Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think there may need to be a plan B of some sort. Because the way this virus is bouncing around across the world someone needs to do some outside the box thinking. " I agree. Unemployment and subsequent lower standards of living will increase the pressure on the NHS anyway so either way the economy can’t afford to carry on subsidising by tax if there’s no growth. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just thinking out loud . It looks like all this financial support is not going to save jobs and the constant lockdown is destroying the economy long term. What’s your thoughts In giving the NHS an extra 20 Billion a month and just letting everyone go back to work and play while the NHS gears up for thousands of cases but we get it all over with. Before anyone shoots me I have vulnerable relatives so yes I do care. I’m just thinking we can’t carry on like this if a vaccine isn’t forthcoming soon. " It is a good idea but there is already a shortage of nurses and the NHS might struggle to recruit the extra staff that maybe required if the infection rate starts hitting 50,000 a day | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just thinking out loud . It looks like all this financial support is not going to save jobs and the constant lockdown is destroying the economy long term. What’s your thoughts In giving the NHS an extra 20 Billion a month and just letting everyone go back to work and play while the NHS gears up for thousands of cases but we get it all over with. Before anyone shoots me I have vulnerable relatives so yes I do care. I’m just thinking we can’t carry on like this if a vaccine isn’t forthcoming soon. It is a good idea but there is already a shortage of nurses and the NHS might struggle to recruit the extra staff that maybe required if the infection rate starts hitting 50,000 a day " I know and agree but there’s a lot of what nurses used to do that is now done by ancillary workers. That could utilised and if we get the ventilator numbers up with the 20Billion it at least gives us a chance. I may be blue sky thinking here but anyone in the NHS have an opinion? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just thinking out loud . It looks like all this financial support is not going to save jobs and the constant lockdown is destroying the economy long term. What’s your thoughts In giving the NHS an extra 20 Billion a month and just letting everyone go back to work and play while the NHS gears up for thousands of cases but we get it all over with. Before anyone shoots me I have vulnerable relatives so yes I do care. I’m just thinking we can’t carry on like this if a vaccine isn’t forthcoming soon. " Weren't they supposed to be building x amount of new hospitals and taking on x amount of new nurses anyway? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just thinking out loud . It looks like all this financial support is not going to save jobs and the constant lockdown is destroying the economy long term. What’s your thoughts In giving the NHS an extra 20 Billion a month and just letting everyone go back to work and play while the NHS gears up for thousands of cases but we get it all over with. Before anyone shoots me I have vulnerable relatives so yes I do care. I’m just thinking we can’t carry on like this if a vaccine isn’t forthcoming soon. Weren't they supposed to be building x amount of new hospitals and taking on x amount of new nurses anyway?" I’m guessing the pandemic got in the way of that. But the good news is there is 350 million weekly knocking about somewhere. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just thinking out loud . It looks like all this financial support is not going to save jobs and the constant lockdown is destroying the economy long term. What’s your thoughts In giving the NHS an extra 20 Billion a month and just letting everyone go back to work and play while the NHS gears up for thousands of cases but we get it all over with. Before anyone shoots me I have vulnerable relatives so yes I do care. I’m just thinking we can’t carry on like this if a vaccine isn’t forthcoming soon. Weren't they supposed to be building x amount of new hospitals and taking on x amount of new nurses anyway? I’m guessing the pandemic got in the way of that. But the good news is there is 350 million weekly knocking about somewhere. " Sound. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just thinking out loud . It looks like all this financial support is not going to save jobs and the constant lockdown is destroying the economy long term. What’s your thoughts In giving the NHS an extra 20 Billion a month and just letting everyone go back to work and play while the NHS gears up for thousands of cases but we get it all over with. Before anyone shoots me I have vulnerable relatives so yes I do care. I’m just thinking we can’t carry on like this if a vaccine isn’t forthcoming soon. Weren't they supposed to be building x amount of new hospitals and taking on x amount of new nurses anyway? I’m guessing the pandemic got in the way of that. But the good news is there is 350 million weekly knocking about somewhere. Sound." think it’s on the side of a bus somewhere.