World, Writing, Wealth discussion
World & Current Events
>
A different take on Covid
date
newest »
newest »
I hope I'm not a persona non grata here, since it's a "different" take :)Anyways, I hope we can all benefit from an ongoing respectful debate.
Certainly, quarantine is not new. It was applied along the centuries to prevent plague and maybe other diseases too. Multiple casualties of former pandemics should in no way guide us, in my opinion. Why should millions of people dying be tolerable, if supposedly you can prevent it? We can argue how accurate the record is, but the figure of 4.5 million people dead and rising isn't something negligible.
The info gathered so far reflects that corona with a rare exception is dangerous to people aged 50-60+. Once we have the vaccine that supposedly gives them protection, we can pretty much proceed with the lives as usual. Vaccine should be the initial game-changer, later to be augmented by an accessible treatment. Israel is leading globally for two weeks in a row in the number of infected per thousand people, yet the school year opened as usual and a lockdown is not on the cards.
Likewise UK, (except Peoples Republic of Scotland) where schools are back. There is testing but other than that mostly operating as normal. Whole school years are not bubbling and then isolating.Most work places are reopen or reopening albeit for office workers in some more hybrid models
Social life, restaurants, concerts, pubs are almost normal
Vaccine is doing this despite case rates and still over 100 deaths per day attributed to COVID
UK has taken leap that vaccine for vulnerable, reduced infections (for vulnerable by others being vaccinated) means no more quarantines.
I agree we all need to get economy on its feet and that is interdependency on global trade. There remains a lot of protectionism hiding as COVID measures
There is also the problem that health advisors for politicians want to be able to say they have given the best advice to minimize adverse health problems. They do not have any real knowledge of the economic cost and do not have to pay the price.Asa some will recall, I have been an advocate for lockdowns and elimination of this virus, but I am also an advocate for restricting action to what will work. Since governments refused to attempt elimination, even if it meant quarantining countries that refused, elimination is now impossible so there is no point in attempting it. Vaccines also will not eliminate it because vaccines seemingly only ameliorate symptoms, and only for so long without boosters.
Accordingly, now it is inevitable that we live with it, and for some, die of it. We had our chances and made no real attempt. However, we also have to run economies. We have made our strategic choice, even if it were a bumbling one, so we have to get on and live with it. Welcome to the new normal, even if it hasn't exactly arrived yet. It will be similar to much of history, where people dying of infection was normal. We run the risk of antibiotic resistance adding to our troubles. We think we are intelligent, but are we really? Are we prepared to take short-term action or take restriction to protect a lonmg-term future way of life, or are we not much better than accountants optimizing tomorrow's balance sheet?
Ian wrote: "There is also the problem that health advisors for politicians want to be able to say they have given the best advice to minimize adverse health problems. They do not have any real knowledge of the..."Depressingly government is more like accountants as per big business.
In UK we are awaiting big news on Social Care. Every political party agrees in general what needs to happen (Adult disabled care as well as pensioners). This will probably cost a significant chunk of NHS costs to create a National Care Service (Already the largest government spend and always wanting more)
Report after report has proposed a system. No politician will actually commit to the spend because that means a hike in taxation which they promise not to do (whilst they do exactly that via other taxes.) The simple and most effective would be income tax, but apparently the electorate won't bear it. Thus another 10 years drifts buy. The current opposition refused to be drawn stating their taxation plans would be ready for the next General Election (another 3 years) whilst criticising the rumours on what had leaked of the plans from the current overdue government proposal
Philip, the most depressing part of that post is that this seems general. One of the least attractive part of our politics is there always seems to be something that needs attention, a pile of reports are written, then nothing happens. The current big problem in our healthcare is a staff shortage, and that tends to be because of funding. More money is required but as you note, that would make a significant dent in the tax take, so the decision is shelved, and, er, next year shelved again.
Philip and Ian are right.
Staff shortages are a big problem in UK social care too. The main reason is v poor pay. Compulsory vaccination will make staff shortages much worse. I've read many first-hand accounts of carers leaving their employment over this issue already. Some have even gone to work for Amazon. Tells you all you need to know about the pay.
On the NHS, 2 things could be done to massively improve recruitment and retention at no extra cost...reduce doctors' paperwork (don't get anyone else to do it, just scrap it) and stop the silly newish practice of making nurses take a degree.
Staff shortages are a big problem in UK social care too. The main reason is v poor pay. Compulsory vaccination will make staff shortages much worse. I've read many first-hand accounts of carers leaving their employment over this issue already. Some have even gone to work for Amazon. Tells you all you need to know about the pay.
On the NHS, 2 things could be done to massively improve recruitment and retention at no extra cost...reduce doctors' paperwork (don't get anyone else to do it, just scrap it) and stop the silly newish practice of making nurses take a degree.
