Jump to content
Fuzzar

Corona Virus main thread

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, It's Character Forming said:

I’ve just seen the story that Italy has blocked a vaccine export to Australia. Appalling, especially when France & Germany have unused stocks.

 

 

Italy say that the agreement with AZ, who failed to deliver the amount of the contract, entitles them to do this.

All a bit sad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Aggy said:

An argument I suppose that if a proper testing system allows us to get people back to work we’d be saving more than that by reducing/ending furlough (and other support schemes for businesses).

There will come a point where the cost of testing outweighs the value, and probably not all that far in the future, but I’d expect testing to be around at least until the majority of people have had both jabs and probably over next winter as well.

I don’t doubt testing does an important job.  Its the value for money I am beginning to question.  If Sony's figures are correct (and in a twitter world who knows) then the total figure will be about twice the entire policing budget for a year.  Can we really see in the figures that the success brought about by the testing regime is worth roughly the same as the contribution made by every single police officer over the course of two years?

We can see in the figures a 'vaccine gap' and evidence of how these are solving rhe problem.  But is there an appreciable 'testing gap' between waves one and two? Probably  not

Fair enough about testing allowing us to open up but it won't be mass testing data that determines the course  and speed of opening up

This isn't necessarily a cheap political point. I do not for a minute doubt that our testing regime is amongst, if not the best in the world and there seems little doubt that UK geneticists are contributing hugely to worldwide  understanding. I also have no doubt that the people in the centres or in the labs are at the front line of this fight. But there does come a point where we look at rhe balance sheet and say 'we've done enough'.

Edited by Barbe bleu
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

I don’t doubt testing does an important job.  Its the value for money I am beginning to question.  If Sony's figures are correct (and in a twitter world who knows) then the total figure will be about twice the entire policing budget for a year.  Can we really see in the figures that the success brought about by the testing regime is worth roughly the same as the contribution made by every single police officer over the course of two years?

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/covid-test-and-trace-failed-b1813165.html

This was the source BB. It says it is due to rise to £37bn. 

It's not that T&T is not a necessary approach, nor that it should be abandoned but about it's value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, sonyc said:

Yes we were a net contributor. We also received billions back over the years (more recently about £6bn a year) in targeted funding. That was part of the membership.

I was careful to state that I was not making such a direct Brexit point. It's therefore not false equivalence RTB because I wasn't making a point about the EU per se, simply comparing what we have spent on Covid (and contracts) in one year against a lifetime of EU contribution. It's a staggering comparison which I believe you'd probably agree is stark?

And the poorest will pay. The main winners are Tory benefactors, those that have funded the party very often. This isn't a One Nation party. Yet it's one that appears on course to continue for years, further dividing the country. 

 

I didn't mention Brexit and neither did you, so we can set that aside. The false equivalence isn't about Brexit. You seem to be saying that we have overspent on Covid when compared to how much we have spent on the EU. So how much should we have spent on Covid? Should we not have built Nightingale Hospitals? Or perhaps we overpaid for vaccines or are we being foolish in continuing furlough payments?

On the other hand our payments to the EU were fixed by a formula according to the state of our economy plus a rebate. So payments to the EU were out of our direct control and as net contributors other states benefitted from our largesse and we get nothing back from net contributions.

The poorest will not pay the most either. That is another myth. The richest pay the most in taxes and will be paying for the greatest part of covid expenditure.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

I didn't mention Brexit and neither did you, so we can set that aside. The false equivalence isn't about Brexit. You seem to be saying that we have overspent on Covid when compared to how much we have spent on the EU. So how much should we have spent on Covid? Should we not have built Nightingale Hospitals? Or perhaps we overpaid for vaccines or are we being foolish in continuing furlough payments?

On the other hand our payments to the EU were fixed by a formula according to the state of our economy plus a rebate. So payments to the EU were out of our direct control and as net contributors other states benefitted from our largesse and we get nothing back from net contributions.

The poorest will not pay the most either. That is another myth. The richest pay the most in taxes and will be paying for the greatest part of covid expenditure.