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just thinking out loud . It looks like all this financial support is not going to save jobs and the constant lockdown is destroying the economy long term. What’s your thoughts In giving the NHS an extra 20 Billion a month and just letting everyone go back to work and play while the NHS gears up for thousands of cases but we get it all over with. Before anyone shoots me I have vulnerable relatives so yes I do care. I’m just thinking we can’t carry on like this if a vaccine isn’t forthcoming soon. Weren't they supposed to be building x amount of new hospitals and taking on x amount of new nurses anyway? I’m guessing the pandemic got in the way of that. But the good news is there is 350 million weekly knocking about somewhere. Sound. think it’s on the side of a bus somewhere. "Bugger so to get funding I’ve got to find a bus?. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There's every hope that a viable vaccine will be available by early next year. On top of that, new treatments and repurposed drugs are being used more and more to treat the seriously ill sufferers of Covid, so with any luck we'll probably only have to hang on for A few more months. Letting it spread through the community is not really a viable option, because the number of people likely to fall ill enough to be off work would still massively impact the economy, as well as health and teaching. On top of that, whilst the understanding of this virus is growing all the time, there is still no absolute knowledge of the long term consequences of the disease in many of those that do recover. Trying for herd immunity is an extremely risky endeavor, and that is why it was originally abandoned in favour of lockdown. " There was an interesting article in tne spectator on the 17th of August written by a Swedish doctor. He mentions a stream of Covid patients coming in to the hospital with all levels of illness. He then states that both patients just stopped coming. It seems they found it started to work. I’m not advocating herd immunity as such as their society is totally different to ours. But worth a look to stop this if the vaccine isn’t found to work soon. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Lockdown was brought in to slow the spread, not to abandon herd immunity, herd immunity is the only way for life to get back to normal, it can be achieved by vaccine or infection, relying on the former to work is high risk relying on the latter could lead to health service overload, new treatments are helping patients which will reduce admissions and deaths, we can hope that the vaccines will work, be safe and provide long lasting protection, if it doesnt then the world will find our exactly how bad or not it is " What percentage of the population do we need to be infected for herd immunity to be effective? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Lockdown was brought in to slow the spread, not to abandon herd immunity, herd immunity is the only way for life to get back to normal, it can be achieved by vaccine or infection, relying on the former to work is high risk relying on the latter could lead to health service overload, new treatments are helping patients which will reduce admissions and deaths, we can hope that the vaccines will work, be safe and provide long lasting protection, if it doesnt then the world will find our exactly how bad or not it is What percentage of the population do we need to be infected for herd immunity to be effective? " No expert but have seen experts say between 65 and 80 %, I assume in remote areas a lower figure works but in densely populated areas the higher figure is needed, herd immunity and vaccination will both only work if antibody levels or T cells work at least medium term and or the viruse doesnt mutate quickly, as I understand it the vaccines being tested are capable of dealing with some mutation | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Lockdown was brought in to slow the spread, not to abandon herd immunity, herd immunity is the only way for life to get back to normal, it can be achieved by vaccine or infection, relying on the former to work is high risk relying on the latter could lead to health service overload, new treatments are helping patients which will reduce admissions and deaths, we can hope that the vaccines will work, be safe and provide long lasting protection, if it doesnt then the world will find our exactly how bad or not it is What percentage of the population do we need to be infected for herd immunity to be effective? No expert but have seen experts say between 65 and 80 %, I assume in remote areas a lower figure works but in densely populated areas the higher figure is needed, herd immunity and vaccination will both only work if antibody levels or T cells work at least medium term and or the viruse doesnt mutate quickly, as I understand it the vaccines being tested are capable of dealing with some mutation" So for the UK we need between 44 to 54 million people to get infected, what sort of time frame do they recommend? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No idea, the crucial thing is to keep numbers needing hospital care down so that health services can cope. That timescale has to be balanced with the economic damage caused by slowing the rate of infection. Dont envy any government having to make these decisions " With an infection rate of 100,000 a week it would take over 10 years to reach the required numbers for herd immunity to work,  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No idea, the crucial thing is to keep numbers needing hospital care down so that health services can cope. That timescale has to be balanced with the economic damage caused by slowing the rate of infection. Dont envy any government having to make these decisions With an infection rate of 100,000 a week it would take over 10 years to reach the required numbers for herd immunity to work, "No one knows how many have been or are infected, far too many with no symptoms