I would be more confident in the UK response if I knew about the non-populist, science-based measures the UK government is taking, which the Italians haven't.
Johnson is chairing his weekly crisis meeting today so no doubt we'll get an update.
That quote sounds exactly like Cummings. He clearly sees this as a test of his approach.
It certainly shows Cummings influence. "Science-based" is a soundbite continually used by the Johnson government, which is nevertheless the most ideological administration in all of UK history.
It's so cool that your view of the administration as ideologically based rather than science based, is, itself, ideologically based.
I definitely have an empirical basis for saying this government is ideologically driven to an unusual degree. See my other post on its approach to negotiations with the EU. Also note this government never comes up with a cause and effect justification for what it does: we do this in this way to achieve such and such a desirable outcome. "Get Brexit done" doesn't count.
The government is rationally ideologically driven on Brexit, since Brexit was an ideological divide and the advocates of Brexit are now in charge. There is no point in Brexiting but not taking advantage of Brexit's opportunities, that is why May was such a dismal failure.
Don't know how accurate this might be, but interesting.
China optimizes treatment for novel coronavirus disease https://www.shine.cn/news/nation/2003063629/ China has expanded and optimized the utilization of drugs and therapies in the treatment of the novel coronavirus disease to block the conversion of mild cases to severe cases and save critically ill patients.
Tocilizumab, with the common brand name Actemra, has been included in China's latest version of diagnosis and treatment guidelines on COVID-19.
Zhou Qi, deputy secretary-general and an academician of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, said at a press conference Friday that the drug Tocilizumab has been found effective to block the inducement of the inflammatory storm.
In an initial clinical trial, Tocilizumab was used in 20 severe COVID-19 cases. And the body temperatures of all the patients dropped within one day. Nineteen of the patients were discharged from the hospital within two weeks, and one got better, according to Zhou.
Currently, the drug is under clinical trials in 14 hospitals in Wuhan, the epicenter of the epidemic, Zhou said.
As of March 5, a total of 272 severe patients had been treated with Tocilizumab....
I think this touches on an absolutely key point. Whether or not that particular drug proves to be effective, what will matter a lot is whether some combination of anti-viral drugs can be found to be effective in preventing cases spiralling into the need for intensive care. If so, then clearly the impact of the pandemic will be much less serious, both in economic terms and of course for the patients affected.
There has been much discussion about vaccines, but those won't be available before at least a year, maybe more. However, research on using existing anti-virals is also proceeding, and since these are already licensed as safe to use, can be deployed much more quickly, if we're lucky that they prove to be effective. Fingers crossed on that one, it's probably the best hope of limiting this scourge.
My understanding since this began has been that appropriate anti-virals not (despite media attention) vaccination is the key to what happens with this wave, at least with regards to fatality rate. But the thing I'm not sure about and would appreciate an expert answer to is - how easy would it be to step up production of whichever anti-virals prove most effective? Demand for anything which seems to make a difference is surely going to jump through the roof globally - I presume a lot of traditional effectiveness and cost-effectiveness assessments would be rushed through, procedures skipped if necessary. Would there be capacity to meet this kind of demand? Would certain countries get priority? Opinion of @Charles or another subject expert would be greatly appreciated.
Interesting hint of the political battle to come this morning in R4 this morning. How well prepared are we for Coronavirus? Did austerity help by impacting deficit or did it hinder by degrading our health and social care capability?
The political legacy may be a reverse of the credit crunch. Labour spent a bit too much and took their eyes of the ball but were mostly unfairly blamed for what was a global issue for a decade.
It could easily play the same way for the right over coronavirus, whatever they had done in terms of austerity probably wouldnt have made much difference on this issue, but its an obvious (if unfair and largely incorrect) conclusion to make that austerity is to blame.
That only works if the UK deaths are worse than say Germany or France.
In a global event, the obvious thing to do is compare the UK to other similar countries.
The Tories have an enormous advantage that the UK are behind Italy, France and Germany in terms of timescale.
