Cheltenham is now only around 4/1 against being abandoned. The weather forecast is not helping!
Does being abandoned also cover the event being held behind closed doors? That’s looking like the most likely option, not cancelling the event itself but just cancelling the local crowd.
Not much point in running Cheltenham without the crowd. It’s not like eg. Football where cancellation cause disruption to a wider season and have significant implications outside of the cancelled event,
Betfair's market seems to be on abandonment of the whole meeting, not just one day, not on whether there is a crowd. You would need to check the conditions of any bookmaker's bet.
I read it as applying to racing on the first day only. The bet is only won for No if no race at all takes place that day.
If it is the first day only then that might explain the price dropping on the weather forecast.
Corona virus: HMG might do well to announce that it will buy any booked but unused holidays to covid-19 hotspots, so that people do not face any financial loss from doing the right thing.
But then, won't Boris use them?
Most people who can afford holidays of this kind will be well able to absorb any losses out of their own funds. And should do so. Given the looming crisis government support should be focussed where there is real need and it can do real good.
Hell of a job trying to work out where that will be. If Thomas Cook hadn't already gone, this would have given it the final shove. Do we save remaining travel agents? Flybe has already gone, but how about regional airports they served - do you save them? Bicester Village retail outlets - a big earner when half of China poured through their doors with giant suitcases to fill - but how do you prop them up - and for how long? And as has been mentioned here before, the University sector - are those students coming back any time soon?
You cut interest rates to zero. You engage in a bit of quantitative easing. You put pressure on the banks to not foreclose, and to be generous with refinancing.
But here's the thing. If the airport goes bust, then the investors lose all their money. But the runways are still there. It will (in all likelihood) be profitable when people start flying again.
Likewise airlines. You can let them go to the wall. The planes still exist. So someone's going to buy then for 60 cents in the dollar, and will start New Air.
Yes, that sucks for the original investors in FlyBe or whoever. But it's not the end of the world.
The paper said many of his statements dated back years, but that Labour’s general secretary, Jennie Formby, had suspended him as a matter of urgency to “protect the party’s reputation”.
It’s grimly ironic that Jenny Formby, of all people, a long standing anti-Semite with an extremely unedifying history of racist behaviour, should say that.
I've just had a cheeky flutter on Pence being the next president.
Odds are/were 190-1 on Betfair.
My reasoning is that Trump is in daily contact with lots of people who were at CPAC (or even his rallies). He's got a worse than 10% chance of dying and Pence taking over if he gets it. I'm not much of a gambler but I know my deadpools :-)
If Trump so much as sneezes in the next few weeks those odds will come crashing down...
If you want to be even braver, Nancy Pelosi is 1000-1. Imagine if Pence and Trump end up in ICU at the same time...
It definitely won’t be Pelosi. The rules of the “Next President” market refer to the result of the election in November, as opposed to who’s the next person to hold the office. Which is why Trump is favourite.
That’s different to the UK “Next PM” market, which is simply who’s the next person to kiss the Queen’s hand, so the incumbent is a non-runner.
Yes, laying Trump is the better bet, offering other ways to win.
Although if Martin’s scenario comes to pass, who would be the Rep nominee?
Point taken about Pelosi (and that's why I didn't bet on her).
My bet on Pence is in effect a lay on Trump but with better short-term upside. I doubt Pence could win in November (though who knows - he has the evangelical base, and both Sanders and Biden may look too old) but the more I hear about CPAC, how the confirmed case was in the green room and at Shabbat dinner with a lot of people who have close contact with Trump (e.g. Kellyanne Conway, Rhona McDaniels), the more likely it is that Trump catches it.
If Trump did get 25th-ed then it's very likely Pence would be the nominee mainly because there's no time to organize anything else.
In answer to your question, Nikki Haley is shorter odds than Pence presumably in the theory that Trump will dump Pence and then not make it to the election. That seems the wrong order of events, if anything.
As long as you picked up the point that you are betting on who wins the election, NOT on who succeeds Trump?
Corona virus: HMG might do well to announce that it will buy any booked but unused holidays to covid-19 hotspots, so that people do not face any financial loss from doing the right thing.
But then, won't Boris use them?
Most people who can afford holidays of this kind will be well able to absorb any losses out of their own funds. And should do so. Given the looming crisis government support should be focussed where there is real need and it can do real good.
Hell of a job trying to work out where that will be. If Thomas Cook hadn't already gone, this would have given it the final shove. Do we save remaining travel agents? Flybe has already gone, but how about regional airports they served - do you save them? Bicester Village retail outlets - a big earner when half of China poured through their doors with giant suitcases to fill - but how do you prop them up - and for how long? And as has been mentioned here before, the University sector - are those students coming back any time soon?
You cut interest rates to zero. You engage in a bit of quantitative easing. You put pressure on the banks to not foreclose, and to be generous with refinancing.
But here's the thing. If the airport goes bust, then the investors lose all their money. But the runways are still there. It will (in all likelihood) be profitable when people start flying again.
Likewise airlines. You can let them go to the wall. The planes still exist. So someone's going to buy then for 60 cents in the dollar, and will start New Air.
Yes, that sucks for the original investors in FlyBe or whoever. But it's not the end of the world.
But is a very good reason to be selling shares. Which is why surely they will try something else.
rcs1000. What do you see as the path for interest rates and over what timescale? First they will be cut. Then what? Inflation and rising interest rates? How soon? How high? What about property prices?
rcs1000. What do you see as the path for interest rates and over what timescale? First they will be cut. Then what? Inflation and rising interest rates? How soon? How high? What about property prices?
There's not going to be inflation concerns any time soon.
Corona virus: HMG might do well to announce that it will buy any booked but unused holidays to covid-19 hotspots, so that people do not face any financial loss from doing the right thing.
