain this, otherwise I know I will become ill.

I am now ensuring that I get sufficient exercise by cycling and walking (no more football, sadly) and I am also making an effort to eat more fruit.

It's also really important to keep in touch with people and also laughter can help with this. I did not realise until today how important laughter can be. So try to watch some comedy people.

Let's try not to argue too much. I know I disagree with @DarloRich on various issues (and I know I will never change his mind about anything! ) but I will still always look forward to the next forum meal he is at and that isn't going to change no matter how often I see him say something I disagree with!

If anyone wishes to disagree with anyone else that is fine but try not to take things too far everyone. Please!!

 

[DarloRich]

Let's try not to argue too much. I know I disagree with @DarloRich on various issues (and I know I will never change his mind about anything! ) but I will still always look forward to the next forum meal he is at and that isn't going to change no matter how often I see him say something I disagree with!

If anyone wishes to disagree with anyone else that is fine but try not to take things too far everyone. Please!!

All I want is people to take this situation seriously. It isn't a joke but you are right. Just follow the rules. Please.

Also this sleep you speak of? What is it?

 

[Cowley]

I think it’s worth noting at this point that when you take a step back from this thread there are a lot of (understandably) very worried people, but that some people have very different worries to others...
We might find someone else’s problems pale into insignificance compared to the things that we personally are worried about, but that doesn’t mean that we necessarily understand how they’re feeling about the things that are concerning them.
We all need to think about this before dismissing others in my view because this is going to go on for a long time and we’re going to have to have empathy for each other if we’re going to get through it.

And by the way I appreciate a lot of the views and opinions on here and genuinely feel that we can all help each other...

 

[Islineclear3_1]

All I want is people to take this situation seriously. It isn't a joke but you are right. Just follow the rules. Please.

I think most people will take this seriously.

But we are in unchartered territory and many people simply do not know what to do. This is why they go into panic mode as it is the body's basic survival mechanism.

People are frightened by sudden, draconian change; they are being forced to move away from their comfort zones where they feel safe. Any threat, whether real or unreal will put the body into a sense of panic, i.e. survival mode.

This is one reason why people go to great lengths to panic buy; they will feel "safe" if they have their basic needs met in the form of food, personal/home comforts etc.

And there's a lot of fake news/misinformation out there...

 

[MadCommuter]

I also share concerns about working from home with the schools closed. We kept our one child off school last week and I began working from home midweek. Even though my wife is doing a great job, it isn't a normal work environment and concentration is hard work. I'm not used to WFH either, so it's a whole new ball game, especially with limited IT access thanks to an employer who rarely allows WFH.

 

[Mathew S]

Thanks for your reply. I guess I'm just going to have to wait and see. Lots of people talking about lockdown, but the government dispelled this last week. If I theres no further measures to restrict travel, then I'll have to make the journey. I will just try to limit my contact and much as I can to and from. Also a lot of people keep 'estimating' when they think there will be a complete lockdown? Do you think we will follow Italy's line of thought, and lockdown at the point they did when they reach x number of cases?

Thanks once again, appreciate the support.

No problem at all. It's less about reaching x number of cases before we do a 'lockdown' and more about demand for critical care beds. The scientific guidance to the government suggests that 25% of total surge capacity for critical care beds may be a useful trigger for restrictions. Unfortunately, since there seem to be some truly moronic people out there who appear to believe that they know best, and that all this is some sort of scaremongering nonsense, I fear that a total lockdown will be needed rather sooner than I previously thought. My advice: if you're going to go to London, go now; be there for the shortest amount of time you possibly can; then get home, and stay at home.

Social distancing is not working. Look at the comments here and the media reports of behaviour this weekend. More needs to be done. Now. People have to be forced to behave. Why are we waiting?


Also how supine are the reporters? Attack the man and his wibble. Come back at Johnson. Attack. Challenge. Dont swallow his bull.

The medical advisor also dodged a question on death graphs. Challenge none answers.

Also the message should be stay at home. Not stay at home if you possibly can. Khan has this right. Johnson doesnt.