Only if the UK death rate is say double the German or French one will it pan out as you say.
How much did the public compare what happened in the UK re credit crunch with the rest of the world? If your in charge when it happens (and the build up to it) you get the blame. You are assigning the great British public far too much rationality.
Greatly. The public rightly recognised that what happened in the UK was much worse than what happened in the rest of the world thanks to Gordon Brown's mismanagement and blamed him accordingly.
Not sure much of southern Europe would agree with you.
Yes they would. Much of Southern Europe's governments had also mismanaged their economies like Gordon Brown had mismanaged Britain's. The voters of those nations paid attention and ejected their governments like we did ours, while voters in nations that hadn't mismanaged the economy unlike Brown were less likely to eject their government in response. See for example Canada.
Gordon Brown did not mismanage the economy. Southern Europe was screwed by Germany and the Euro. Canada's rapid recovery was largely due to exports to China and the United States, aided by a drop in exchange rates. See also Australia.
Gordon Brown did mismanage the economy. Are you a deficit denier still? Its hard to imagine they still exist, its like meeting a climate change denier.
The deficit exists, is important but rarely the most important thing. You might also recall that before the global financial crisis, our deficit was low by international standards and also low by our own historical standards. Osborne's focus on the deficit flatlined the recovery he inherited from Labour; stimulating growth would have been a better way to reduce the deficit. It is ironic that Osborne's austerity was a factor in losing the Brexit referendum and ending his own political career.
One of the reasons the GFC was so damaging to Britain - longer and deeper than almost every other country in the developed world - was because Brown had so mismanaged the economy prior to the crash. He didn't cause the crash but he made sure the UK economy suffered more than many others and for longer than was necessary.
Let's hope we're not reading this in 10 year's time:
One of the reasons the Covid-19 crisis was so damaging to Britain - longer and deeper than almost every other country in the developed world - was because the Conservatives had so starved the NHS of cash prior to the crisis. They didn't cause the crash but he made sure the UK suffered more than many others and for longer than was necessary.
That might well be the case though I hope not of course. Not because I care about Boris and his Government but because of the people who will have died as a result.
But of course the difference between yours and mine is that mine is a matter of historic fact whereas yours is currently a bit of speculative fiction.
Indeed, one is undeniably in the past and the other is ahead of us; hard to avoid speculation when talking about the future.
I notice you say nothing of the damage caused to our recovery by the Cameron/Osborne ideological determination to cut spending deeply (rather than tax those who could afford to pay, and who in many indstances had benefitted from the boom years ahead of the GFC).
Gordon Brown did mismanage the economy. Are you a deficit denier still? Its hard to imagine they still exist, its like meeting a climate change denier.
They are easy to find. Wait for the budget, look for the current UK PM, Chancellor and cabinet.
The current UK, PM and Cabinet should be expected to increase the deficit in a downturn. The problem of Brown's mismanagement isn't that the deficit swelled during the downturn - it is that he blew the surplus and turned it into a maxed out deficit BEFORE the downturn.
If it was maxed out then it could not have increased but it did so it wasn't. The credit card analogy is nonsensical.
The issue was he believed his own hype about abolishing boom and bust
He basically took a cyclical surplus and used it to justify a massive increase in structural spending
Dunno if this is a good comparison Malc. Most Brits don't have a bidet or feel comfortable with using a tabo or similar, so toilet paper is perceived as a "necessity" (however many billions of people get by today or got by historically without it, including Brits from just a few generations back). .
I'm going to wipe my arse on the Telegraph and then post it to Laurence Fox.
One day someone might have to wipe your arse for you. I hope they are very careless in doing so.
He needs to be winning Washington State by about 30 points to have a sniff I think.
Sanders has no chance, except that Biden screws it up or is otherwise forced to pull out.
He doesn't have a chance even then, they'll go for Buttigieg, or Warren if Biden falls under a bus.
Its hard to tell. Especially if Biden shoots himself metaphorically but doesn't pull out then Sanders is the natural go-to back up for voters yet to vote.