The paper said many of his statements dated back years, but that Labour’s general secretary, Jennie Formby, had suspended him as a matter of urgency to “protect the party’s reputation”.
What the...? Not sure the Labour Party has much of a reputation left.
Will have Starmer have any way to get rid of the likes of Formby when he becomes leader?
On-topic, are we sure Covid-19 will play badly for Trump? He has put Pence in charge; new funding has been announced; the view this is a foreign and specifically Chinese bug might chime with Trump's isolationism.
I think it's something of a bell curve in how it ends. Obviously if America isn't massively affected, Trump comes out very well (whether or not his ludicrous behaviour helped or hindered those dealing with it). If it turns into a proper global disaster he'll escape blame for things going badly and it may even play into his authoritarian instincts. However, if it's bad enough to expose the appallingly uneven nature of American healthcare and his malicious approach to governing and behaviour to those who disagree, plus recession exposes the foolishness of spunking billions on tax cuts for the rich while not fixing your society's problems, it will end very badly for him.
Corona virus: HMG might do well to announce that it will buy any booked but unused holidays to covid-19 hotspots, so that people do not face any financial loss from doing the right thing.
But then, won't Boris use them?
Most people who can afford holidays of this kind will be well able to absorb any losses out of their own funds. And should do so. Given the looming crisis government support should be focussed where there is real need and it can do real good.
Hell of a job trying to work out where that will be. If Thomas Cook hadn't already gone, this would have given it the final shove. Do we save remaining travel agents? Flybe has already gone, but how about regional airports they served - do you save them? Bicester Village retail outlets - a big earner when half of China poured through their doors with giant suitcases to fill - but how do you prop them up - and for how long? And as has been mentioned here before, the University sector - are those students coming back any time soon?
I'd be interested to know how strong BV is.
I ran a few numbers on a similar place near me - a Macarthur Glen - and it has footfall per sqm of retail 50% higher than Meadowhall.
The paper said many of his statements dated back years, but that Labour’s general secretary, Jennie Formby, had suspended him as a matter of urgency to “protect the party’s reputation”.
What the...? Not sure the Labour Party has much of a reputation left.
Will have Starmer have any way to get rid of the likes of Formby when he becomes leader?
It sounds like the left is flexing it's muscles as a warning shot to the next leader. Potentially good news for the Tories and maybe the LDs if they ever get their act together....
On-topic, are we sure Covid-19 will play badly for Trump? He has put Pence in charge; new funding has been announced; the view this is a foreign and specifically Chinese bug might chime with Trump's isolationism.
I think it's something of a bell curve in how it ends. Obviously if America isn't massively affected, Trump comes out very well (whether or not his ludicrous behaviour helped or hindered those dealing with it). If it turns into a proper global disaster he'll escape blame for things going badly and it may even play into his authoritarian instincts. However, if it's bad enough to expose the appallingly uneven nature of American healthcare and his malicious approach to governing and behaviour to those who disagree, plus recession exposes the foolishness of spunking billions on tax cuts for the rich while not fixing your society's problems, it will end very badly for him.
The other thing to bear in mind is how its viewed in each of the states.
Trump could live with a crisis in California etc so long as the Midwest thinks "what's the big deal"?
I expect that that US government will begin printing money to buy shares.
That's always been a tried and true method of propping up prices and injecting liquidity into the economy.
Of course, it always ends badly, but that's for (the day after) tomorrow.
I didn’t realise that the US were so keen on nationalising businesses.
yes, it's important to keep the distinction between the personal holdings of billionaires and government ownership, despite Trump. should have been "US government will begin printing money to give to billionaires to buy shares"
rcs1000. What do you see as the path for interest rates and over what timescale? First they will be cut. Then what? Inflation and rising interest rates? How soon? How high? What about property prices?
There's not going to be inflation concerns any time soon.
In the medium term there is the risk of the fallout from a panicked financial response.
In the short term there is the risk of supply failure. Especially given how reliant we are on China.
In the very short term there is the risk of panic buying,
The paper said many of his statements dated back years, but that Labour’s general secretary, Jennie Formby, had suspended him as a matter of urgency to “protect the party’s reputation”.
What the...? Not sure the Labour Party has much of a reputation left.
Will have Starmer have any way to get rid of the likes of Formby when he becomes leader?
Starmer won’t say anything pre election - he’s as red as Stalin and as woke as Titania McGrath - until the votes are counted...
Indian Wells tennis event, due to start today, cancelled due to a positive test in the locality. Important to me but not to most I expect. But other US sporting events may follow suit.
The scores on the doors will be much of a muchness across Europe...all our health systems will collapse and most people will probably suffer at home...but yes, in the kick off the Germans are doing quite well....
You're probably right. In the end it will be a wash.
If I had to construct a plan B (given that my North Korean autarky won't work) then I would do this: I would say to any 70 year old (or older) who presents with coronavirus; "Sorry, we cannot treat you in a hospital, here is a load of antibiotics and heroin, go home and pray".
Let God decide. But mitigate the pain.
We risk overwhelming the health system with hundreds of thousands of oldsters who may or may not live, at the expense of younger people who still have a life to live and babies to breed. Triage needs to get a bit medieval.
Eh? The whole point is that younger people aren't dying from it in any sort of significant numbers! So you'd be clearing the hospitals of old people for... who?
Young people who have a life ahead of them.
Read that doctor from Italy. Young people are getting this. And badly.
If we are faced with a terrible choice (and it is terrible) we have to save the young and the future.
One personal report vs all the medical evidence.
Death rates amongst the young are a tiny fraction of those of the elderly. You would end up with far more avoidable deaths following your plan.
There's a real possibility that the base number of infections grows so large that the tiny fraction of the young approaches the total capacity of the health care system. At that point Sir Eadrics deliberations become acutely relevant.