A reminder from the past to demonstrate how the history circles around: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosco...
Hi all, we need to make a distinction between quarantines and lockdowns.Quarantines are a long established and renowned technique for isolating the sick and those in immediate contact with them to ensure transmission of an illness is curtailed.
Lockdowns are focused on otherwise healthy people who have not been exposed being placed under house arrest to ensure they are not exposed to an illness.
Lockdowns are a new strategy that originated in China in 2020.
For the record, I'm a fan of strong quarantine controls and enforcement of quarantine. On the other hand, I'm suspicious of the technique of lockdown, and I'm suspicious that the cost-benefit of lockdowns overshadow their impact on reducing virus transmission. I.e. Lockdowns may cause more harm to society than the virus. I see that as an open question yet to be answered, and I fear that the answer will be that lockdowns cause more harm then they prevent.
Graeme wrote: "Hi all, we need to make a distinction between quarantines and lockdowns.Quarantines are a long established and renowned technique for isolating the sick and those in immediate contact with them t..."
I would agree because there were and still are far too many exceptions. From business and sports travel to politicians and entourages attending summits. Therefore the benefits of quarantine were not attained except possibly in NZ and AUS whilst the lockdown damaged economies
That said quarantining the UK would have caused near starvation - not a great choice. We almost had riots over toilet paper...
Interesting bit of history, Nik. I bet the Moscow plague of 1771 didn’t have a 99%++ survival rate across nearly every age group ;)
Graeme, earlier this year, on the other thread, I posted a link to academic research from Bristol University, which claimed that the lockdowns of 2020 alone caused over 500k UK deaths. I also posted similar blue-chip academic research from the US, which, if I remember rightly, calculated over 2m US lives were lost to lockdowns in the same period.
Of course, no CBA was carried out by either government at the time.
Graeme, earlier this year, on the other thread, I posted a link to academic research from Bristol University, which claimed that the lockdowns of 2020 alone caused over 500k UK deaths. I also posted similar blue-chip academic research from the US, which, if I remember rightly, calculated over 2m US lives were lost to lockdowns in the same period.
Of course, no CBA was carried out by either government at the time.
Just one quick thing on the funding/ taxation questions raised by Philip, which is now the lead news story in the UK…
Social care tax rise: MPs to hold Commons vote later
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politic...
Leaving the pros and cons of the argument for extra funding aside, remember that this is the Government that spent billions on lockdowns. Just think of what all the money used for the furlough system, etc. could have done for the NHS and social care.
Social care tax rise: MPs to hold Commons vote later
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politic...
Leaving the pros and cons of the argument for extra funding aside, remember that this is the Government that spent billions on lockdowns. Just think of what all the money used for the furlough system, etc. could have done for the NHS and social care.
Beau wrote: "Just one quick thing on the funding/ taxation questions raised by Philip, which is now the lead news story in the UK…Social care tax rise: MPs to hold Commons vote later
https://www.bbc.co.uk/ne..."
The government borrowed - didn't redirect funds so NHS had local authorities received significant extra funds for COVID during FY 2020-21 - of course they had extra expenditure for PPE drugs etc. Vaccines have been pourcahsed from borrowing just like QE came from borrowing.
If we want governments to balance books then they either stop doing stuff (Cease calls for Gov to do something) or raise taxes. Since Financial crisis (And before) Governments have borrowed and borrowed because we as taxpayers don't wan tot pay or make Big Tech pay as Amazon has again demonstrated. or every trading platform doing stocks whilst based in pick tax haven
Beau wrote: "Interesting bit of history, Nik. I bet the Moscow plague of 1771 didn’t have a 99%++ survival rate across nearly every age group ;) ..."The described flight of nobility and wealthy from Moscow reminded me an exodus from Manhattan and Frisco last year :)
Philip wrote: "If we want governments to balance books..."Some equate sovereign debt to loss of sovereignty
Philip wrote: "The government borrowed..."
Couldn't they have borrowed that money to fund social care?
Now we're looking at a double whammy - massively increased sovereign debt and increased taxation. As it's NI rather than income tax based, it will also hit the young and the poor harder than the rich and the elderly.
I call on all rich pensioners to donate a significant part of their savings to local charities. Call it a stay safety net fund for the young and the poor.
Couldn't they have borrowed that money to fund social care?
Now we're looking at a double whammy - massively increased sovereign debt and increased taxation. As it's NI rather than income tax based, it will also hit the young and the poor harder than the rich and the elderly.
I call on all rich pensioners to donate a significant part of their savings to local charities. Call it a stay safety net fund for the young and the poor.
