I hope age isn't the only determinant. Some 70 year olds are in better health than 55 year olds.
I wouldn`t take much notice of this link. The article says "could" not "will". And "instructed by the government" not "made illegal to leave your home".
My dad would be furious if they legally enforced this. He`d rather risk catching the virus.
Question is, what are the sanctions on those who say "sod off?"
This is Britain. There would be serious tutting. That should send them zimmer-framing it back home to their Reader's Digest Tricky Sudoku Vol 87.....
Stop their pension? Make them pay for their TV licence? (Oh...)
Good luck telling my mum that. Or my father-in-law for that matter.
I just had a chat with my Mum (mid 70s) about it after having seen the tweet. I told her it is a possibility but not necessarily certain and she was very pragmatic about it. Basically her attitude is that she knows she is at risk and she knows and understands the plan they have in place. Since that plan obviously necessitates isolation for her whilst it is being enacted she accepts that. She likes being alive and doesn't particularly want it to end any time soon so she will do what is necessary.
I have to admit it is a relief as she is rather independent minded at times so I was not at all sure what her reaction would be.
Good luck telling my mum that. Or my father-in-law for that matter.
I just had a chat with my Mum (mid 70s) about it after having seen the tweet. I told her it is a possibility but not necessarily certain and she was very pragmatic about it. Basically her attitude is that she knows she is at risk and she knows and understands the plan they have in place. Since that plan obviously necessitates isolation for her whilst it is being enacted she accepts that. She likes being alive and doesn't particularly want it to end any time soon so she will do what is necessary.
I have to admit it is a relief as she is rather independent minded at times so I was not at all sure what her reaction would be.
I shall be countering any objections from either my mum or my father-in-law with: "well you voted for this government"
I hope age isn't the only determinant. Some 70 year olds are in better health than 55 year olds.
I wouldn`t take much notice of this link. The article says "could" not "will". And "instructed by the government" not "made illegal to leave your home".
My dad would be furious if they legally enforced this. He`d rather risk catching the virus.
Question is, what are the sanctions on those who say "sod off?"
This is Britain. There would be serious tutting. That should send them zimmer-framing it back home to their Reader's Digest Tricky Sudoku Vol 87.....
I`ve heard that in Italy people are actually being fined for going out to walk their dog.
I see Dom's name is mentioned. Is this serious or is he just trying to get in on the act?
This caught my eye: "What keeps ministers and officials awake at night is the fear that if the epidemic becomes too great they would have to make appalling decisions, such as that the NHS would stop treating people over a certain age, such as 65."
If this story is true it moves things on quite a bit.
People over 70 in strict isolation at home - that's a joke!!
Why? They are the most at risk group.
I find it odd that young people take risks (bungey jumping) and old people avoid risks when it should be the other way round.
Young people have their lives before them. Old people don't. Old people can afford to take big risks, They don't have a lot to lose. That's why I did 69 km/h down a black run last Sunday.
I hope age isn't the only determinant. Some 70 year olds are in better health than 55 year olds.
I wouldn`t take much notice of this link. The article says "could" not "will". And "instructed by the government" not "made illegal to leave your home".
My dad would be furious if they legally enforced this. He`d rather risk catching the virus.
Question is, what are the sanctions on those who say "sod off?"
This is Britain. There would be serious tutting. That should send them zimmer-framing it back home to their Reader's Digest Tricky Sudoku Vol 87.....
Id suggest initially just warning people out and about. See how that goes for the first week or two. If we have 90%+ compliance dont bother with penalties at all. If its 50% or less thats the time to think about sanctions.
"emergency manufacture by several companies of respirators that would be necessary to keep alive those who become acutely ill;"
I would sort of hope they were doing that already....
One would also rather hope that any firm with the capability to do so, and any common sense, has switched to full surge production anyway since there’s no shortage of likely buyers....
I hope age isn't the only determinant. Some 70 year olds are in better health than 55 year olds.
I wouldn`t take much notice of this link. The article says "could" not "will". And "instructed by the government" not "made illegal to leave your home".
My dad would be furious if they legally enforced this. He`d rather risk catching the virus.
Question is, what are the sanctions on those who say "sod off?"
This is Britain. There would be serious tutting. That should send them zimmer-framing it back home to their Reader's Digest Tricky Sudoku Vol 87.....
