Johnnyboxer
Member
- Location
- Yorkshire
London 9.3mSweden is not comparable. Just London alone has a population not far off that of the whole of Sweden!
Sweden (as a whole ) 10.23m
London 9.3mSweden is not comparable. Just London alone has a population not far off that of the whole of Sweden!
If we accept the R value originally was 2.5, no one had immunity from previously being infected and each infected person on average infected 2.5 others... it would be a reasonable assumption that once 50% have been infected, and assuming infection results in immunity, then all else being equal the R value would be cut in half to 1.25, insufficient to wipe out the Virus. Of course we now have measures that have reduced the R value. The more effective these social distancing measures are at minimising the R value the lower the level at which we will start to benefit from herd immunity.
The over 65s take over 40 per cent of the NHS budget an 85 year old man costs the NHS seven times as much as a man in his late thirties. As we have seen lockdown has been used to protect the NHS . Those most at risk are the elderly. However my point all the way through this has been if you are at risk you should take precautions. What Sweden has done makes more sense to me than what the UK has done. This disease is not going away in the shortterm and people will have to live with it. Hiding away is not living with it .For a certain sector of society it may be neccesary but for the majority of society this is not neccesary.I am not sure what you mean about costing the country a lot of money. If they have it they are still spending and paying tax on everything they buy and still paying tax on pensions if its big enough. If you look at older people they often cost the NHS the most in the last two years of life. Younger, usually sicker people cost the NHS more for longer, the disabled child that would have died 40 years ago, will now live until they are 50, with NHS and socail care support. They get more social funding than the old for care homes.
Every time someone puts forward a bill to actually pay more for health and socail care, especially if it comes out of income, or property assets its unpopular. I hope after this there will be a constructive discussion of how its funded , but remember we all we get old.
My only experience of BAME people in the NHS is from my sister in laws one who is a ward manager the other a doctor they are of Indian origin and they are both very scathing of the organisation of the NHS . I think if you are in a vulnerable group either by age or health then you should be able to opt out of returning to work and be eligible for some form of compensation similar to the furlough cash. But again if you are not in a vulnerable group you should go back to work but there should be exceptions for those caring for vulnerable relatives etc.I have not checked your figures, but its still leaves the BAME, who provide a lot of services in this country as well as medical staff. We still rely of medics of BAME just to keep the NHS as it is, never mind with any increase in uptake.
Often these nurses are women who have family to care for at home, although I met one single parent male nurse who had three girls of school age and also a family adopted child at home.
I will be truthful I was going back to work, and thought better of it. If you are not going to get even basic PPE, single use gloves no longer that, and reusing masks, I do not see how they can comply with H&S, and there will be a big compo bill to come.
Got to ask - are you really an oil baron?
If the country goes down the sh1tter the BAMES will also be the worst affected.I have not checked your figures, but its still leaves the BAME, who provide a lot of services in this country as well as medical staff. We still rely of medics of BAME just to keep the NHS as it is, never mind with any increase in uptake.
Often these nurses are women who have family to care for at home, although I met one single parent male nurse who had three girls of school age and also a family adopted child at home.
I will be truthful I was going back to work, and thought better of it. If you are not going to get even basic PPE, single use gloves no longer that, and reusing masks, I do not see how they can comply with H&S, and there will be a big compo bill to come.
If you are over 65 you are more at risk, but you could be still working, they have increased the retirement age to 66. If NI is insurance perhaps it doesn't seem good value if it runs out when you most need it, or do we have a lifetime allowance?
I meant exactly the opposite. The defense seems to be lets get the economy going, the old and sick, cost us a lot of money, lets all get exposed to it. but seems to take no account that we do not fully understand why BAME are being so badly affected as %, some of them very young. Until they can be protected properly, how can anyone think herd immunity can not affect them in huge amounts. I think its asking for trouble and not just health trouble.If the country goes down the sh1tter the BAMES will also be the worst affected.
your argument is basically, I don’t mind the Country being worse off, as long as one particular group is not more afffected.
That’s the path towards socialism and a Venezuela economy.
It's to be expected that there will be new cases during lockdown. It can take a fortnight for symptoms to appear and then the illness has to run its course so someone can be infectious for quite a while, a month or more maybe. Plus the lockdown isn't total - lots of essential workers are necessary to keep the supply chain moving and people have to go out to buy food, pick up presctiptions etc. And that's without the idiots going to Wales and Cornwall because the weather's nice.If the virus takes 10 days to show and we have been in lockdown for 35 days how come 500 per day are still dying, they have clearly contracted the illness during lockdown.. does this mean that lockdown is a waste of time or does it mean we are all done for
I meant exactly the opposite. The defense seems to be lets get the economy going, the old and sick, cost us a lot of money, lets all get exposed to it. but seems to take no account that we do not fully understand why BAME are being so badly affected as %, some of them very young. Until they can be protected properly, how can anyone think herd immunity can not affect them in huge amounts. I think its asking for trouble and not just health trouble.
I have two risk factors, I am not satisfied that I would not be put at risk returning to work.
