Coronavirus: COVID-19

[RegisterMe]

Apparently in the UK the furlough scheme alone is costing about £12 billion a month. Annualised that's more than the NHS budget in 2016 (so I'd guess at it being roughly par now). God knows what the impact on tax revenues is going to be.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-healt ... KKBN22N25C

In England (so not including the rest of the UK), so far, there have been just over three thousand laboratory confirmed cases in the 0-19 age group. What's the number of deaths of children, aged 0-14, involving COVID-19 until the 1st May 2020? Zero.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... 2020-03-26

Ignoring the children of critical workers we've taken fifteen million children out of day care and school (to be fair that is across the whole of the UK so that should be factored in). At least one of each of those children's parents won't be able to work as a result.

The mental health costs will be tallied for years to come.

Domestic violence is increasing across the board (my best friend's neighbour had his head caved in last week, partly as a result of lock down induced stir-crazyness).

https://www.theguardian.com/society/202 ... g-lockdown

The impact of reduced provision of medical care to the general population will have long lasting ramifications that we can't begin to factor in yet.

Atrophying skills sets, businesses going under, work not being done, council's needing bailing out, supply chains silting up, university students not being educated, the social fabric of the country being rent, sources of joy, whether they be football matches, pubs or the opera stopping in their tracks, the list goes on, and on, and on.

EDIT: TFL expects to lose £4 billion this year.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-52630386



I'm not arguing that the measures the UK and other countries are taking are wrong. I'm not arguing in favour of lifting the lockdown. But we need to understand the costs - they are... astronomical. We will be paying for them for decades.

[CBJ]

All true, and yes the cost will be astronomical, but the plans for coming out of lockdown need to match up to the level of organisation that got us into it.

Take the school situation, for example. While children themselves may not normally be badly affected by the virus, we don't yet have strong evidence that they're not still vectors for passing it among themselves or on to adults around them. Schools are hothouses for spreading colds and other infectious diseases at the best of times, frequently resulting in those illnesses being passed on to both parents and teachers. Plans are now being put in place for some UK school children to start to go back, and those plans include the youngest children, the ones least capable of even understanding how to cough into their elbows let alone maintain social distancing, going back to school. Current DfE guidance says that PPE is not appropriate in a school setting, so while every other worker in the country is being asked to maintain social distancing and wear some form of PPE (even if it's a home-made face covering) if they need to be indoors in the proximity of others, teachers and other school staff are about to go back into classrooms full of kids with no prospect of social distancing and no physical protection whatsoever. And the parents of those children are being asked to send their children into those classrooms, where they will continue to pick up whatever is going round from their friends and bring it home.

This is just one example. Workers being told they can return with only a couple of days' notice and rather vague advice on how they are supposed to get there is another.

I've been reasonably comfortable with the UK government response to the situation so far, but the arrangements for the undeniably important task of getting back to work are looking a bit flaky so far.

[RegisterMe]

No argument with any of that .

My point about school children was less about how susceptible they are to the disease, or whether or not they're good vectors. Or indeed how likely they are to pass the disease on to their (generally fairly young) parents. It was more about the costs associated with taking them out of education. They have lost schooling, lost social interaction, lost PE lessons, lost art lessons, had exams cancelled or rescheduled etc. The knock on effects of this on a population of fifteen million odd could last for a very long time.

We have to muddle through it, there will be missteps, lives will be lost as a result. Locking everything down until we get to R0 a) isn't tenable, b) the "cure" may kill the patient, and c) won't work anyway because this virus is here to stay - there is no way that it will be eliminated in developing countries until (if!) we get a vaccine, and no guarantees then. We can't even eliminate measles in the UK. It will continue to pop up for ever .