I`ve heard that in Italy people are actually being fined for going out to walk their dog.
Obviously a particular group of viewpoints have taken over PB tonight so it’s not worth posting as you will be shouted down, such confidence in their views and in their leaders. So I’m off to bed as I can’t be arsed by someone trying to humiliate me for my views because they know they are right.
I hope age isn't the only determinant. Some 70 year olds are in better health than 55 year olds.
I wouldn`t take much notice of this link. The article says "could" not "will". And "instructed by the government" not "made illegal to leave your home".
My dad would be furious if they legally enforced this. He`d rather risk catching the virus.
Question is, what are the sanctions on those who say "sod off?"
This is Britain. There would be serious tutting. That should send them zimmer-framing it back home to their Reader's Digest Tricky Sudoku Vol 87.....
I`ve heard that in Italy people are actually being fined for going out to walk their dog.
Now that is going too far!
It’s the potential for pub closures I’m worried about. If that happens, it’ll be the end of the world.
Good luck telling my mum that. Or my father-in-law for that matter.
I just had a chat with my Mum (mid 70s) about it after having seen the tweet. I told her it is a possibility but not necessarily certain and she was very pragmatic about it. Basically her attitude is that she knows she is at risk and she knows and understands the plan they have in place. Since that plan obviously necessitates isolation for her whilst it is being enacted she accepts that. She likes being alive and doesn't particularly want it to end any time soon so she will do what is necessary.
I have to admit it is a relief as she is rather independent minded at times so I was not at all sure what her reaction would be.
My mum is 73 and works on the till in Boots the chemist...
I see Dom's name is mentioned. Is this serious or is he just trying to get in on the act?
This caught my eye: "What keeps ministers and officials awake at night is the fear that if the epidemic becomes too great they would have to make appalling decisions, such as that the NHS would stop treating people over a certain age, such as 65."
Happy with that fellow PBers?
I suspect this is just Dom and the 'Nudge Unit' engaging in some behavioural hocus-pocus, though to what purpose I'm not at all clear.
I hope age isn't the only determinant. Some 70 year olds are in better health than 55 year olds.
I wouldn`t take much notice of this link. The article says "could" not "will". And "instructed by the government" not "made illegal to leave your home".
My dad would be furious if they legally enforced this. He`d rather risk catching the virus.
Question is, what are the sanctions on those who say "sod off?"
This is Britain. There would be serious tutting. That should send them zimmer-framing it back home to their Reader's Digest Tricky Sudoku Vol 87.....
Id suggest initially just warning people out and about. See how that goes for the first week or two. If we have 90%+ compliance dont bother with penalties at all. If its 50% or less thats the time to think about sanctions.
Alternatively, just remind them "We're jumping through all these fucking hoops and trashing the economy along the way so you miserable scrotes don't all die. Look, the kids just want to invite you all to corona parties....."
I hope age isn't the only determinant. Some 70 year olds are in better health than 55 year olds.
I wouldn`t take much notice of this link. The article says "could" not "will". And "instructed by the government" not "made illegal to leave your home".
My dad would be furious if they legally enforced this. He`d rather risk catching the virus.
Question is, what are the sanctions on those who say "sod off?"
This is Britain. There would be serious tutting. That should send them zimmer-framing it back home to their Reader's Digest Tricky Sudoku Vol 87.....
I hope age isn't the only determinant. Some 70 year olds are in better health than 55 year olds.
I wouldn`t take much notice of this link. The article says "could" not "will". And "instructed by the government" not "made illegal to leave your home".
My dad would be furious if they legally enforced this. He`d rather risk catching the virus.
Question is, what are the sanctions on those who say "sod off?"
This is Britain. There would be serious tutting. That should send them zimmer-framing it back home to their Reader's Digest Tricky Sudoku Vol 87.....
No medical treatment is the obvious sanction.
So it would be at their own risk.
A bit rough for those who, like @isam’s mum, are still working. Forcing a choice between income and health coverage would be brutal.
I hope age isn't the only determinant. Some 70 year olds are in better health than 55 year olds.
I wouldn`t take much notice of this link. The article says "could" not "will". And "instructed by the government" not "made illegal to leave your home".
My dad would be furious if they legally enforced this. He`d rather risk catching the virus.
Question is, what are the sanctions on those who say "sod off?"
This is Britain. There would be serious tutting. That should send them zimmer-framing it back home to their Reader's Digest Tricky Sudoku Vol 87.....
