When will this shit end?

[Deaf Nobby Burton]

4 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

They said repeatedly over the past few weeks that they are opening things up cautiously and very slowly. To then go and open pubs 2 weeks before their initial deadline is hardly cautiously. It’s not hard to just wait and stick to their first measures. Stick to the plan, go slowly and wait 2 weeks for non-retail stores to open then we can see what impact that is happening. It’s 2 weeks by the way not 1.

 

Besides the furlough scheme is in place along with bounce back loans, CBILS or CLBILS (depending on size of the business) which are providing support. Many businesses I’ve seen saying that whilst requirements in venues are so tight and furlough is available it’s better for the businesses to stay shut. That’s from actual businesses, are they wrong?

Ok I completely get that. I understand the concern for loosening the measures too soon, and you’re right there isn’t any need to when they’ve already set deadlines for them. I don’t however think the measures themselves are that risky.

I really hope there ends up being a vaccine maybe September/October as an explanation for all this. 

[Toilet Duck]

Just now, Cream Soda said:

Do you think they will become mandatory in all indoor spaces eventually?  (Shops, pubs, etc?)  And would it have to stay that way until there is a vaccine?

I hope that people will wear them in shops. I don't think it's feasible to wear them in pubs/restaurants/cafes...but I don't think those venues will be fully open without social distancing until levels of the virus are all but eradicated from the community. Enclosed spaces with people closely packed in are becoming obvious as the principal source of viral spread, so I expect these to be the last things that get back to "normal". Pubs open up in Ireland at the same time as restaurants/cafes (June 29th)...but only if serving food as well and only table service is allowed with spacing between tables. I don't expect to experience a heaving pub/gig any time soon. But it doesn't necessarily require a vaccine. New Zealand just opened everything as normal today. They can do that as there are no more cases in the country. There's no vaccine, but strong containment will allow them to continue like that (unless there are spikes again, then they have to roll back a bit). 

[DeanoL]

11 hours ago, Ozanne said:

I agree, I don’t think it’ll look to well on them. The bit at the end of the article I found interesting that as we come out of COVID, Boris wants a more competent Cabinet. 

The important thing to remember about BJ is he is a lazy c**t. He wants the prestige of being PM, and the ability to get a lucractive book deal that will be ghost-written, and be able to charge loads of money as an after-dinner speaker, and work around 3 hours a month. This pandemic is his worst nightmare. He's shirked it as much as he can, putting far more of it on his cabinet than you would expect (he absolutely should have been doing all the daily briefings himself) but he's swiftly realising most of them are as lazy and incompetent as he is.

Cummings was doing the other part of his job for him, which was actually making decisions for the country based on advice and options, and even he went and fucked up, but getting rid of him is impossible as then Johnson would have to make those decisions himself.

He knows if he wants to be able to relax for the next few years he needs a cabinet that's capable of actually doing his job for him when asked.

[DeanoL]

The whole second wave / second peak thing has to be seen in context. Despite all the critcism, we did manage the virus in the way we planned and the NHS never actually ran out of ICUs/beds (indeed, I don't think the Nightingale hospital in Birmingham was ever even used, possibly only the London one ever did). 

It was still pretty horrendous for the people working there, but the numbers were managed. Indeed, that peak could actually have gone a fair bit higher without any significant drop in the standard of care.

So yeah, I'm almost certain there will be a "second wave" - but if the numbers remain low enough that the NHS is not overwhelmed, it's considered a success. And it's important to note that even when the numbers were at their worst, the NHS was not overwhelmed. So we will see the numbers go up, it's just the government are confident they won't go up enough to cause a peak above what we've had so far.

[Zoo Music Girl]

For me the issue with rushing the lockdown measures is that there is no going back if we fuck up. Despite what the government says there is not going to be a return to lockdown, no way. So why can't we take it slowly and see the effect of each measure as the scientists recommend? We know the answer of course and it's politically motivated. But opening pubs two weeks earlier while the furlough scheme is in place is not going to massively benefit the economy. A lot of pubs will be taking a tiny amount of what they took before while having to pay staff costs again. That's if the social distancing measures are enforced. Can see those being ditched pretty soon.

