“For all intents and purposes, I think it’s fair to say we are on the cusp of the pandemic,” Peter Marks, head of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said in an interview. “Is it definitely going to happen? No, but there is significant concern, as of overnight we have cases on six continents.”
This is really quite grim.
I'm actually now considering whether to get out of London (with loved ones). Cities are the worst places to be.
Is this mad over-reaction, or sensible precaution? It's impossible to say, but when some doctors themselves are predicting 60% total infection with a disease that, so far, has a resolved mortality rate of 8%, it doesn't seem mad at all.
But then I catch myself thinking the opposite: get a grip, calm down, only a few have died. But is this my normalcy bias kicking in?
Pfff!
Isn’t everyone in your family around three decades younger than you ? If so, unless they are respiratory compromised, it’s only you that need panic.
Unfortunately, your second sentence describes close family members
Yes, absolutely. And many of them effectively got away with it. They might have lost their jobs but they kept very nice pensions, for example.
Indeed, that sort of behaviour is why it's been so easy to pin all the blame on them - because it's such an easy and attractive narrative for politicians.
OK. Fair comment. They were prominent in a list of culprits, let's just say that.
But your point about pinning ALL the blame on feckless financiers is interesting. Because although the Left has certainly tried their damnedest to do that - and I do think it has more merit than blaming it ALL on, say, Gordon Brown - I would say they have abjectly failed to do so. In fact this is IMO the most interesting and unresolved question in modern western politics. The rational response to the Crash was surely to lurch Left. This is what I would have expected a critical mass of the public to conclude to be the suitable response. Yet it has not panned out like that. The reverse if anything. And OK, some of this is because things happened to go pop on the watch of various Centre Left governments. But there's more to it than this, I feel. Seems to me that people have drawn the wrong conclusions. Brexit, Trump etc.
In the UK, the Liberal Democrats played a crucial role in this, by adding centrist legitimacy to the idea that state spending had overwhelming reponsibility for the crash. In the US, culture war tactics stopped the idea of wall street blame getting wider purchase in the fly-over states. Now that we have those same culture war tactics being imported over here, and yet also potentially married with more big-spending economic policy, also as in the US, the opportunities for the left are getting scarcer.
Brexit is the wild card here, however.
Au contraire. Wall Street bailouts led directly to both the Tea Party and President Trump.
ETA: the irony from our point of view is it is the American *right* not left which benefited from the populist blaming of bankers.
10,000 people died of AIDS in the US before Ronald Reagan even mentioned the word.
If only Reagan had done what a not particular smart man with really good instincts does, which is appoint much better people around him and tell them to get on with it. Wasn’t his Surgeon General Everett Koop, possibly the most activist of surgeon generals of all time who when he was out in charge of the federal government’s response to AIDS, his actions became a template around the world.
The US response to AIDS was shamefully slow.
Unlike Norman Fowler who was actually very proactive. Although the "don't die of ignorance" message was pretty brutal, the government advice on condoms which he was responsible for probably saved many lives
One of the ironies of the left's demonisation of Thatcher is she almost certainly helped save the lives of tens of thousands of gay men - compared to France for example, which lagged the UK by years - by acting on Fowler's advice - but all they talk about is Section 28. As with all of us, she had good parts and bad (she also broke ranks with the Tory majority in the mid-sixties by voting for Wolfenden, on homosexual law reform seeing it as a "liberties" issue, not "morals")
Thatcher was also supportive of what we now call evidence based policy making. She often insisted on reading lots of background details about goventment policy which most PMs leave to the departmental advisors. This was often credited to her actually having degrees in a scientific subject.
She made a major speech to the UN on climate change which had been written by Lord Deben aka John Gummer. He said recently that no-one else in the govt was remotely interested.
It was partly to do with her science background. She was fascinated by James Lovelock, he of the gaia theory, and met him in the early '80s. Then Crispin Tickell, a sort of insider, establishment environmentalist of the earliest wave, influenced her a lot to make her landmark environment speech.