No medical treatment is the obvious sanction.
So it would be at their own risk.
"We were going to put you on a ventilator but then we heard a rumour you'd nipped out for some milk last week, so sorry..."
Good luck telling my mum that. Or my father-in-law for that matter.
I just had a chat with my Mum (mid 70s) about it after having seen the tweet. I told her it is a possibility but not necessarily certain and she was very pragmatic about it. Basically her attitude is that she knows she is at risk and she knows and understands the plan they have in place. Since that plan obviously necessitates isolation for her whilst it is being enacted she accepts that. She likes being alive and doesn't particularly want it to end any time soon so she will do what is necessary.
I have to admit it is a relief as she is rather independent minded at times so I was not at all sure what her reaction would be.
My mum is 73 and works on the till in Boots the chemist...
There was a lady in Dartmouth who until about 18 months ago, used to single-handedly run the electrical supplies shop. Sadly she had a bit of a stroke and had to give it up, at 93.....
I hope age isn't the only determinant. Some 70 year olds are in better health than 55 year olds.
I wouldn`t take much notice of this link. The article says "could" not "will". And "instructed by the government" not "made illegal to leave your home".
My dad would be furious if they legally enforced this. He`d rather risk catching the virus.
Question is, what are the sanctions on those who say "sod off?"
This is Britain. There would be serious tutting. That should send them zimmer-framing it back home to their Reader's Digest Tricky Sudoku Vol 87.....
No medical treatment is the obvious sanction.
So it would be at their own risk.
A bit rough for those who, like @isam’s mum, are still working. Forcing a choice between income and health coverage would be brutal.
If you are over 70 you are generally living off your pension, if you choose to add extra income by work at present afraid you are risking death continuing to do so
I hope age isn't the only determinant. Some 70 year olds are in better health than 55 year olds.
I wouldn`t take much notice of this link. The article says "could" not "will". And "instructed by the government" not "made illegal to leave your home".
My dad would be furious if they legally enforced this. He`d rather risk catching the virus.
Question is, what are the sanctions on those who say "sod off?"
This is Britain. There would be serious tutting. That should send them zimmer-framing it back home to their Reader's Digest Tricky Sudoku Vol 87.....
No medical treatment is the obvious sanction.
So it would be at their own risk.
A bit rough for those who, like @isam’s mum, are still working. Forcing a choice between income and health coverage would be brutal.
If you are over 70 you are generally living off your pension, if you choose to add extra income by work at present afraid you are risking death continuing to do so
Some need to work, and shouldn't be penalised. Agree with @FrancisUrquhart that something should be done for them if they are expected to isolate, or minimise their interaction with the outside world.
I hope age isn't the only determinant. Some 70 year olds are in better health than 55 year olds.
I wouldn`t take much notice of this link. The article says "could" not "will". And "instructed by the government" not "made illegal to leave your home".
My dad would be furious if they legally enforced this. He`d rather risk catching the virus.
Question is, what are the sanctions on those who say "sod off?"
This is Britain. There would be serious tutting. That should send them zimmer-framing it back home to their Reader's Digest Tricky Sudoku Vol 87.....
No medical treatment is the obvious sanction.
So it would be at their own risk.
A bit rough for those who, like @isam’s mum, are still working. Forcing a choice between income and health coverage would be brutal.
It is.
Though you could have exemptions - people working in vital sectors for example.
The number employed must tail off pretty rapidly after 70 I guess.
Have to say working in Flight Meta Search leaves me feeling pretty precariously employed even as I cash in some of my share options (purchase price fixed at the start of Jan).
20 days, that seems like waiting too long !!! I know they think we are 3-4 weeks behind Italy, but surely we can't wait 3 more weeks to lock away the oldies if the strategy is to infect everybody else.
Downing Street's new raft of measures marks a U-turn after the government earlier this week flatly refused to follow European counterparts in curbing person-to-person contact.
The media are acting like total twats....which bit of a plan of steady increased set of rules including increasing social distancing did they not listen to the two egg heads talk about. They never said they wouldn't, they said they didn't want to do it too early.
Have to say working in Flight Meta Search leaves me feeling pretty precariously employed even as I cash in some of my share options (purchase price fixed at the start of Jan).
