Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

I told you.


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Staffsknot said:

Genuine question - if we didn't lockdown then what would have been the economic impact of large portions of the workforce taking sickpay, being off or heading to their nearest A&E?

Might just be the kind of hit we took anyway. But firms would have been footing the bill and needing furlough style bailouts.

People would still have avoided hospitality and travel so back to square one

As for anyone citing Sweden as an example my two separate friends ( one works packing frozen foods in a specially heated suit) there each said they may not have locked down but the new sport is avoiding hipster a-holes still out and smoking / drinking.

Again, you are just assuming that without lockdown the situation would have got totally out of control. Yet there are plenty of places without any kind of lockdown where this hasn't happened. 

The cost benefit analysis shouldn't be based on fantasy models when there are real world examples of places that didn't lockdown. 

Also, has to be a point where we move on... 

Not causing hospitals to overflow is one thing.. But the teaching unions seem to only want kids back on a zero risk basis which is something quite different.. And hardly stands up to scrutiny 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

5 hours ago, Riedquat said:

There's some mileage in (2), and you could argue that (1) might only look the way it does because of (2), but the general principle there fails to consider the likelihood, i.e. I'm not the slightest bit interested of doing even something simple to reduce the risk of me being killed by something if the odds of it are sufficiently low in the first place. So both easily avoided and being a sufficient risk in the first place to be sensibly concerned should matter. You can certainly make a good argument that both of those criteria are ticked for both seatbelts and Covid-19, so I'm just inserting a note of (avoiding over-)caution rather than really disagreeing.

Agreed - you could reduce your risk of death from meteorite strikes to virtually zero by staying indoors your whole life but that would be silly.

My argument is more that the other poster's logic of just comparing deaths from COVID vs Total Worldwide Deaths effectively boils down to saying "because lots of third world children die of malnutrition and lots of old people die of old age, it's not worth doing anything to halt the spread of COVID" - which makes no sense to me,  especially when by working from home and watching films on TV instead of at the cinema etc I can help stop the spread at almost no cost to myself; maybe even at a benefit to myself financially and as a time saver!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, captainb said:

Again, you are just assuming that without lockdown the situation would have got totally out of control. Yet there are plenty of places without any kind of lockdown where this hasn't happened. 

The cost benefit analysis shouldn't be based on fantasy models when there are real world examples of places that didn't lockdown. 

Also, has to be a point where we move on... 

Not causing hospitals to overflow is one thing.. But the teaching unions seem to only want kids back on a zero risk basis which is something quite different.. And hardly stands up to scrutiny 

Would these places generally have a more sensible populace than exists in the UK? As shortly after the pubs reopened a one barely 12 miles away caused massive local incident and 5 days of local Covid testing. Several positive tests.

As pointed out in many countries locals reacting on their own and stopped going out much.

As for schools - again the oft cited Scandi return to school, well class of 11 with shifts of 6 was what I was cited. Compare to average UK class of 30. Social distancing might not be implementable.

Also studies saying no risk mainly focused on under 11s from what I have seen.

Given many places not covered for anything Covid imagine how eff'd anywhere would be if employee contracts Covid and passes to clients? Imagine lawsuit if happens in a school - only defence is mitigating / minimising steps taken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, captainb said:

Not causing hospitals to overflow is one thing.. But the teaching unions seem to only want kids back on a zero risk basis which is something quite different.. And hardly stands up to scrutiny 

Many teachers are 50, sometimes 60+ with underlying health issues.  Understandably they're concerned.

1 hour ago, captainb said:

Again, you are just assuming that without lockdown the situation would have got totally out of control. Yet there are plenty of places without any kind of lockdown where this hasn't happened. 

It's Apples vs Oranges comparing country to country and their response.  UK's population isn't nearly as healthy as say Sweden's, so I somehow doubt we'd have had a similar response as it swept through the UK without a lockdown.   

And yet this silly gov decides to encourage people to pig out "on the gov".  Well done ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Staffsknot said:

As pointed out in many countries locals reacting on their own and stopped going out much.

 

This.  Sweden's population behaved as a collective not individuals so for them at least, not locking down is an option as they'll adapt for their own good.  The UK?  Don't get me started...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, blackhole said:

Many teachers are 50, sometimes 60+ with underlying health issues.  Understandably they're concerned.

It's Apples vs Oranges comparing country to country and their response.  UK's population isn't nearly as healthy as say Sweden's, so I somehow doubt we'd have had a similar response as it swept through the UK without a lockdown.   

And yet this silly gov decides to encourage people to pig out "on the gov".  Well done ?

Sure but plenty of shop workers, transport workers, every other worker that has gone back are over 60 - and will go back... 

Being concerned is one thing but that concern needs to be based in a reality where there is an acceptable level of risk. Otherwise nobody would ever drive to work, ride a bike, go up a step ladder etc etc.

In the last month there has been a grand total of 160 deaths under the age of 80 of people who have ever tested positive with CV19 at any point, in a population of 70 odd million..... At some point we need to move on. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, scottbeard said:

Agreed - you could reduce your risk of death from meteorite strikes to virtually zero by staying indoors your whole life but that would be silly.

My argument is more that the other poster's logic of just comparing deaths from COVID vs Total Worldwide Deaths effectively boils down to saying "because lots of third world children die of malnutrition and lots of old people die of old age, it's not worth doing anything to halt the spread of COVID" - which makes no sense to me,  especially when by working from home and watching films on TV instead of at the cinema etc I can help stop the spread at almost no cost to myself; maybe even at a benefit to myself financially and as a time saver!