She viewed her free-market dogma through a prism of New Right economic "science" to be aggressively defended, and this was just another branch of science, for her.
In the UK, the Liberal Democrats played a crucial role in this, by adding centrist legitimacy to the idea that state spending had overwhelming reponsibility for the crash. In the US, culture war tactics stopped the idea of wall street blame getting wider purchase in the fly-over states. Now that we have those same culture war tactics being imported over here, and yet also potentially married with more big-spending economic policy, also as in the US, the opportunities for the left are getting scarcer.
Brexit is the wild card here, however.
Mmm. Rings true. So we will win here - of course we will - but not until there is nothing and nobody left to blame except the stacked deck and the people who are stacking it. Therefore 2024 sounds optimistic.
But over there, let's see what 4th November brings. I sense joy, I really do.
“For all intents and purposes, I think it’s fair to say we are on the cusp of the pandemic,” Peter Marks, head of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said in an interview. “Is it definitely going to happen? No, but there is significant concern, as of overnight we have cases on six continents.”
This is really quite grim.
I'm actually now considering whether to get out of London (with loved ones). Cities are the worst places to be.
Is this mad over-reaction, or sensible precaution? It's impossible to say, but when some doctors themselves are predicting 60% total infection with a disease that, so far, has a resolved mortality rate of 8%, it doesn't seem mad at all.
But then I catch myself thinking the opposite: get a grip, calm down, only a few have died. But is this my normalcy bias kicking in?
Pfff!
The drop in air travel could make 2020 the greenest for some time. They used to say we needed a good war, now maybe pandemic has replaced combat
The best thing for the human race in the long term would probably be a reduction in numbers by about 90%. COVID seems likely to be lethal enough to be a pita but not lethal enough to make a real difference.
“For all intents and purposes, I think it’s fair to say we are on the cusp of the pandemic,” Peter Marks, head of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said in an interview. “Is it definitely going to happen? No, but there is significant concern, as of overnight we have cases on six continents.”
This is really quite grim.
I'm actually now considering whether to get out of London (with loved ones). Cities are the worst places to be.
Is this mad over-reaction, or sensible precaution? It's impossible to say, but when some doctors themselves are predicting 60% total infection with a disease that, so far, has a resolved mortality rate of 8%, it doesn't seem mad at all.
But then I catch myself thinking the opposite: get a grip, calm down, only a few have died. But is this my normalcy bias kicking in?
Pfff!
What happened to your “we’re all going to get it anyway, so stop worrying”??
I am mere flesh and blood. One can be coolly logical for only so long (and I reckon I've done pretty well, given that I saw this coming weeks before 99% of PB)
But there comes a time when it is correct to burn your underpants with lighter fuel and run naked to the nearest church
Cool logic isn’t what I associate with any of your accounts, to be honest.
I'm starting to revise my view that Trump's going to win in 2020.
I did tell you to factor this in
What makes Trump vulnerable is an economic recession. He is trying to head that off....
Sure...
But if you look at the US economy, it's (like the UK) built on consumption. And he wants the US consumer to continue to spend approximately 105%* of every paycheck, because that way temporary growth lies.
And that consumption requires a steady flow of imports to be sold in Walmart and Apple and the like. If Coronavirus slows down the flow of imports, it necessarily slows down the sale of those imports. Costco has fewer products to sell, and (looking to maximise profits) it does the logical thing and raises prices. (Which, of course, must stifle demand. There are fewer imports to go around...)
Could we start to see inflation inch up through the course of this year? Could we start to see economic growth decline through destocking and lower availability of goods for sale?
* Once you include government dissaving, the actual number is more like 108%.
10,000 people died of AIDS in the US before Ronald Reagan even mentioned the word.