[Incubi]

Here is an article predicting an increase of HIV while we are in quarantine for Covid-19. There is; in my opinion, a logical fail that starts with how it singles out gay men. I thought we knew that HIV was not a gay disease since the early 80's? It essentially assesses that the lack of testing may increase the spread of HIV. While this could cause a spread due to less people knowing they got it, it is unlikely due to a significant reduction of hookups through apps and bars. In my opinion the biggest risk of an increased HIV infection is only focusing on gay men because no one else may feel the need to worry about it. I am a fan of healthy sexual behavior inside and outside of monogamy but the only way to be safe without resorting to abstinence is honest communication about the disease. So to my mind articles like this are a serious risk to the spread of HIV. I hope these are not the same minds keeping us "safe" from Covid-19.

To be fair, this could just simply be because it’s so poorly written. But this is still how people receive the information so even the specialist heads are in the right place, I worry about information being delivered like this.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/co ... spartandhp

[CBJ]

It was more about the costs associated with taking them out of education. They have lost schooling, lost social interaction, lost PE lessons, lost art lessons, had exams cancelled or rescheduled etc. The knock on effects of this on a population of fifteen million odd could last for a very long time.

I don't disagree entirely with this, but we do need to bear in mind that most of those things (apart from the PE lessons!) have changed somewhat since our generation. Most children are still getting schooling in some form or other, even if it's not in the classroom, and most are just as comfortable with pursuing their social interaction via technology as in person. There are other forms of assessment that can be (and indeed this year, are being) used in place of exams.

Yes, there are some children who are missing out on more of their education than others, and I absolutely agree that the health impact (both physical and mental) is likely to be both noticeable and long-lasting, but I'm slightly less worried about the educational impact overall. In education, as with a number of other areas affected by this situation, such as the increase in the number of people working from home and the dwindling use of cash for payment, I think this may simply accelerate some changes that would eventually have occurred anyway, and that some of those changes may actually be beneficial in the long term.

[RegisterMe]

Furlough scheme in the UK extended to October. What's another thirty or forty billion between friends .

[Vertigo 7]

The current situation is forcing a lot of changes for things, albeit, many of which before they were ready. For example, there are some indications from businesses that telecommuting is going to be the new norm, which has been hanging in the air for a few years now. Financially, it's a win/win for all involved as the businesses are not paying for space to have a desk for their employees and their liability insurance costs drop, as well as utility costs (water/electricity/gas/etc.) while the employees themselves are able to save a good chunk of money in daily commute costs. On the down side, there are some people that simply cant handle working remotely and end up being less productive without having a supervisor micromanaging them, be it from reasons of cabin fever, or they're just not disciplined enough to work without much supervision. Conversely, there are also some managers that simply don't trust their employees to even give the opportunity to prove they are capable of working remotely without being distracted by things in their house. There's a lot of that, however, that's able to be countered by the added opportunity for businesses to recruit talent internationally or even globally without needing to worry about relocation costs. I'm interested to see how far this carries on beyond the current crisis. It would be an interesting indicator of how willing people are to adapt to a new(ish) paradigm.

I think we're going to see other changes that directly impact our day to day like the above adopted as a new norm. And I know some people are going to absolutely hate it. A lot of people are naturally resistant to change. But, our societies wouldn't have evolved to where they are today (covid aside) without it.

[Chips]

Starting to wish* I hadn't instructed my accountants that I didn't need furloughing while unable to work - but bumped my wages to the max allowable and declared myself furloughed. Imagine October with free money.

For kids and schools, depends how they approach problem solving. If certain age groups aren't returning to school that implies there's empty classrooms (or even entire schools) and teachers of those age groups (ergo not teaching) could take lower school children into their classes in order to reduce class sizes for the youngest - aids reducing chances of spreading, allows greater distancing, thins the numbers being isolated if anyone tests positive. But I don't really know how serious/able our leaders are nor how flexible the teaching profession/unions would be under those circumstances, or whether they've even thought of it. Quite possibly an utterly ridiculous proposal, though it'd be workable...



*I don't really, i'm not of that ilk.