and cases rise exponentially this wk 100 tho next 300 next 900 etc, of course IF we get a vaccine and it can be produced quickly and if it can be delivered and if it is safe and people will have it and if it works and if the virus doesnt mutate it could all be over by easter, but that's a lot of ifs, natural herd immunity will happen on it's own at some point, it always has in the past, with this virus we have the choice on how much we slow the spread but at a cost to the economy, with a handful of exceptions countries arent trying to eliminate it just control its spread, of course it's not said in so many words but anyone with any intelligence knows that's what governments are doing, there is simply NO other choice until a vaccine arrives and that is as yet only a hope | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No idea, the crucial thing is to keep numbers needing hospital care down so that health services can cope. That timescale has to be balanced with the economic damage caused by slowing the rate of infection. Dont envy any government having to make these decisions With an infection rate of 100,000 a week it would take over 10 years to reach the required numbers for herd immunity to work,
No one knows how many have been or are infected, far too many with no symptoms and cases rise exponentially this wk 100 tho next 300 next 900 etc, of course IF we get a vaccine and it can be produced quickly and if it can be delivered and if it is safe and people will have it and if it works and if the virus doesnt mutate it could all be over by easter, but that's a lot of ifs, natural herd immunity will happen on it's own at some point, it always has in the past, with this virus we have the choice on how much we slow the spread but at a cost to the economy, with a handful of exceptions countries arent trying to eliminate it just control its spread, of course it's not said in so many words but anyone with any intelligence knows that's what governments are doing, there is simply NO other choice until a vaccine arrives and that is as yet only a hope"Doesn’t work though,  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No idea, the crucial thing is to keep numbers needing hospital care down so that health services can cope. That timescale has to be balanced with the economic damage caused by slowing the rate of infection. Dont envy any government having to make these decisions " Yes my original point which is why I asked for opinions. We can’t cope with the economy tanking like this but we don’t want to kill grandma either. I hope I’m wrong but suspect the job loses are about to get very real. Like I said maybe divert some of the support money into the NHS to cope with an increase and ease off the restrictions a little. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No idea, the crucial thing is to keep numbers needing hospital care down so that health services can cope. That timescale has to be balanced with the economic damage caused by slowing the rate of infection. Dont envy any government having to make these decisions With an infection rate of 100,000 a week it would take over 10 years to reach the required numbers for herd immunity to work,
No one knows how many have been or are infected, far too many with no symptoms and cases rise exponentially this wk 100 tho next 300 next 900 etc, of course IF we get a vaccine and it can be produced quickly and if it can be delivered and if it is safe and people will have it and if it works and if the virus doesnt mutate it could all be over by easter, but that's a lot of ifs, natural herd immunity will happen on it's own at some point, it always has in the past, with this virus we have the choice on how much we slow the spread but at a cost to the economy, with a handful of exceptions countries arent trying to eliminate it just control its spread, of course it's not said in so many words but anyone with any intelligence knows that's what governments are doing, there is simply NO other choice until a vaccine arrives and that is as yet only a hope
Doesn’t work though, "Always has in history that's human and animal history, if it didn't we wouldnt be here nor would any other creature. Every single plague has died out when herd immunity has been acquired, often at huge cost in lives but achieved it has been . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just thinking out loud . It looks like all this financial support is not going to save jobs and the constant lockdown is destroying the economy long term. What’s your thoughts In giving the NHS an extra 20 Billion a month and just letting everyone go back to work and play while the NHS gears up for thousands of cases but we get it all over with. Before anyone shoots me I have vulnerable relatives so yes I do care. I’m just thinking we can’t carry on like this if a vaccine isn’t forthcoming soon. It is a good idea but there is already a shortage of nurses and the NHS might struggle to recruit the extra staff that maybe required if the infection rate starts hitting 50,000 a day I know and agree but there’s a lot of what nurses used to do that is now done by ancillary workers. That could utilised and if we get the ventilator numbers up with the 20Billion it at least gives us a chance. I may be blue sky thinking here but anyone in the NHS have an opinion? " I'm not in the NHS... but I am a computer programmer, so I wrote a quick program to figure out how quickly everything collapses. Its pretty quick. I found some figures on the net and made 1 assumption. Heres the result. Assumption: infected people remain infections for 2 weeks (based on advised quarantine time) Starting figure. There were 7000 new cases recorded between the 23rd and 24th of september - from a site called worldometer (I don't know how accurated that is though) R rate - 1.2 to 1.5 in England - from gov.uk - so pretty sure thats accurate - its also the biggest factor in this. Given those figures/assumptions. 