If only Reagan had done what a not particular smart man with really good instincts does, which is appoint much better people around him and tell them to get on with it. Wasn’t his Surgeon General Everett Koop, possibly the most activist of surgeon generals of all time who when he was out in charge of the federal government’s response to AIDS, his actions became a template around the world.
The US response to AIDS was shamefully slow.
Unlike Norman Fowler who was actually very proactive. Although the "don't die of ignorance" message was pretty brutal, the government advice on condoms which he was responsible for probably saved many lives
One of the ironies of the left's demonisation of Thatcher is she almost certainly helped save the lives of tens of thousands of gay men - compared to France for example, which lagged the UK by years - by acting on Fowler's advice - but all they talk about is Section 28. As with all of us, she had good parts and bad (she also broke ranks with the Tory majority in the mid-sixties by voting for Wolfenden, on homosexual law reform seeing it as a "liberties" issue, not "morals")
Thatcher was also supportive of what we now call evidence based policy making. She often insisted on reading lots of background details about goventment policy which most PMs leave to the departmental advisors. This was often credited to her actually having degrees in a scientific subject.
She made a major speech to the UN on climate change which had been written by Lord Deben aka John Gummer. He said recently that no-one else in the govt was remotely interested.
It was partly to do with her science background. She was fascinated by James Lovelock, he of the gaia theory, and met him in the early '80s. Then Crispin Tickell, a sort of insider, establishment environmentalist of the earliest wave, influenced her a lot to make her landmark environment speech.
She viewed her free-market dogma through a prism of New Right economic "science" to be aggressively defended, and this was just another branch of science, for her.
Thatcher had considerable faults, but until her last term in office, she was not a fool.
“For all intents and purposes, I think it’s fair to say we are on the cusp of the pandemic,” Peter Marks, head of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said in an interview. “Is it definitely going to happen? No, but there is significant concern, as of overnight we have cases on six continents.”
This is really quite grim.
I'm actually now considering whether to get out of London (with loved ones). Cities are the worst places to be.
Is this mad over-reaction, or sensible precaution? It's impossible to say, but when some doctors themselves are predicting 60% total infection with a disease that, so far, has a resolved mortality rate of 8%, it doesn't seem mad at all.
But then I catch myself thinking the opposite: get a grip, calm down, only a few have died. But is this my normalcy bias kicking in?
Pfff!
The drop in air travel could make 2020 the greenest for some time. They used to say we needed a good war, now maybe pandemic has replaced combat
The best thing for the human race in the long term would probably be a reduction in numbers by about 90%. COVID seems likely to be lethal enough to be a pita but not lethal enough to make a real difference.
About half the electorate and more than half the voters have done very well out of aftermath of the crash as asset values have risen faster than wages. It is no coincidence the young with reasonable income potential but asset poor have swung leftwards whilst the majority of voters have swung to the right.
A good point. Not sure about half though. I would have thought only a minority have net gained.
“For all intents and purposes, I think it’s fair to say we are on the cusp of the pandemic,” Peter Marks, head of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said in an interview. “Is it definitely going to happen? No, but there is significant concern, as of overnight we have cases on six continents.”
This is really quite grim.
I'm actually now considering whether to get out of London (with loved ones). Cities are the worst places to be.
Is this mad over-reaction, or sensible precaution? It's impossible to say, but when some doctors themselves are predicting 60% total infection with a disease that, so far, has a resolved mortality rate of 8%, it doesn't seem mad at all.
But then I catch myself thinking the opposite: get a grip, calm down, only a few have died. But is this my normalcy bias kicking in?
Pfff!
What happened to your “we’re all going to get it anyway, so stop worrying”??
I am mere flesh and blood. One can be coolly logical for only so long (and I reckon I've done pretty well, given that I saw this coming weeks before 99% of PB)
But there comes a time when it is correct to burn your underpants with lighter fuel and run naked to the nearest church
A real problem when you need evidence-based policy and you have a group of people in charge who are actively anti-science.