But I wasn't making the point about how much we had spent on Covid as a criticism RTB. I have never had that thought nor posted to say so. I was simply staggered to note how much had been spent and the comparison with our lifetime payments into the EU. I thought it was a fascinating comparison. It also greatly surprised me. I think your jibes and insinuations therefore that I believe spending on Nightingales, vaccines and furlough have been overpaid make me out to be a right b*stard. Where on earth have you found that link in my post? How can you project those thoughts into my post? I reckon a quick apology might be in order but up to you of course. Talk about "false equivalence"!

As for the EU I know from personal experience of writing funding bids (many millions pounds worth) for many EU projects just in my local area that many under-represented people far from the job market were able to (a) set themselves up in new businesses (b) get valuable training to find work (c) obtain jobs they never thought were possible. I know personally of many people who have sustained those jobs. The match funded EU schemes enabled them. Thousands of people also gained first rung learning opportunities they never would have dreamt of. I was involved with all post contract evaluations. Whether great value for money is a debate. Yet for the beneficiaries themselves what price do you ascribe to a life changing thing like education or new jobs?

As for the poor paying? Well there are tons of media reports and other serious research that demonstrates that the poor have paid with their lives disproportionately. That often happens in pandemics. It isn't a point for debate is it?

 

Edited by sonyc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, sonyc said:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/covid-test-and-trace-failed-b1813165.html

This was the source BB. It says it is due to rise to £37bn. 

It's not that T&T is not a necessary approach, nor that it should be abandoned but about it's value.

Yes, you earlier posted a link that said 85% of this was spent on testing and 15% on tracing.

Testing is brilliant: its quick, its local and its easy and the DNA sequencing is so advanced that it can trace the virus' family tree back to the jurassic period. Do we need this or should we instead spend the money on a shadow police force twice the size of the standing one empowered to tell people to go home?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, sonyc said:

But I wasn't making the point about how much we had spent on Covid as a criticism RTB. I have never had that thought nor posted to say so. I was simply staggered to note how much had been spent and the comparison with our lifetime payments into the EU. I thought it was a fascinating comparison. It also greatly surprised me. I think your jibes and insinuations therefore that I believe spending on Nightingales, vaccines and furlough have been overpaid make me out to be a right b*stard. Where on earth have you found that link in my post? How can you project those thoughts into my post? I reckon a quick apology might be in order but up to you of course. Talk about "false equivalence"!

As for the EU I know from personal experience of writing funding bids (many millions pounds worth) for many EU projects just in my local area that many under-represented people far from the job market were able to (a) set themselves up in new businesses (b) get valuable training to find work (c) obtain jobs they never thought were possible. I know personally of many people who have sustained those jobs. The match funded EU schemes enabled them. Thousands of people also gained first rung learning opportunities they never would have dreamt of. I was involved with all post contract evaluations. Whether great value for money is a debate. Yet for the beneficiaries themselves what price to you give in a life changing thing like education or new jobs?

As for the poor paying? Well there are tons of media reports and other serious research that demonstrates that the poor have paid with their lives disproportionately. That often happens in pandemics. It isn't a point for debate is it?

 

 

I can grasp your comparison fairy easily - just a means of putting he £300Bn Covid spending into perspective. Greater than all our net contributions (£226Bn) over 40+ years. If you thought our annual payments to the EU club (net) payments were humongous - then the Covid spending has to be totally suicidal and out of this world. Alternatively if the EU annual payments where relatively small payments in terms of GDP and on the whole economy then the Covid spending, although large is at least manageable. It seems the financial markets and indeed the government are in reality of the 2nd opinion.

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, sonyc said:

But I wasn't making the point about how much we had spent on Covid as a criticism RTB. I have never had that thought nor posted to say so. I was simply staggered to note how much had been spent and the comparison with our lifetime payments into the EU. I thought it was a fascinating comparison. It also greatly surprised me. I think your jibes and insinuations therefore that I believe spending on Nightingales, vaccines and furlough have been overpaid make me out to be a right b*stard. Where on earth have you found that link in my post? How can you project those thoughts into my post? I reckon a quick apology might be in order but up to you of course. Talk about "false equivalence"!