Sir Eadric's deliberations are mainly speculations - some aspects already shown to be imaginary - straight from his backside.
The scores on the doors will be much of a muchness across Europe...all our health systems will collapse and most people will probably suffer at home...but yes, in the kick off the Germans are doing quite well....
You're probably right. In the end it will be a wash.
If I had to construct a plan B (given that my North Korean autarky won't work) then I would do this: I would say to any 70 year old (or older) who presents with coronavirus; "Sorry, we cannot treat you in a hospital, here is a load of antibiotics and heroin, go home and pray".
Let God decide. But mitigate the pain.
We risk overwhelming the health system with hundreds of thousands of oldsters who may or may not live, at the expense of younger people who still have a life to live and babies to breed. Triage needs to get a bit medieval.
Eh? The whole point is that younger people aren't dying from it in any sort of significant numbers! So you'd be clearing the hospitals of old people for... who?
Young people who have a life ahead of them.
Read that doctor from Italy. Young people are getting this. And badly.
If we are faced with a terrible choice (and it is terrible) we have to save the young and the future.
One personal report vs all the medical evidence.
Death rates amongst the young are a tiny fraction of those of the elderly. You would end up with far more avoidable deaths following your plan.
There's a real possibility that the base number of infections grows so large that the tiny fraction of the young approaches the total capacity of the health care system. At that point Sir Eadrics deliberations become acutely relevant.
Sir Eadric's deliberations are mainly speculations - some aspects already shown to be imaginary - straight from his backside.
He has been more correct than anyone on this site, especially the likes of you.
Mr. B2, just checked and it's at $1.32 to the pound. Was $1.28 a week or so ago.
Down to the coronavirus response?
Normally in a global crisis, you see a flight to safety. But the situation in the US isn't making it look hugely safe right now, and of course a US interest cut and an expectation of another make the currency less attractive relative to others.
Basically suggesting the other reason for Wall St jitters is that they see Trump's chances as no longer a shoo-in & don't like the Democratic alternatives. Sanders would send markets into free-fall.
The scores on the doors will be much of a muchness across Europe...all our health systems will collapse and most people will probably suffer at home...but yes, in the kick off the Germans are doing quite well....
You're probably right. In the end it will be a wash.
If I had to construct a plan B (given that my North Korean autarky won't work) then I would do this: I would say to any 70 year old (or older) who presents with coronavirus; "Sorry, we cannot treat you in a hospital, here is a load of antibiotics and heroin, go home and pray".
Let God decide. But mitigate the pain.
We risk overwhelming the health system with hundreds of thousands of oldsters who may or may not live, at the expense of younger people who still have a life to live and babies to breed. Triage needs to get a bit medieval.
Eh? The whole point is that younger people aren't dying from it in any sort of significant numbers! So you'd be clearing the hospitals of old people for... who?
Young people who have a life ahead of them.
Read that doctor from Italy. Young people are getting this. And badly.
If we are faced with a terrible choice (and it is terrible) we have to save the young and the future.
One personal report vs all the medical evidence.
Death rates amongst the young are a tiny fraction of those of the elderly. You would end up with far more avoidable deaths following your plan.
There's a real possibility that the base number of infections grows so large that the tiny fraction of the young approaches the total capacity of the health care system. At that point Sir Eadrics deliberations become acutely relevant.
Sir Eadric's deliberations are mainly speculations - some aspects already shown to be imaginary - straight from his backside.
He has been more correct than anyone on this site, especially the likes of you.
Only because he has predicted everything from a benign outcome with a 0.2% death rate through to millions of Brits dying on the streets.
Before taking his claims of great foresight at face value, I recommend having a scan of his account's comments history to see just how much his position has changed.
Mr. B2, just checked and it's at $1.32 to the pound. Was $1.28 a week or so ago.
Down to the coronavirus response?
Normally in a global crisis, you see a flight to safety. But the situation in the US isn't making it look hugely safe right now, and of course a US interest cut and an expectation of another make the currency less attractive relative to others.
Gold. As I told my share gambling friend 2 months back.
rcs1000. What do you see as the path for interest rates and over what timescale? First they will be cut. Then what? Inflation and rising interest rates? How soon? How high? What about property prices?
There's not going to be inflation concerns any time soon.
In the medium term there is the risk of the fallout from a panicked financial response.
In the short term there is the risk of supply failure. Especially given how reliant we are on China.
In the very short term there is the risk of panic buying,
All three can create inflation.
In the short term even if inflation spikes it will be the last thing on people's minds. The Central Banks aren't going to raise interest rates due to a short term spike in interest rates while the economy is collapsing. Besides its worth noting that while there is a short-term panic buying of consumerables likes toilet paper, soap and foodstuffs there is a major absence of demand in other areas. The price of oil (a significant factor in inflation) is going through the floor.
In the medium term we'll see but I remain firmly of the opinion that China will be back up and running smoothly viewing this in their past before we are and certainly before the US is. China had the first sneeze but the world is catching the cold now and China has taken its medicine and is moving on.
The scores on the doors will be much of a muchness across Europe...all our health systems will collapse and most people will probably suffer at home...but yes, in the kick off the Germans are doing quite well....
You're probably right. In the end it will be a wash.
If I had to construct a plan B (given that my North Korean autarky won't work) then I would do this: I would say to any 70 year old (or older) who presents with coronavirus; "Sorry, we cannot treat you in a hospital, here is a load of antibiotics and heroin, go home and pray".
Let God decide. But mitigate the pain.
We risk overwhelming the health system with hundreds of thousands of oldsters who may or may not live, at the expense of younger people who still have a life to live and babies to breed. Triage needs to get a bit medieval.
Eh? The whole point is that younger people aren't dying from it in any sort of significant numbers! So you'd be clearing the hospitals of old people for... who?