But I'm sure the American civil service will be preparing hard. Just a shame they are ruled by absolute fools, starting right at the top.
The trump admin had some twat giving evidence yesterday who claimed the death rate of coronavirus was the same as normal flu. He was aggressively questioned on this, because everyone knew he was wrong. But he just repeated the lie. Insane.
In fact, I don’t want to be alarmist, but the death rate on resolved cases (kill or cure) is right now at.... 8%.
An 8% mortality rate (should that happen) for a new, aggressive disease maybe more infectious than a cold is a very sobering concept.
Is it true? I don’t know. My guess is they are lying but I could be wrong and you might be right. It is only a guess.
Is the Chinese government corrupt enough to do this? Totally. This is a regime which puts a million Muslims in concentration camps just because. Pumping out fake stats to “save” the economy is paltry in comparison. Indeed they could argue it’s the difficult but correct choice.
The Epoch Times was one of the biggest pushers of the Pizzagate paedophile ring story, so it doesn't have a lot of credibility with me. (It may have been the only "serious" news website to wholeheartedly believe and regurgitate it.)
10,000 people died of AIDS in the US before Ronald Reagan even mentioned the word.
If only Reagan had done what a not particular smart man with really good instincts does, which is appoint much better people around him and tell them to get on with it. Wasn’t his Surgeon General Everett Koop, possibly the most activist of surgeon generals of all time who when he was out in charge of the federal government’s response to AIDS, his actions became a template around the world.
The US response to AIDS was shamefully slow.
Unlike Norman Fowler who was actually very proactive. Although the "don't die of ignorance" message was pretty brutal, the government advice on condoms which he was responsible for probably saved many lives
One of the ironies of the left's demonisation of Thatcher is she almost certainly helped save the lives of tens of thousands of gay men - compared to France for example, which lagged the UK by years - by acting on Fowler's advice - but all they talk about is Section 28. As with all of us, she had good parts and bad (she also broke ranks with the Tory majority in the mid-sixties by voting for Wolfenden, on homosexual law reform seeing it as a "liberties" issue, not "morals")
Thatcher was also supportive of what we now call evidence based policy making. She often insisted on reading lots of background details about goventment policy which most PMs leave to the departmental advisors. This was often credited to her actually having degrees in a scientific subject.
She made a major speech to the UN on climate change which had been written by Lord Deben aka John Gummer. He said recently that no-one else in the govt was remotely interested.
It was partly to do with her science background. She was fascinated by James Lovelock, he of the gaia theory, and met him in the early '80s. Then Crispin Tickell, a sort of insider, establishment environmentalist of the earliest wave, influenced her a lot to make her landmark environment speech.
She viewed her free-market dogma through a prism of New Right economic "science" to be aggressively defended, and this was just another branch of science, for her.
She was only free-market when it suited ie when it didn't upset the bourgeoisie. She never exposed the farmers to the free market. She defended MIRAS to the last and sold off the council houses at a massive discount.
A real problem when you need evidence-based policy and you have a group of people in charge who are actively anti-science.
But I'm sure the American civil service will be preparing hard. Just a shame they are ruled by absolute fools, starting right at the top.
The trump admin had some twat giving evidence yesterday who claimed the death rate of coronavirus was the same as normal flu. He was aggressively questioned on this, because everyone knew he was wrong. But he just repeated the lie. Insane.
In fact, I don’t want to be alarmist, but the death rate on resolved cases (kill or cure) is right now at.... 8%.
An 8% mortality rate (should that happen) for a new, aggressive disease maybe more infectious than a cold is a very sobering concept.
Is it true? I don’t know. My guess is they are lying but I could be wrong and you might be right. It is only a guess.
Is the Chinese government corrupt enough to do this? Totally. This is a regime which puts a million Muslims in concentration camps just because. Pumping out fake stats to “save” the economy is paltry in comparison. Indeed they could argue it’s the difficult but correct choice.