Edited June 8, 2020 by Zoo Music Girl

[Deaf Nobby Burton]

5 minutes ago, Zoo Music Girl said:

For me the issue with rushing the lockdown measures is that there is no going back if we fuck up. Despite what the government says there is not going to be a return to lockdown, no way. So why can't we take it slowly and see the effect of each measure as the scientists recommend? We know the answer of course and it's politically motivated. But opening pubs two weeks earlier while the furlough scheme is in place is not going to massively benefit the economy. A lot of pubs will be taking a tiny amount of what they took before while having to pay staff costs again. That's if the social distancing measures are enforced. Can see those being ditched pretty soon.

You can only assume pubs will only open if it’s financially viable for them to do so, it doesn’t make sense for them to open at a loss just because they can. If they can open and at least keep their heads above water in comparison to remaining closed then that can’t be a bad thing for them. 

I’d imagine there will be a lot of abuse of the furlough system amongst many pubs though, to make it financially viable. 

[stuie]

10 minutes ago, Deaf Nobby Burton said:

I’d imagine there will be a lot of abuse of the furlough system amongst many pubs though, to make it financially viable. 

What do you mean by abuse? 
 

Surely if theres not enough business, keeping staff on the job retention scheme is what is intended? 
 

I think the ability to part time furlough will help massively 

[Crazyfool01]

id forgotten ive already got my social distancing mask ..... 

[Doug85]

I'm sure i read somewhere over the weekend that Sage are now working under the assumption that the first "wave" may actually have been in December before they realised what it was and then the second wave was actually the pandemic. I'm trying to find the article where it was mentioned but I wonder if this is in relation to results from antibody tests? 

[Deaf Nobby Burton]

11 minutes ago, stuie said:

What do you mean by abuse? 
 

Surely if theres not enough business, keeping staff on the job retention scheme is what is intended? 
 

I think the ability to part time furlough will help massively 

Well, it may only be financially viable for some pubs to open while still claiming furlough for their staff. It’s happening quite a lot, my sister doesn’t work in a pub but she’s been ‘furloughed’ yet still actually working.

[Deaf Nobby Burton]

3 minutes ago, Doug85 said:

I'm sure i read somewhere over the weekend that Sage are now working under the assumption that the first "wave" may actually have been in December before they realised what it was and then the second wave was actually the pandemic. I'm trying to find the article where it was mentioned but I wonder if this is in relation to results from antibody tests? 

I think the big unknown element at the moment is preexisting immunity from other coronavirus. The current level of people testing for antibodies doesn’t really support the notion this is already the second wave, as it’s still very low. But if a lot of people are immune already they won’t have antibodies for corona in the first place, so would make the theory more viable.

[Simsy]

1 hour ago, DeanoL said:

The whole second wave / second peak thing has to be seen in context. Despite all the critcism, we did manage the virus in the way we planned and the NHS never actually ran out of ICUs/beds (indeed, I don't think the Nightingale hospital in Birmingham was ever even used, possibly only the London one ever did). 

It was still pretty horrendous for the people working there, but the numbers were managed. Indeed, that peak could actually have gone a fair bit higher without any significant drop in the standard of care.

So yeah, I'm almost certain there will be a "second wave" - but if the numbers remain low enough that the NHS is not overwhelmed, it's considered a success. And it's important to note that even when the numbers were at their worst, the NHS was not overwhelmed. So we will see the numbers go up, it's just the government are confident they won't go up enough to cause a peak above what we've had so far.

The NHS wasn't overwhelmed, but isn't that at least partly because they cancelled/postponed a load of non-covid treatment?

[jparx]

New Zealand have smashed it. What I’d give to move over there.

[Crazyfool01]

2 minutes ago, jparx said:

New Zealand have smashed it. What I’d give to move over there.

just posted that on the good news thread .... incredible stuff  

[Toilet Duck]

10 minutes ago, jparx said:

New Zealand have smashed it. What I’d give to move over there.

Yep, they've played a blinder. They had a few things in their favour, but quick, decisive action and strong, transparent leadership that people believed in have made a hell of a difference. Can be achieved over this direction too. Masks for source control (keep R below 1), effective testing and contact tracing, restrict flights from areas with sustained community spread (blanket 14 day quarantine that might not be enforced is nonsense, especially as close contacts of those self isolating can do what they like). Not impossible, but you need to take the country along with you to achieve it. Severely eroded trust doesn't help at all.

