3 hours ago, Brewster67 said:

Sweden, no lockdowns, pubs open, no fines or curfews, zero restrictions.

 

Average rate of new cases daily

Sweden = 9%

UK =13%

USA = 15%

France = 20%

 

Their secret weapon?  Surströmming

 

3 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

The only option is to manage deaths as a direct result of this virus. Do to this we have to have health care facilities which are not overwhelmed. 

 

People are indicating that the death toll will be worse due to the world economy failing? 

How exactly? where are all these people going to die? Yes, there will a knock on effect and life may be tough. 

There are also theories that the economy will bounce back and recover within a few years. 

 

Either way - how is it possible to predict increase in deaths due to a failing economy vs the predicted deaths of a virus which can be modelled? I suspect there is also modelling at play which shows deaths, poorer quality of life etc.

But could millions really die as a direct result of a poorer economy?

 

I’m interested to learn where these deaths will come from?

Less money to research illnesses? depression? (people topping themselves) 

Suicide!

23 minutes ago, palm said:

A 'case' simply means you caught the virus, not that you are dying, nor in hospital with emergency treatment.

The world is so full of ignorant, pansy bed-wetters. ????

 

 

[The world is so full of ignorant] you could have left it there, those ignorant world leaders wetting their beds, listening to all thos dumb bed wetting experts and stupid virologist...  How stupid of them to recognise the pandemic situation and shut the world down.... The should have listed to those who know better like yourself, right?

 

 

 

14 minutes ago, UbonThani said:

Drugs out soon enough. Good early trials.

sure? South Korean expert reckons a vaccine is 18 months away if lucky

 

 

 

1 minute ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

[The world is so full of ignorant] you could have left it there, those ignorant world leaders wetting their beds, listening to all thos dumb bed wetting experts and stupid virologist...  How stupid of them to recognise the pandemic situation and shut the world down.... The should have listed to those who know better like yourself, right?

 

 

 

Governments had no hesitation sending hundreds of thousands of their best and brightest off to die in 2 world wars, but panic when the old and unhealthy are threatened by this virus ( I'm old and unhealthy, but I advocate carrying on as normal ).

 

Seems most of those that answered the poll are of like mind to myself.

10 minutes ago, faraday said:

The food was scarce & rationed. Your comparison is flawed.

we can get by without so much food ( most of us eat far too much anyway ), but the economy will die if too many stop working.

18 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

I hope they hold their nerve. To me it's just logic, if you kill the economy the effect on businesses and Jobs and lives is far worse

Sensible people. All people need to do is 2 things. Wash hands and stay 2m away.

 

 

i think governments are slowly realising that they have <deleted> up big time and are currently working out an exit strategy, Thailand is a couple weeks away from that yet

1 minute ago, scubascuba3 said:

i think governments are slowly realising that they have <deleted> up big time and are currently working out an exit strategy, Thailand is a couple weeks away from that yet

Never underestimate the stupidity of politicians.

 

2 minutes ago, UbonThani said:

Never underestimate the stupidity of politicians.

 

You may be right but I've never seen anything like this

Part of the problem with the herd immunity, is the rapid overloading of hospital resources and the collapse of a healthcare system already under strain.

I've realised recently that it seems easy for people to understand that they want to stop deaths from Corona but they can't get their brain around the impact on the economy. i.e. Killing businesses, kills jobs and kills lives

7 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Governments had no hesitation sending hundreds of thousands of their best and brightest off to die in 2 world wars, but panic when the old and unhealthy are threatened by this virus ( I'm old and unhealthy, but I advocate carrying on as normal ).

 

Seems most of those that answered the poll are of like mind to myself.

You are comparing this to a world war? You think the Allied nations should not have defended themselves? make no mistake, we are defending ourselves against this virus - this exactly what it looks like. 

 

We are still sending our best and brightest off to ‘risk themselves’ in this war against a virus - Our doctors, Nurses, Policemen and everyone else involved in the essential facets of our lives are risking themselves so we don’t have to. 

 

What are we asked to do in return? stay at home !!! 

 

You may advocate to carry on as normal, but my folks are 80yrs old, they still have time to spend with their grandchildren and a quality of life to continue on with - why risk that so that a ‘certain number’ of selfish people can enjoy their life?

 

Most have answered the poll are of a like mind to yourself - perhaps because, they are selfish and don’t mind risking the lives of innocent others so they can live a more relaxed lifestyle over the next couple of months.

 

 

 

 

No poll is perfect and my answer didn't really reflect my true thoughts on this matter. 

 

IMHO, the lockdown/social distancing approach is the correct thing to do.  But obviously it cannot go on indefinitely.  The governments of all countries should be using this as a temporary strategy while they make temporary field hospitals and train volunteer nurses/drivers/hospital orderlies to cope with the expected numbers of victims.

 

They should have a series of dates planned to reopen the economy and society in stages with the most critical businesses opening first and the least critical last.

 

I have my doubts that anyone in any government is making such plans.

2 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

Part of the problem with the herd immunity, is the rapid overloading of hospital resources and the collapse of a healthcare system already under strain.

How do they cope with heart disease?

Swine flu?

Road deaths?

 

The numbers dont add up

2 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

Part of the problem with the herd immunity, is the rapid overloading of hospital resources and the collapse of a healthcare system already under strain.

let's call it acceptable collateral damage

7 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

10 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

Part of the problem with the herd immunity, is the rapid overloading of hospital resources and the collapse of a healthcare system already under strain.

let's call it acceptable collateral damage

Acceptable to you... fortunately the predicted numbers without these preventative measures in place were not acceptable for those making the decisions. In doing so they may very well have saved your life or the lives of a number of people you know.