Young people who have a life ahead of them.
Read that doctor from Italy. Young people are getting this. And badly.
If we are faced with a terrible choice (and it is terrible) we have to save the young and the future.
One personal report vs all the medical evidence.
Death rates amongst the young are a tiny fraction of those of the elderly. You would end up with far more avoidable deaths following your plan.
There's a real possibility that the base number of infections grows so large that the tiny fraction of the young approaches the total capacity of the health care system. At that point Sir Eadrics deliberations become acutely relevant.
Sir Eadric's deliberations are mainly speculations - some aspects already shown to be imaginary - straight from his backside.
He has been more correct than anyone on this site, especially the likes of you.
Given you’re the same person, you would say that, wouldn’t you?
That's pretty-much the only way I can describe it right now.
I agree with the points below. China and South Korea may be through the worst only because they have taken incredibly stringent controlling measures. The west is way too laissez-faire and we could come a bigger cropper. The US especially.
I don't think South Korea is impossibly stringent? It sounds pretty much the same as Japan: Ask people to cancel large events and work from home, expand school holidays to shut down schools early/late etc.
If this works - and there should be data from Japan in the next week or two - it's very encouraging, as it's pretty much life continuing as normal. Factories are still running, deliveries are still working, people are still getting their jobs done. A lot of face-to-face stuff has to move online, but that may actually turn out to be *positive* for productivity.
I don't think there's anything there that couldn't easily be implemented in the UK, and TBH I'm mildly mystified that they're not doing it already.
I think you misunderstand. S Korea has more pervasive (& more modern) CCTV than we do, together with a capacity to mass trace financial transactions (particularly the nationwide travel card) that Japan or we don’t have. And they were particularly quick to take powers to act against individuals and groups not cooperating with the attempt to control the outbreak.
The scores on the doors will be much of a muchness across Europe...all our health systems will collapse and most people will probably suffer at home...but yes, in the kick off the Germans are doing quite well....
You're probably right. In the end it will be a wash.
If I had to construct a plan B (given that my North Korean autarky won't work) then I would do this: I would say to any 70 year old (or older) who presents with coronavirus; "Sorry, we cannot treat you in a hospital, here is a load of antibiotics and heroin, go home and pray".
Let God decide. But mitigate the pain.
We risk overwhelming the health system with hundreds of thousands of oldsters who may or may not live, at the expense of younger people who still have a life to live and babies to breed. Triage needs to get a bit medieval.
Eh? The whole point is that younger people aren't dying from it in any sort of significant numbers! So you'd be clearing the hospitals of old people for... who?
Young people who have a life ahead of them.
Read that doctor from Italy. Young people are getting this. And badly.
If we are faced with a terrible choice (and it is terrible) we have to save the young and the future.
One personal report vs all the medical evidence.
Death rates amongst the young are a tiny fraction of those of the elderly. You would end up with far more avoidable deaths following your plan.
There's a real possibility that the base number of infections grows so large that the tiny fraction of the young approaches the total capacity of the health care system. At that point Sir Eadrics deliberations become acutely relevant.
Sir Eadric's deliberations are mainly speculations - some aspects already shown to be imaginary - straight from his backside.
He has been more correct than anyone on this site, especially the likes of you.
Only because he has predicted everything from a benign outcome with a 0.2% death rate through to millions of Brits dying on the streets.
Before taking his claims of great foresight at face value, I recommend having a scan of his account's comments history to see just how much his position has changed.
Also alternating between “x/y/z are the measures we MUST take to combat this, regardless of consequences to other areas of ecomony and knock on effects” to “what will happen will happen, there’s nothing we can do. Save yourselves”
rcs1000. What do you see as the path for interest rates and over what timescale? First they will be cut. Then what? Inflation and rising interest rates? How soon? How high? What about property prices?
I reckon the US had in mind a follow through cut at its next monthly meeting. But fast moving events may prompt them to act earlier with a surprise cut.
The trouble is that this is a financial move intended to boost confidence in financial markets, but does little to help real businesses facing a collapse in their customer base (or, in some cases, inability to carry out their trade, at least temporarily). They will be seen to be doing it for want of anything else they can do - which is why the lift from last week's cut has been temporary and weak.
I still think we'll see inflation arising from this, but probably not until year end. Index linked bonds are rising in price, and are seen as a safe haven and probably a good investment right now.
The housing market will stagnate while this crisis endures, since who would want to move house right now? In a thin market this ought to mean that the few properties there are on offer will need to be marked down to attract interest. Longer term, it may well depend on the death rate, which in the worse scenarios would put a lot of property onto the market at once.
Crude oil $35 a barrel and falling - surely that helps Trump.
Brent crude is still at $58 and not falling , it is US and Saudi muck that is falling.
Brent always carries a premium over US crude, but not that big a premium. I wonder why such a difference right now? Indicates something but I'm not sure what.
Is that graph not pretty meaningless without the context of what each country is doing in terms of testing?
It is as much use as an ashtray on a motorbike, just a big jumble of coloured lines that few people would even bother to try and understand, a geek's delight.
Personally I’m bloody terrified of this (more because I have elderly parents - one who still works as a GP) but I prefer to look in the positive side as much as possible. And in an old fashioned way, to trust the Govt to act proportionately, yet decisively.
Crude oil $35 a barrel and falling - surely that helps Trump.
Brent crude is still at $58 and not falling , it is US and Saudi muck that is falling.
Brent always carries a premium over US crude, but not that big a premium. I wonder why such a difference right now? Indicates something but I'm not sure what.
Corona virus: HMG might do well to announce that it will buy any booked but unused holidays to covid-19 hotspots, so that people do not face any financial loss from doing the right thing.
But then, won't Boris use them?
Most people who can afford holidays of this kind will be well able to absorb any losses out of their own funds. And should do so. Given the looming crisis government support should be focussed where there is real need and it can do real good.