[gizmoman]

This image was used by Chris Whitty in one of his lectures to illustrate how Britain and London in particular is at the very centre of international travel and how we are therefore most at risk of infectious disease. Holding up New Zealand as an example of managing the disease is not realistic, they have far less interaction and are less at risk. We were always going to have a bad result from this and it is likely the virus was spreading in the UK far earlier than has been reported has done it's worst and is now on it's way out.

[zahidf]

Mixed Scottish news

No new coronavirus deaths in Scotland for second day running

The Scottish Tories have called on Nicola Sturgeon to sack her health secretary, Jeane Freeman, after it emerged that 18,000 shielding people with underlying health conditions were wrongly told they could leave their homes today.

 

[Deaf Nobby Burton]

11 minutes ago, gizmoman said:

This image was used by Chris Whitty in one of his lectures to illustrate how Britain and London in particular is at the very centre of international travel and how we are therefore most at risk of infectious disease. Holding up New Zealand as an example of managing the disease is not realistic, they have far less interaction and are less at risk. We were always going to have a bad result from this and it is likely the virus was spreading in the UK far earlier than has been reported has done it's worst and is now on it's way out.

There are absolutely questions to be asked about how quickly we reacted compared to others in Europe like Italy, but the virus would’ve been circulating here long before we even know we had a problem to deal with. London itself has over double the population of New Zealand, yet NZ itself is the size of the U.K. They’ve done fantastically well, but it was never something that could’ve been replicated here, in the same way it hadn’t been replicated anywhere but there.

[Toilet Duck]

11 minutes ago, gizmoman said:

 

 

 

 

This image was used by Chris Whitty in one of his lectures to illustrate how Britain and London in particular is at the very centre of international travel and how we are therefore most at risk of infectious disease. Holding up New Zealand as an example of managing the disease is not realistic, they have far less interaction and are less at risk. We were always going to have a bad result from this and it is likely the virus was spreading in the UK far earlier than has been reported has done it's worst and is now on it's way out.

Yes, transport links was one of the "things in their favour" I was referring to in relation to NZ...London's combined airports have the busiest traffic in the world, followed by NYC...both of which were hit hard. But Tokyo is next on the list and Japan has had nothing like the number of cases the UK and the US have (Germany is also a major hub for connections from China...I know it's anecdotal, but I never fly through Heathrow to go to China). So, something else must partly explain it. "Immunological dark matter" ignores human intervention, which was clearly better elsewhere. 

[DeanoL]

1 hour ago, Zoo Music Girl said:

For me the issue with rushing the lockdown measures is that there is no going back if we fuck up. 

There absolutely is. There's no way we can't. If we hit the emergency trigger point in terms of % of ICU beds in use we will absolutely have to. Because the next step is people dying in their homes/streets. 

It's possible we now have enough immunity and we can track and trace well enough that wouldn't happen even if everything was opened back up again. But the notion we wouldn't go back into lockdown, regardless of what happened, is the government attempting to give confidence to industry. But it's bollocks. Once people start getting ill and the hospitals start saying "sorry we're not treating anyone over 40" or whatever the next step was, people are going to start staying indoors whether they're asked to or not!

1 hour ago, Deaf Nobby Burton said:

Well, it may only be financially viable for some pubs to open while still claiming furlough for their staff. It’s happening quite a lot, my sister doesn’t work in a pub but she’s been ‘furloughed’ yet still actually working.

I don't think it's happening that much, and it's extremely dangerous. The furlough scheme is costing the government a small fortune, once we come out of this on the other side and companies start to do well again, there will be many, many audits and companies found breaking those rules will be on the hook for every penny.

27 minutes ago, gizmoman said:

This image was used by Chris Whitty in one of his lectures to illustrate how Britain and London in particular is at the very centre of international travel and how we are therefore most at risk of infectious disease. Holding up New Zealand as an example of managing the disease is not realistic, they have far less interaction and are less at risk. We were always going to have a bad result from this and it is likely the virus was spreading in the UK far earlier than has been reported has done it's worst and is now on it's way out.

