Lordship Lane .. North Cross rd. getting back to Normality .

[exdulwicher]

What effect on the economy do you think NOT locking down would have had?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52968523

An extra 470,000 deaths in the UK which would have completely overwhelmed the NHS (and morgues). 470,000 key workers, elderly, vulnerable dying. You reckon the economy would still be functioning fine and we'd all just be carrying on, stiff upper lip, we're British?

There'd be CHAOS. Riots and looting as a result of the massive hoarding that would have been going on, mass absenteeism from work as people took their own decisions (or were off work seriously ill) - you may remember that many companies had already closed up shop, locked down, gone to remote working etc BEFORE the Government finally mandated it. No-one would be "just carrying on", there'd be no normal operations at the NHS (because they'd long since have been overwhelmed and would be taking years longer to recover beck to normal).

The idea that everything would just be fine with the UK just carrying on regardless (while virtually every other country in the world was on lockdown) is just farcical. It's not realism, it's complete utter fantasy.

We had this with the Millenium Bug computer code thing. Thanks to a LOT of very hard work behind the scenes from a lot of computer programmers, nothing happened. (well, almost nothing - in some cases the problem got kicked 50 years down the road by tweaking some 2-digit year codes). That lead to a load of conspiracy theories saying it was all overblown, all a big hoax. It wasn't at all, the preventative measures taken stopped it from being a catastrophe. Without lockdown, we'd be in a far worse place and the economy would still be wrecked for a decade.

[Sephiroth]

everything exdulwicher said

[jimlad48]

I don't for one second believe the 470K death figure. The science behind it is deeply questionable, there are real concerns over how the figure was reached and the people behind it have a very long track record of crying wolf over previous incidents. How they got listened to or taken seriously again is beyond me.

Meanwhile millions of people face unemployment, possibly on the jobs scrapheap forever, but hey we need to keep that 2m rule in place because great aunty mildred can have a few more weeks of care home existence, even if the price of doing so is utterly screwing our kids and grandkids for decades to come.

[Sephiroth]

Just because you choose not to believe it is neither here nor there Jim

This virus has hammered the entire globe. There isn't some leftie/remainer plot afoot here.

[JohnL]

exdulwicher Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> We had this with the Millenium Bug computer code

> thing. Thanks to a LOT of very hard work behind

> the scenes from a lot of computer programmers,

> nothing happened.

Yes I remember - even the stuff that was unfixable and binned meant it couldn't go wrong in service and was replaced before NYE1999

[Sephiroth]

It's crazy to think that the only way people like Jim would be convinced is to let the damage happen - and if half a million people die and the country is in ruins he can always shrug and go "oh well"

speaking of things that people are shrugging about and will damage Lordship Lane and beyond but happens to be self-inflicted... Brexit's-a-comin'

[Penguin68]

Thanks to a LOT of very hard work behind the scenes from a lot of computer programmers, nothing happened.

One of the key problems wasn't that a routine would itself fail because the date was 'wrong' - but that a more sophisticated (younger routine) would check the older routine to make sure it was working, see that it 'wasn't' (because the date was wrong) and not accept its data or command. Most systems then (and indeed now) were a combination of many older sub-routines. A huge amount of work was undertaken, at great expense, to ensure that the 'millenium bug' wasn't a thing. I was involved with such a project for a major blue chip, and it wasn't an exercise in futility.

However it is worth noting that the same person/ modelling group who forecast half a million Covid-19 deaths also forecast mass losses through BSE - something which didn't happen.

[exdulwicher]

jimlad48 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I don't for one second believe the 470K death

> figure. The science behind it is deeply

> questionable, there are real concerns over how the

> figure was reached and the people behind it have a

> very long track record of crying wolf over

> previous incidents. How they got listened to or

> taken seriously again is beyond me.

>

So it's all a big global conspiracy? Virtually every country in the world was in on it, the scientists had all collaborated beforehand to say "I know, what a terrific game it'd be if we could bring the planet to a standstill for a few months! You take these countries over here, we'll knock up some pretend figures, oh what a laugh we'll have!" ?

Has the Flat Earth forum got a bit boring for you, thought you'd pop over here? What's your views on the Moon Landings? Just wondering if there's any other science you'd like to not believe in for us...

[jimlad48]

So in other words. There is only one narrative of the science and you cannot doubt or question it.

