Cyprus-Forum.com

[B25]

Here is an interesting BBC report regarding the R number. It explains what it is and why it needs to be reduced. What I found interesting is the R number graph falling from 3 to under 1 that the graph explains during the lock down period.

This is in contrast to those that claim lock down does nothing.

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-5247352 ... Ia1x7ZWif8

[cyprusgrump]

Here is an interesting BBC report regarding the R number. It explains what it is and why it needs to be reduced. What I found interesting is the R number graph falling from 3 to under 1 that the graph explains during the lock down period.

This is in contrast to those that claim lock down does nothing.

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-5247352 ... Ia1x7ZWif8

Well of course, you can't infect anybody if you are imprisoned in your home 24/7...

Here is an article from a Microbiologist which explains what will happen when R < 1 and we are all allowed out...

Wave after wave

It is inevitable. Once lockdown is lifted there will be a second wave because all of us in isolation have not caught the virus and are therefore not immune to it. So there’ll be a second wave.

The government will have to lock down again, they won’t want to but the shrill voices of the hysterical mob, led by Piers the Screaming Idiot Morgan, will demand it. So a few more will get the virus but the rest of us won’t. We will still have no immunity. Releasing second lockdown will cause a third wave.

And so on.

[Londonrake]

You forgot to mention the couple of million jobs lost in the process.

[cyprusgrump]

You forgot to mention the couple of million jobs lost in the process.

Indeed...

Plus suicides, people not getting cancer treatment, Ambulance crews finding heart attack patients are dead when they get there, etc.

[Robin Hood]

You forgot to mention the couple of million jobs lost in the process.

Indeed...

Plus suicides, people not getting cancer treatment, Ambulance crews finding heart attack patients are dead when they get there, etc.

Going by the news on the BBC a very big problem becoming more apparent is civil unrest! In some countries where they have no social fall back system to provide even basic foods, the poor are beginning to starve! Riots and attacks on the 'haves' and symbols of wealth, are becoming common place in some countries. The BBC reporter said that it has been predicted that HALF of those in low paid jobs Worldwide could be without work ...... add that to no social security and a revolution/revolt seems a very likely outcome?

The Politicians are going to have to do a lot of thinking about making certain provisions a right or they could be on the menu!

[B25]

You forgot to mention the couple of million jobs lost in the process.

Sorry this is just a poor argument, we had this and worse in 2013 world financial crash, the world soon picked up, jobs created, business restarted etc etc. The way you guys are making out we are at the end of the world ffs.

[B25]

You forgot to mention the couple of million jobs lost in the process.

Indeed...

Plus suicides, people not getting cancer treatment, Ambulance crews finding heart attack patients are dead when they get there, etc.

More BBB from you, you have no scientific evidence of any of this, it is just your normal BS spreading since you are a selfish prick and just wants to go to the pub for a booze up.

[B25]

Here is an interesting BBC report regarding the R number. It explains what it is and why it needs to be reduced. What I found interesting is the R number graph falling from 3 to under 1 that the graph explains during the lock down period.

This is in contrast to those that claim lock down does nothing.

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-5247352 ... Ia1x7ZWif8

Well of course, you can't infect anybody if you are imprisoned in your home 24/7...

Well Duh! of course and thats the whole idea of the lockdown, reduce the number of infected so no others get infected, leaving them all free to roam around means an exponential rise in the infection rates of which i higher number of deaths and suffering.

Those that are detected get the treatment they need, for what its worth, and those that don't need it are already isolated.

It proves that lock downs work, and yes people need to be 'released' but in a controlled manner to see what restriction lifting works best.

[erolz66]

Person A.

They can survive and even thrive by choosing to 'self isolate'. They live in a nice house. They can have anything they need and most things they want delivered. They can work from home or have a good unearned income like a good private pension. They can by choice easily protect themselves from possible infection as they see fit. The virus does not affect them much , regardless of how prevalent it might be in the wider population, because they can metaphorically put a bucket over their head and be fine with that. The economic damage from the lockdown however does affect them. Their considerable savings are devalued by governments printing money to mitigate the economic effects of lockdown. Their share portfolio is taking a hammering. Their index linked pension is taking a hammering. The income from their luxury second and third homes is taking a hammering as well as the potential resale value of these extra properties. They think lock down should be ended immediately and has already been too severe.

Person B.

They can not chose to self isolate. They live in a cramped overcrowded household. They do not have the means financial or otherwise to have what they need or want delivered. They can not work from home. They do not have large savings in the bank. They do not have share portfolio. They do not have good work pension income. How prevalent the virus is in the general population defines the chance that they and their loved ones will catch it with potentially fatal outcomes. They can not just 'put a bucket over their head' and let everyone else get on with it. The economic damage from the lock down does affect them badly but they can for a while survive if there is some form of safety net, be it social based groups providing food assistance or government help. They think lock down is worth the price they are paying in terms of no income for a period if it means they or thier fmaily have a lower chance of dying from the virus.

[Londonrake]

You forgot to mention the couple of million jobs lost in the process.

Sorry this is just a poor argument, we had this and worse in 2013 world financial crash, the world soon picked up, jobs created, business restarted etc etc. The way you guys are making out we are at the end of the world ffs.

Well, obviously I hope you're right. Although, I wasn't really arguing.

Nobody's suggesting that it's "The end of the world" but there's been a lot of news recently to support the view that the aftermath's going to be pretty bad.

I know the aviation industry is particularly hard hit but just this week we hear from BA that they're laying off a quarter of their workforce - 12000 - whilst talking about pulling out of Gatwick all together. Ryanair are sacking 3000. Other airlines are sure to go under completely. Not good news to the likes of Paphitis I imagine.

You mention 2013, because of the crisis here in Cyprus I imagine. However, it wasn't a global event (unlike 2008) so, although painful here, not really comparable

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... king-hours

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/20 ... k-despite/

https://www.aa.com.tr/en/economy/un-bod ... 19/1771040

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/30/coronav ... -says.html

There's lots of this sort of stuff. Take your pick. I'm not sure why you feel it's a *poor argument".