That's an economic argument though. If we closed our borders early it would certainly fuck up transport for a hell of a lot of countries. But we still could have done it. Honestly I don't feel like the government would have had the strength to go against the airlines and pull it off. But we are an island. We could have shut down. We could have argued that those using the UK as a travel hub from A to B shouldn't be travelling from A to B during a global pandemic anyway. Ultimately, we'd probably have been doing the world a favour!

[gizmoman]

15 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

There absolutely is. There's no way we can't. If we hit the emergency trigger point in terms of % of ICU beds in use we will absolutely have to. Because the next step is people dying in their homes/streets. 

It's possible we now have enough immunity and we can track and trace well enough that wouldn't happen even if everything was opened back up again. But the notion we wouldn't go back into lockdown, regardless of what happened, is the government attempting to give confidence to industry. But it's bollocks. Once people start getting ill and the hospitals start saying "sorry we're not treating anyone over 40" or whatever the next step was, people are going to start staying indoors whether they're asked to or not!

I don't think it's happening that much, and it's extremely dangerous. The furlough scheme is costing the government a small fortune, once we come out of this on the other side and companies start to do well again, there will be many, many audits and companies found breaking those rules will be on the hook for every penny.

That's an economic argument though. If we closed our borders early it would certainly fuck up transport for a hell of a lot of countries. But we still could have done it. Honestly I don't feel like the government would have had the strength to go against the airlines and pull it off. But we are an island. We could have shut down. We could have argued that those using the UK as a travel hub from A to B shouldn't be travelling from A to B during a global pandemic anyway. Ultimately, we'd probably have been doing the world a favour!

It would have had to be early January before we even knew we had a problem, there's no escaping an epidemic with that number of people travelling unless you stop travel before there is a problem.

[Deaf Nobby Burton]

25 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

There absolutely is. There's no way we can't. If we hit the emergency trigger point in terms of % of ICU beds in use we will absolutely have to. Because the next step is people dying in their homes/streets. 

It's possible we now have enough immunity and we can track and trace well enough that wouldn't happen even if everything was opened back up again. But the notion we wouldn't go back into lockdown, regardless of what happened, is the government attempting to give confidence to industry. But it's bollocks. Once people start getting ill and the hospitals start saying "sorry we're not treating anyone over 40" or whatever the next step was, people are going to start staying indoors whether they're asked to or not!

I don't think it's happening that much, and it's extremely dangerous. The furlough scheme is costing the government a small fortune, once we come out of this on the other side and companies start to do well again, there will be many, many audits and companies found breaking those rules will be on the hook for every penny.

That's an economic argument though. If we closed our borders early it would certainly fuck up transport for a hell of a lot of countries. But we still could have done it. Honestly I don't feel like the government would have had the strength to go against the airlines and pull it off. But we are an island. We could have shut down. We could have argued that those using the UK as a travel hub from A to B shouldn't be travelling from A to B during a global pandemic anyway. Ultimately, we'd probably have been doing the world a favour!

NZ had their first case on 28th Feb (a month after us) but did not shut their borders to international arrivals until three weeks later on 19th March.  The reality is though due to their geographical location and fractional amount of international arrivals it didn’t really matter.

Even if we’d shut our borders at the point we had our first case we’d have still had significantly more infections circulating in a country the same size, but with 13 times the population.

Edited June 8, 2020 by Deaf Nobby Burton

[stuie]

2 hours ago, Deaf Nobby Burton said:

Well, it may only be financially viable for some pubs to open while still claiming furlough for their staff. It’s happening quite a lot, my sister doesn’t work in a pub but she’s been ‘furloughed’ yet still actually working.

Don’t wish to be an idiot but is your sister aware that she is breaking the law in association with her employer. I’d try and discourage her from carrying on doing that! 

[Deaf Nobby Burton]

6 minutes ago, stuie said:

Don’t wish to be an idiot but is your sister aware that she is breaking the law in association with her employer. I’d try and discourage her from carrying on doing that! 

She’s in a difficult position and has voiced her unease and concern over it. Her employer had said without claiming the furlough payments he would go under. It’s difficult for her because she needs her job and doesn’t want to refuse to work because someone else will do it in her place if she refuses.

I think the blame for this happening needs to lay squarely at the door with the employer. It’s all very well the employee taking the moral high ground but at the end of the day people need to put food on the table.

[northernringo]

Northern Ireland joining Scotland in going two days in a row without a death.

Weekend figures always lower but still encouraging.