I'm a centre left remainer. I think the response here is utterly OTT and sanity needs to return ASAP.

[Sephiroth]

"So in other words. There is only one narrative of the science and you cannot doubt or question it."

I don't think that's what people are saying. But sometimes it is true that there is only one scientific answer

But don't you think it meaningful that countries across the world, democratic or totalitarian, left or right, have all concluded much the same thing?

[FJDGoose]

jimlad48 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> So in other words. There is only one narrative of

> the science and you cannot doubt or question it.

>

> I'm a centre left remainer. I think the response

> here is utterly OTT and sanity needs to return

> ASAP.

I find many peoples comments on this thread very sane and sensible. I find some of your comments quite offensive, the only one being OTT is yourself. However I agree, nobody want's to stay isolated and shut away for ever.

[Sephiroth]

for the record:

I have 2 primary aged kids at home every day. I would LOVE to have them back at school

I can't wait for pubs and restaurants to open (my brother runs a pub and is suffering several thousand pound losses in rent alone - every single week!)

I have no reason to want this to continue a day longer than it needs to

[jimlad48]

I have no doubt COVID is nasty. But we have to keep a sense of balance and proportion. We accept 10s of thousands will die each year from flu without lockdown. We need to calmly and rationally agree the acceptable level of deaths for covid then get on with our lives.

I want normalcy asap precisely because I want an economy that can fund a health service in the future and not sacrifice it now because we areoverreacting.

The chance of dying in school from covid is less than being hit by lightning. Yet the schools stay stubbornly shut. We have to stop living in pointless fear

As an elderly relative of mine has put it, its time for my generation to accept it may be our time to be the sacrifice and move on so the younger generation can live.

[Sephiroth]

But that isn't answering the questions - it isn't enough to compare it flu and say "oh it's a bit like/worse"

Schools aren't shut just because people think kids will die in numbers - it's to stop the spread to the wider population which has no immunity and no guarantee it will develop immunity

And are you genuinely suggesting the whole rest of the world has equally overreacted?

Do you never pause and think they weight of evidenve from ALL OF THE COUNTRIES is worth more than "I'm bored now can we move on?"

[exdulwicher]

I have no doubt COVID is nasty. But we have to keep a sense of balance and proportion. We accept 10s of thousands will die each year from flu without lockdown. We need to calmly and rationally agree the acceptable level of deaths for covid then get on with our lives.

Actually it raises an interesting point of what is and is not acceptable (taking the thread off topic a moment). 5 people (on average) are killed on the roads of the UK every single day. Not just nationally, but globally, we seem to accept this. The price of each death varies a bit but is roughly ?1 million by the time you've factored in cost of the emergency services, clean-up, medical treatment for the injured / dying, insurance costs, lost productivity and so on, there's loads of factors.

No-one really seems to care about this (up until a close relative is killed) but if there were 5 deaths a day happening on the railways, there'd be national outcry, the whole rail network would be shut down. But it's a case of perspective and what is considered "acceptable".

To follow the Covid pattern, you really need to look at excess deaths - deaths over and above the national average - which is relatively stable at about 9-11,000 per week (England and Wales). At the infection peak it was running at nearly 30,000 deaths per week, 20,000 above normal:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1111804/weekly-deaths-in-england-and-wales/

That counts ALL deaths so it ignores false positives and negatives for Covid and is more reliable than just saying "we think this person probably died from Covid".

Which brings us back to if that is considered acceptable or not. Without lockdown, it would have been much higher so life would not have continued as normal, there'd have been piles of bodies everywhere and in those circumstances, the economy is still going to fall to pieces except more people are dead.

[Abe_froeman]

"Schools aren't shut just because people think kids will die in numbers ..."

You're right - the overwhelming reason schools are still shut is people playing politics.

It's an appalling state of affairs.

1,600 paediatricians wrote to the government today to say that the life chances of a whole generation of school children are being destroyed by their continued closure.

The effects of that are going to be far far worse than those caused by the virus

[jimlad48]

I genuinely think there has been a global overreaction.

I also think there are plenty of things out there that daily cause risk - for example car crashes, pollution and all manner of other issues that we accept as part of life and move on. I read that something like 40 children have drowned this year, but we're not banning swimming.