There are some outstanding journalists in that room, at those press conferences, and 'supine' is not an accurate description of any one of them. They are trying to tread a very, very fine line between speaking truth to power, reporting the enormity of the situation, and not scaring the pants off people. I agree that the message needs to change. I agree that a more stringent lockdown will be needed in the coming hours and days. But, speaking as a journalist myself, we're doing our best. Most of us are freelance, we're worred whether in a few weeks we'll be able to pay our rent, or put food on the table and, frankly, we're scared.

Rational, you are the one that's not being rational telling everyone we are supposed to just sit in the house for 3 months and vegetate. Not everyone will have the ability to do this as it can and will affect them both physically and mentally.

Almost two million people (1.5 million in England, 200k in Scotland, and many in Wales and elsewhere) are going to have very little choice. There's nothing 'irrational' about it, it's the harsh reality of where we find ourselves. These are cancer patients, asthmatics, COPD suffers, people with compromised immune systems and others who, should they catch this disease, have a higher chance of dying than not, and will almost certainly require ventilation in a critical care hospital bed. Shielding these people from the virus - and complete isolation is literally the only way to achieve that - is about keeping them safe which will protect the NHS and, in so doing, protect the rest of us as well. Yes, it will be physically and mentally exhausting, but there is - literally - no alternative.

 

[hexagon789]

And there's a lot of fake news/misinformation out there...

That's been one of the worst things a bit this is all the utter rubbish being spouted about the virus and things related to it by unscrupulous sources

 

[Islineclear3_1]

I meant to link in to my post above the following regarding Maslow's hierarchy of needs

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23902918

In 1943, the US psychologist Abraham Maslow published a paper called A Theory of Human Motivation, in which he said that people had five sets of needs, which come in a particular order. As each level of needs is satisfied, the desire to fulfil the next set kicks in.

First, we have the basic needs for bodily functioning - fulfilled by eating, drinking and going to the toilet.

 

[SHD]

For some light-hearted relief, but with a serious background, here is a quaint compilation of Italian local officials and mayors losing their temper and using vivid language at their citizens who find it too difficult to stay home.

https://twitter.com/protectheflames/status/1241696164782669824?s=21

“I’ll send the Carabinieri... with flamethrowers”
“All those dogs must have prostrate problems!”

 

[Belperpete]

The modelling on which the current rules are based does NOT require that there is no inter-action AT ALL between people. In fact, it relies on transmission still occurring, just to a much more limited extent. If we all went into total lock-down, and there was no further transmission, then when it ended we would be in exactly the same state as when we started - those people who hadn't had the coro would then start to get it, and the process would start up again. The aim is to get the transmission rate down to a manageable level, not to zero.

Yes, there are people flouting the rules, just as there are people who ignore laws. The modelling takes this into account. However, this is not an excuse for bending the rules - if too many people ignore the rules, then more stringent rules will be brought in. Pubs and restaurants staying open gave people the excuse to visit them: if its open, it must be OK. Closing them was a big wake-up call to many, but will cause significant problems, e.g. for those staying in hotels. Likewise I suspect that those currently using the excuse of doing exercise, or travelling by car, as a way of bending the rules are soon going to get a big wake-up call. Every individual who bends the rules brings us that bit closer to an ever-more stringent clamp-down, that will inevitably cause us all problems.

I am not being complacent about this, but I do think that the government is right to make the regulations progressively tighter, keeping the public on side, rather than imposing a major draconian clamp-down from the start that would have had significant numbers of people disobeying out of principle. As Cowley says, there are people with different worries. There are those who are seriously worried about the health of themselves and their loved-ones if we don't go into full lock-down. And there are those who are seriously worried about the mental health and economic future of themselves and their loved-ones if we do go into full lock-down. The two have to be balanced.

My outlook is not to worry about things that I can't control. What will happen will happen. There is little point in impotently railing about other people.

 

[DarloRich]

There are some outstanding journalists in that room, at those press conferences, and 'supine' is not an accurate description of any one of them. They are trying to tread a very, very fine line between speaking truth to power, reporting the enormity of the situation, and not scaring the pants off people. I agree that the message needs to change. I agree that a more stringent lockdown will be needed in the coming hours and days. But, speaking as a journalist myself, we're doing out best. Most of us are freelance, we're worred whether in a few weeks we'll be able to pay our rent, or put food on the table and, frankly, we're scared.

Do you think you are the only people worried?!?!?!?!?!