[Mightysword]

Below is an article about future direction for Colorado regarding the budget that highlight the pain in the coming days:

https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/c ... 9-pandemic

An important point noted in the article:

The federal government is offering some financial relief to states through the CARES Act. Colorado is getting $1.67 billion from that federal fund.

However, the legislation specifies that none of the money can be used to backfill existing budgets, meaning it won’t soften the blow to state programs. Now, everything is on the chopping block.

It means while the aid money helped to fund the emergency response specifically, the states will have to figure out how to continue the normal operation after things return to normal with a deeply cut budget due to loss revenue. I think so far it's the private sector that felt the most pain and effort was spent to reduce that pain while the public sector hasn't feel it yet. But I feel it's the public sector that gonna feel it now, ironically as people return to work, furlough will continue as the government figure out what to cut. It's safe to say we won't see any new initiative or program this years, and every public institutions gonna have to switch to survival mode now. It will be especially tough for higher education: it's one area that is always the first considered for budget cut and often cut indiscriminately, and this time the double whammy is it will also see a significant drop in enrollment as well. A second thing is the Colorado has its own pension scheme (PERA) in place of social security, last year the state passed legislation to inject about 2b to keep it healthy and solvent ... as the article states that .... may not happen now.

The detail gonna come out in days ahead after the economic forecast report that will come out later today, but the expectation is pretty bleak. And Colorado is one of the better state in the US pre-pandemic in term of having a good budget. It's safe to say probably at least half of the states will find themselves in even worse situation.

[CBJ]

Personally I think the long-term answer to both the education issue and the working-from-home issue is for organisations to start being more flexible and not to try and take a one-size-fits-all approach to everything. Some kids learn fine at home; others do not. Some adults work fine from home; others struggle. Some activities are better done in person; others can be done remotely without much impact. Some time in school or in the office is beneficial for almost everyone; having to be there all the time is helpful for almost no-one.

Some flexibility would improve learning and productivity, and allow face-to-face time to be applied selectively where it's most beneficial. So nobody would have to trail from room to room for meetings, or waste half a lesson while the teacher deals with a disruptive class member. Workers could stop wasting hours every week commuting, and either put that time into working or into their personal life, depending on what they want to achieve. Teachers could focus on spending more time with children who need it (whether to help them catch up, or to push them ahead) rather than trying to balance the needs of a classroom full of very different individuals.

The only people who would lose out would be the people who insist on micro-managing everyone, and that can't be a bad thing either.

[RegisterMe]

@Mightysword - you can console yourself in the knowledge that the FED expects to borrow $3 trillion in the second quarter.

[pjknibbs]

Financially, it's a win/win for all involved as the businesses are not paying for space to have a desk for their employees and their liability insurance costs drop, as well as utility costs (water/electricity/gas/etc.) while the employees themselves are able to save a good chunk of money in daily commute costs.

It's a win/win for the worker and their employer, maybe, but there will be knock-on effects for other people. For instance, owners of office buildings will find companies downsizing and thus their rent income dropping, public transport networks will be getting fewer passengers, and the businesses which have grown up in city centres to *support* those large numbers of workers (such as small eateries and the like) will be having issues as well.

[Chips]

Personally I think the long-term answer to both the education issue and the working-from-home issue is for organisations to start being more flexible and not to try and take a one-size-fits-all approach to everything. Some kids learn fine at home; others do not. Some adults work fine from home; others struggle. Some activities are better done in person; others can be done remotely without much impact. Some time in school or in the office is beneficial for almost everyone; having to be there all the time is helpful for almost no-one.

Some flexibility would improve learning and productivity, and allow face-to-face time to be applied selectively where it's most beneficial. So nobody would have to trail from room to room for meetings, or waste half a lesson while the teacher deals with a disruptive class member. Workers could stop wasting hours every week commuting, and either put that time into working or into their personal life, depending on what they want to achieve. Teachers could focus on spending more time with children who need it (whether to help them catch up, or to push them ahead) rather than trying to balance the needs of a classroom full of very different individuals.