As for the EU I know from personal experience of writing funding bids (many millions pounds worth) for many EU projects just in my local area that many under-represented people far from the job market were able to (a) set themselves up in new businesses (b) get valuable training to find work (c) obtain jobs they never thought were possible. I know personally of many people who have sustained those jobs. The match funded EU schemes enabled them. Thousands of people also gained first rung learning opportunities they never would have dreamt of. I was involved with all post contract evaluations. Whether great value for money is a debate. Yet for the beneficiaries themselves what price do you ascribe to a life changing thing like education or new jobs?

As for the poor paying? Well there are tons of media reports and other serious research that demonstrates that the poor have paid with their lives disproportionately. That often happens in pandemics. It isn't a point for debate is it?

 

Well I noticed you apologised to a few other posters for bring Brexit into the Covid thread, so hopefully you will apply a little consideration to the topic before rushing in to post something off-topic in the future. I will not however apologise for deconstructing your illogical and ill-thoughtout posts to highlight the nonsense contained within them. 

I post again the newspaper cutting that you originally uploaded claiming that EU spending was mere pennies when compared with covid spending. So it is reasonable to ask you where do you think covid spending could have been reduced so that EU spending would no longer be considered as 'pennies' in your view when compared with covid spending. I put it to you with some examples of where spending on covid has been heavy. But when faced with the realisation that this means cutting back on provision of services and benefits you retreat into your shell. You haven't thought through the consequences of what you're saying.

But as I originally stated it is all by-the-by because your comparison is a false equivalence because we are actually getting something for our covid expenditure whereas the net contribution to the EU we get nothing - it is gone with the wind!

covid cost.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

 

I can grasp your comparison fairy easily - just a means of putting he £300Bn Covid spending into perspective. Greater than all our net contributions (£226Bn) over 40+ years. If you thought our annual payments to the EU club (net) payments were humongous - then the Covid spending has to be totally suicidal and out of this world. Alternatively if the EU annual payments where relatively small payments in terms of GDP and on the whole economy then the Covid spending, although large is at least manageable. It seems the financial markets and indeed the government are in reality of the 2nd opinion.

 

OK, I will ask you the same question I asked SonyC. If you think Covid spending to be totally suicidal, what would you have cut? furlough payments, help to business, fewer vaccines?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

 

I can grasp your comparison fairy easily - just a means of putting he £300Bn Covid spending into perspective. Greater than all our net contributions (£226Bn) over 40+ years. If you thought our annual payments to the EU club (net) payments were humongous - then the Covid spending has to be totally suicidal and out of this world. Alternatively if the EU annual payments where relatively small payments in terms of GDP and on the whole economy then the Covid spending, although large is at least manageable. It seems the financial markets and indeed the government are in reality of the 2nd opinion.

 

We spent the money,  invested in the development and committed early to buy the resulting vaccines and that is why we are streets ahead of other countries. 

Money is not important when lives are at stake and we showed what our priorities are where others dithered and delayed. While they were arguing over price we were signing contracts and have reaped the rewards.  Our GDP will be growing very soon and will start to repay that investment while others are still suffering recessions, and high numbers of deaths and further lockdowns will continue for them possibly into next year.

Well done UK PLC !!! 🤗

 

 

 

Edited by paul moy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Definitely a vaccine supply problem, no more jabs at Reydon till 16th at the earliest, that’s now THIRTEEN DAYS with none.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

Well I noticed you apologised to a few other posters for bring Brexit into the Covid thread, so hopefully you will apply a little consideration to the topic before rushing in to post something off-topic in the future. I will not however apologise for deconstructing your illogical and ill-thoughtout posts to highlight the nonsense contained within them. 

I post again the newspaper cutting that you originally uploaded claiming that EU spending was mere pennies when compared with covid spending. So it is reasonable to ask you where do you think covid spending could have been reduced so that EU spending would no longer be considered as 'pennies' in your view when compared with covid spending. I put it to you with some examples of where spending on covid has been heavy. But when faced with the realisation that this means cutting back on provision of services and benefits you retreat into your shell. You haven't thought through the consequences of what you're saying.