Have to say working in Flight Meta Search leaves me feeling pretty precariously employed even as I cash in some of my share options (purchase price fixed at the start of Jan).
Sorry to hear that, Alistair. That's one of my big worries about all this, the huge amount of unemployment.
Downing Street's new raft of measures marks a U-turn after the government earlier this week flatly refused to follow European counterparts in curbing person-to-person contact.
The media are acting like total twats....which bit of a plan of steady increased set of rules including increasing social distancing did they not listen to the two egg heads talk about. They never said they wouldn't, they said they didn't want to do it too early.
I hope age isn't the only determinant. Some 70 year olds are in better health than 55 year olds.
I wouldn`t take much notice of this link. The article says "could" not "will". And "instructed by the government" not "made illegal to leave your home".
My dad would be furious if they legally enforced this. He`d rather risk catching the virus.
Question is, what are the sanctions on those who say "sod off?"
This is Britain. There would be serious tutting. That should send them zimmer-framing it back home to their Reader's Digest Tricky Sudoku Vol 87.....
No medical treatment is the obvious sanction.
So it would be at their own risk.
A bit rough for those who, like @isam’s mum, are still working. Forcing a choice between income and health coverage would be brutal.
If you are over 70 you are generally living off your pension, if you choose to add extra income by work at present afraid you are risking death continuing to do so
While I am not arguing there won't be disruption, but a different era? Was the Spanish flu as transformative?
Yes. Globalisation is done.
Yes. That was said on here 4 weeks ago and scoffed at. Anyway.
Given the brave new world, do you have any investment strategies you want to share with those of us who are good on the health stuff but not so good on the knowing how to make money stuff? Thanks.
I hope age isn't the only determinant. Some 70 year olds are in better health than 55 year olds.
I wouldn`t take much notice of this link. The article says "could" not "will". And "instructed by the government" not "made illegal to leave your home".
My dad would be furious if they legally enforced this. He`d rather risk catching the virus.
Question is, what are the sanctions on those who say "sod off?"
This is Britain. There would be serious tutting. That should send them zimmer-framing it back home to their Reader's Digest Tricky Sudoku Vol 87.....
No medical treatment is the obvious sanction.
So it would be at their own risk.
A bit rough for those who, like @isam’s mum, are still working. Forcing a choice between income and health coverage would be brutal.
To be fair, she doesn’t need the money, she just doesn’t want to retire completely so has a part time job. My Dads an asthmatic who’s just finished chemotherapy and had sepsis in December, he’s my main worry.
The missus and I are staying in as much as poss, but a 4 month old baby means there’s always entertainment/something to do
I hope age isn't the only determinant. Some 70 year olds are in better health than 55 year olds.
I wouldn`t take much notice of this link. The article says "could" not "will". And "instructed by the government" not "made illegal to leave your home".
My dad would be furious if they legally enforced this. He`d rather risk catching the virus.
Question is, what are the sanctions on those who say "sod off?"
This is Britain. There would be serious tutting. That should send them zimmer-framing it back home to their Reader's Digest Tricky Sudoku Vol 87.....
No medical treatment is the obvious sanction.
So it would be at their own risk.
A bit rough for those who, like @isam’s mum, are still working. Forcing a choice between income and health coverage would be brutal.
If you are over 70 you are generally living off your pension, if you choose to add extra income by work at present afraid you are risking death continuing to do so
Some need to work, and shouldn't be penalised. Agree with @FrancisUrquhart that something should be done for them if they are expected to isolate, or minimise their interaction with the outside world.
I can see some over 70 directors scamming the govt for a few £m under that scheme.
Downing Street's new raft of measures marks a U-turn after the government earlier this week flatly refused to follow European counterparts in curbing person-to-person contact.
The media are acting like total twats....which bit of a plan of steady increased set of rules including increasing social distancing did they not listen to the two egg heads talk about. They never said they wouldn't, they said they didn't want to do it too early.
Agreed - hugely frustrating.
I think I might have to self-isolate from the media, it is causing me more damage than the coronavirus.
I hope age isn't the only determinant. Some 70 year olds are in better health than 55 year olds.
I wouldn`t take much notice of this link. The article says "could" not "will". And "instructed by the government" not "made illegal to leave your home".
My dad would be furious if they legally enforced this. He`d rather risk catching the virus.
Question is, what are the sanctions on those who say "sod off?"