52 million people will have either had the virus (or will currently be infected) within 16 weeks. Thats herd immunity achieved. Thats the facts - I'll be happy to plug some other numbers in if someone wants to supply them. btw - in this model - by week 14, twenty-five million people will be sick. In my opinion that is total economic collapse. Also some someone suggested a number of 100,000 infections a week. My feeling is that if we hit that number with the current R rating, total collapse will be inevitable. That happens on week 5 in this model. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Btw I don’t necessarily believe what I’m saying I’m just curious on the possibilities " I do not think the Gov will want it to spread that fast if they can slow it down but it would get it over and done with, of course some of those hit with bad symptoms will be key workers so that could have implications too. Everyday is one closer to the end of the first stage, the big question is will it become a new seasonal infection each year like flu that kills a British number each winter. Then we need to learn lessons on how to deal with the next bug that the chinese allow out . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Thats fascinating Now we surely can assume that of those 7.5 million they won’t all be critical in week 14 They will be spread over the 14 weeks so if you half each week over 14 and divide by say 2 weeks in intensive care your down to what would bring don’t know the maths to calculus but I’m guessing 2 million max at peak The percentage of patients needing some sort of ventilation is less than 5 % then you get the number down to 100,00 needing intensive care at any time . Am I making sense or completely wrong? My number are not accurate but can you see the gist of where I’m going? These number are all assuming we don’t socially distance at all but we can slow the virus down in every day life if we do. " Well those numbers are based on our current R number - at the minimum value (1.2). So its the best possible scenario based on the social distancing measures we have in place at the moment. Interesting things happen when you play with the R number though. Dropping it by 1/10th of a point means it takes 4 weeks longer till we hit herd immunity. And weeks 19 and 20 both have 9 million too sick to work. Dropping it by only 1/10th of a point more gives us 138 weeks (over 2 years!). and no more than 300,000 people incapacitated at the peak. Raising the R number to 1.5 - which is the reported upper bound on gov.uk. Shortens the time to herd immunity by 4 weeks - again with around 9 million incapacitated on weeks 10 and 11. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Thank you for the work on this. It may be crude but it opens the thoughts process to include the possibility of letting it spread . Maybe this is what the government are hoping is happening . But with constant lockdowns as you say the weeks possibly expand to 138 weeks. Love maths and thanks for the way you approached that . Interesting reading " If herd immunity is the goal - the 138 week option is probably best imo. Even with the R number only slight above 1 (I've tried it with 1.025) - the number of incapacitated inevitable rises to several million before the 80% mark is achieved - with larger numbers of people out of action over a longer period of weeks. Thats simply the nature of exponential systems like virus spread. The numbers I am seeing would certainly crush the NHS. And aside from the human cost of this - the economy would be hammered as well. Consider that an incapacitated person is likely to also take another worker to look after them for the period of their illness. Also, deaths will ramp up hard when the health service cannot cope - impacting our ability to safely dispose of the dead, which introduces another disease vector. Additionally because our economy for basic supplies like food operates on a "just in time" basis, major disruptions in the available workforce may cause food shortages, which in turn could lead to civil unrest. Throwing money at the health service is unlikely to help either - medics take time to train, and equipment takes time to build. The maxim of "you can't birth a baby in less than nine months by adding more women" applies here. Ultimately I think the solution here is less of a case trying to find a way back to "normal" but more a case of a root and branch restructuring of our society and economy. Massive automation is the key here. With the goal of mass dis-employment. Its the 21st century man - why do we still have people cleaning toilets when we can build robots to do that for us?  