Sweden because they are getting on with their lives in a better manner and probably causing less damage to their economy which will recover quicker and cause less harm to the country in the future. 900 or 2000 deaths out of 10 million do the maths its still a small percentage of the population and Portugal will no doubt get another spike in deaths at a later date as less people have been exposed to this virus. But who really knows? Not me.
we are all going to end up in A Sweden situation anyway in a few weeks time as people get fed up, and governments run out of cash. We could have just gone straight there and saved the economy.
More "facts" if you wish to believe them. Why is mass migration not hitting Sweden hard? They are always held up as paragons of virtue but not many people actually want to live there.How do you know the relative effects upon the economy of the two countries? The difference in the number of dead means a lot more to those affected by a death than it appears to mean to you. Your post suggests the extra deaths are worth it because they are “causing less damage to their economy”. Rather callous.
Why should Portugal get another spike? What makes you suggest less people have been exposed? Here are some of today’s updated figures:
Total confirmed cases Portugal 24027 Sweden 18926
In Intensive care P 176 S 399
Deaths P 928 S 2274 – 80 more than the previous day due to weekend catch up. Portugal 25 more.
Recovered P 1357 S 1005
Total Cases per million population P 2356 S 1874
Deaths per million P 91 S 225
Tests per million P 32414 S 8357 UK 9867
The last figure is interesting. There has been much criticism of the lack of testing in the UK, but it is more than 15% higher than Sweden and with 6 times the population an enormous difference in numbers.
Given the high death rate in Sweden against the number of known cases, I will stick with Portugal thank you very much. You seem to be yet another one concerned more about money than deaths.
It’s actually quite a narrow minded approach. Most people spread it to more than 1 person and then if you are unfortunate enough to get it and need hospital care some poor sod has to look after you and wipe your arse. It’s a balanced approach which needs to ensure we get our economy functioning again otherwise yes we will end up in a bigger mess vs short term deaths. I don’t think you can argue liberty is an issue, it’s about what is morally correct in a civilised democracy. I see they are now reporting some severe cases in children. Looks like a low proportion but still concerning.my argument is liberty And the right to self determine what is a bigger risk to ones wellbeing - the virus, or economic situation. If you are a grey haired old fuddle sitting on a pile of Money then stay at home. If you are young fit and poor than you should have the ability to create wealth for yourself.
Obviously each individual death means more to the families concerned than it does to me. However in the long term a damaged economy will cause similar if not greater heartbreak and hurt . People die once you get over it and go on. Being poor is a long term event. With regard to another spike unless we get a vaccine or the virus burns out then it is still around and once people come out of lockdown and there is social interaction it is obvious it will start to spread again. I lived in Portugal in the 1990's and Sweden is as comparable with Portugal as it is with UK centres of population are the centres of infection and whether in between you have Cork Forests or Artic tundra it's where the people are is where the infection is . As for accusations of putting money before deaths the economy is far more than money. The economy determines the social fabric of a society and whilst you may be cosy in lockdown many many people throughout the world are not. And if you are happy with that i would say you are a lot more callous than i am.How do you know the relative effects upon the economy of the two countries? The difference in the number of dead means a lot more to those affected by a death than it appears to mean to you. Your post suggests the extra deaths are worth it because they are “causing less damage to their economy”. Rather callous.
Why should Portugal get another spike? What makes you suggest less people have been exposed? Here are some of today’s updated figures:
Total confirmed cases Portugal 24027 Sweden 18926
In Intensive care P 176 S 399
Deaths P 928 S 2274 – 80 more than the previous day due to weekend catch up. Portugal 25 more.
Recovered P 1357 S 1005
Total Cases per million population P 2356 S 1874
Deaths per million P 91 S 225
Tests per million P 32414 S 8357 UK 9867
The last figure is interesting. There has been much criticism of the lack of testing in the UK, but it is more than 15% higher than Sweden and with 6 times the population an enormous difference in numbers.
Given the high death rate in Sweden against the number of known cases, I will stick with Portugal thank you very much. You seem to be yet another one concerned more about money than deaths.
I have not checked your figures, but its still leaves the BAME, who provide a lot of services in this country as well as medical staff. We still rely of medics of BAME just to keep the NHS as it is, never mind with any increase in uptake.
Often these nurses are women who have family to care for at home, although I met one single parent male nurse who had three girls of school age and also a family adopted child at home.
I will be truthful I was going back to work, and thought better of it. If you are not going to get even basic PPE, single use gloves no longer that, and reusing masks, I do not see how they can comply with H&S, and there will be a big compo bill to come.
If you are over 65 you are more at risk, but you could be still working, they have increased the retirement age to 66. If NI is insurance perhaps it doesn't seem good value if it runs out when you most need it, or do we have a lifetime allowance?
It’s actually quite a narrow minded approach. Most people spread it to more than 1 person and then if you are unfortunate enough to get it and need hospital care some poor sod has to look after you and wipe your arse. It’s a balanced approach which needs to ensure we get our economy functioning again otherwise yes we will end up in a bigger mess vs short term deaths. I don’t think you can argue liberty is an issue, it’s about what is morally correct in a civilised democracy. I see they are now reporting some severe cases in children. Looks like a low proportion but still concerning.