The Epoch Times was one of the biggest pushers of the Pizzagate paedophile ring story, so it doesn't have a lot of credibility with me. (It may have been the only "serious" news website to wholeheartedly believe and regurgitate it.)
If I recall correctly they're a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Unification Church, a.k.a. the "Moonies" so if they reported the sky is blue I'd look out of the window.
CORRECTION: they're part of the Falun Gong, so they might or might not be reliable for stuff not relating to China but they're going to be absolutely trying to undermine the CCP with their reporting of China.
A real problem when you need evidence-based policy and you have a group of people in charge who are actively anti-science.
But I'm sure the American civil service will be preparing hard. Just a shame they are ruled by absolute fools, starting right at the top.
How much is "the American civil service" a thing as far as this goes? I mean, I know they have a Department of Health but given the very considerable constitutional separation of powers between state and federal level, the government isn't really in a position to command and control, is it?
Didn’t Trump cut a lot of the funding for contagious disease research and control programmes?
Yes - I suspect that could come back to bite him when the voter knows people that are ill / have died..
Previous Trump voters are more likely to take it as confirmation of their negative view of globalisation I'd say
We know a couple in Long Island, she looked after our kids when they were younger, he's a sheriff. They're Trump voters. The want to restrict immigration. They don't think free trade has helped the US and people like them.
But the one area they really hate the Republicans and Trump is health care. Their son was in a car accident and ended up with long-term brain injuries. Not utterly debilitating, but enough that he'll never be able to hold down a job. They're resigned to the fact that they will always have to support their son, and that that means they'll never be able to stop working.
The existence of Obamacare changed their lives. He couldn't be denied coverage based on pre-existing conditions, and their health care bill dropped massively.
When the Republicans were trying to repeal Obamacare they looked on in horror. And they breathed a sigh of relief when it failed.
Healthcare is the only real area where Trump is vulnerable with his base.
“For all intents and purposes, I think it’s fair to say we are on the cusp of the pandemic,” Peter Marks, head of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said in an interview. “Is it definitely going to happen? No, but there is significant concern, as of overnight we have cases on six continents.”
This is really quite grim.
I'm actually now considering whether to get out of London (with loved ones). Cities are the worst places to be.
Is this mad over-reaction, or sensible precaution? It's impossible to say, but when some doctors themselves are predicting 60% total infection with a disease that, so far, has a resolved mortality rate of 8%, it doesn't seem mad at all.
But then I catch myself thinking the opposite: get a grip, calm down, only a few have died. But is this my normalcy bias kicking in?
Pfff!
What happened to your “we’re all going to get it anyway, so stop worrying”??
I am mere flesh and blood. One can be coolly logical for only so long (and I reckon I've done pretty well, given that I saw this coming weeks before 99% of PB)
But there comes a time when it is correct to burn your underpants with lighter fuel and run naked to the nearest church
The bug isn’t the problem it’s the reaction if you’re waiting for a key operation you hope this does not screw the system up the economic impact will be significant but the bug won’t kill most of you!
<<Au contraire. Wall Street bailouts led directly to both the Tea Party and President Trump.
ETA: the irony from our point of view is it is the American *right* not left which benefited from the populist blaming of bankers.>>
Trump has been the absolute master of translating anger away from Wall Street towards a "liberal establishment", or the "elite", or the "globalists". The Tories have pulled off a similar triumph with Brexit and the "metropolitan elite" , while being funded by London hedge funds with a financial interest in Brexit.
A real problem when you need evidence-based policy and you have a group of people in charge who are actively anti-science.
But I'm sure the American civil service will be preparing hard. Just a shame they are ruled by absolute fools, starting right at the top.
How much is "the American civil service" a thing as far as this goes? I mean, I know they have a Department of Health but given the very considerable constitutional separation of powers between state and federal level, the government isn't really in a position to command and control, is it?
Didn’t Trump cut a lot of the funding for contagious disease research and control programmes?