But as I originally stated it is all by-the-by because your comparison is a false equivalence because we are actually getting something for our covid expenditure whereas the net contribution to the EU we get nothing - it is gone with the wind!

covid cost.JPG

I guess you're selecting the "mere pennies" part of the newspaper clip RTB. I do not have much insight into where we have spent too much. I am not an expert. And I'm gearing up for watching the football right now as my bigger priority so will give the issue more thought later. Yet... for a quick reply, the issue of private sector contracts given is certainly one area where (I believe) money could have been invested into local infrastructures - local authorities / environmental health. In other words, excess private sector involvement.

I didn't think I would get an apology - but indeed I got extra criticism. A bonus! I've already answered that I believe EU funding was a great thing with examples. I wouldn't expect you to agree on the private sector cronyism either.

I'm also someone with enough humility to accept I don't know all the answers. Secondly, I didn't feel my post was the one wholly responsible for bringing Brexit into the equation but I apologised nevertheless for playing a part. I have no desire to get into exchanges that become insulting or personal either. I'm peace-loving and a kind sort. One of the soft lefties probably you don't like. 

Therefore it wouldn't really matter what I say would it? It would always be nonsense and/or illogical.

We have quite different values I reckon.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

OK, I will ask you the same question I asked SonyC. If you think Covid spending to be totally suicidal, what would you have cut? furlough payments, help to business, fewer vaccines?

It's not one for me to answer RTB but you - as I never thought the EU subs where large in comparison to our GBP and spending (they were in fact not much above the noise floor and could almost be lost in rounding errors) hence the 200 or 300Bn is manageable. Take a look at out annual pension bill alone.

However, what we could of done to cut our overall Covid spending was to of locked down sooner, harder and basically not been so quick to unlock to rinse and repeat.  If we'd got on top of it sooner, kept on top of it, we'd have had far less of an economic hit (and furlough and all the other expenses) and eventually come out of the other end quicker with a stronger economy. There are some good examples in Asia. As it is we have is the worst economic Covid performance of the major economies coupled with the one of the worst health outcomes. But then I'm not one for wishful mythical thinking.

Anyway - back to the match.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Barbe bleu said:

I don’t doubt testing does an important job.  Its the value for money I am beginning to question.  If Sony's figures are correct (and in a twitter world who knows) then the total figure will be about twice the entire policing budget for a year.  Can we really see in the figures that the success brought about by the testing regime is worth roughly the same as the contribution made by every single police officer over the course of two years?

We can see in the figures a 'vaccine gap' and evidence of how these are solving rhe problem.  But is there an appreciable 'testing gap' between waves one and two? Probably  not

Fair enough about testing allowing us to open up but it won't be mass testing data that determines the course  and speed of opening up

This isn't necessarily a cheap political point. I do not for a minute doubt that our testing regime is amongst, if not the best in the world and there seems little doubt that UK geneticists are contributing hugely to worldwide  understanding. I also have no doubt that the people in the centres or in the labs are at the front line of this fight. But there does come a point where we look at rhe balance sheet and say 'we've done enough'.

The testing alone won’t determine how quickly we open up but undoubtedly we can open up quicker if there is a proper testing regime in place. The ability to test, identify, and isolate means we can keep hospitalisations down until we have enough vaccinations that we don’t need to worry about testing and isolating quite so much. Would so many kids be back in school on Monday if we didn’t have the testing capacity we do?

I read earlier that the cost of furlough and support to businesses had topped 100billion - three times more than the testing has cost. 

So if testing contributes to getting people back to work quicker and therefore to reducing some of that more expensive furlough and business support quicker, then it’s probably going to be a net save. 

From a purely financial perspective, testing probably stops becoming a net save when enough people are back at work that the furlough and business support payments have dropped substantially anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sonyc said:

Yet... for a quick reply, the issue of private sector contracts given is certainly one area where (I believe) money could have been invested into local infrastructures - local authorities / environmental health. In other words, excess private sector involvement.