This is Britain. There would be serious tutting. That should send them zimmer-framing it back home to their Reader's Digest Tricky Sudoku Vol 87.....
No medical treatment is the obvious sanction.
So it would be at their own risk.
A bit rough for those who, like @isam’s mum, are still working. Forcing a choice between income and health coverage would be brutal.
If you are over 70 you are generally living off your pension, if you choose to add extra income by work at present afraid you are risking death continuing to do so
Some need to work, and shouldn't be penalised. Agree with @FrancisUrquhart that something should be done for them if they are expected to isolate, or minimise their interaction with the outside world.
I can see some over 70 directors scamming the govt for a few £m under that scheme.
Perhaps capped at 1.5-2x minimum wage or something.
I hope age isn't the only determinant. Some 70 year olds are in better health than 55 year olds.
I wouldn`t take much notice of this link. The article says "could" not "will". And "instructed by the government" not "made illegal to leave your home".
My dad would be furious if they legally enforced this. He`d rather risk catching the virus.
Question is, what are the sanctions on those who say "sod off?"
This is Britain. There would be serious tutting. That should send them zimmer-framing it back home to their Reader's Digest Tricky Sudoku Vol 87.....
No medical treatment is the obvious sanction.
So it would be at their own risk.
A bit rough for those who, like @isam’s mum, are still working. Forcing a choice between income and health coverage would be brutal.
If you are over 70 you are generally living off your pension, if you choose to add extra income by work at present afraid you are risking death continuing to do so
Some need to work, and shouldn't be penalised. Agree with @FrancisUrquhart that something should be done for them if they are expected to isolate, or minimise their interaction with the outside world.
They can survive on their state or private pension for a bit, assistance and sick pay should be focused on under 65s self isolating
I hope age isn't the only determinant. Some 70 year olds are in better health than 55 year olds.
I wouldn`t take much notice of this link. The article says "could" not "will". And "instructed by the government" not "made illegal to leave your home".
My dad would be furious if they legally enforced this. He`d rather risk catching the virus.
Question is, what are the sanctions on those who say "sod off?"
This is Britain. There would be serious tutting. That should send them zimmer-framing it back home to their Reader's Digest Tricky Sudoku Vol 87.....
No medical treatment is the obvious sanction.
So it would be at their own risk.
A bit rough for those who, like @isam’s mum, are still working. Forcing a choice between income and health coverage would be brutal.
If you are over 70 you are generally living off your pension, if you choose to add extra income by work at present afraid you are risking death continuing to do so
Some need to work, and shouldn't be penalised. Agree with @FrancisUrquhart that something should be done for them if they are expected to isolate, or minimise their interaction with the outside world.
I can see some over 70 directors scamming the govt for a few £m under that scheme.
Surely you simply say the scheme is we will pay your wages up to a total of £xx,000. 4 months, max £40k ?
I hope age isn't the only determinant. Some 70 year olds are in better health than 55 year olds.
I wouldn`t take much notice of this link. The article says "could" not "will". And "instructed by the government" not "made illegal to leave your home".
My dad would be furious if they legally enforced this. He`d rather risk catching the virus.
Question is, what are the sanctions on those who say "sod off?"
This is Britain. There would be serious tutting. That should send them zimmer-framing it back home to their Reader's Digest Tricky Sudoku Vol 87.....
No medical treatment is the obvious sanction.
So it would be at their own risk.
A bit rough for those who, like @isam’s mum, are still working. Forcing a choice between income and health coverage would be brutal.
If you are over 70 you are generally living off your pension, if you choose to add extra income by work at present afraid you are risking death continuing to do so
I see Dom's name is mentioned. Is this serious or is he just trying to get in on the act?
This caught my eye: "What keeps ministers and officials awake at night is the fear that if the epidemic becomes too great they would have to make appalling decisions, such as that the NHS would stop treating people over a certain age, such as 65."
Happy with that fellow PBers?
What about private practitioners? Will they be nationalised or will the wealthy be allowed to buy their way out of their predicament?
Have to say working in Flight Meta Search leaves me feeling pretty precariously employed even as I cash in some of my share options (purchase price fixed at the start of Jan).
Are those shares still worth anything?
Privately listed, purchase price calculated on a 12-month rolling basis so still fairly lucrative as they were based on our 2019 performance which was grand.