You need to extend this call to action to Thailand 🇹🇭 & Bulgaria 🇧🇬:)
Beau wrote: "Philip wrote: "The government borrowed..."Couldn't they have borrowed that money to fund social care?
Off COVID topic - sorry but still on need for healthcare and everything else funding
Now we're looking at a double whammy - massively increased sovereign debt and increased tax..."
In my view the whole personal NI system should be scrapped in favour of Income tax on all income e.g. until this was announced Dividends did not get any NI. The cost of collecting and ridiculous calculations can go. 20% base on all after base allowance would rise to 30% but 12.5% NI would go. Because of dividend etc this would increase tax take and be fairer i.e. base allowance would still help lowest paid and richest would get dividends taxed.
Companies would be charged straight employment tax on hirings i.e. equivalent of NI. Of course closing more loopholes would help as would tech tax and removing schemes allowing companies to charge themselves across borders to avoid (some would say evade) tax
Philip wrote: "In my view the whole personal NI system should be scrapped in favour of Income tax on all income..."
I’m all for simplifying the tax system and am happy to pay more for better public services, including healthcare. However, our tax system is completely geared in favour of those who can most afford to pay. I’m not saying clobber people who work hard and create wealth, nor unnecessarily penalise pensioners who have contributed to society all of their lives, but there has to be a more progressive tax system. That’s right, Nik – I said more progressive :)
The money will not come from billionaires and the so-called 1%, middle income earners must be willing to pay more too. And if they won’t, they’ll have to stop moaning about things.
The global economy was in serious trouble before covid. The levels of debt were unsustainable, interest rate levels offered no scope for stimulus, the inequality in wealth was back to Victorian times, and environmental concerns were having to be factored in too. The response to this pandemic has dealt a body blow to an already dying man, so things are going to have to change dramatically if we’re going to hand over a decent quality of life to the younger generations.
I’m all for simplifying the tax system and am happy to pay more for better public services, including healthcare. However, our tax system is completely geared in favour of those who can most afford to pay. I’m not saying clobber people who work hard and create wealth, nor unnecessarily penalise pensioners who have contributed to society all of their lives, but there has to be a more progressive tax system. That’s right, Nik – I said more progressive :)
The money will not come from billionaires and the so-called 1%, middle income earners must be willing to pay more too. And if they won’t, they’ll have to stop moaning about things.
The global economy was in serious trouble before covid. The levels of debt were unsustainable, interest rate levels offered no scope for stimulus, the inequality in wealth was back to Victorian times, and environmental concerns were having to be factored in too. The response to this pandemic has dealt a body blow to an already dying man, so things are going to have to change dramatically if we’re going to hand over a decent quality of life to the younger generations.
I hope your tax reforms go well, Philip & Beau! Doubt a bit there will be many sympathizers among the big biz. "Progressives" is not a curse. Some ideas are sound, many silly, but they do seem to drive the change at the moment hopefully - for better, but afraid - for worse
The problem for a genuine progressive tax rate is the politicians and the people who provide their election expenses have to pay it and by and large they are not looking for economic fairness :-(
I'm thankful that here in Georgia, there are no lockdowns or mandatory mask mandates except for those in government offices. Our schools have been open since last year, and kids aren't required to wear masks. I went to the grocery store today, and there were some people wearing masks, but I wasn't required to wear one. There was an article in yesterday's paper saying that those who are dying or very ill have not been vaccinated. Others are getting the virus and surviving. Life goes on here, despite Covid, no businesses shut down.
A different take? OK, do nothing and let 2 million die. Hopefully it won't be one of yours. As all should know by now, I work in the field and am watching carefully. It is crossing over to the kids now and it will not be long before the massive outbreak starts. This thing is changing and not for the better necessarily. I wonder how many will be OK with the kids dying.
There was an interesting item in "Physics World". The virus stays in the air longer on a cold day. For me, it is good to know summer is coming; not so good for the northern hemisphere. They reason is the virus is expelled from the infected in a puff of air, and if that puff is significantly warmer than the ambient air it is less dense and it floats longer. Local turbulence in the air will break up the puff, but it presumably will take strong turbulent airflow to totally chill the virus droplets. Or, I guess, like a Canadian winter, where the air is so cold the water vapour in the puff simply forms snow and falls to the ground. (I found it fascinating to be snowed on by my own breath, although this is not an activity one wants to carry out too long.)One interesting thing about masks is the air that gets out is directed upwards, so that air, if warmer than ambient, I guess it has a better chance of staying up longer.
Papaphilly wrote: "A different take? OK, do nothing and let 2 million die. Hopefully it won't be one of yours. As all should know by now, I work in the field and am watching carefully. It is crossing over to the kids..."If that's not massive, what is? As far as I read from official info of the USA, CDC data keeps showing very little death risk for kids, although they are currently the most that get infected:
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-...
https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional...