Yes - I suspect that could come back to bite him when the voter knows people that are ill / have died..
Previous Trump voters are more likely to take it as confirmation of their negative view of globalisation I'd say
We know a couple in Long Island, she looked after our kids when they were younger, he's a sheriff. They're Trump voters. The want to restrict immigration. They don't think free trade has helped the US and people like them.
But the one area they really hate the Republicans and Trump is health care. Their son was in a car accident and ended up with long-term brain injuries. Not utterly debilitating, but enough that he'll never be able to hold down a job. They're resigned to the fact that they will always have to support their son, and that that means they'll never be able to stop working.
The existence of Obamacare changed their lives. He couldn't be denied coverage based on pre-existing conditions, and their health care bill dropped massively.
When the Republicans were trying to repeal Obamacare they looked on in horror. And they breathed a sigh of relief when it failed.
Healthcare is the only real area where Trump is vulnerable with his base.
But they're still going to vote against their own best interests for Trump in November, right?
10,000 people died of AIDS in the US before Ronald Reagan even mentioned the word.
If only Reagan had done what a not particular smart man with really good instincts does, which is appoint much better people around him and tell them to get on with it. Wasn’t his Surgeon General Everett Koop, possibly the most activist of surgeon generals of all time who when he was out in charge of the federal government’s response to AIDS, his actions became a template around the world.
The US response to AIDS was shamefully slow.
Unlike Norman Fowler who was actually very proactive. Although the "don't die of ignorance" message was pretty brutal, the government advice on condoms which he was responsible for probably saved many lives
One of the ironies of the le. As with all of us, she had good parts and bad (she also broke ranks with the Tory majority in the mid-sixties by voting for Wolfenden, on homosexual law reform seeing it as a "liberties" issue, not "morals")
advisors. This was often credited to her actually having degrees in a scientific subject.
She made a major speech to the UN on climate change which had been written by Lord Deben aka John Gummer. He said recently that no-one else in the govt was remotely interested.
It was partly to do with her science background. She was fascinated by James Lovelock, he of the gaia theory, and met him in the early '80s. Then Crispin Tickell, a sort of insider, establishment environmentalist of the earliest wave, influenced her a lot to make her landmark environment speech.
She viewed her free-market dogma through a prism of New Right economic "science" to be aggressively defended, and this was just another branch of science, for her.
She was only free-market when it suited ie when it didn't upset the bourgeoisie. She never exposed the farmers to the free market. She defended MIRAS to the last and sold off the council houses at a massive discount.
There's some truth in that. She was both the economic scientist, and the upstanding provincial housewife, managing the nation's accounts and morals, in her mind. A very electorally potent combination.
A real problem when you need evidence-based policy and you have a group of people in charge who are actively anti-science.
But I'm sure the American civil service will be preparing hard. Just a shame they are ruled by absolute fools, starting right at the top.
The trump admin had some twat giving evidence yesterday who claimed the death rate of coronavirus was the same as normal flu. He was aggressively questioned on this, because everyone knew he was wrong. But he just repeated the lie. Insane.
In fact, I don’t want to be alarmist, but the death rate on resolved cases (kill or cure) is right now at.... 8%.
An 8% mortality rate (should that happen) for a new, aggressive disease maybe more infectious than a cold is a very sobering concept.
Is it true? I don’t know. My guess is they are lying but I could be wrong and you might be right. It is only a guess.
Is the Chinese government corrupt enough to do this? Totally. This is a regime which puts a million Muslims in concentration camps just because. Pumping out fake stats to “save” the economy is paltry in comparison. Indeed they could argue it’s the difficult but correct choice.
The Epoch Times was one of the biggest pushers of the Pizzagate paedophile ring story, so it doesn't have a lot of credibility with me. (It may have been the only "serious" news website to wholeheartedly believe and regurgitate it.)
Yes. Normally I wouldn't link to it.
