COVID-19

I think everyone thinks it the best proposal but how to work it?

I've not heard anyone be able to figure out where the line should be so that its meaningful but also achievable or how to truly separate the people away. If it was Korea it would no doubt be easier.

People who are vulnerable who work, especially those that are 'key', multi generational living, people requiring care, age gap relationships, younger vulnerable people, the logistics of food and mental health all cause issues so how could these be overcome? It only really works if its 100% secure because any leakage through to the vulnerable knackers it when basically everyone else is going to be carrying at some point.

But just because it has problems doesn't mean it isnt worthy of consideration.

 

I dont think you can talk about reality when you want to add a million people to the unemployment pool simultaneously just be cause you're pissy that you still had to go to work.

we also had an entire summer to get the system working and boris decided to spend most of it picking fights with europe, again. PCR tests I can understand being tough to manufacture at scale but these rapid reaction ones will surely be a lot easier if they work well.

I think it's also worth pointing out the great barrington declaration calling for the protect the vulnerable approach was co signed by some major scientific names like Dr Johnny Bananas and someone who left their first name as the entire first verse of the macarena. anyone can add their name to it without proving credentials you literally just tell the website what you're an expert in.

 

There's also the issue of 'Long Covid' which complicates it. It's not just about deaths.

It seems that even young people who are fit and healthy can get this, including some who have few or no symptoms initially. So even if you find a way around the complications that you mention, there are still going to be significant numbers of those regarded as low risk who will get Long Covid and possibly suffer life changing health debillitations and there's absolutely no way of predicting how many or who those people will be.

 

It seems to me we are destroying our economy and putting millions out of work for no good reason, Protect the vulnerable and let the rest work and get on as normal. We know it kills the elderly and those with other respirity health conditions but are doing nothing to protect them and they will be the ones filling ICUs, These new proposals affect everyone yet those under 45/50 will only have mild conditions and get through it without hospitalization,Meanwhile the government that failed to protect those in care homes with massive death rates are again failing the ones severely affected by covid19.

 

It's not about whether I want to or not. If that's the reality then that's the reality.

If you need to produce 50m tests (which can't currently be used or produced) and build a complete new infrastructure to process these tests ( which we don't have) to make an industry possible......then I'm sorry......the industry is just not viable. Me might as well tell about having nightclubs on the moon.

No matter how long they gave them they could not scientifically have produced it. That's why no country has done. Your idea of the testing capabilities is cloud cuckoo land.

Oh yeah and you're dead right about the Barrington Proposal. A load of quacks and made up entities making something incredibly difficult sound simple. I but like testing everyone within 24 hours of going to the pub.

 

Yes Trevor. But in practice how?

 

Me and the wife are both in the old & vulnerable category and we have done as asked from day one, I get your comment with regards protecting us, speaking with friends and relations we have we're all taking the original government advice very seriously.

 

We had a whole summer to even make a start on this, from march if you want to go by WHO advice of test, test, tes and we completely ballsed it up so of course capacity is nowhere near what it needs to be. There are other countries where hospitality/arts etc have been able to open so what makes hospitality in this country so unworkable. But then again these are places that actually did a good job in handling the outbreak itself so I can see why that's a bit much for us. The work we've put into getting ahead of the game on vaccines has been actually one of the only parts of all this I would say the government has done a fantastic job, why can't we apply that level of urgency to testing?


We'll be paying out on UC anyway so you're suggestion of just letting everything go to the wall will have the same result of us paying a million odd people to sit at home and do nothing. Much more worthwhile to try and retain skills and knowledge than just chucking people on the scrapheap when the govt will be paying regardless. There aren't a million jobs ready for all these people to go into which is equally cuckoo land mate

 

The present risk is that millions who are working will contract covid and recover but the present system will provide millions out of work who will still contract covid and recover and meanwhile our economy will be devastated while we borrow billions that are wasted.

 

We shielded hundreds of thousands last time with great results giving them food boxes so they could lessen outdoor activities or meeting people, Same with care homes etc we can shield them as we did in the end after government policy killed hundreds of them,

 

We have made a start on it, the number of tests we do show that but they haven't got enough to undertake your idea. Nobody has. I know what the WHO said but if it isn't scientifically possible they might as we say "cure, cure, cure" we have to work within the scientific capabilities.

Which other countries are you thinking off? is there anyone who tests everyone people 24 hours before they go to hospitality?

And yes, that's what UC is for. It's different from paying 80% or 66% of someones salary though. It's not me saying UC isn't enough though.