Teaching is standardised for a reason; so that the same level of education is supplied everywhere in an environment that provides for interpersonal skills development - all regardless of socio economic backgrounds and other differentiations (at least in an ideal world - of course there is some differentiation - can't pretend any random student will achieve same grades by attending the worst/best schools in the country).

[Mightysword]

@Mightysword - you can console yourself in the knowledge that the FED expects to borrow $3 trillion in the second quarter.

We used 2 trillions the last round, and it was barely enough to help things stay afloat for just 1 month.

It still won't be a direct link to state budget i.e backfill. It's rather an impossible thing to do it for all 50 states, and big one like Cali, Texas, New York would eat up a big chunk of that. The only things that can be used to refill the state budget is their own revenue, and hopefully whatever the Fed does to help the economy as a whole will help jump that process, or at least keeping it from crashing too hard. The Federal goverment probably will provide some life line to social programs to help release pressure on the state's budget in those area.

I just wanted to use the article to give a view on the local effect since most of the time the news only cover the macro national wide effect.

[Vertigo 7]

Personally I think the long-term answer to both the education issue and the working-from-home issue is for organisations to start being more flexible and not to try and take a one-size-fits-all approach to everything. Some kids learn fine at home; others do not. Some adults work fine from home; others struggle. Some activities are better done in person; others can be done remotely without much impact. Some time in school or in the office is beneficial for almost everyone; having to be there all the time is helpful for almost no-one.

Some flexibility would improve learning and productivity, and allow face-to-face time to be applied selectively where it's most beneficial. So nobody would have to trail from room to room for meetings, or waste half a lesson while the teacher deals with a disruptive class member. Workers could stop wasting hours every week commuting, and either put that time into working or into their personal life, depending on what they want to achieve. Teachers could focus on spending more time with children who need it (whether to help them catch up, or to push them ahead) rather than trying to balance the needs of a classroom full of very different individuals.

The only people who would lose out would be the people who insist on micro-managing everyone, and that can't be a bad thing either.

I absolutely agree. I'm hearkened back to a Ted Talk given by Sir Ken Robinson where he poised the question of if schools kill creativity. Now it doesn't directly address the current state thrust upon us, but it does indirectly highlight the "one-size-fits-all" approach, as you put it, that schools and businesses have largely been a slave to for generations. Schools in the US, especially, have been getting beat up for class sizes growing so large that teachers are not able to devote any 1 on 1 time to their students which has a dramatically adverse impact on students that aren't able to grasp the lessons being read at them. While class size is certainly not the only factor that can help a student succeed, studies are showing that having smaller classes can help teachers to address the individual needs of their students and if the goal is to teach, the method doesn't matter nearly as much as the outcome. In other words, what works for person A is not going to necessarily work for person B.

Applied to our current situation, distance learning is new ground for many pre-college schools. In some subjects, like Phys Ed, there is an obvious failing that would be difficult to address over the web. But science, math, literature, history, can be quite effective if the teachers are prepared to use this format and the students are given the proper tools. It definitely requires breaking with conventional thinking, but again, the method doesn't matter nearly as much as the outcome.

After things settle, I don't really see why both options couldn't be made available if the resources are provided. Hell, school districting could, theoretically, become a thing of the past where you could have a teacher in Oregon and students from varying states, as an example. Students could even be given the opportunity to learn at their own pace and challenge the curriculum to advance quicker or to proceed slower as needed. At least, here in the US, the only governing factor of how quickly students graduate is based solely on a state designed schedule designed to attempt to accommodate thousands of students at once based on the year they were born in. And we see students being held back if they don't meet a standard by the end of the grading period and forced to retake the class. And while some schools do offer the opportunity for students to challenge the curriculum, not all do. That could practically vanish into the aether and still provide quality education that could address students individually instead of as a huddled mass.