Hell of a job trying to work out where that will be. If Thomas Cook hadn't already gone, this would have given it the final shove. Do we save remaining travel agents? Flybe has already gone, but how about regional airports they served - do you save them? Bicester Village retail outlets - a big earner when half of China poured through their doors with giant suitcases to fill - but how do you prop them up - and for how long? And as has been mentioned here before, the University sector - are those students coming back any time soon?
You cut interest rates to zero. You engage in a bit of quantitative easing. You put pressure on the banks to not foreclose, and to be generous with refinancing.
But here's the thing. If the airport goes bust, then the investors lose all their money. But the runways are still there. It will (in all likelihood) be profitable when people start flying again.
Likewise airlines. You can let them go to the wall. The planes still exist. So someone's going to buy then for 60 cents in the dollar, and will start New Air.
Yes, that sucks for the original investors in FlyBe or whoever. But it's not the end of the world.
Which would be fine, if not for the systemic risk. If it were just the FliBees, then it wouldn’t be a problem. If enough majors go down, then you start worrying about Boeing... and that’s just the airline industry, which is far from the only one deeply impacted.
Governments might need to be a bit more interventionist for the next six months.
The scores on the doors will be much of a muchness across Europe...all our health systems will collapse and most people will probably suffer at home...but yes, in the kick off the Germans are doing quite well....
You're probably right. In the end it will be a wash.
If I had to construct a plan B (given that my North Korean autarky won't work) then I would do this: I would say to any 70 year old (or older) who presents with coronavirus; "Sorry, we cannot treat you in a hospital, here is a load of antibiotics and heroin, go home and pray".
Let God decide. But mitigate the pain.
We risk overwhelming the health system with hundreds of thousands of oldsters who may or may not live, at the expense of younger people who still have a life to live and babies to breed. Triage needs to get a bit medieval.
Eh? The whole point is that younger people aren't dying from it in any sort of significant numbers! So you'd be clearing the hospitals of old people for... who?
Young people who have a life ahead of them.
Read that doctor from Italy. Young people are getting this. And badly.
If we are faced with a terrible choice (and it is terrible) we have to save the young and the future.
One personal report vs all the medical evidence.
Death rates amongst the young are a tiny fraction of those of the elderly. You would end up with far more avoidable deaths following your plan.
There's a real possibility that the base number of infections grows so large that the tiny fraction of the young approaches the total capacity of the health care system. At that point Sir Eadrics deliberations become acutely relevant.
Sir Eadric's deliberations are mainly speculations - some aspects already shown to be imaginary - straight from his backside.
He has been more correct than anyone on this site, especially the likes of you.
Only because he has predicted everything from a benign outcome with a 0.2% death rate through to millions of Brits dying on the streets.
Before taking his claims of great foresight at face value, I recommend having a scan of his account's comments history to see just how much his position has changed.
Also alternating between “x/y/z are the measures we MUST take to combat this, regardless of consequences to other areas of ecomony and knock on effects” to “what will happen will happen, there’s nothing we can do. Save yourselves”
He's like a football pundit that says "I think they might lose. They might win though and there's a possibility there could be a draw". Then after the result says "I TOLD YOU that [result] would happen."
Crude oil $35 a barrel and falling - surely that helps Trump.
Brent crude is still at $58 and not falling , it is US and Saudi muck that is falling.
Brent always carries a premium over US crude, but not that big a premium. I wonder why such a difference right now? Indicates something but I'm not sure what.
Its hugely down
Yes but its currently got a 65% premium over US crude. That's not normal.
Laying Trump for the presidency looks safe, at least as a trading bet. If, as looks pretty likely, Covid-19 spreads much more widely in the USA, his price can be expected to lengthen further.
The scores on the doors will be much of a muchness across Europe...all our health systems will collapse and most people will probably suffer at home...but yes, in the kick off the Germans are doing quite well....
You're probably right. In the end it will be a wash.
If I had to construct a plan B (given that my North Korean autarky won't work) then I would do this: I would say to any 70 year old (or older) who presents with coronavirus; "Sorry, we cannot treat you in a hospital, here is a load of antibiotics and heroin, go home and pray".
Let God decide. But mitigate the pain.
We risk overwhelming the health system with hundreds of thousands of oldsters who may or may not live, at the expense of younger people who still have a life to live and babies to breed. Triage needs to get a bit medieval.
Eh? The whole point is that younger people aren't dying from it in any sort of significant numbers! So you'd be clearing the hospitals of old people for... who?
Young people who have a life ahead of them.
Read that doctor from Italy. Young people are getting this. And badly.
If we are faced with a terrible choice (and it is terrible) we have to save the young and the future.
One personal report vs all the medical evidence.
Death rates amongst the young are a tiny fraction of those of the elderly. You would end up with far more avoidable deaths following your plan.
There's a real possibility that the base number of infections grows so large that the tiny fraction of the young approaches the total capacity of the health care system. At that point Sir Eadrics deliberations become acutely relevant.
Sir Eadric's deliberations are mainly speculations - some aspects already shown to be imaginary - straight from his backside.
He has been more correct than anyone on this site, especially the likes of you.
Only because he has predicted everything from a benign outcome with a 0.2% death rate through to millions of Brits dying on the streets.
Before taking his claims of great foresight at face value, I recommend having a scan of his account's comments history to see just how much his position has changed.
Also alternating between “x/y/z are the measures we MUST take to combat this, regardless of consequences to other areas of ecomony and knock on effects” to “what will happen will happen, there’s nothing we can do. Save yourselves”
He's like a football pundit that says "I think they might lose. They might win though and there's a possibility there could be a draw". Then after the result says "I TOLD YOU that [result] would happen."
And one that, in the closing minutes of the match, repeats over and over that he always said the leading team would win.....
