• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

We must enable the economy to recover as soon as practicable

Status
Not open for further replies.

37424

Member
Joined
10 Apr 2020
Messages
1,064
Location
Leeds
But contact between the under 40s and over 40s will be near to none existent for a period of 3 months let's say. As I say in my original post, those in the 18-40 age range who live alome or someone in the same age cohort should be allowed to physically go to work and socialise with others in their age cohort.

The reality is millions of working age will not have a job after the lockdown/furlough scheme. Everyone seems completely and utterly blinkered as to the economic damage this will unleash. It's all about protecting a few thousand vulnerable people - not the socio-economic well-being of the other 65 million people.

It's madness. We need the GDP and unemployment figures ASAP. Then the tenet of the debate will thankfully change from one fuelled by media scaremongering (i.e. death) to one of balanced pragmatism (i.e. mitigating economic destitution).

Meantime in six months time in Sweden they'll be laughing.

Its a lot more than a few thousand I think around 1.6 million classed as vulnerable.

I think everyone is concerned about the damage to the economy and clearly there will be some damage but I think the doom mongers may be overdoing it a bit after all its difficult to predict anyway because we have never been in this situation before.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Belperpete

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2018
Messages
1,575
I certainly wouldn’t rule out the sentiment having appeared in this forum occasionally as well (although to be fair it has generally tended to be justified as part of a bigger picture).
As in the post almost immediately after!
It's all about protecting a few thousand vulnerable people - not the socio-economic well-being of the other 65 million people.
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,685
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
As in the post almost immediately after!

I do think many people still don’t quite realise just how many working-age people are shielding. Take my immediate team of people at work - 4 out of 9. In another team 9 out of 12, one of those in their 20s, another in their 30s, and a couple more in their 40s.

Unfortunately it *really isn’t* in any was as simple as young versus old.
 

Merle Haggard

Established Member
Joined
20 Oct 2019
Messages
1,979
Location
Northampton
You mean here, as on these forums?

I'm over 70, ex BR, and noticed some odd remarks on threads. Ones that stick in mind include:-

"It would be pointless sending old people emails about the lockdown - they wouldn't know how to open them" However did I cope with TOPS implementation and early, very user unfriendly B.R. computer systems?

"Wrinklies" ; I have always kept to a healthy weight and I am not alone amongst the older generation. My gym is unfortunately closed at the moment though.

"Old dears" On elaboration, this turned out to mean women over 40(!) so a large proportion of the population are thereby dismissed.

I'm puzzled about age-ism - doesn't everyone want to grow old? The alternative doesn't seem attractive...
 

Belperpete

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2018
Messages
1,575
I just don’t think under 40 / over 40 split could work. It simply wouldn’t work in my household and wouldn’t work in my workplace, and if that’s any way typical (and I’ve no reason to believe it isn’t) then that pretty much puts the dampener on it straight away.

I agree the economic damage is going to be catastrophic, and I think the BOE is being extremely optimistic suggesting there would be a quick bounce back. I can’t see how there could be, not least because of the amount of debt currently being built up.
You might as well argue that all females should be allowed back to work, and all males to stay at home, as females are far less susceptible than males. In reality, there are very few businesses that could operate with this kind of arbitrary ageist or sexist split.
 

Belperpete

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2018
Messages
1,575
This argument does seem to be getting very polarised. While undoubtedly there are some who "want a long lock-down" and some who "want to get back to work, and sod the consequences", in reality most people are somewhere in the middle between one or other extreme.