 

 

 

 

Your options fail to understand the full implications.

First of all, both approaches lead to herd immunity.

 

One does so very quickly but at the expense of a very, very large number of deaths, both from COVID (far in excess of those that are inevitable) and from other diseases and accidents, since the collapse of the health  care system will endanger everyone who needs health care..accident victims, people with cancer, heart disease, kidney patients, premature babies, you name it.

 

The other attempts to do it more slowly so that the health system can cope.

 

It would be a mistake to think that option #1 would not also affect the economy. It would.

 

And option #2 can be implemented in various ways and to various degrees.  (Even Sweden has some bans in place - no groups of more than 50). There are middle grounds between allowing everything including jam packed mass events and forbidding people to leave their homes at all and closing down most small businesses.

 

I see some measures being taken in Thailand that seem extreme and make no sense. What they needed most of all was not to have allowed those boxing matches to take place, despite a ban already in place. Those 2 events  single handedly jump started the trajectory of infection  here. The normal operation of small businesses of a type that do not result in large dense crowds presents little threat...while their closure comes at great economic cost,

 

Of course,  the more nuanced approaches require a high degree of public understanding & cooperation....

12 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

let's call it acceptable collateral damage

acceptable to whom?

did you fail ethics 101?

11 minutes ago, otherstuff1957 said:

No poll is perfect and my answer didn't really reflect my true thoughts on this matter. 

 

IMHO, the lockdown/social distancing approach is the correct thing to do.  But obviously it cannot go on indefinitely.  The governments of all countries should be using this as a temporary strategy while they make temporary field hospitals and train volunteer nurses/drivers/hospital orderlies to cope with the expected numbers of victims.

 

They should have a series of dates planned to reopen the economy and society in stages with the most critical businesses opening first and the least critical last.

 

I have my doubts that anyone in any government is making such plans.

The critical businesses are still open. The problem people have with this is that they are unable to handle that their job or their business is not essential / critical. 

 

The governments around the world have one shot to get this right - we are all in lock down together, if this fails the second wave could be devastating because people will not endure a second lock down. This is why this lock down happened a little late, the media and populace had to be brought onside first. 

 

A couple of things could happen from here on in: Once more is known about the actual risk and impact of this virus those in low risk groups can go back to work but maintain social distancing to minimise the spread, while those in high risk groups remain isolated until proper treatment / medication becomes available. 

 

I don’t think we’re at that point yet, there is a lot of talk of flattening the curve which hasn’t happened yet, but now we’ve been in isolation for a few weeks we should start to see the effects of preventative measures soon. 

 

 

4 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

acceptable to whom?

did you fail ethics 101?

you are missing the economic catastrophe, wake up to it

6 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

you are missing the economic catastrophe, wake up to it

I prefer to live in a community which cares about people over cash.

If I have a roof over my head, food on my table and good health, then I am better of than many others and for that I am grateful. 

13 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

I prefer to live in a community which cares about people over cash.

If I have a roof over my head, food on my table and good health, then I am better of than many others and for that I am grateful. 

go on facebook and you will see post after post of Thais saying they have no money for rent and rice and their attempt to register for the 3 months of 5k baht was rejected

5 hours ago, from the home of CC said:

money vs lives is really what is being asked here..

Sure, but the lives that are likely lost are mostly from those worthless to society.

(I'm 65 and accept my fate, whatever that may be)

52 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

Part of the problem with the herd immunity, is the rapid overloading of hospital resources and the collapse of a healthcare system already under strain.

Don't put elderly COVID-19 patients in hospital ........ problem solved.

It's completely unknown how long any immunity might last. For some coronaviruses it can be about a year and others maybe for life. If there's no long lasting immunity how does the approach help until there's a vaccine anyway?

Most of the numbers being bandied about are meaningless. The main problem is how many sufferers are going to need critical care before your country's health system is unable to cope. If you just let it run and have hospitals over capacity and medical staff sick and dying, then a lot of other people who need critical treatment for other issues will also be dying.  

Just now, BritManToo said:

Don't put elderly COVID-19 patients in hospital ........ problem solved.

But they may firstly be suffering from other conditions. I have a relative who has just died in the UK. He caught COVID-19 in hospital. 

4 hours ago, scubascuba3 said:

I haven't done the poll as my choice isn't there. We should have social isolation for at risk groups + social distancing, that's it, nothing else. All that is happening all over the world is killing businesses, killing jobs, killing lives.

 

Sadly another guy kills himself because of the measures killing businesses

 

https://www.stickboybkk.com/news/british-businessman-jumps-to-his-death-from-bangkok-expressway/

I'm sure there will be many suicides attributed to the measures to contain the 

virus, and many of them won't be businessmen, but average guys just getting by.

 

The linked article doesn't say whether his business was in trouble because of the 

shut down, but not many are booking these days besides food retailers and ppe providers.

1 hour ago, UbonThani said:

Drugs out soon enough. Good early trials.

In your dreams 

6 hours ago, sandyf said:

it was rumoured that this had been discussed by the UK government. When the question if this was government policy was put to Matt Hancock by Andrew Marr, the answer was to a different question.

I believe although I may be wrong that this was the UK governments policy before the hysterical media forced them to change.