The skills and knowledge won't disappear. They're not having their memory wiped. They just shouldn't be having their income fully funded by the taxpayer because the industry is not possible for an indefinite period.

 

We did but hundreds of thousands of the top 1% of vulnerable people whilst at the same time having everyone else in lockdown is very different to trying to shield tens of millions of people - many of them who currently work and contribute to society - whilst having a free for all for everyone else. The two aren't the same.

The Guardian said the other day that 50% of the adult population could be classified as at risk due to age, underlying health condition, etc, which clearly wouldn't work at all.

So where do we draw the line and how can we make it possible. I'm definitely not saying it's completely impossible but I have yet to see a proposal that it water tight and makes me thing "That'll work"

 

Why would they recommend something that isn't scientifically possible? That's kind of their remit. Every country thats got on top of this has done so through extensive testing. Of course no country is doing that because the rapid test trial is only happening sometime this month. a test within 24 hours would be tough but testing on entry is definitely achievable if this works. The thing is, we can try to do stuff like this or just accept a huge economic catastrophe. Your ideas will takes us back to the 80s on steroids.


Yeah of course it is, your paying people out of a job. I want us to pay to keep people in jobs for when things calm down rather than just letting them struggle in the meantime. they aren't having their memory wiped but after being told they aren't viable, if 90% of hospitality venues close where do you suggest people work at when this is over? shall we all just take a keg down the park and go pull some pints there for people? once these places are gone they are gone, you can't just magic up brand new venues overnight. Also worth pointing out thta UK hospitality was growing at five times the rate of the national economy prior to this, so yeah really unviable

 

What would be a game changer would be a test like a pregnancy test where you do it yourself and get the result in minutes. No labs involved, so no backlog of reagents etc and no time lag.. That would make compulsory testing prior to entry feasible and people would have a choice - stay at home or buy a stash of tests if you want to go out frequently. Then venues could stay open and you only get entry with a negative test done that day.

I've heard that the development of these is ongoing but I don't know how far they've got with them. Obviously they'd have to be pretty accurate, because too many false negatives would undermine the whole thing.

 

Because at the time they were talking hypothetically. That to get over a pandemic you need to test people. In theory the quickest way to get over it would be to test ever single person in the world every day but it isn't possible.

Okay. So which countries are using test on entry to keep their hospitality open?

It's not my ideas. I'm talking about the actual capabilities not some mythical idea that isn't being done anywhere and might not even be possible.

You can't keep jobs in an industry with no income. That's just economics. When 2000 bookies shut down earlier this year because the government changed the gambling rules nobody argues that William Hill and Ladbrokes should be compensated and the people made redundant should continue to be paid. Things change.

If 90% of places close down because there is no way of working then guess what will happen when it becomes possible again? Won't they just open back up? They're not knocking the buildings down! The question is who funds it in the mean time? The business owners (who benefited form the growth in the good times as you pointed out) or the taxpayer.

Talking of the 80s. Let's just wait until all the bill for this "free" stuff need to be paid. Propping up a whole industry, creating a the capability of 50m tests a week, paying peoples wages. The 2020s might make the 80s look like a breeze!!

 

Only if the government takes the austerity/balanced budget approach again. We recovered from five years of WW2 by following Keynesian economics - spending to promote growth and demand. Sadly the stupid Tories probably won't do that, despite the cost of borrowing being virtually zero.

 

hahaahahahahahahah wow ok buddy. mass testing is unrealistic but expecting venues to magically just open back up after everyone who owned and ran them got told to jog on and go do something else is fine. This is how I know you don't work in hospitality because you just don't have a clue about the realities of what it is you're suggesting people actually do. the land/buildings will be sold off to developers to build flats so those developers can recoup the huge losses they are making on city centre office space. then the industry is gone but hey at least we didnt pay people to sit on their arse for six months great job everybody.

 

I'm not sure. Regardless of which part is in power I'm not sure there's any particular economic theory which allows for £200bn - £300bn to be borrowed without there being some pain when you need to pay it back - especially when there's no long terms infrastructure benefits that you get out of the initial borrowing. Even if the interest is cheap just returning the capital has to have some effect.

 

Well mass testing is unrealistic because it's not scientifically possible.

Oh and I never said the same people would come back. Just that when the demand returns then the supply will return. That's obvious and there's no reasons for the demand to diminish after this is over.

Don't be silly. The places won't be sold off for flat because quite simply if there's no hospitality in that area and nobody is going into the office then city centre premises are less desirable. It's certainly not going to happen within the next 12 months is it?