Effectively the market is saying ~1% chance that Sanders wins this himself and ~6% that Biden screws up handing it to Sanders.
My understanding since this began has been that appropriate anti-virals not (despite media attention) vaccination is the key to what happens with this wave, at least with regards to fatality rate. But the thing I'm not sure about and would appreciate an expert answer to is - how easy would it be to step up production of whichever anti-virals prove most effective? Demand for anything which seems to make a difference is surely going to jump through the roof globally - I presume a lot of traditional effectiveness and cost-effectiveness assessments would be rushed through, procedures skipped if necessary. Would there be capacity to meet this kind of demand? Would certain countries get priority? Opinion of @Charles or another subject expert would be greatly appreciated.
Yes, it's a very good question. I imagine it would depend on exactly which drug(s) were identified as useful.
Indeed, one is undeniably in the past and the other is ahead of us; hard to avoid speculation when talking about the future.
I notice you say nothing of the damage caused to our recovery by the Cameron/Osborne ideological determination to cut spending deeply (rather than tax those who could afford to pay, and who in many indstances had benefitted from the boom years ahead of the GFC).
Because there's no evidence of damage to our recovery. In the past decade we've grown faster than the Eurozone grew. Despite "Tory austerity" or "Brexit" or whatever else you want to moan about.
Daily new cases of coronavirus are decreasing in China and South Korea, but increasing in most countries in Europe including the UK. Some Chinese students in UK universities are said to be unhappy with the government's response to the crisis and are returning to China.
Boris Johnson has recommended frequent handwashing but has also been shaking hands with many people at a sporting event. Surely this is contradictory behaviour and maybe there is politics behind it. The government should look at what other countries are doing that is working, if we are not doing the same things, before the situation gets much worse and take the required action.
I think that if someone is grieving for their dead Uncle Bob it's not much solace to them if a Minister argues that if they'd been in Italy they would have had it worse and their Aunt Alice would have died too.
This is not to say that I expect the government to be blamed, but I don't think relative performance will be the determining factor.
Britain might arguably have been better prepared for WWII than France, but it didn't do Chamberlain much good.
We were better prepared than France but the Frogs weren't our rivals. We weren't as prepared as the Nazis.
People die every day of every year. I'm hopeful my octagenarian and nonagenarian grandparents survive this, but accept that morbidity is an issue for everyone ultimately.
The French aren't our rivals this time either. The virus is.
My concern is that in delaying further measures to protect the economy from undue stress, Boris will end up exposing the NHS to stress that it cannot manage without there being excess deaths due to lack of ICU capacity, trained staff and equipment.
We'll see. Perhaps his timing will be optimal. I certainly hope so.
Ultimately that’s the heart of the decision he needs to make. Unknown risk vs certain economic damage
If he gets it wrong he will be correctly punished
That's the problem with being a politician once you've won power the only way from there is backward..
And no matter which decision Boris makes now people will argue it's the wrong one
Small deficit? It was maxed out at the limit of the "stability pact" that Labour claimed they were following. Considering it had been a surplus only a few years earlier and there'd been no downturn since it was unprecedented since the war to see the deficit blow out like that without a downturn and left us massively exposed.
Had the government been running a small surplus (as the Tories were running when the UK had last had a recession) then the resulting correction would have been manageable. Unfortunately Brown thought he'd abolished boom and bust.
I said modest. Which it was. About 3%. Nobody other than Tory propagandists would with a straight face suggest that this - rather than the malfunction of a bloated and poorly regulated financial sector - is the main thing to focus on when discussing the impact on the UK of the Global Financial Crisis.
Indeed, one is undeniably in the past and the other is ahead of us; hard to avoid speculation when talking about the future.
I notice you say nothing of the damage caused to our recovery by the Cameron/Osborne ideological determination to cut spending deeply (rather than tax those who could afford to pay, and who in many indstances had benefitted from the boom years ahead of the GFC).
Because there's no evidence of damage to our recovery. In the past decade we've grown faster than the Eurozone grew. Despite "Tory austerity" or "Brexit" or whatever else you want to moan about.