We have to ask ourselves what happens next - when do we come out of this, how do we cope with potentially 3-4 million unemployed, how do we fund the welfare state, the NHS, the other crown jewels that we know and love? Is this price, of millions of people on the jobs scrapheap worth it right now, when we have less than 400 people on ventilators across the country from COVID related symptoms right now?

I keep coming to the point, we have to determine how many deaths is okay and work it from there- we do this for every other illness, why not COVID?

[first mate]

Wow, the utterly expendable elderly. The disabled and seriously ill to follow, no doubt. This is the Cummings approach in lefty clothing.

jimlad48 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I don't for one second believe the 470K death

> figure. The science behind it is deeply

> questionable, there are real concerns over how the

> figure was reached and the people behind it have a

> very long track record of crying wolf over

> previous incidents. How they got listened to or

> taken seriously again is beyond me.

>

> Meanwhile millions of people face unemployment,

> possibly on the jobs scrapheap forever, but hey we

> need to keep that 2m rule in place because great

> aunty mildred can have a few more weeks of care

> home existence, even if the price of doing so is

> utterly screwing our kids and grandkids for

> decades to come.

[jimlad48]

first mate Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Wow, the utterly expendable elderly. The disabled

> and seriously ill to follow, no doubt. This is the

> Cummings approach in lefty clothing.

>

Yup, we need to be honest and accept that people die. We accept this every year with flu, why not COVID?

[first mate]

Accepting that despite our best efforts some people will unfortunately die of various diseases is somewhat different to stating something to the effect f**** that old person in a care home, I need to get on with my life and if the price of that is their life, so be it. I think Trump was taking a similar line though. Visions of Soylent Green!

Just out of interest though, what for you constitutes an ?acceptable? number of deaths and which sections of the population? At what point does it become a problem for you?

[jimlad48]

My point all along has been very simple. We have overreacted, we have chosen to shut down in the most extreme way and in doing so we have caused enormous and long lasting damage to our national economy. In March a short lockdown made sense while we understood what this was. Now we know what it is, we can accept that actually COVID is not a threat to most people.

The impact of this will be felt for decades. We have to accept that the people the virus targets are overwhelmingly those who fall ill and die from harsh viruses, the elderly the infirm and the very sick. Now, we can either accept this and move on, and put in place appropriate low key precautions like we use for flu, but accept that if you are elderly you probably need to self isolate, or we can completly screw our economy and way of life.

For the numbers this is affecting, for the fact that most are very elderly and often with multiple reasons for cause of death (I understand many COVID linked death certificates for elderly people usually have 3 or 4 factors, not just COVID), we have to have a sensible conversation about whether it is worth it.

My firm view is that it is not. We're forcing millions of people into unemployment, causing thousands of businesses and retailers to collapse, disrupting the service sector to a point where it may never fully recover and for what - to protect someone who all the likelihood is was going to die this year anyway?

Yes thats blunt and yes I get some of you may not like that, but we've followed a path of killing our economy and this won't just be felt this year, it will be felt for many decades to come. I am taking a long term view here - I want the economy to survive and be strong enough that we can fund services, health care and not have mass unemployment - we only get this by returning to business as usual ASAP.

What about those who suffer from a variety of conditions who didnt get help needed - like smear tests, or the fact that heart attack calls are 50% down? How many people who may have had many decades of life ahead of them have died due to the system protecting the elderly?

So yes, lets not beat around the bush here and lets discuss blunt truths. We've paid and are continuing to pay a phenomenally high price to protect people who are at the end of their lives. I strongly suspect this years overall Jan-Dec death toll will actually not be significantly higher as many of those who would have gone, have gone earlier due to COVID, and we'll actually see a fairly normal year.

I hope and pray sanity comes back soon and I can go to the pub, go shopping and see friends and family and not feel like every part of life that makes it worth living has been taken away from us for absolutely no good reason.

first mate Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Accepting that despite our best efforts some

> people will unfortunately die of various diseases

> is somewhat different to stating something to the

> effect f**** that old person in a care home, I

> need to get on with my life and if the price of

> that is their life, so be it. I think Trump was

> taking a similar line though. Visions of Soylent

> Green!

>

> Just out of interest though, what for you

> constitutes an ?acceptable? number of deaths and

> which sections of the population? At what point

> does it become a problem for you?

[Sue]

exdulwicher Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> What effect on the economy do you think NOT

> locking down would have had?

>

> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52968523

>

> An extra 470,000 deaths in the UK which would have

> completely overwhelmed the NHS (and morgues).