I doubt that there are very few people who really "want a long lockdown". Most people want the lockdown to continue until it has achieved something, not just abandon it and turf us back to more-or-less where we were at the beginning. I am increasingly coming to the opinion that we might need to strengthen the lockdown, at least in some areas, in order to get the numbers down faster and so be able to lift the lockdown earlier, rather than ease it and protract the agony further. Remember that our lockdown is a lot less strict than many other countries, which is part of the reason it has probably not been as effective in cutting the numbers.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,533
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I think it depend where you live as to how well lockdown is being observed. My village has been fairly quiet yes a slight increase in traffic this week, but the main road which is normally queuing in the evening peak is still empty, The local Petrol Station has reopened but not much else the repairs part of the garage is still shut, however I gather in some other areas nearby its like the guide lines don't exist. Personally I'm uneasy about easing lockdown the death rate and transmission rate are still far too high.

I think the sort of easing we will get is things that are unlikely to cause mass transmission. For instance sitting in the park reading a book, or going out for as many runs as you like. (Those who are into running enough to want to go for two in one day are the sort of people who go at 5am anyway).
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,685
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
This argument does seem to be getting very polarised. While undoubtedly there are some who "want a long lock-down" and some who "want to get back to work, and sod the consequences", in reality most people are somewhere in the middle between one or other extreme.

I doubt that there are very few people who really "want a long lockdown". Most people want the lockdown to continue until it has achieved something, not just abandon it and turf us back to more-or-less where we were at the beginning. I am increasingly coming to the opinion that we might need to strengthen the lockdown, at least in some areas, in order to get the numbers down faster and so be able to lift the lockdown earlier, rather than ease it and protract the agony further. Remember that our lockdown is a lot less strict than many other countries, which is part of the reason it has probably not been as effective in cutting the numbers.

Yes this is my view, what has our lockdown really bought us? Back to where we were in early March plus a bit of hazard tape on the ground and a few perspex screens. We needed to be back to earlier than we were in March to allow contact tracing and the like to work, and then only with some robust protection against imported cases starting it all off again.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,533
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Remember that our lockdown is a lot less strict than many other countries, which is part of the reason it has probably not been as effective in cutting the numbers.

I don't agree. The big issue here is hospitals and care homes, particularly the latter. People aren't catching it from walking down the street.
 

Belperpete

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2018
Messages
1,575
I don't agree. The big issue here is hospitals and care homes, particularly the latter. People aren't catching it from walking down the street.
I agree that care homes have been a big issue, that doesn't seem to have been foreseen in the planning. That may or may not be because of the unusual nature of this particular virus, UK societal issues, or whatever - that will be for later investigation.

Awhile back, people were complaining that the numbers of deaths shown only included hospital deaths, and not those in care homes and elsewhere, so the government duly lumped all the figure together. I think it may now be useful to look at the numbers of deaths in care homes separately to those occurring elsewhere. I think there could be an argument for easing restrictions generally, if something could be done to better protect those in care homes. However, without any numbers, this is only a hunch.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,533
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Awhile back, people were complaining that the numbers of deaths shown only included hospital deaths, and not those in care homes and elsewhere, so the government duly lumped all the figure together. I think it may now be useful to look at the numbers of deaths in care homes separately to those occurring elsewhere. I think there could be an argument for easing restrictions generally, if something could be done to better protect those in care homes. However, without any numbers, this is only a hunch.

If it is now primarily care homes, to me the answer is to fully isolate them (whether there are infections in or not) - have the staff all living on site and contact-free deliveries of food etc, plus testing of staff and patients very frequently. Some staff would agree to that but others wouldn't, but it could be pushed by offering "danger money".

If a lot of it is getting around via hospitals, then we need to up the PPE game to stop that.
 

Belperpete

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2018
Messages
1,575
Lockdown is going to be extended in Wales for another 3 weeks! Yay....

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-52584690
It has been extended EVERYWHERE in the UK (otherwise it would have ended yesterday). It is just that the Welsh and Scottish governments, as usual, have been a bit more open about it. Raab only agreed that was the case in England when forced to under questioning from journalists.

When Boris announces his easements on Sunday, I suspect that the devolved administrations may well also announce similar.
 

HH

Established Member
Joined
31 Jul 2009
Messages
4,505
Location
Essex
Lockdown is going to be extended in Wales for another 3 weeks! Yay....
This is misleading - they have eased a number of restrictions.