[CBJ]

Teaching is standardised for a reason; so that the same level of education is supplied everywhere in an environment that provides for interpersonal skills development - all regardless of socio economic backgrounds and other differentiations (at least in an ideal world - of course there is some differentiation - can't pretend any random student will achieve same grades by attending the worst/best schools in the country).

I understand the point, but it doesn't quite achieve that goal as things stand. It provides the same level of teaching, yes, but not the same level of learning. Different people learn effectively in different ways, so what you actually end up with is many children not achieving what they should, because the way they are taught doesn't suit them. Standardising teaching means, to a large extent, having to apply the same methods to everyone, and because of that you end up favouring the "average" children at the expense of the others.

Please note that this is not a criticism of teachers, or indeed of schools; I'm well aware that individual teachers do their utmost to understand and cater for the individual children under their care, and that schools do their best to help those who are struggling and push the high achievers. But what they can do is limited, by time, by resources, by the teaching environment, by the inspection system, by the exam system, and so on.

What I'm suggesting might happen is not a change to the principle of offering everyone the same level of education; it's a change to how that education is delivered. Taking what is learned from the current situation, it may be possible to use technology to focus teacher time better; less contact time spent on the more mechanical parts of the job (reading out what it says on the electronic whiteboard, handing out worksheets, general crowd control) and more time spent on dealing with individual students' needs and queries has the potential to benefit everyone.

The point about interpersonal skills is an interesting one. It's obviously very important, but I'd argue that an issue of growing importance is the need to develop children's interpersonal skills in an online context as well as face-to-face. Going into school at least some of the time would definitely be valuable for most, but learning to communicate with other people in an appropriate manner when you can't see their face in front of you is something the current generation of internet users could definitely have benefited from!

[Vertigo 7]

Financially, it's a win/win for all involved as the businesses are not paying for space to have a desk for their employees and their liability insurance costs drop, as well as utility costs (water/electricity/gas/etc.) while the employees themselves are able to save a good chunk of money in daily commute costs.

It's a win/win for the worker and their employer, maybe, but there will be knock-on effects for other people. For instance, owners of office buildings will find companies downsizing and thus their rent income dropping, public transport networks will be getting fewer passengers, and the businesses which have grown up in city centres to *support* those large numbers of workers (such as small eateries and the like) will be having issues as well.

True, to an extent. People still go out of their way to eat at diners and restaurants. Even then, not every position in every business is going to be able to work remotely. There is still going to be a need for a physical presence for many jobs, especially ones that require any kind of physical labor. And empty office buildings can be repurposed or even converted into apartments. I see a lot of that in the city I live nearest to.

[Alan Phipps]

For those regionally able to watch it (probably UK only, not sure), I recommend this BBC iPlayer programme 'Hospital Corona Virus Special' - 1 hour long . It shows the daily business in the Royal Free London Hospital over the first few weeks of the UK CoronaVirus lockdown as seen from the point of view of the hospital staff and patients. It does not pull any punches and should somewhat act as a counterpoint to when politicians claim that due to timely government measures the NHS was never threatened with being overwhelmed.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m ... -episode-1

[Vertigo 7]

For those regionally able to watch it (probably UK only, not sure), I recommend this BBC iPlayer programme 'Hospital Corona Virus Special' - 1 hour long . It shows the daily business in the Royal Free London Hospital over the first few weeks of the UK CoronaVirus lockdown as seen from the point of view of the hospital staff and patients. It does not pull any punches and should somewhat act as a counterpoint to when politicians claim that due to timely government measures the NHS was never threatened with being overwhelmed.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m ... -episode-1

UK onry =/ but based on what i'm hearing from the weekly briefings at my job, I wouldn't be surprised that the government claims are pandering at best.

[Rug]

I've not seen it linked here, but apologies if this is a duplicate ... This webpage shows the confirmed deaths by postcode for England and Wales. I'm lucky to be in an area with just 1 death so far.

Clearly shows how it is strongly centered around the large population densities.

Rug