I stand by supine at least in this situation. I have a great deal of respect for reporters but they need to up their game. Not one talks back at Johnson and challenges his wibbly responses. They seem to lap it up and regurgitate it. We need more in this situation. Stop giving him a free pass. Challenge him, directly, live on TV. There was a woman today who I thought was going to but she bottled it imo.

The ventilator question was an example. Not one challenged with the question: When. When will see more ventilators. Why aren't they doing that? I suspect it is because they fear access to important people will be revoked. That shouldn't matter right now.

The question for the deputy medical officer about graphs and death charts was textbook wibble. My answer would have been that is nice but could you answer please my question.

PS I am sure i wouldn't be invited back but it would make a point!

 

[Islineclear3_1]

Almost two million people (1.5 million in England, 200k in Scotland, and many in Wales and elsewhere) are going to have very little choice. There's nothing 'irrational' about it, it's the harsh reality of where we find ourselves. These are cancer patients, asthmatics, COPD suffers, people with compromised immune systems and others who, should they catch this disease, have a higher chance of dying than not, and will almost certainly require ventilation in a critical care hospital bed. Shielding these people from the virus - and complete isolation is literally the only way to achieve that - is about keeping them safe which will protect the NHS and, in so doing, protect the rest of us as well.

The problem is, this cohort of people are the ones most likely to require urgent, regular visits to their local hospital for necessary treatment. NHS hospitals are not cancelling 2-week wait cancer clinics.

In addition, an NHS community nurse might have picked up the virus from her previous home visit and transmit it to the next patient they are visiting. It is going to be very difficult to shield this group from the virus.

 

[Belperpete]

That's been one of the worst things a bit this is all the utter rubbish being spouted about the virus and things related to it by unscrupulous sources

The young seem to be particularly prone to this, I suspect due to the generational move away from main-stream TV and press, toward on-line sources of entertainment and news. Yes, the press may have their biases, but you generally know what they are - much more difficult to determine with random on-line sources. Unfortunately there is a whole industry out there feeding fake on-line news, with the sole purpose of making people mistrust what they are told, and creating division and discord.

 

[yorkie]

The modelling on which the current rules are based does NOT require that there is no inter-action AT ALL between people. In fact, it relies on transmission still occurring, just to a much more limited extent. If we all went into total lock-down, and there was no further transmission, then when it ended we would be in exactly the same state as when we started - those people who hadn't had the coro would then start to get it, and the process would start up again. The aim is to get the transmission rate down to a manageable level, not to zero.

Yes, there are people flouting the rules, just as there are people who ignore laws. The modelling takes this into account. However, this is not an excuse for bending the rules - if too many people ignore the rules, then more stringent rules will be brought in. Pubs and restaurants staying open gave people the excuse to visit them: if its open, it must be OK. Closing them was a big wake-up call to many, but will cause significant problems, e.g. for those staying in hotels. Likewise I suspect that those currently using the excuse of doing exercise, or travelling by car, as a way of bending the rules are soon going to get a big wake-up call. Every individual who bends the rules brings us that bit closer to an ever-more stringent clamp-down, that will inevitably cause us all problems.

I am not being complacent about this, but I do think that the government is right to make the regulations progressively tighter, keeping the public on side, rather than imposing a major draconian clamp-down from the start that would have had significant numbers of people disobeying out of principle. As Cowley says, there are people with different worries. There are those who are seriously worried about the health of themselves and their loved-ones if we don't go into full lock-down. And there are those who are seriously worried about the mental health and economic future of themselves and their loved-ones if we do go into full lock-down. The two have to be balanced.

My outlook is not to worry about things that I can't control. What will happen will happen. There is little point in impotently railing about other people.

This is a very sensible post. Some people seriously need to read this!

Do you think you are the only people worried?!?!?!?!?!

Clearly not; I am not sure what is to be gained by asking such a question.

I stand by supine at least in this situation. I have a great deal of respect for reporters but they need to up their game. Not one talks back at Johnson and challenges his wibbly responses. They seem to lap it up and regurgitate it. We need more in this situation. Stop giving him a free pass. Challenge him, directly, live on TV. There was a woman today who I thought was going to but she bottled it imo.

Now isn't the time for that.