We also have deep cash reserves but there is only so long they can last obviously. Our revenue has plunged to 2017 levels (and dropping) but our headcount has not.
I feel people still have no grasp on hoe long this is going to take and once they do our revenue is really, really going to be obliterated.
I see Dom's name is mentioned. Is this serious or is he just trying to get in on the act?
This caught my eye: "What keeps ministers and officials awake at night is the fear that if the epidemic becomes too great they would have to make appalling decisions, such as that the NHS would stop treating people over a certain age, such as 65."
Happy with that fellow PBers?
What about private practitioners? Will they be nationalised or will the wealthy be allowed to buy their way out of their predicament?
I hope age isn't the only determinant. Some 70 year olds are in better health than 55 year olds.
I wouldn`t take much notice of this link. The article says "could" not "will". And "instructed by the government" not "made illegal to leave your home".
My dad would be furious if they legally enforced this. He`d rather risk catching the virus.
Question is, what are the sanctions on those who say "sod off?"
This is Britain. There would be serious tutting. That should send them zimmer-framing it back home to their Reader's Digest Tricky Sudoku Vol 87.....
Id suggest initially just warning people out and about. See how that goes for the first week or two. If we have 90%+ compliance dont bother with penalties at all. If its 50% or less thats the time to think about sanctions.
The sanctions would be that if they catch the virus they are unlikely to get treatment because of the triage. So they will have a high chance of dying.
They may have to make exceptions to the 70 rule if they want doctors to come out of retirement to help out.
In the context of keeping older people away from nasty bugs, recalling them into frontline healthcare settings is a policy that doesn't really make a lot of sense, unless I'm missing something?
All I can think at the moment is: some retirees are younger; some work might be found that doesn't involve patient contact e.g. manning a telemedicine line?
While I am not arguing there won't be disruption, but a different era? Was the Spanish flu as transformative?
Difficult to tell because it came at the end of WW1. So certainly there was a massive cultural change over that period but it is difficult to know whether it could be ascribed to the flu or the war.
Mind you, we lost 80,000 in Britain to Hing Kong flu over a few months in 1968 and I don't think there was any real social change ascribed to that outbreak.
I have some memory of the 1968 outbreak but recall little sense of the panic currently being experienced.
They may have to make exceptions to the 70 rule if they want doctors to come out of retirement to help out.
In the context of keeping older people away from nasty bugs, recalling them into frontline healthcare settings is a policy that doesn't really make a lot of sense, unless I'm missing something?
All I can think at the moment is: some retirees are younger; some work might be found that doesn't involve patient contact e.g. manning a telemedicine line?
Yeah, or treating non-coronavirus patients (there will still be those...)
They may have to make exceptions to the 70 rule if they want doctors to come out of retirement to help out.
In the context of keeping older people away from nasty bugs, recalling them into frontline healthcare settings is a policy that doesn't really make a lot of sense, unless I'm missing something?
All I can think at the moment is: some retirees are younger; some work might be found that doesn't involve patient contact e.g. manning a telemedicine line?
I believe the general plan was always to stick the oldie doctors away from the frontline keeping other things running, while everybody else firefights. I think the medical students are the ones they want to throw in there onto the front line.
I see Dom's name is mentioned. Is this serious or is he just trying to get in on the act?
This caught my eye: "What keeps ministers and officials awake at night is the fear that if the epidemic becomes too great they would have to make appalling decisions, such as that the NHS would stop treating people over a certain age, such as 65."
Happy with that fellow PBers?
What about private practitioners? Will they be nationalised or will the wealthy be allowed to buy their way out of their predicament?
Nobody under the age of 80 has lived through anything like what is about to happen.
We are to be tested in a way most people alive have no experience of or even imagined will happen.
They may have to make exceptions to the 70 rule if they want doctors to come out of retirement to help out.
In the context of keeping older people away from nasty bugs, recalling them into frontline healthcare settings is a policy that doesn't really make a lot of sense, unless I'm missing something?
All I can think at the moment is: some retirees are younger; some work might be found that doesn't involve patient contact e.g. manning a telemedicine line?
I think they would be doing all non-Corona acute stuff.
I see Dom's name is mentioned. Is this serious or is he just trying to get in on the act?
This caught my eye: "What keeps ministers and officials awake at night is the fear that if the epidemic becomes too great they would have to make appalling decisions, such as that the NHS would stop treating people over a certain age, such as 65."