I went looking for his supposed financial advice of a month ago telling people to sell everything, and all I found were comments predicting things wouldn't be so bad.
The scores on the doors will be much of a muchness across Europe...all our health systems will collapse and most people will probably suffer at home...but yes, in the kick off the Germans are doing quite well....
You're probably right. In the end it will be a wash.
If I had to construct a plan B (given that my North Korean autarky won't work) then I would do this: I would say to any 70 year old (or older) who presents with coronavirus; "Sorry, we cannot treat you in a hospital, here is a load of antibiotics and heroin, go home and pray".
Let God decide. But mitigate the pain.
We risk overwhelming the health system with hundreds of thousands of oldsters who may or may not live, at the expense of younger people who still have a life to live and babies to breed. Triage needs to get a bit medieval.
Comrade...why should a 70 year old or 80 year old pass over treatment in preference to a younger person???
Surely the clinical presentation takes priority--and on that basis the elderly and those with co-morbidity must be prioritised.....
No, that's wrong. This is beyond normal protocol. Save the young.
Just outrageous and you are so wrong.
It's late. eadric is back into this being Black Death mk III mode.
Unfortunately he is correct , the NHS has scarce resources and as you get to the really ill stage decisions have to be made as to who gets the very scarce intensive care resources. I had experience of it recently.
The scores on the doors will be much of a muchness across Europe...all our health systems will collapse and most people will probably suffer at home...but yes, in the kick off the Germans are doing quite well....
You're probably right. In the end it will be a wash.
If I had to construct a plan B (given that my North Korean autarky won't work) then I would do this: I would say to any 70 year old (or older) who presents with coronavirus; "Sorry, we cannot treat you in a hospital, here is a load of antibiotics and heroin, go home and pray".
Let God decide. But mitigate the pain.
We risk overwhelming the health system with hundreds of thousands of oldsters who may or may not live, at the expense of younger people who still have a life to live and babies to breed. Triage needs to get a bit medieval.
Comrade...why should a 70 year old or 80 year old pass over treatment in preference to a younger person???
Surely the clinical presentation takes priority--and on that basis the elderly and those with co-morbidity must be prioritised.....
No, that's wrong. This is beyond normal protocol. Save the young.
I wonder if we can resurrect Goebbels et al....the gypsies and the jews...let's not treat those...
Sorry...but just where your argument takes us Ead
Triage will have to happen at some point. If you have two candidates for the last ECMO bed, both equally ill but one is 25, the other 65 there's no contest as to which should get the bed.
The reality is that most people appearing critically ill will be older and admitted...
If this crisis forces us to lose our compassion to old people...then sadly it is a country that has lost its perspective.....
No, a real perspective is achieved when you run out of hospital beds and respirators. Then you have to CHOOSE who gets to live.
Who do you choose? Doctors will be doing this in Italy already. As they did in Wuhan. I do not envy them, and I salute their bravery.
This is surely going to be the worst context for the budget since at least 2010, arguably even worse. What do you do to avoid a perception of either panic or total irrelevance?
The OBR figures of a couple of weeks ago are for an entirely different world and have almost no relevance to what we are facing. Hell of a challenge for a pretty much unknown Chancellor with no track record to give credibility.
The scores on the doors will be much of a muchness across Europe...all our health systems will collapse and most people will probably suffer at home...but yes, in the kick off the Germans are doing quite well....
You're probably right. In the end it will be a wash.
If I had to construct a plan B (given that my North Korean autarky won't work) then I would do this: I would say to any 70 year old (or older) who presents with coronavirus; "Sorry, we cannot treat you in a hospital, here is a load of antibiotics and heroin, go home and pray".
Let God decide. But mitigate the pain.
We risk overwhelming the health system with hundreds of thousands of oldsters who may or may not live, at the expense of younger people who still have a life to live and babies to breed. Triage needs to get a bit medieval.
Eh? The whole point is that younger people aren't dying from it in any sort of significant numbers! So you'd be clearing the hospitals of old people for... who?
Young people who have a life ahead of them.
Read that doctor from Italy. Young people are getting this. And badly.
If we are faced with a terrible choice (and it is terrible) we have to save the young and the future.
One personal report vs all the medical evidence.
Death rates amongst the young are a tiny fraction of those of the elderly. You would end up with far more avoidable deaths following your plan.
There's a real possibility that the base number of infections grows so large that the tiny fraction of the young approaches the total capacity of the health care system. At that point Sir Eadrics deliberations become acutely relevant.
Sir Eadric's deliberations are mainly speculations - some aspects already shown to be imaginary - straight from his backside.
He has been more correct than anyone on this site, especially the likes of you.
Only because he has predicted everything from a benign outcome with a 0.2% death rate through to millions of Brits dying on the streets.
Before taking his claims of great foresight at face value, I recommend having a scan of his account's comments history to see just how much his position has changed.
You’re bringing facts to a death masturbatathon. Unwelcome.
Many of yesterday evening’s posts show the danger of drinking and posting.
The scores on the doors will be much of a muchness across Europe...all our health systems will collapse and most people will probably suffer at home...but yes, in the kick off the Germans are doing quite well....
You're probably right. In the end it will be a wash.
If I had to construct a plan B (given that my North Korean autarky won't work) then I would do this: I would say to any 70 year old (or older) who presents with coronavirus; "Sorry, we cannot treat you in a hospital, here is a load of antibiotics and heroin, go home and pray".
Let God decide. But mitigate the pain.
We risk overwhelming the health system with hundreds of thousands of oldsters who may or may not live, at the expense of younger people who still have a life to live and babies to breed. Triage needs to get a bit medieval.
Comrade...why should a 70 year old or 80 year old pass over treatment in preference to a younger person???
