Covid--new restrictions.

[jim_l]

42 minutes ago, Blatman said:

As ever it's all about money. We can't afford the restrictions for too much longer.

 

Don't get me going down that route...OK then. If we could fill the 'tax gap' though to be £100 Billion a year for the UK, we could look after people through this winter,  then pay off the Covid bill in 5 or 6 years.   The only thing stopping us doing that is that the G7 countries are competing with each other for corporate tax, a race to the bottom. An example is Trump, threatening tariffs on the EU if they implement a 'tech tax' to try and get something, anything, from Amazon, Apple, et al. 

[Blatman]

10 minutes ago, jim_l said:

 

Don't get me going down that route...OK then. If we could fill the 'tax gap' though to be £100 Billion a year for the UK, we could look after people through this winter,  then pay off the Covid bill in 5 or 6 years.   The only thing stopping us doing that is that the G7 countries are competing with each other for corporate tax, a race to the bottom. An example is Trump, threatening tariffs on the EU if they implement a 'tech tax' to try and get something, anything, from Amazon, Apple, et al. 

 

You would think the G7 would be able to stipulate that getting appropriate tax revenue from these companies would be something they could agree on as a matter of principle. I get that they are trying to attract these sorts of businesses to set up to provide jobs etc. Maybe it's worth forgoing corporate tax because the tax paid by their employees fills a bit of that gap? The more employees the bigger the tax revenue paid by "the company" despite the obvious offset.

I do appreciate that corporate tax would be added to employee generated revenue but the side benefit for governments with a social security and health system (so not the USA...) is not just the money gained in tax by having more people in employment, it's also the saving that comes from not having the population claim benefits. More people in work also generates more VAT revenue as people spend more on things they might not when unemployed.

[DonPeffers]

          Reliable data??

 

08 oct 2020  https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/10/08/ministers-accused-justifying-pub-closures-cobbled-together-statistics/

 

" Ministers have been accused of justifying pub closures with "cobbled together" statistics including a three-month-old survey carried out in the US."

 

"Ministers accused of justifying pub closures with 'cobbled together' statistics MPs claimed to have been shown 'meaningless' figures during presentation in order to 'retrospectively' prove need for closures".

 

What if someone goes to the pub on a bus and not everyone on the bus is wearing a mask (or properly wearing it)? What if someone sneezes on a bus?

Has the infection passed in the pub, on the bus, or elsewhere? 

 

[Blatman]

I agree with MotCO and Don in every aspect of this, but that just brings out the devils advocate in me...

 

The government need numbers. Only the (ever unreliable) population can ever provide anything like the amount of numbers needed for a viable set of statistics that might point to a trend so where else are the government supposed to get the numbers from?

[DonPeffers]

2 hours ago, jim_l said:

You made a few references above Don to life expectancy, the extent to which the victims tend to be older people, and how few young people have any adverse effects. 

I shall carefully avoid ascribing a view based on that

 

The forum is about an exchange of views Jim.

 

I have provided factual data about deaths by covid in age groups.

 

Based on my age and asthma I must be at about 50,000 times the risk of death compared to under 20 year olds yet I am prepared to take necessary mitigation measures and get on with it.   https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-8534517/Over-65s-catch-Covid-19-5-6-cent-risk-dying-disease.html

 

Of course the very elderly and clinically vulnerable having home visits need protection and hopefully with the correct PPE and sanitization protocols safety might be assured.

 

A lot has changed since the first wave when 'don't use masks' was the official advice and the so-called 'national lockdown' had more holes than a Swiss cheese.

 

Recently in shopping centres I have seen a variety of ages, male and female, not wearing masks. I reckon if you can't wear a mask then don't visit shops and use online deliveries.

[jim_l]

 

So if we don't have reliable data about where the spread is, as numerous people above have suggested, what do we do? 

 

1) Nothing, just let our hospitals fill up, let the thing loose. 

2) Back to lockdown, essential workers and functions only. 

3) Something in between, led by common sense and the albeit limited amount we do know.

We know that it is spread when people spend time together (out of the house) where does that happen? Home visits, pubs, workplaces, schools (contact in shops, etc. is transient)

We know that it is spread when people don't follow the rules, where is that most likely to happen? Pubs and restaurants mostly.