 

[DarloRich]

Yes, there are people flouting the rules, just as there are people who ignore laws. The modelling takes this into account. However, this is not an excuse for bending the rules - if too many people ignore the rules, then more stringent rules will be brought in. Pubs and restaurants staying open gave people the excuse to visit them: if its open, it must be OK. Closing them was a big wake-up call to many, but will cause significant problems, e.g. for those staying in hotels. Likewise I suspect that those currently using the excuse of doing exercise, or travelling by car, as a way of bending the rules are soon going to get a big wake-up call. Every individual who bends the rules brings us that bit closer to an ever-more stringent clamp-down, that will inevitably cause us all problems.

I agree - my view is that too many are breaking the rules to make them effective and that the time for harsher rules is now. The weekend media coverage and my own experiences locally to me have convinced me of that.

I am not being complacent about this, but I do think that the government is right to make the regulations progressively tighter, keeping the public on side, rather than imposing a major draconian clamp-down from the start that would have had significant numbers of people disobeying out of principle. As Cowley says, there are people with different worries. There are those who are seriously worried about the health of themselves and their loved-ones if we don't go into full lock-down. And there are those who are seriously worried about the mental health and economic future of themselves and their loved-ones if we do go into full lock-down. The two have to be balanced.

I don't disagree in general but feel that we are paying too much attention to the later. That, imo, needs to take a back seat to dealing with the virus. We can fix mental health problems later. That isn't meant to be callous or dismissive just that it isn't as important, today, as tackling the virus. I know many here disagree with me.

This is a very sensible post. Some people seriously need to read this!

I don't disagree with that statement!

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't disagree in general but feel that we are paying too much attention to the later. That, imo, needs to take a back seat to dealing with the virus. We can fix mental health problems later.

We can't fix suicides. There WILL be suicides.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

We can't fix suicides. There WILL be suicides.

Exactly.

 

[Mogster]

The modelling on which the current rules are based does NOT require that there is no inter-action AT ALL between people. In fact, it relies on transmission still occurring, just to a much more limited extent. If we all went into total lock-down, and there was no further transmission, then when it ended we would be in exactly the same state as when we started - those people who hadn't had the coro would then start to get it, and the process would start up again. The aim is to get the transmission rate down to a manageable level, not to zero.

Yes, there are people flouting the rules, just as there are people who ignore laws. The modelling takes this into account. However, this is not an excuse for bending the rules - if too many people ignore the rules, then more stringent rules will be brought in. Pubs and restaurants staying open gave people the excuse to visit them: if its open, it must be OK. Closing them was a big wake-up call to many, but will cause significant problems, e.g. for those staying in hotels. Likewise I suspect that those currently using the excuse of doing exercise, or travelling by car, as a way of bending the rules are soon going to get a big wake-up call. Every individual who bends the rules brings us that bit closer to an ever-more stringent clamp-down, that will inevitably cause us all problems.

I am not being complacent about this, but I do think that the government is right to make the regulations progressively tighter, keeping the public on side, rather than imposing a major draconian clamp-down from the start that would have had significant numbers of people disobeying out of principle. As Cowley says, there are people with different worries. There are those who are seriously worried about the health of themselves and their loved-ones if we don't go into full lock-down. And there are those who are seriously worried about the mental health and economic future of themselves and their loved-ones if we do go into full lock-down. The two have to be balanced.

My outlook is not to worry about things that I can't control. What will happen will happen. There is little point in impotently railing about other people.

Agree. It’s about not overwhelming the NHS while keeping the economy functioning in the best way we can.

 

[DarloRich]

We can't fix suicides. There WILL be suicides.

Exactly.

Again, this is not meant to be callous: Not as important as tackling coronovirus as that will kill more people. We need to be very focused on what is the main issue. That must be the priority. I know you disagree and you are welcome to do so. I wont stop giving my view.

OBVIOUSLY ( and this shouldn't need to be said but I better do so) I don't want anyone to kill themselves but taking a dispassionate calculation that may be the side effect of trying to save many more people by taking harder measures on coronovirus. That isn't to be callous or dismissive just focused on what I think is the key issue.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

We can't fix suicides. There WILL be suicides.

And sadly, there will be be MORE suicides as the rates of anxiety and depression dramatically increase

 

[yorkie]

Again, this is not meant to be callous: Not as important as tackling coronovirus as that will kill more people. We need to be very focused on what is the main issue. That must be the priority. I know you disagree and you are welcome to do so. I wont stop giving my view.