> 470,000 key workers, elderly, vulnerable dying.

> You reckon the economy would still be functioning

> fine and we'd all just be carrying on, stiff upper

> lip, we're British?

>

> There'd be CHAOS. Riots and looting as a result of

> the massive hoarding that would have been going

> on, mass absenteeism from work as people took

> their own decisions (or were off work seriously

> ill) - you may remember that many companies had

> already closed up shop, locked down, gone to

> remote working etc BEFORE the Government finally

> mandated it. No-one would be "just carrying on",

> there'd be no normal operations at the NHS

> (because they'd long since have been overwhelmed

> and would be taking years longer to recover beck

> to normal).

>

> The idea that everything would just be fine with

> the UK just carrying on regardless (while

> virtually every other country in the world was on

> lockdown) is just farcical. It's not realism, it's

> complete utter fantasy.

>

Exactly.

But unfortunately you seem to be talking to a brick wall.

[Sephiroth]

jimlad likes brutal honesty and home truths

jim doesn't like young kids and isn't THAT fussed about old people living or dying

jim doesn't understand escalation or exponential growth (Seemingly) - the idea that a contagion a species isn't equipped to deal with might overwhelm it just isn't part of his purview

jim not keen on beggars either - I doubt many of us like the reality but most of us can muster empathy

jim claims he's a "centre left remainer" and yet little in his posting history backs this up

a remainer with no posts about brexit

("well I just don't think it's that important and I respect democracy. But I will fill out two pages of EDF posts about CPZ")

One can only come to the conclusion, being honest and brutal, that jim is a bit of a selfish oaf, regardless of his political leanings

[jimlad48]

Sadly I'm afraid you're wrong on many counts, I'll post this once to avoid thread derailment and leave it there and not reply to further pathethic personal attacks.

I care deeply about the NHS, I have friends and family who have worked in it all their lives. I also know that if we don't do something soon, we won't be able to afford it soon, and then if you think this is bad, wait till the worst austerity you can imagine coming our way in the midst of the biggest economic crisis we've ever seen, and then wait for the cuts that follow. Thats why I want to get back to normal, because if we don't, the NHS we profess to love will face cuts of an enormous level. Thats far worse than COVID and may kill many more than COVID will.

As for the beggars etc, oh do give it a rest. I find this forum is full of people who like an echo chamber and the moment you question their view, they do come up with some ridiculous falsehoods - the abuse I've taken over the years on CPZs is truth of this - I've had a ridiculous amount of invented falsehoods and outright lies about myself and what I believe in, for the audacity of saying that a CPZ isn't a bad thing.

Now apparently I'm questionable because I have committed the cardinal sin of saying I'm a remainer yet because I haven't posted on this forum on Brexit, that means I can't be a remainer? Maybe its because I'm not particularly interested in discussing Brexit in general, and I've not had the slightest interest in discussing it here and the only reason I mentioned it was because someone assumed I was some kind of Brexiteer earlier in the thread. I wasn't aware that mentioning your political leanings on this forum only counts as true if you have an extensive posting count to back it up.

Finally we come to the conclusion that I'm a selfish oaf based on nothing more than a decidedly biased reading of my posts. Great, so now we come to the mud slinging and insult stage of the forum when people tired of trying to engage with views they don't like, decide to just launch personal attacks instead on myself without engaging in debate. I'm not going to give you the satisfaction of a 'yeah well your mum' type response - because its pathetically obvious you want me to engage in a slanging match.

How utterly pathetic.

Sephiroth Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> jimlad likes brutal honesty and home truths

>

> jim doesn't like young kids and isn't THAT fussed

> about old people living or dying

>

> jim doesn't understand escalation or exponential

> growth (Seemingly) - the idea that a contagion a

> species isn't equipped to deal with might

> overwhelm it just isn't part of his purview

>

> jim not keen on beggars either - I doubt many of

> us like the reality but most of us can muster

> empathy

>

> jim claims he's a "centre left remainer" and yet

> little in his posting history backs this up

>

> a remainer with no posts about brexit

>

> ("well I just don't think it's that important and

> I respect democracy. But I will fill out two pages

> of EDF posts about CPZ")

>

> One can only come to the conclusion, being honest

> and brutal, that jim is a bit of a selfish oaf,

> regardless of his political leanings

[Ole]

.