Ah, doing so well until the end there, due to my annoyance with the obsession with saving time and not generally caring all that much about non-extreme financial changes :D

No, I broadly agree with you, and in this case certainly with the general sentiment. Whilst I'm of the opinion a lot of restrictions were over the top (and / or part of a viscious circle of people acting brainlessly) "there are bigger issues" is also a line of argument I frequently find annoying, partially because it's often just used to dismiss a genuine concern, and because I see it as another example of trying to look at things in extremely over-simplified black and white terms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, blackhole said:

This.  Sweden's population behaved as a collective not individuals so for them at least, not locking down is an option as they'll adapt for their own good.  The UK?  Don't get me started...

People behaving as individuals is not a problem. People behaving as brainless idiots is however. Becoming a collective frightens me more than disease though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Staffsknot said:

Would these places generally have a more sensible populace than exists in the UK? As shortly after the pubs reopened a one barely 12 miles away caused massive local incident and 5 days of local Covid testing. Several positive tests.

As pointed out in many countries locals reacting on their own and stopped going out much.

As for schools - again the oft cited Scandi return to school, well class of 11 with shifts of 6 was what I was cited. Compare to average UK class of 30. Social distancing might not be implementable.

Also studies saying no risk mainly focused on under 11s from what I have seen.

Given many places not covered for anything Covid imagine how eff'd anywhere would be if employee contracts Covid and passes to clients? Imagine lawsuit if happens in a school - only defence is mitigating / minimising steps taken.

No, the majority in the UK followed the rules quite tightly, there are a small percentage of morons of all ages hitting the headlines, most countries have some morons but the UK chav/Hipster type who is all me me me look how loud I can be in public is probably a unique species, other countries have their own version but the UK does Celeb/Self obsessed Moron better than most?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, scottbeard said:

That’s a helpful post - it’s now clear i shouldn’t believe a word you ever write.

Thanks for confirming. 

Thx for confirming me to mute you.

Facts Not Fearmongering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, scottbeard said:

But that’s the wrong way to look at it, because:

(1) all those other things are happening anyway.Its like saying “don’t bother wearing a seatbelt - if you die that’s only 1 death in the context of 60 million worldwide so you wearing your seatbelt is immaterial” when clearly this death is much more easily prevented than many of the others

and (2) it’s only a small number BECAUSE we’ve taken action. That’s like saying “that fire the fire brigade put out wasn’t actually dangerous - look it barely burned anything! They needn’t have even bothered!”

Don’t mention H1N1 2009, 10x more cases. What actions?

You brainwashed idiot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, ucnvpe0 said:

We are still at the early stages of finding out about the long term complications. The outlook from the early studies so far is worse than expected.

Rubbish. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Impatiently Waiting said:

Glad you posted this, thanks. It means I can mark you down as a fool and ignore the rest of your drivel. 

To think I could have wasted my time reading any more of your nonsense on here. 

It would be good if more nutters could make it this evident from the onset.

Thanks again.

Great. Muted. Wish I could Block, like twitter so you’d never be able to read my forecasts and commentaries again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Chunketh said:

Only brainwashed idiots believe those fraudulent stats. I trust you wear your ever so useful mask as you walk in the street. ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Big Orange said:

With Covid, one of the main problems is not the relatively low deathrate amongst practically everyone under 55, it's tge potentiallly deep and lasting bad side affects in the circulation system, etc.

Yeah just like H1N1. Oh ffs!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Staffsknot said:

Genuine question - if we didn't lockdown then what would have been the economic impact of large portions of the workforce taking sickpay, being off or heading to their nearest A&E?

Might just be the kind of hit we took anyway. But firms would have been footing the bill and needing furlough style bailouts.

People would still have avoided hospitality and travel so back to square one

As for anyone citing Sweden as an example my two separate friends ( one works packing frozen foods in a specially heated suit) there each said they may not have locked down but the new sport is avoiding hipster a-holes still out and smoking / drinking.

One answer: H1N1. 10x more cases. Actions?

Oh Obama was potus. Got it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Riedquat said:

Countries with younger populations and, whilst possibly with rather bigger health issues overall fewer of the sort that are a problem if you catch Covid-19?

No. Younger demographics countries no lockdown no issues! FactsNot Fearmongering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, captainb said:

Again, you are just assuming that without lockdown the situation would have got totally out of control. Yet there are plenty of places without any kind of lockdown where this hasn't happened. 

The cost benefit analysis shouldn't be based on fantasy models when there are real world examples of places that didn't lockdown. 

Also, has to be a point where we move on... 

Not causing hospitals to overflow is one thing.. But the teaching unions seem to only want kids back on a zero risk basis which is something quite different.. And hardly stands up to scrutiny 

It was NEVER about health services. Lies. All lies.

Nightingales being dismantled. NOT A SINGLE PATIENT!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, captainb said:

Sure but plenty of shop workers, transport workers, every other worker that has gone back are over 60 - and will go back... 

Being concerned is one thing but that concern needs to be based in a reality where there is an acceptable level of risk. Otherwise nobody would ever drive to work, ride a bike, go up a step ladder etc etc.

In the last month there has been a grand total of 160 deaths under the age of 80 of people who have ever tested positive with CV19 at any point, in a population of 70 odd million..... At some point we need to move on. 

 

 

And l’d suggest at least a half had no C19. Fraudulent stats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Killer Bunny said:

Only brainwashed idiots believe those fraudulent stats. I trust you wear your ever so useful mask as you walk in the street. ?

A well respected, world renowned University or the tin foil hat brigade? Oh the agony of choice.

As for the mask, I am well aware it provides me very limited protection, some of us realise that its not about me me me though....some dont.

I can see how if you don't give a shit about anyone else that this might seem a bit of a drag, sorry about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.