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Thank you for the work on this. It may be crude but it opens the thoughts process to include the possibility of letting it spread . Maybe this is what the government are hoping is happening . But with constant lockdowns as you say the weeks possibly expand to 138 weeks. Love maths and thanks for the way you approached that . Interesting reading If herd immunity is the goal - the 138 week option is probably best imo. Even with the R number only slight above 1 (I've tried it with 1.025) - the number of incapacitated inevitable rises to several million before the 80% mark is achieved - with larger numbers of people out of action over a longer period of weeks. Thats simply the nature of exponential systems like virus spread. The numbers I am seeing would certainly crush the NHS. And aside from the human cost of this - the economy would be hammered as well. Consider that an incapacitated person is likely to also take another worker to look after them for the period of their illness. Also, deaths will ramp up hard when the health service cannot cope - impacting our ability to safely dispose of the dead, which introduces another disease vector. Additionally because our economy for basic supplies like food operates on a "just in time" basis, major disruptions in the available workforce may cause food shortages, which in turn could lead to civil unrest. Throwing money at the health service is unlikely to help either - medics take time to train, and equipment takes time to build. The maxim of "you can't birth a baby in less than nine months by adding more women" applies here. Ultimately I think the solution here is less of a case trying to find a way back to "normal" but more a case of a root and branch restructuring of our society and economy. Massive automation is the key here. With the goal of mass dis-employment. Its the 21st century man - why do we still have people cleaning toilets when we can build robots to do that for us? "So add a vaccine and we have a chance . Without it we’re are basically stuffed by a slight creep in the R rate . Automation is inevitable but like you said society needs to change and wealth needs a fairer distribution otherwise we wi have extremes of absolute poverty (not the U.K. statistical version) and absolute wealth . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Perhaps the question is why cant people leave toilets in a clean condition" So very true and still amazes me how filthy some people are . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Another four businesses this week shut there doors on the business park where i work this week.that's now 11 buildings empty out of 60 that were all full in March.I've been in six days since March and others places on our estate still ain't opend.end October is gona be bad" Are you ok do you think ? None of my business really I know but good luck . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Thank you for the work on this. It may be crude but it opens the thoughts process to include the possibility of letting it spread . Maybe this is what the government are hoping is happening . But with constant lockdowns as you say the weeks possibly expand to 138 weeks. Love maths and thanks for the way you approached that . Interesting reading If herd immunity is the goal - the 138 week option is probably best imo. Even with the R number only slight above 1 (I've tried it with 1.025) - the number of incapacitated inevitable rises to several million before the 80% mark is achieved - with larger numbers of people out of action over a longer period of weeks. Thats simply the nature of exponential systems like virus spread. The numbers I am seeing would certainly crush the NHS. And aside from the human cost of this - the economy would be hammered as well. Consider that an incapacitated person is likely to also take another worker to look after them for the period of their illness. Also, deaths will ramp up hard when the health service cannot cope - impacting our ability to safely dispose of the dead, which introduces another disease vector. Additionally because our economy for basic supplies like food operates on a "just in time" basis, major disruptions in the available workforce may cause food shortages, which in turn could lead to civil unrest. Throwing money at the health service is unlikely to help either - medics take time to train, and equipment takes time to build. The maxim of "you can't birth a baby in less than nine months by adding more women" applies here. Ultimately I think the solution here is less of a case trying to find a way back to "normal" but more a case of a root and branch restructuring of our society and economy. Massive automation is the key here. With the goal of mass dis-employment. Its the 21st century man - why do we still have people cleaning toilets when we can build robots to do that for us?
So add a vaccine and we have a chance . Without it we’re are basically stuffed by a slight creep in the R rate .
Automation is inevitable but like you said society needs to change and wealth needs a fairer distribution otherwise we wi have extremes of absolute poverty (not the U.K. statistical version) and absolute wealth .
"Tbh the only viable strategy imo is to do what we are doing. Keep the virus suppressed until we get a vaccine. Herd immunity is just too risky. We'd need the most incredible discipline to maintain the infection rate at the right level. I don't think there's any government in the world that could pull that off. There is an opportunity here also though. The working world will transform - and indeed already has transformed. Top tech companies are already making WFH a permanent arrangement. Other companies will follow suit. City centres will die - which has been on the cards for a while now, but this will accelerate their demise, and the commute will become a lot less commonplace. With less traffic this might be the catalyst for self driving cars/trucks to get on the road. Local communities could regenerate as the workers will be staying closer to home. There's all kinds of good things that could come from this. I think the best thing is to do what we can to accelerate that transformation. I'll get of mah soapbox now | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