I don't agree. The big issue here is hospitals and care homes, particularly the latter. People aren't catching it from walking down the street.
I saw something earlier that most were catching it at home, so maybe people should get out more...

Care homes is an issue, because I think that the government, pre-Boris getting C19, had decided to throw them under a bus, no matter what they say now. So congratulations to all of those who are writing them off, you are obviously in tune with our wonderful, caring government.

P.S. While we know that care homes are an issue, we don't know what R is outside, although we keep getting promised the figure. My small town just recorded its first death, which got me thinking about the statistics. There are only about 418,000 people in care homes, so even if their R = 2, it's not going to affect the overall R figure by much. In other words your assumption that it's only about care homes and hospitals is erroneous.
 

Belperpete

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2018
Messages
1,575
If it is now primarily care homes, to me the answer is to fully isolate them (whether there are infections in or not) - have the staff all living on site and contact-free deliveries of food etc, plus testing of staff and patients very frequently.
As you may be aware, there is a lot of anger in Wales that care homes are not being offered the same levels of testing as those in England.

While all the attention was on Hancock's 100,000 daily tests in England, Wales quietly (and without much national media coverage) dropped their already fairly meagre testing target.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,533
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I saw something earlier that most were catching it at home, so maybe people should get out more...

When it gets in a house it can be assumed that it will rattle its way round that house. It's not very easy for it to get in now, though, other than from a workplace or supermarket...
 

HH

Established Member
Joined
31 Jul 2009
Messages
4,505
Location
Essex
Why is it misleading? It's still a lockdown?
But it's not the same lockdown as before, so your 'headline' was misleading, as I said.

When it gets in a house it can be assumed that it will rattle its way round that house. It's not very easy for it to get in now, though, other than from a workplace or supermarket...
Or B&Q, or a takeaway, or a petrol station, or those sneaky meetings you had with friends/relatives/your hairdresser...
 

Belperpete

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2018
Messages
1,575
There are only about 418,000 people in care homes, so even if their R = 2, it's not going to affect the overall R figure by much. In other words your assumption that it's only about care homes and hospitals is erroneous.
Not sure that is correct. A large number of care home deaths is going to skew the overall R rate, no matter how large or small the pool they come from is. If, for example, you have two deaths in the overall population in a particular area, and 30 care home deaths, that is going to make the overall R rate look much worse.
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,668
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
But contact between the under 40s and over 40s will be near to none existent for a period of 3 months let's say. As I say in my original post, those in the 18-40 age range who live alome or someone in the same age cohort should be allowed to physically go to work and socialise with others in their age cohort.

The reality is millions of working age will not have a job after the lockdown/furlough scheme. Everyone seems completely and utterly blinkered as to the economic damage this will unleash. It's all about protecting a few thousand vulnerable people - not the socio-economic well-being of the other 65 million people.

It's madness. We need the GDP and unemployment figures ASAP. Then the tenet of the debate will thankfully change from one fuelled by media scaremongering (i.e. death) to one of balanced pragmatism (i.e. mitigating economic destitution).

Meantime in six months time in Sweden they'll be laughing.

Thus far around 1.8 million new Universal Credit claims have been made, so that's your low end additional unemployment figure to date. Its likely to be higher as time goes one & more businesses fail, so far over 6.3 million workers are being paid by the government however this could rise to as much as 9 million if more employers get into financial trouble as I understand it. Rumours abound that the Chancellor is in full panic mode of the currently estimated cost of £40-50 billion for the first three months, a rather large and ugly black hole is emerging in the Treasury.

And all that is before we consider the longer term damage we have done. I've said it before, I'd be open to anyone's suggestion on covering the cost of a lockdown ongoing. But the reality is that it is a vast cost, and will need a bit more than people just suggesting people put up with it.
 