Which of these things can we affect without catastrophically impacting our future, educationally or economically

 

Which would lead me to, a) limit inter home visits b) limit drunken pub time together, as a first step.

 

It may not be any kind of science, but it certainly isn't rocket science. 

 

 

 

[DonPeffers]

5 minutes ago, Blatman said:

I agree with MotCO and Don in every aspect of this, but that just brings out the devils advocate in me...

 

The government need numbers. Only the (ever unreliable) population can ever provide anything like the amount of numbers needed for a viable set of statistics that might point to a trend so where else are the government supposed to get the numbers from?

I know.....we'll get them from an out of date US study.

[DonPeffers]

1 hour ago, Man On The Clapham Omnibus said:

It's hopeless to expect any degree of accuracy from several days earlier in just the person's memory. Home is where we all spend the majority of nights so we're bound to say "Well, I was at home, of course..." 

Delays in contact tracing means many are being asked to remember over a week back. Some involved in the missing 15,841 cases are now being told to self-isolate but it is already too late.

[jim_l]

2 minutes ago, DonPeffers said:

The forum is about an exchange of views Jim.

 

I have been known to draw the wrong conclusions about your views Don, so was being careful, this thread is an excellent case in point where everyone's input adds something, I like that we can do that on here,  the people that make Facebook etc.  a mess aren't here.   Like you I think we are arriving at a point where us grown ups are going to have to mitigate and take responsibility for ourselves, we would be failing our children if, desperate to stay alive at all costs, we bankrupt the place and at the same time fill our hospitals and deprive them of treatments they need. 

 

[DonPeffers]

6 minutes ago, jim_l said:

 

Which would lead me to, a) limit inter home visits b) limit drunken pub time together, as a first step.

 

It may not be any kind of science, but it certainly isn't rocket science. 

 

 

 

As a condition of licence nobody is supposed to be drunk in a pub.

 

In an earlier post I did recommend a maximum 2 hrs time slot for pub visits to meet and socialise and social distancing should apply too.

[jim_l]

2 minutes ago, DonPeffers said:

In an earlier post I did recommend a maximum 2 hrs time slot for pub visits to meet and socialise and social distancing should apply too

 

Absolutely, that could work. I have been to the pub twice , once when they first reopened, we were like sardines, nothing had changed, not been back. Went to one other pub where I was told they had it in hand, excellent, screens, masks , distance. How do we make it happen for the good ones and limit it for the bad ones. 

 

On the plus side, I am accumulating upgrade money. 

 

[DonPeffers]

I guess we need more policing of pubs and close the problem ones.

 

Currently our top science advisers seem to be making policy up and won't justify actions, based on their 'data', to MPs.

 

'A blind man in a dark room looking for a black hat which isn't there' comes to mind.

[Steve (sdh2903)]

37 minutes ago, DonPeffers said:

I guess we need more policing of pubs and close the problem ones.

 

Agree. My local has timeslot bookings. All booked in advance and you only get shortish slots during peak times. Tables are all segregated and screens where necessary.  All feels very well organised and as safe as can possibly be. I feel so sorry for the family that own it as they invested thousands during lockdown in renovations and technology to make the regulations work. They've really tried to look after their staff aswell 

 

In comparison, Drove past a massive weatherspoons in town where at least 50-75 congregated outside all waiting to get in with no masks, no distancing, even inside people stood mingling. And that's with security staff inside and out. I'm not blaming the weatherspoons per se, as it should be down to the individual to take responsibility, however its scenes like this that paint the industry in such a  bad light and has contributed to the blanket closure. 

[Steve (sdh2903)]

47 minutes ago, DonPeffers said:

 

Currently our top science advisers seem to be making policy up and won't justify actions, based on their 'data', to MPs.

 

 

Nope, but it's genius when you think about it. Everyone just keeps saying 'we're going with the science', 'we' re listening to the science' 'we're following the science'.

 

The science can never be held accountable. Because no one ever gets to see it or hear its justification. A free get out for every politician. 

[Arm]

And its evolving out in front of us. Will be obvious when its over so why can't we apply that now....... See Facebook for all the answers and more.