If the situ changes, god forbid, there is that magic bullet - the vaccine that can be offered.
Now, in Israel they started to roll out for those at risk to deteriorate - regeneron - a treatment based on synthesized antibodies, mentioned as the one that saved Trump
Papaphilly wrote: "A different take? OK, do nothing and let 2 million die. Hopefully it won't be one of yours. As all should know by now, I work in the field and am watching carefully. It is crossing over to the kids..."
2 million? What is that figure based on? We've had the debate on Sweden and we've had the debate on the US states without restrictions, so why 2 million extra deaths?
Regarding the kids:
Children’s NHS mental health referrals double in pandemic
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2...
200,000 kids referred in just 3 months.
Mental health is the real pandemic for children. Problem is, thanks to governments’ response to covid, there’s a massive waiting list and nobody willing or able to help them.
Even our mainstream media called out the liars (that’s right – liars), some of whom are employed by the NHS, who claimed that covid was a threat to children.
Will it become one in the future? Who knows, but if it does then we have to consider whether the leaky vaccines are to blame.
Your regular reminder of governments' covid policies: To save the village, we had to destroy it.
2 million? What is that figure based on? We've had the debate on Sweden and we've had the debate on the US states without restrictions, so why 2 million extra deaths?
Regarding the kids:
Children’s NHS mental health referrals double in pandemic
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2...
200,000 kids referred in just 3 months.
Mental health is the real pandemic for children. Problem is, thanks to governments’ response to covid, there’s a massive waiting list and nobody willing or able to help them.
Even our mainstream media called out the liars (that’s right – liars), some of whom are employed by the NHS, who claimed that covid was a threat to children.
Will it become one in the future? Who knows, but if it does then we have to consider whether the leaky vaccines are to blame.
Your regular reminder of governments' covid policies: To save the village, we had to destroy it.
And not forgetting, of course, that being locked down and having the fear of God put into them over the virus (which was no threat to that age group) were significant causes of this mental health crisis.
Beau wrote: "2 million? What is that figure based on? We've had the debate on Sweden and we've had the debate on the US states without restrictions, so why 2 million extra deaths?..."Fair enough. You may remember when I ran the original numbers based on population and death percentages, it was 2,000,000 for the United States alone. Unlike others, I am not dismissing this out of hand. Remember when it did not affect kids? Now it is and they are starting overload the hospitals themselves. There are fewer pediatric beds as compared to adult beds, so they will overload the system faster. That will lead to more deaths. Of course this can all be avoided if they vaccinate.
As I said, our schools have been open all year with optional mask wearing, and there have been no outbreaks substantial enough to close schools. Small children who are at low risk are, in my opinion, better off not wearing masks, as it socially distances and isolates them, and they can't see facial expressions and learn to speak correctly, which could impair their development. The govt forcing them to wear masks despite the risks and against their parents' wishes - despotic.
When I was in WI in October visiting my daughter and granddaughter it was interesting to see the number of children wearing masks. They entered the park playground and immediately pulled it up over their mouths (they didn't all manage to get their noses). Each time I took my granddaughter somewhere, she automatically grabbed a mask and put it on before entering a store or even getting close to someone while walking (so she could pet dogs). None of these children seemed to have any problems communicating, playing together, creating a game to play make believe food vendor and customers, etc.
I would have thought like Scout that the masks would affect children's communication skills - but I didn't see any of that while there for 2 weeks interacting in a variety of events with a 6 year old.
I'd say it's common sense that if a child is learning language and social skills and can't see the mouth of their teacher, that would be a bad thing.
https://www.history.com/topics/world-...
The Spanish flu pandemic took 25-50 million lives in 1918. There were no vaccines.
Since 1918, there have been several other influenza pandemics, although none as deadly. A flu pandemic from 1957 to 1958 killed around 2 million people worldwide, including some 70,000 people in the United States, and a pandemic from 1968 to 1969 killed approximately 1 million people, including some 34,000 Americans. More than 12,000 Americans perished during the H1N1 (or “swine flu”) pandemic that occurred from 2009 to 2010."
What we're experiencing is not new. All these flu pandemics ended without quarantines, shutdowns, or mandatory wearing of masks. Everyday lives weren't called to a halt.
My question is, how long can we continue to put Covid concerns above economic concerns? Above privacy concerns and our civil liberties? Those are vital to our quality of life. Where is the tipping point where we might just have to get vaccinated, live with Covid, stop the lockdowns and government intervention, be brave, and go on with our lives so that we can keep our freedom, our businesses, our economy, intact?