Happy with that fellow PBers?
What about private practitioners? Will they be nationalised or will the wealthy be allowed to buy their way out of their predicament?
Private hospitals will be taken over to deal with coronavirus patients based on government plans
Strange to think people born in 1950 are going to be included in this quarantine. That's roughly the same generation as Tony Blair, Harriet Harman and Gordon Brown.
While I am not arguing there won't be disruption, but a different era? Was the Spanish flu as transformative?
Yes. Globalisation is done.
Yes. That was said on here 4 weeks ago and scoffed at. Anyway.
Given the brave new world, do you have any investment strategies you want to share with those of us who are good on the health stuff but not so good on the knowing how to make money stuff? Thanks.
I leave that to my fund managers.
I’m more worried about protecting the team at my foundation and at my office
Public Health England has ruled out testing frontline NHS staff for coronavirus unless they are admitted to hospital suffering suspected pneumonia or acute respiratory illness.
Nurses, doctors, paramedics and other frontline staff have been told by NHS officials to self-isolate if they develop any coronavirus symptoms such as a cough or a fever.
If this story is true it moves things on quite a bit.
People over 70 in strict isolation at home - that's a joke!!
If the policy in the UK is to allow the virus to spread in order to get herd immunity then surely it makes sense to isolate those most at risk of dying.
The way things are going by April 11 the only you will be getting to France to go skiing is swimming the Channel and walking the rest of the way. With everything countries have on their plates right now granddads travelling to France to go skiing in the thick of it does sound a tad selfish to me.
They may have to make exceptions to the 70 rule if they want doctors to come out of retirement to help out.
In the context of keeping older people away from nasty bugs, recalling them into frontline healthcare settings is a policy that doesn't really make a lot of sense, unless I'm missing something?
All I can think at the moment is: some retirees are younger; some work might be found that doesn't involve patient contact e.g. manning a telemedicine line?
I believe the general plan was always to stick the oldie doctors away from the frontline keeping other things running, while everybody else firefights. I think the medical students are the ones they want to throw in there onto the front line.
Thing is, there are going to be (undiagnosed) people with the virus all through the healthcare system aren't there? Not obvious to me why working anywhere in a healthcare setting (even if you steer clear of intensive care etc) would be safer than a crowded restaurant or similar. Quite the reverse, presumably, although admittedly there would also be more precautions being taken e.g. PPE.
I see Dom's name is mentioned. Is this serious or is he just trying to get in on the act?
This caught my eye: "What keeps ministers and officials awake at night is the fear that if the epidemic becomes too great they would have to make appalling decisions, such as that the NHS would stop treating people over a certain age, such as 65."
Happy with that fellow PBers?
What about private practitioners? Will they be nationalised or will the wealthy be allowed to buy their way out of their predicament?
Private hospitals will be taken over to deal with coronavirus patients based on government plans
More accurately - the private healthcare system capacity will be mobilised to work under NHS/government direction. It's been in all the national emergency plans for years...
They may have to make exceptions to the 70 rule if they want doctors to come out of retirement to help out.
In the context of keeping older people away from nasty bugs, recalling them into frontline healthcare settings is a policy that doesn't really make a lot of sense, unless I'm missing something?
All I can think at the moment is: some retirees are younger; some work might be found that doesn't involve patient contact e.g. manning a telemedicine line?
I believe the general plan was always to stick the oldie doctors away from the frontline keeping other things running, while everybody else firefights. I think the medical students are the ones they want to throw in there onto the front line.
Thing is, there are going to be (undiagnosed) people with the virus all through the healthcare system aren't there? Not obvious to me why working anywhere in a healthcare setting (even if you steer clear of intensive care etc) would be safer than a crowded restaurant or similar. Quite the reverse, presumably, although admittedly there would also be more precautions being taken e.g. PPE.
I agree it is risky.
It isn't 100% certain they will recall the oldies. They might just stick with throwing in the medical students.
There's quite a few parliamentarians over 70. Are they going to weld shut the doors of the House of Lords?
(Predictive text wanted to say "House of Love")
The Commons brought in some hand sanitizers last week! A revolutionary act. Hurray.
This is the same body that has set a framework requiring my wife to complete a lengthy risk assessment just to take her class of 11 year olds to the local museum.
Their stupidity and sheer backwardness is something to behold.