But we do NOT have an alternative and reliable source of info, given that the Chinese have already tried to lie about this plague, by arresting the first whistleblowers.
Should we trust them now? Why? Do you believe their remarkable stats of 11 cases in a day amongst 1.3bn people?
In such a dense fog, even an unreliable light like Epoch Times might be better than nothing
Sadly we are only 6 weeks off having all the reliable first world data we can eat, making Chinese dishonesty a historical curiosity (and mistake).
"According to an Iranian news site, which obtained a screenshot of the message, Tabrizian recommends consuming copious amounts of brown sugar, burning wild rue, as well as inhaling snuff.
His eighth tip is the most striking: "Before bedtime, drench some cotton in violet oil and apply onto your anus" "
Ring a ring of rosies, A pocket full of posies, Atischoo Atischoo, We all fall down...
All sounds credible to me and pretty much what I've predicted here - in particular, I've not seen any sign of the Nandy campaign taking off. Obviously people who joined pre-2019 particularly like Corbyn, and hence RLB, and those who joined after 2019 much less so.
I think Starmer has it in the bag, frankly, but RLB will get a decent result.
Au contraire. Wall Street bailouts led directly to both the Tea Party and President Trump.
ETA: the irony from our point of view is it is the American *right* not left which benefited from the populist blaming of bankers.
Pointless hypothetical -
Tories win in 2005.
2008 - Crash!
PM Corbyn (or ilk) in 2010?
And this is why @Nigel_Foremain is wrong in me wanting an extremist as opposition leader rather than a sensible LOTO.
Last thing I want is a PM Corbyn (or ilk). If or when the Tories fall from office I hope there's a semi-OK opposition that won't inflict too much damage on this country before the Tories return to clean up their mess.
I'm starting to revise my view that Trump's going to win in 2020.
I did tell you to factor this in
What makes Trump vulnerable is an economic recession. He is trying to head that off....
Sure...
But if you look at the US economy, it's (like the UK) built on consumption. And he wants the US consumer to continue to spend approximately 105%* of every paycheck, because that way temporary growth lies.
And that consumption requires a steady flow of imports to be sold in Walmart and Apple and the like. If Coronavirus slows down the flow of imports, it necessarily slows down the sale of those imports. Costco has fewer products to sell, and (looking to maximise profits) it does the logical thing and raises prices. (Which, of course, must stifle demand. There are fewer imports to go around...)
Could we start to see inflation inch up through the course of this year? Could we start to see economic growth decline through destocking and lower availability of goods for sale?
* Once you include government dissaving, the actual number is more like 108%.
Indeed but I think Trump is worried more by the potential hits to business sentiment and investment.
"According to an Iranian news site, which obtained a screenshot of the message, Tabrizian recommends consuming copious amounts of brown sugar, burning wild rue, as well as inhaling snuff.
His eighth tip is the most striking: "Before bedtime, drench some cotton in violet oil and apply onto your anus" "
"According to an Iranian news site, which obtained a screenshot of the message, Tabrizian recommends consuming copious amounts of brown sugar, burning wild rue, as well as inhaling snuff.
His eighth tip is the most striking: "Before bedtime, drench some cotton in violet oil and apply onto your anus" "
What would flu death rate look like if there was no flu vaccine about ?
The Spanish Flu was about 10%, but that was pre antibiotics.
If you weren't a doctor, I'd be asking what have antibiotics to do with tackling a viral infection. Did the Spanish flu mainly kill through secondary bacterial infections or something?
What would flu death rate look like if there was no flu vaccine about ?
The Spanish Flu was about 10%, but that was pre antibiotics.
If you weren't a doctor, I'd be asking what have antibiotics to do with tackling a viral infection. Did the Spanish flu mainly kill through secondary bacterial infections or something?
Yes, death was either very rapid, via viral pneumonia and cytokine cascade, or via secondary bacterial infection.
There is some evidence of fatalities from asprin overdose causing lung injury too.