HH

Established Member
Joined
31 Jul 2009
Messages
4,505
Location
Essex
Not sure that is correct. A large number of care home deaths is going to skew the overall R rate, no matter how large or small the pool they come from is. If, for example, you have two deaths in the overall population in a particular area, and 30 care home deaths, that is going to make the overall R rate look much worse.
Firstly, R is not calculated from deaths, which immediately invalidates your argument.

Secondly, 66.5m is 160 times as big as 418k. R in care homes would have to be massive to have a noticeable effect on the overall R. If you don't understand that then frankly you shouldn't be commenting on the point.
 

Belperpete

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2018
Messages
1,575
But it's not the same lockdown as before, so your 'headline' was misleading, as I said.
Ah, I see, so we are lucky in Wales that our lockdown is only a few weeks old. Prior to that, when they imposed additional restrictions, it was of course a completely different lockdown. If only they would do the same in England, we wouldn't have all those people moaning on forever about how long the lockdown was going on and its damage to the economy. I feel so much better now (where is the sarcasm emojy when you need it).
 

Belperpete

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2018
Messages
1,575
Firstly, R is not calculated from deaths, which immediately invalidates your argument.
Agreed, R is calculated from infections, not deaths. But my point holds. If the number of infections in care homes is proportionately bigger than than the number of infections in the general population, then it will skew the numbers. It is unlikely to be doing so in areas where the virus is widespread in the general population, like in London and the Midlands, but may well be doing so in regions where the virus is not so prevalent in the general population.
 

HH

Established Member
Joined
31 Jul 2009
Messages
4,505
Location
Essex
But my point holds. If the number of infections in care homes is proportionately bigger than than the number of infections in the general population, then it will skew the numbers.
No, it will not, to any meaningful extent. Lert me take an example:

If the R in care homes is 3 (which is the default R with no lockdown) and the R for the rest of the country is 0.1, then the R for the whole country will be just under 0.12.

Care homes have very little effect on the overall R. That is a FACT.
 

Bikeman78

Established Member
Joined
26 Apr 2018
Messages
4,493
Lockdown is going to be extended in Wales for another 3 weeks! Yay....

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-52584690

From the above: "Mr Drakeford warned anyone thinking of travelling to beaches or mountains that they will be stopped and sent home."

They forgot to write: "However, if you want to whizz around at 40 or 50 mph on a quad bike, in a 20 zone, less than a mile from Rumney Police station, that's absolutely fine!"
 

43066

Established Member
Joined
24 Nov 2019
Messages
9,217
Location
London
Yes this is my view, what has our lockdown really bought us? Back to where we were in early March plus a bit of hazard tape on the ground and a few perspex screens. We needed to be back to earlier than we were in March to allow contact tracing and the like to work, and then only with some robust protection against imported cases starting it all off again.

I think you are quite right that we are back where we were in early March.

With 20/20 hindsight it is clear that more should have been done at a much earlier stage in the pandemic to prevent the virus gaining a foothold.

Unfortunately we are where we are. My worry is that the choice is now between a lockdown lasting for more weeks, that will completely obliterate the economy, or adopting a more pragmatic approach, accepting that sadly many more deaths will occur, but also accepting that more needs to be done NOW to start to get the economy back on track.

The (good) argument that we need to keep serious cases below a level which causes hospitals to be overwhelmed is different to the (irrational) argument that we need to prevent as many deaths as possible from this virus at all costs, regardless of the economic consequences, and regardless of the resultant impact on deaths from other causes (reference the frightening reduction in cancer diagnosis etc.)

This is why I increasingly think the government needs to bite the bullet, get businesses open, and get working age people back to work, in order to save the economy. Even if this does sadly lead to an increase in deaths. Vulnerable groups need to remain isolated, of course, to minimise casualties as far as possible.

The only thing that will ever really prevent deaths amongst the vulnerable is a vaccine and it’s pretty clear that that is a long way away.
 