Surely the clinical presentation takes priority--and on that basis the elderly and those with co-morbidity must be prioritised.....
No, that's wrong. This is beyond normal protocol. Save the young.
I wonder if we can resurrect Goebbels et al....the gypsies and the jews...let's not treat those...
Sorry...but just where your argument takes us Ead
Triage will have to happen at some point. If you have two candidates for the last ECMO bed, both equally ill but one is 25, the other 65 there's no contest as to which should get the bed.
The reality is that most people appearing critically ill will be older and admitted...
If this crisis forces us to lose our compassion to old people...then sadly it is a country that has lost its perspective.....
No, a real perspective is achieved when you run out of hospital beds and respirators. Then you have to CHOOSE who gets to live.
Who do you choose? Doctors will be doing this in Italy already. As they did in Wuhan. I do not envy them, and I salute their bravery.
Crude oil $35 a barrel and falling - surely that helps Trump.
Brent crude is still at $58 and not falling , it is US and Saudi muck that is falling.
Brent always carries a premium over US crude, but not that big a premium. I wonder why such a difference right now? Indicates something but I'm not sure what.
The scores on the doors will be much of a muchness across Europe...all our health systems will collapse and most people will probably suffer at home...but yes, in the kick off the Germans are doing quite well....
You're probably right. In the end it will be a wash.
If I had to construct a plan B (given that my North Korean autarky won't work) then I would do this: I would say to any 70 year old (or older) who presents with coronavirus; "Sorry, we cannot treat you in a hospital, here is a load of antibiotics and heroin, go home and pray".
Let God decide. But mitigate the pain.
We risk overwhelming the health system with hundreds of thousands of oldsters who may or may not live, at the expense of younger people who still have a life to live and babies to breed. Triage needs to get a bit medieval.
Eh? The whole point is that younger people aren't dying from it in any sort of significant numbers! So you'd be clearing the hospitals of old people for... who?
Young people who have a life ahead of them.
Read that doctor from Italy. Young people are getting this. And badly.
If we are faced with a terrible choice (and it is terrible) we have to save the young and the future.
One personal report vs all the medical evidence.
Death rates amongst the young are a tiny fraction of those of the elderly. You would end up with far more avoidable deaths following your plan.
There's a real possibility that the base number of infections grows so large that the tiny fraction of the young approaches the total capacity of the health care system. At that point Sir Eadrics deliberations become acutely relevant.
Yes and if my granny had had bollox she would ...................
The scores on the doors will be much of a muchness across Europe...all our health systems will collapse and most people will probably suffer at home...but yes, in the kick off the Germans are doing quite well....
You're probably right. In the end it will be a wash.
If I had to construct a plan B (given that my North Korean autarky won't work) then I would do this: I would say to any 70 year old (or older) who presents with coronavirus; "Sorry, we cannot treat you in a hospital, here is a load of antibiotics and heroin, go home and pray".
Let God decide. But mitigate the pain.
We risk overwhelming the health system with hundreds of thousands of oldsters who may or may not live, at the expense of younger people who still have a life to live and babies to breed. Triage needs to get a bit medieval.
Eh? The whole point is that younger people aren't dying from it in any sort of significant numbers! So you'd be clearing the hospitals of old people for... who?
Young people who have a life ahead of them.
Read that doctor from Italy. Young people are getting this. And badly.
If we are faced with a terrible choice (and it is terrible) we have to save the young and the future.
One personal report vs all the medical evidence.
Death rates amongst the young are a tiny fraction of those of the elderly. You would end up with far more avoidable deaths following your plan.
There's a real possibility that the base number of infections grows so large that the tiny fraction of the young approaches the total capacity of the health care system. At that point Sir Eadrics deliberations become acutely relevant.
Yes and if my granny had had bollox she would ...................
The scores on the doors will be much of a muchness across Europe...all our health systems will collapse and most people will probably suffer at home...but yes, in the kick off the Germans are doing quite well....
You're probably right. In the end it will be a wash.
If I had to construct a plan B (given that my North Korean autarky won't work) then I would do this: I would say to any 70 year old (or older) who presents with coronavirus; "Sorry, we cannot treat you in a hospital, here is a load of antibiotics and heroin, go home and pray".
Let God decide. But mitigate the pain.
We risk overwhelming the health system with hundreds of thousands of oldsters who may or may not live, at the expense of younger people who still have a life to live and babies to breed. Triage needs to get a bit medieval.
Eh? The whole point is that younger people aren't dying from it in any sort of significant numbers! So you'd be clearing the hospitals of old people for... who?
Young people who have a life ahead of them.
Read that doctor from Italy. Young people are getting this. And badly.
If we are faced with a terrible choice (and it is terrible) we have to save the young and the future.
One personal report vs all the medical evidence.
Death rates amongst the young are a tiny fraction of those of the elderly. You would end up with far more avoidable deaths following your plan.
There's a real possibility that the base number of infections grows so large that the tiny fraction of the young approaches the total capacity of the health care system. At that point Sir Eadrics deliberations become acutely relevant.
Sir Eadric's deliberations are mainly speculations - some aspects already shown to be imaginary - straight from his backside.
He has been more correct than anyone on this site, especially the likes of you.
The scores on the doors will be much of a muchness across Europe...all our health systems will collapse and most people will probably suffer at home...but yes, in the kick off the Germans are doing quite well....
You're probably right. In the end it will be a wash.
If I had to construct a plan B (given that my North Korean autarky won't work) then I would do this: I would say to any 70 year old (or older) who presents with coronavirus; "Sorry, we cannot treat you in a hospital, here is a load of antibiotics and heroin, go home and pray".
Let God decide. But mitigate the pain.
We risk overwhelming the health system with hundreds of thousands of oldsters who may or may not live, at the expense of younger people who still have a life to live and babies to breed. Triage needs to get a bit medieval.