 

Investment in local authority ( EHO’s ) and DPH at County level would have given a massive boost to T and T. Norwich City Council T and T for example has been delivering a higher level of effectiveness than the national system. There was probably little choice other than to go for a national system as the problem was so widespread and LA and DPH funding had been so desperately cut back, the capacity just wasn’t there. The resultant national system however has been at massive expense, a good example of how long term underfunding in vital front line services can end up costing you a lot more in the end.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, CANARYKING said:

Definitely a vaccine supply problem, no more jabs at Reydon till 16th at the earliest, that’s now THIRTEEN DAYS with none.

Hi CK, I'm an NHS responder and we have had an email saying they expect to ramp up the vaccine effort from the 15th March.

Hopefully that is true as we will surely have to be doing a lot of 2nd dose jabs soon.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are positive lateral flow tests on school pupils not being followed up with a confirmatory PCR, I cant follow the logic here, surely we want pupils and all involved to have the highest possible confidence in their test results.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Van wink said:

Why are positive lateral flow tests on school pupils not being followed up with a confirmatory PCR, I cant follow the logic here, surely we want pupils and all involved to have the highest possible confidence in their test results.

If we are concerned about school test results, perhaps we could bring in Gavin Williamson, he has great experience in this field. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, dj11 said:

If we are concerned about school test results, perhaps we could bring in Gavin Williamson, he has great experience in this field. 

He's a bit busy at the moment.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, dj11 said:

If we are concerned about school test results, perhaps we could bring in Gavin Williamson, he has great experience in this field. 

Viral load determined by teacher assessment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Van wink said:

Why are positive lateral flow tests on school pupils not being followed up with a confirmatory PCR, I cant follow the logic here, surely we want pupils and all involved to have the highest possible confidence in their test results.

I don't think there is any reason why they couldn't be is there ?

I thought you could just book a PCR test and head on down and get it ???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This picture has appeared in various outlets of the Tory propaganda machine Sunday papers today.

Going to have to get into work super early tomorrow to install all these imaginary dividers, perspex screens and "knee-operated sinks" that are apparently all going to be delivered and installed by 8:25 tomorrow morning....

Presumably all of this will be funded by flogging our smartboards and replacing them with blackboards.

Good job my classes of 30/31/32 are apparently to be reduced to 9 who will all have laptops though.

This isn't an accident, this is actual Goebbels level, state sponsored propaganda. Do people really believe this ****? If you replaced the students with unicorns it would be VERY marginally less realistic.

Ev3Mt9SWYAM36Zb?format=jpg&name=900x900

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah ok, so it’s sounding like there will be no confirmatory PCR tests for the initial Lateral flow tests for older children done in schools, but there will be for the later ones done at home.

Edited by Van wink

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the word "might" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that article.😀

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, kick it off said:

This picture has appeared in various outlets of the Tory propaganda machine Sunday papers today.

Going to have to get into work super early tomorrow to install all these imaginary dividers, perspex screens and "knee-operated sinks" that are apparently all going to be delivered and installed by 8:25 tomorrow morning....

Presumably all of this will be funded by flogging our smartboards and replacing them with blackboards.

Good job my classes of 30/31/32 are apparently to be reduced to 9 who will all have laptops though.

This isn't an accident, this is actual Goebbels level, state sponsored propaganda. Do people really believe this ****? If you replaced the students with unicorns it would be VERY marginally less realistic.

Ev3Mt9SWYAM36Zb?format=jpg&name=900x900

That’s probably Eaton 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Van wink said:

Ah ok, so it’s sounding like there will be no confirmatory PCR tests for the initial Lateral flow tests for older children done in schools, but there will be for the later ones done at home.

Of course the more cynical amongst us might suggest that is a politically motivated decision.

LFT + = PCR TEST = Statistics of confirmed cases skyrocketing (due to increased testing) and scrutiny being put on the government's decision to use an arbitrary date to send kids back to school.

LFT + = Isolate at home = no statistics to hold the government to account or reveal the real situation to the public.

Hmmmmm.... I wonder....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...