I am not sure it is as clear-cut as you say. Not only is it difficult to say that people of one group should be a bigger priority than others, the numbers are really difficult to quantify. We just don't know the impact; it may be that for every person over 70 whose life we prolong might cause major health problems for 10 young people who would otherwise lead healthy lives. But it may be the other way round of course. We just don't know. I do worry that if this goes on for too long, the damage to young people will have been far greater than could be justified. But I do not know how long it will be before it is "too long". It is easy to say this or that should be a priority but is much harder to know for a fact what the actual wider impact of any particular action will be.

And sadly, there will be be MORE suicides as the rates of anxiety and depression dramatically increase

I was aware of young people being incredibly stressed and depressed last week to the extent that I was unable to sleep well for almost an entire week; I cried a lot on Friday as a result of what I had witnessed. That said, if this doesn't last long, I think those young people will recover and be OK. But if it does go on for too long, we will have made the wrong call. And I have no idea how long 'too long' will be.

 

[Belperpete]

I don't disagree in general but feel that we are paying too much attention to the later. That, imo, needs to take a back seat to dealing with the virus. We can fix mental health problems later.

My personal view is that not enough attention is being paid to the economic impact. Yes, significant numbers of people will lose their jobs, and that will inevitably impact the economy. More importantly, as I have mentioned on another thread, our government is proposing to spend billions of pounds it doesn't have, likewise the EU is proposing to spend billions of Euros that it doesn't have, and the US is proposing to spend trillions of dollars that it doesn't have. Where is all this money coming from? Who is lending it? China - I doubt it. If governments around the world are just printing money on this scale, then there will sooner or later be a financial melt-down that is going to make the 1929 crash, let alone the 2008 crash, look like a storm in a tea-cup. What is the point in saving our NHS now if we cripple ourselves so badly we can't afford it in future? This to my mind is the big elephant in the room, that nobody is asking questions about.

 

[Cowley]

My personal view is that not enough attention is being paid to the economic impact. Yes, significant numbers of people will lose their jobs, and that will inevitably impact the economy. More importantly, as I have mentioned on another thread, our government is proposing to spend billions of pounds it doesn't have, likewise the EU is proposing to spend billions of Euros that it doesn't have, and the US is proposing to spend trillions of dollars that it doesn't have. Where is all this money coming from? Who is lending it? China - I doubt it. If governments around the world are just printing money on this scale, then there will sooner or later be a financial melt-down that is going to make the 1929 crash, let alone the 2008 crash, look like a storm in a tea-cup. What is the point in saving our NHS now if we cripple ourselves so badly we can't afford it in future? This to my mind is the big elephant in the room, that nobody is asking questions about.

Well said. And that’s where the government is treading a tightrope at the moment weighing up crashing the economy through the floor vs saving lives by shutting the country down early.
Only time will tell if they’ve got the balance right but there’s going to be a high level of extreme distress either way.
I wouldn’t want to be making these decisions at the moment...

 

[Islineclear3_1]

Sadly, the next generation is going to end up paying once the baby boomers and their children die out. They will be paying for the (increased) national debt and economic crisis (e.g. in higher taxes) because of COVID-19, the obesity crisis (because we've all sat around for weeks/months on end self-isolating and getting fat), a health timebomb, the mental health crisis, and of course, lack of spending on the railways (and other transport) - not to mention many other "crises-s" to come.

I was aware of young people being incredibly stressed and depressed last week to the extent that I was unable to sleep well for almost an entire week; I cried a lot on Friday as a result of what I had witnessed. That said, if this doesn't last long, I think those young people will recover and be OK. But if it does go on for too long, we will have made the wrong call. And I have no idea how long 'too long' will be.

I was on the bus coming home from work on Friday and overheard the conversation between a group of Year 12/13 girls who were really worried about how they would pass the time over the coming weeks due to their school being shut. These were smart girls who were well accustomed to the structure and routine of study and revision and were literally heartbroken that they could not spend their 8-hour a day in the school library (with its excellent resources). I was so sad for them

Any my wife and I had to make an essential journey today to collect our daughter from university, including clearing her room and bringing home her belongings