Eh? The whole point is that younger people aren't dying from it in any sort of significant numbers! So you'd be clearing the hospitals of old people for... who?
Young people who have a life ahead of them.
Read that doctor from Italy. Young people are getting this. And badly.
If we are faced with a terrible choice (and it is terrible) we have to save the young and the future.
One personal report vs all the medical evidence.
Death rates amongst the young are a tiny fraction of those of the elderly. You would end up with far more avoidable deaths following your plan.
There's a real possibility that the base number of infections grows so large that the tiny fraction of the young approaches the total capacity of the health care system. At that point Sir Eadrics deliberations become acutely relevant.
Sir Eadric's deliberations are mainly speculations - some aspects already shown to be imaginary - straight from his backside.
He has been more correct than anyone on this site, especially the likes of you.
I really would recommend going and looking at his comment history and matching it up against his claims, rather than posting stuff like this.
The scores on the doors will be much of a muchness across Europe...all our health systems will collapse and most people will probably suffer at home...but yes, in the kick off the Germans are doing quite well....
You're probably right. In the end it will be a wash.
If I had to construct a plan B (given that my North Korean autarky won't work) then I would do this: I would say to any 70 year old (or older) who presents with coronavirus; "Sorry, we cannot treat you in a hospital, here is a load of antibiotics and heroin, go home and pray".
Let God decide. But mitigate the pain.
We risk overwhelming the health system with hundreds of thousands of oldsters who may or may not live, at the expense of younger people who still have a life to live and babies to breed. Triage needs to get a bit medieval.
Comrade...why should a 70 year old or 80 year old pass over treatment in preference to a younger person???
Surely the clinical presentation takes priority--and on that basis the elderly and those with co-morbidity must be prioritised.....
No, that's wrong. This is beyond normal protocol. Save the young.
I wonder if we can resurrect Goebbels et al....the gypsies and the jews...let's not treat those...
Sorry...but just where your argument takes us Ead
Triage will have to happen at some point. If you have two candidates for the last ECMO bed, both equally ill but one is 25, the other 65 there's no contest as to which should get the bed.
The reality is that most people appearing critically ill will be older and admitted...
If this crisis forces us to lose our compassion to old people...then sadly it is a country that has lost its perspective.....
No, a real perspective is achieved when you run out of hospital beds and respirators. Then you have to CHOOSE who gets to live.
Who do you choose? Doctors will be doing this in Italy already. As they did in Wuhan. I do not envy them, and I salute their bravery.
They do it every day in the UK at present
Not by telling old people to f*** off and die.
No but they are quite blunt about it, having just had the experience of my wife being measured up, they were not all sugar and spice. It was a very blunt case of I am here to decide whether it is worth giving you an ICU bed, it was quite shocking to be fair.
Comments
But here's the thing. If the airport goes bust, then the investors lose all their money. But the runways are still there. It will (in all likelihood) be profitable when people start flying again.
Likewise airlines. You can let them go to the wall. The planes still exist. So someone's going to buy then for 60 cents in the dollar, and will start New Air.
Yes, that sucks for the original investors in FlyBe or whoever. But it's not the end of the world.
I ran a few numbers on a similar place near me - a Macarthur Glen - and it has footfall per sqm of retail 50% higher than Meadowhall.
Trump could live with a crisis in California etc so long as the Midwest thinks "what's the big deal"?
In the short term there is the risk of supply failure. Especially given how reliant we are on China.
In the very short term there is the risk of panic buying,
All three can create inflation.
Obviously doesn’t help those without insurance though!
Mr. B2, just checked and it's at $1.32 to the pound. Was $1.28 a week or so ago.
Down to the coronavirus response?
Got cold symptoms myself but the nhs 111 online questionnaire says keep calm and carry on, take paracetamol or ibuprofen for any pain/fever.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51668495
Basically suggesting the other reason for Wall St jitters is that they see Trump's chances as no longer a shoo-in & don't like the Democratic alternatives. Sanders would send markets into free-fall.
Before taking his claims of great foresight at face value, I recommend having a scan of his account's comments history to see just how much his position has changed.
In the medium term we'll see but I remain firmly of the opinion that China will be back up and running smoothly viewing this in their past before we are and certainly before the US is. China had the first sneeze but the world is catching the cold now and China has taken its medicine and is moving on.
And they were particularly quick to take powers to act against individuals and groups not cooperating with the attempt to control the outbreak.
The trouble is that this is a financial move intended to boost confidence in financial markets, but does little to help real businesses facing a collapse in their customer base (or, in some cases, inability to carry out their trade, at least temporarily). They will be seen to be doing it for want of anything else they can do - which is why the lift from last week's cut has been temporary and weak.
I still think we'll see inflation arising from this, but probably not until year end. Index linked bonds are rising in price, and are seen as a safe haven and probably a good investment right now.
The housing market will stagnate while this crisis endures, since who would want to move house right now? In a thin market this ought to mean that the few properties there are on offer will need to be marked down to attract interest. Longer term, it may well depend on the death rate, which in the worse scenarios would put a lot of property onto the market at once.
If it were just the FliBees, then it wouldn’t be a problem. If enough majors go down, then you start worrying about Boeing... and that’s just the airline industry, which is far from the only one deeply impacted.
Governments might need to be a bit more interventionist for the next six months.
I went looking for his supposed financial advice of a month ago telling people to sell everything, and all I found were comments predicting things wouldn't be so bad.
The OBR figures of a couple of weeks ago are for an entirely different world and have almost no relevance to what we are facing. Hell of a challenge for a pretty much unknown Chancellor with no track record to give credibility.
Many of yesterday evening’s posts show the danger of drinking and posting.
IDN Poker
Pastipoker
But then, I had ex-SAS close protection. And hand sanitizer.
NEW THREAD