In a nutshell, it's a bureaucratic nightmare, which will affect even small businesses in NI. In fact it looks completely unworkable. Trouble ahead, I think.
It seems pretty clear the governmet is intending to ignore the provisons of the WA and that Suella Braverman has been brought in as AG to give legal cover to that. Where that leads to remains to be seen, but it's hard to see an upside for the UK.
Boris should be fine though. As we've seen with other recent examples, he and Cummings have been superb at reconstructing the thought processes of the British Right, so that they now regard all governmental and legal authority as belonging solely to the PM (rather than parliament, the cabinet, the courts or anything else). It's been an astonishing psychological takeover.
This worries me. If the precedent is set by a lovely cuddly, trustworthy, competent PM like Boris sidelining Parliament and the Courts, there will be no counter argument when son of Corbyn becomes PM.
Quite. A point I have been banging on about for some time now.
Comments
ETA: the irony from our point of view is it is the American *right* not left which benefited from the populist blaming of bankers.
She viewed her free-market dogma through a prism of New Right economic "science" to be aggressively defended, and this was just another branch of science, for her.
But over there, let's see what 4th November brings. I sense joy, I really do.
https://twitter.com/paleofuture/status/1232385716463656960
But if you look at the US economy, it's (like the UK) built on consumption. And he wants the US consumer to continue to spend approximately 105%* of every paycheck, because that way temporary growth lies.
And that consumption requires a steady flow of imports to be sold in Walmart and Apple and the like. If Coronavirus slows down the flow of imports, it necessarily slows down the sale of those imports. Costco has fewer products to sell, and (looking to maximise profits) it does the logical thing and raises prices. (Which, of course, must stifle demand. There are fewer imports to go around...)
Could we start to see inflation inch up through the course of this year?
Could we start to see economic growth decline through destocking and lower availability of goods for sale?
* Once you include government dissaving, the actual number is more like 108%.
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/02/25/health/coronavirus-fda-drug-supply/index.html
Tories win in 2005.
2008 - Crash!
PM Corbyn (or ilk) in 2010?
CORRECTION: they're part of the Falun Gong, so they might or might not be reliable for stuff not relating to China but they're going to be absolutely trying to undermine the CCP with their reporting of China.
But the one area they really hate the Republicans and Trump is health care. Their son was in a car accident and ended up with long-term brain injuries. Not utterly debilitating, but enough that he'll never be able to hold down a job. They're resigned to the fact that they will always have to support their son, and that that means they'll never be able to stop working.
The existence of Obamacare changed their lives. He couldn't be denied coverage based on pre-existing conditions, and their health care bill dropped massively.
When the Republicans were trying to repeal Obamacare they looked on in horror. And they breathed a sigh of relief when it failed.
Healthcare is the only real area where Trump is vulnerable with his base.
ETA: the irony from our point of view is it is the American *right* not left which benefited from the populist blaming of bankers.>>
Trump has been the absolute master of translating anger away from Wall Street towards a "liberal establishment", or the "elite", or the "globalists". The Tories have pulled off a similar triumph with Brexit and the "metropolitan elite" , while being funded by London hedge funds with a financial interest in Brexit.
Rayner: 47%
Burgon: 19%
Allin-Khan: 13%
Butler: 12%
Murray: 9%
Round 2: Rayner 52% after Murray drops out.
A pocket full of posies,
Atischoo Atischoo,
We all fall down...
I think Starmer has it in the bag, frankly, but RLB will get a decent result.
Presumably she doesn't eat plants.
Last thing I want is a PM Corbyn (or ilk). If or when the Tories fall from office I hope there's a semi-OK opposition that won't inflict too much damage on this country before the Tories return to clean up their mess.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/feb/26/f1-races-australia-bahrain-vietnam-gp-coronavirus-threat
NEW THREAD
There is some evidence of fatalities from asprin overdose causing lung injury too.
Thank you.