Comments
I have to admit it is a relief as she is rather independent minded at times so I was not at all sure what her reaction would be.
Food can be delivered, many elderly are largely housebound anyway
There will also be an economic cost to this which in turn will mean less money for foreign holidays and imported consumer tat.
Happy with that fellow PBers?
Young people have their lives before them. Old people don't. Old people can afford to take big risks, They don't have a lot to lose. That's why I did 69 km/h down a black run last Sunday.
https://youtu.be/w8qaGcq8Ruk
Eurovision can't still go ahead, can it?
https://www.nme.com/news/music/eurovision-2020-organisers-delay-cancellation-decision-2625236
So it would be at their own risk.
Travel insurance renewals are going to be a bit of a shocker, I suspect.
Though you could have exemptions - people working in vital sectors for example.
The number employed must tail off pretty rapidly after 70 I guess.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8112177/Coronavirus-deaths-UK-double-overnight-21.html
20 days, that seems like waiting too long !!! I know they think we are 3-4 weeks behind Italy, but surely we can't wait 3 more weeks to lock away the oldies if the strategy is to infect everybody else.
Downing Street's new raft of measures marks a U-turn after the government earlier this week flatly refused to follow European counterparts in curbing person-to-person contact.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8112177/Coronavirus-deaths-UK-double-overnight-21.html
The media are acting like total twats....which bit of a plan of steady increased set of rules including increasing social distancing did they not listen to the two egg heads talk about. They never said they wouldn't, they said they didn't want to do it too early.
Given the brave new world, do you have any investment strategies you want to share with those of us who are good on the health stuff but not so good on the knowing how to make money stuff? Thanks.
The missus and I are staying in as much as poss, but a 4 month old baby means there’s always entertainment/something to do
Will they be nationalised or will the wealthy be allowed to buy their way out of their predicament?
We also have deep cash reserves but there is only so long they can last obviously. Our revenue has plunged to 2017 levels (and dropping) but our headcount has not.
I feel people still have no grasp on hoe long this is going to take and once they do our revenue is really, really going to be obliterated.
https://twitter.com/PoliticsJOE_UK/status/1238538542198001664?s=20
Should be a decent nudge.
All I can think at the moment is: some retirees are younger; some work might be found that doesn't involve patient contact e.g. manning a telemedicine line?
They basically think it's lefties/the younger generation being snowflakes and reacting to it is a bit wet.
I've tried to tell them in no uncertain terms it's the real deal but they aren't changing their plans, other than stopping going to the gym.
https://www.flightglobal.com/strategy/norway-to-temporarily-shut-its-airports/137272.article
https://www.flightglobal.com/airlines/jet2-suspends-services-to-spanish-market/137269.article
https://www.flightglobal.com/airlines/air-baltic-to-suspend-flights-until-14-april-as-latvia-tightens-restrictions/137274.article
https://www.flightglobal.com/networks/milan-airport-operator-to-focus-traffic-on-malpensa-as-it-closes-linate/137273.article
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-eu/eu-fails-to-persuade-france-germany-to-lift-coronavirus-health-gear-controls-idUSKBN20T166
We are to be tested in a way most people alive have no experience of or even imagined will happen.
They're going to have to choose who to let go to the wall.
(Predictive text wanted to say "House of Love")
I’m more worried about protecting the team at my foundation and at my office
Public Health England has ruled out testing frontline NHS staff for coronavirus unless they are admitted to hospital suffering suspected pneumonia or acute respiratory illness.
Nurses, doctors, paramedics and other frontline staff have been told by NHS officials to self-isolate if they develop any coronavirus symptoms such as a cough or a fever.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8112917/NHS-says-NOT-test-frontline-medics-coronavirus.html
If the policy in the UK is to allow the virus to spread in order to get herd immunity then surely it makes sense to isolate those most at risk of dying.
The way things are going by April 11 the only you will be getting to France to go skiing is swimming the Channel and walking the rest of the way. With everything countries have on their plates right now granddads travelling to France to go skiing in the thick of it does sound a tad selfish to me.
It isn't 100% certain they will recall the oldies. They might just stick with throwing in the medical students.
Quite soon a lot of of companies are going to start laying people off I suspect.
This is the same body that has set a framework requiring my wife to complete a lengthy risk assessment just to take her class of 11 year olds to the local museum.
Their stupidity and sheer backwardness is something to behold.