6862

Member
Joined
3 Dec 2014
Messages
506
This is why I increasingly think the government needs to bite the bullet, get businesses open, and get working age people back to work, in order to save the economy. Even if this does sadly lead to an increase in deaths. Vulnerable groups need to remain isolated, of course, to minimise casualties as far as possible.

I agree, especially on the point of getting everyone back to work as far as possible. By all means isolate the vulnerable - but they need to make sure that they are provided for (how about getting the thousands of now unemployed hospitality industry staff into some sort of meals on wheels service for the vulnerable - it would serve as a job creation scheme too). But all this is extremely unlikely when you consider the inevitable reaction of a very vocal section of society - the pro-total-lockdown brigade. I think that as soon as deaths start to rise again (which they will), the government would bow to pressure and lock us down again.
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,685
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
I think you are quite right that we are back where we were in early March.

With 20/20 hindsight it is clear that more should have been done at a much earlier stage in the pandemic to prevent the virus gaining a foothold.

Unfortunately we are where we are. My worry is that the choice is now between a lockdown lasting for more weeks, that will completely obliterate the economy, or adopting a more pragmatic approach, accepting that sadly many more deaths will occur, but also accepting that more needs to be done NOW to start to get the economy back on track.

The (good) argument that we need to keep serious cases below a level which causes hospitals to be overwhelmed is different to the (irrational) argument that we need to prevent as many deaths as possible from this virus at all costs, regardless of the economic consequences, and regardless of the resultant impact on deaths from other causes (reference the frightening reduction in cancer diagnosis etc.)

This is why I increasingly think the government needs to bite the bullet, get businesses open, and get working age people back to work, in order to save the economy. Even if this does sadly lead to an increase in deaths. Vulnerable groups need to remain isolated, of course, to minimise casualties as far as possible.

The only thing that will ever really prevent deaths amongst the vulnerable is a vaccine and it’s pretty clear that that is a long way away.

Yes I tend to agree with all of that.

I think it should be either one final push to try and get the infection circulation down, in which case it should be a couple of weeks of very strict lockdown along the lines of no one goes out at all except the absolute keyest workers (which may require some thought as to how we manage food supplies), or if that’s not practicable then a return to controlled normal - specifically kids back at school (perhaps looking at seeing if they can carry on through July and into August to make up some lost ground) and as many people as possible back at work except in the highest-risk industries.

The current fudge isn’t benefiting anyone IMO.
 

MDB1images

Member
Joined
9 Jun 2018
Messages
654
I think it depend where you live as to how well lockdown is being observed. My village has been fairly quiet yes a slight increase in traffic this week, but the main road which is normally queuing in the evening peak is still empty, The local Petrol Station has reopened but not much else the repairs part of the garage is still shut, however I gather in some other areas nearby its like the guide lines don't exist. Personally I'm uneasy about easing lockdown the death rate and transmission rate are still far too high.

That's pretty much how I see it.
I've been at work throughout and it's now noticable when you can see virtually no-one around in one area yet 30miles on it's as if lockdowns been eased.

I suppose it shows the difficulties faced.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,533
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
No, it will not, to any meaningful extent. Lert me take an example:

If the R in care homes is 3 (which is the default R with no lockdown) and the R for the rest of the country is 0.1, then the R for the whole country will be just under 0.12.

Care homes have very little effect on the overall R. That is a FACT.

I think you're misinterpreting it. R is the number of people an infected person will infect on average, also known as RT. Let's say you have 10 infected people in a population of 1,000,000. They spread it to a total of 20 other people. That gives you R = 2. If you have 10 infected people in a population of 50,000,000 and they spread it to a total of 20 other people, that still gives you R = 2. The number of uninfected people has no bearing on R. Therefore, care homes could make a very considerable difference if more people in that setting are infected than in other settings, which is quite possibly true.

R0 by the way is the number of people one person infects in a "default" situation with no interventions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top