Surely the government should ban traveling

Malthusian

A 1% artificial contraction in the UK economy equates to £20 billion lost in GDP, which means about £6 billion less tax take, which removes about £1.5 billion from the NHS' budget.

Do the maths yourselves on how many lives the NHS can save with £1.5 billion.

The government will and should prioritise the economy over stopping a few people dying of bird flu who are probably going to die soon anyway.

renegadefm

PasturesNew said:

You can't shut the world down..... it's about 200-400 years too late to try that.

Well the coronavirus might have a different answer to that I'm afraid if we let it. 

movilogo

The virus mostly kills old frail people. In developing world like China, such people die easily. In developed world like UK, such old people is kept alive by NHS. In fact, old age care is one of the main reasons why NHS is in trouble. In most other countries in the world, these would have died naturally by now but in a welfare state like UK, such people are artificially kept alive by expesnive (to tax payers) health care.

If Corona virus does turn into pandemic, NHS will not be able to support huge number of elderly patients anymore. So, a lot of of people in those age group, if infected, will die. 

When thousands of patients get hospitalized, NHS has to decide who to offer treatement too. Those who have the most proability to become better after treatment, will be given priority. That excludes most 80+ infected people. 

The socialists will be alarmed if this situation arises.

renegadefm

movilogo said:

If Corona virus does turn into pandemic, NHS will not be able to support huge number of elderly patients anymore. So, a lot of of people in those age group, if infected, will die. 

Which is why we need to ban all travel until its contained, and so those contained can recover, then normal service can be resumed.  Why wait until its too late then panic?

movilogo

If you are the govt. decide what you'd do
[1] Close everything, suffer huge economic loss, lots of people (in gig economy) out of job, they start claiming on benefits, GDP down, panic everywhere.
[2] Show some token actions. Keep everything open. Let old people die (saves NHS billions). 

In reality, the old/retired people should confine themselves in their homes for their own good. Younger generation should get on with life as usual.

gingercordial

renegadefm said:

movilogo said:

If Corona virus does turn into pandemic, NHS will not be able to support huge number of elderly patients anymore. So, a lot of of people in those age group, if infected, will die. 

Which is why we need to ban all travel until its contained, and so those contained can recover, then normal service can be resumed.  Why wait until its too late then panic?

But how could you "ban all travel"?  What about all the people currently overseas who need to come home?

movilogo

And even why ban travel at all? Those who don't want to mix with others can stay at home. 
Banning has huge effect on people affected as well as overall economy. More so, how long to ban travel for? Some people can incubate over a month. Vaccine is unlikely to be invented before several months - realistically a year. 
Will you ban everything for that long? We shall be returning to stone age if that happens.

On hindsight, when it was first detected, banning people from China would have worked. But now it is too late as whole world got affected. 

The_Rainmaker

renegadefm said:

Which is why we need to ban all travel until its contained, and so those contained can recover, then normal service can be resumed.  Why wait until its too late then panic?

So are we to presume you have stopped leaving the house and having all provisions delivered until it is all over?  No thought not.

cognoscente

The_Rainmaker said:

renegadefm said:

Which is why we need to ban all travel until its contained, and so those contained can recover, then normal service can be resumed.  Why wait until its too late then panic?

So are we to presume you have stopped leaving the house and having all provisions delivered until it is all over?  No thought not.

Why on earth would they if they live in an area with no reported cases? I'm certainly not going to.

It looks like the official policy is not to try and delay the inevitable. "If it's going to happen, bring it on and let's get it done with" seems to be the tactic and for those isolating themselves as a form of prevention, you are very probably only delaying the inevitable. It's postponement, not avoidance.

*Apologies to those at heightened risk but it is time to look at it honestly.*
Oh and BTW, most of us have close family at increased risk even if we ourselves might not be.

The_Rainmaker

cognoscente said:

The_Rainmaker said:

renegadefm said:

Which is why we need to ban all travel until its contained, and so those contained can recover, then normal service can be resumed.  Why wait until its too late then panic?

So are we to presume you have stopped leaving the house and having all provisions delivered until it is all over?  No thought not.

Why on earth would they if they live in an area with no reported cases? I'm certainly not going to.

It looks like the official policy is not to try and delay the inevitable. "If it's going to happen, bring it on and let's get it done with" seems to be the tactic and for those isolating themselves as a form of prevention, you are very probably only delaying the inevitable. It's postponement, not avoidance.

*Apologies to those at heightened risk but it is time to look at it honestly.*
Oh and BTW, most of us have close family at increased risk even if we ourselves might not be.

I am just trying to highlight the absurdity of his whole premise.

Ban travelling...............aye right!