IOM Covid removing restrictions

[slinkydevil]

This guy looks pretty healthy

https://www.instagram.com/stuzhuk_dmitriy/?hl=en


Dead.
https://news.sky.com/story/influencer-dmitriy-stuzhuk-dies-from-covid-19-after-denying-its-existence-12107174

[Gladys]

17 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

But none of those things are the direct consequences of lockdowns.  They are the consequences of either the stresses that Covid put the health services under or because of underfunding or poor management (including poor messaging) by the health service.  Nowhere do people explain how lockdown itself caused any of those effects directly.  This is just gullibly repeating what the media say because they think lockdown affects the economic interests of their owners.

The increasing unemployment, companies folding and lack of health care for other ailments are a direct result of the measures against Covid,surely? 

Not sure you are old enough to remember the one in ten of the 80s, but they were terrible times, with often the less advantaged isn society taking the brunt. 

[Banker]

32 minutes ago, Nom de plume said:

You do appreciate the longer this goes on, the more the financial burden, the more the health service is strained & will be further under-funded leading to ..... 

I don’t need to spell it out I’m sure, you’re a bright lad.

In addition, transport links, educational facilities, homes & so much more all neglected.

The issue is that there is a polarization of views with the mainly well off older population wanting more restrictions and the younger, more disadvantaged population wanting less restrictions.

The more severe the restrictions the more jobs are lost and most of those losing jobs are the ones who can’t work from home mainly younger poorly paid workers.

If a widely available vaccine is not ready until mid 2021 or later then eventually all economies will have to open up and tell vulnerable to shield otherwise there will be no economy left to pay for health, education , pensions etc

[thesultanofsheight]

53 minutes ago, slinkydevil said:

This guy looks pretty healthy

https://www.instagram.com/stuzhuk_dmitriy/?hl=en


Dead.
https://news.sky.com/story/influencer-dmitriy-stuzhuk-dies-from-covid-19-after-denying-its-existence-12107174

To be honest his heart was probably already fucked by steroid use looking at the pictures. 

[Roger Mexico]

6 minutes ago, Gladys said:

The increasing unemployment, companies folding and lack of health care for other ailments are a direct result of the measures against Covid,surely? 

Not sure you are old enough to remember the one in ten of the 80s, but they were terrible times, with often the less advantaged isn society taking the brunt. 

The lack of health care is in part caused by chronic underfunding and mismanagement (including things such as PFI) but partly by the impact of the disease itself - resources being taken up to treat those with it.  This will mean that there will be resultant non-Covid deaths as well, but that's caused by Covid (and the health system barely being able to cope in normal times) not by the measures to suppress the virus.

When the pressure slackened (or failed to reach the level that was feared) it's possible that heath services should have been nimbler to get back to treating other things (and encouraging people to use them) but again that's not caused by lockdown measures that always had exemptions for those seeking healthcare.

As for the economic effects, those are also mainly affected by other government policies, both generally and in response to the effects of the pandemic.  Just as in the 1980s it was government policy that caused the effects you mention.  So the policy of lockdown[1] is not responsible - just how the government supports it and the lifting or reimposing of it economically. 

There's another aspect here as well - you can't force people to go out and spend money.  Whatever the official policy and advice, people will make their own decisions based on what they perceive as the current health situation and there's lots of polling evidence that they won't use facilities just because they are open.  So a government policy that says restaurants can open and removes any support will be more dangerous for such businesses than one that shuts them with support.

 

[1]  We probably shouldn't even be talking of 'lockdown' as a single thing rather than a range of different measures which may or may not be useful according to the circumstances.

 

[Gladys]

I have to disagree on health, routine treatment and consultations were suspended including cancer screening.  When the reluctance of people to go to hospital with emergencies, stroke, heart attack etc. became known at ministerial level there was a campaign to persuade people to go to hospital, even though many feared going into, what was considered, a virus infested environment.  That was all a result of lockdown and the fear instilled in people. 

The economic impact was that, generally, many people weren't earning at the same level (this really hits at the lower earning), so couldn't spend because of their sudden reduction in earnings, creating a vicious circle, never mind that the opportunities to spend had been removed - vis the encouragement to eat out when things opened up. 

You can disguise the effect of lockdown by referring to historical mismanagement,  but the fact is the economy was put on hold for longer than most people could hold their financial breath and, now, the same people who have suffered extreme hardship are expected to step up again.  Just inhumane and wrong. 

[The Dog's Dangly Bits]

40 minutes ago, Gladys said:

I have to disagree on health, routine treatment and consultations were suspended including cancer screening.  When the reluctance of people to go to hospital with emergencies, stroke, heart attack etc. became known at ministerial level there was a campaign to persuade people to go to hospital, even though many feared going into, what was considered, a virus infested environment.  That was all a result of lockdown and the fear instilled in people. 

The economic impact was that, generally, many people weren't earning at the same level (this really hits at the lower earning), so couldn't spend because of their sudden reduction in earnings, creating a vicious circle, never mind that the opportunities to spend had been removed - vis the encouragement to eat out when things opened up. 

You can disguise the effect of lockdown by referring to historical mismanagement,  but the fact is the economy was put on hold for longer than most people could hold their financial breath and, now, the same people who have suffered extreme hardship are expected to step up again.  Just inhumane and wrong. 

Blaming historic management is just weak bullshit designed to divert away from the real impact of lock downs and the covid 19 approach to date.

Covid has been prioritised at the expense of all other illnesses.  Disproportionate to the actual problem.  It's now creating future problems in other areas of treatment.

Wait until the riots start.

[thesultanofsheight]

54 minutes ago, Gladys said:

The economic impact was that, generally, many people weren't earning at the same level (this really hits at the lower earning), so couldn't spend because of their sudden reduction in earnings, creating a vicious circle, never mind that the opportunities to spend had been removed - vis the encouragement to eat out when things opened up. 

That’s where Burnham is totally right. Minimum wage was set at the very bare minimum of what it was decided that someone in work can be expected to live on compared to claiming benefits. So how can someone then be expected to live on 2/3rds of minimum wage because it suits Boris Johnson to shut their employers down? It makes no sense. Hopefully it will all kick of soon as people realize they’re being screwed. 

Edited October 18, 2020 by thesultanofsheight

[Nom de plume]

NT

Edited October 18, 2020 by Nom de plume

[Gladys]

So, not only are the lower paid being hit with the financial impact, but they are also the section of society most likely to be badly affected by the virus.   I wonder if there is a correlation. 

[finlo]

6 minutes ago, Gladys said:

So, not only are the lower paid being hit with the financial impact, but they are also the section of society most likely to be badly affected by the virus.   I wonder if there is a correlation. 

Never mind Covid it was always thus.

[Gladys]

So, that's alright then. 

[wrighty]

3 hours ago, thesultanofsheight said:

To be honest his heart was probably already fucked by steroid use looking at the pictures. 

I won’t ‘like’ this post, because that would be crass, but you make a valid point.  I thought the same myself. 

[Uhtred]

4 hours ago, thesultanofsheight said:

To be honest his heart was probably already fucked by steroid use looking at the pictures. 

 Not very influential now then.

[thesultanofsheight]

36 minutes ago, wrighty said:

I won’t ‘like’ this post, because that would be crass, but you make a valid point.  I thought the same myself. 

It’s fairly obvious. Those superficially healthy are often actually in quite a bad way when you look at how they do it.