That depends on the criteria you used - GDP per capita figures tell a very different story to GDP figures...
No mystery, they will have quality practices and quality health care facilities with enough capacity to handle emergencies.
No, that’s bollocks. France has one of the best-funded health systems in the world, has a very similar number of cases to Germany, yet France has a fairly high death rate.
The solution to the no-deaths-in-Germany mystery lies elsewhere
Could just be a matter of random dumb luck and time so far.
Overwhelming majority of Germany's cases are less than a week old so the deaths may just have not occurred yet, plus when you're talking in low digits still in France, Germany or the UK then individual semi-random variance can be overblown.
What are the error margins on "death" samples of 3 (UK), 19 (France) and 0 (Germany), and has anyone done the relevant normalisation process so that comparisons have even a shred of credibility?
Sorry to be vulgar and political, but does Coronavirus mean we'll now get a great trade deal from the EU? I can't see anyone in the EU now taking the attitude of punishing the UK even if it means hurting the EU a bit.
Do you see anyone in th UK government holding out for free trade with no obligations?
Yes.
Why would the UK stick to its guns despite the crisis and the EU cave in because of it?
Because its critically important to the UK and what the government cares about. Its not critically important to the EU and the EU have other concerns they'd rather be dealing with.
Asymmetric ambitions.
I call it wishful thinking.
The FT have had some interesting articles recently on the asymmetry in the negotiations. The UK and EU have different ambitions and also different views on what happens if no trade deal is reached.
Normally in trade negotiations no trade deal would mean both sides lose out proportionately equally but that's no longer the case due to both sides having completely different ambitions. If there is no trade deal now then that moves our trading arrangements very close to what the UK is seeking and completely away from what the EU wants.
The UK doesn't so much have different ambition, as lacking ambition. A trade deal in my view is perfectly achievable because the UK is asking for so little. This minimal ask, I think, is what Lucky Guy implies is the EU punishing the UK by not giving it a good deal.
Have to say I don’t take much notice of the Royal family’s goings on, and never had an opinion on Meghan Markle one way or the other. But seeing this clip of her with the young boy from Robert Clack in Dagenham on Saturday makes me think it is a real opportunity missed for the Royal Family to have a black princess. It could have given Black people a feeling of having a stake in the country, skin in the game, and bring us closer together, which I guess is what the RF are for.There is another bit where he winks as he hugs her that I can’t find, it really is great.
The Markle sparkle. It is a loss.
If black people can only identify with black people and white people only with white people then we’ve got absolutely nowhere in the last 50 years.
The key fact is that Markle brings black identification with a historically very different and arguably white institution. She's providing something distinctive, while sharing something with the whole. This is the only way genuine multiculturalism can work - not oppressive and fearful assimilation, or polarised identity politics.
I’m not sure the monarchy had any real problem with black identification prior to the arrival of Markle, which was barely three years ago.
It’s as if the decades of work the Queen and her family (including Prince Charles and Diana) had been doing with inner cities, Commonwealth leaders and commonwealth institutions didn’t matter.
I wouldn’t know, and maybe all Royals get the kind of reception that Meghan got on Saturday, but I just don’t remember seeing it before. I don’t reckon the young boy would have had the confidence to hug Kate and wink like he did with Meghan, and I think that breaking of protocol, and his ‘beautiful’ comment, will be, or could have been, a landmark moment in breaking down barriers between the establishment and people that feel they’re not really part of it
Sorry to be vulgar and political, but does Coronavirus mean we'll now get a great trade deal from the EU? I can't see anyone in the EU now taking the attitude of punishing the UK even if it means hurting the EU a bit.
No.
I don't think the EU will be "taking the attitude of punishing the UK even if it means hurting the EU a bit" whatever. I think they'll put EU interests first (which is not the same thing). Best case for EU is effective single market membership (even if not in name). Beyond that it becomes a trade off between frictionless trade and not simultaneously allowing UK to undercut on costs by lowering standards (i.e. getting a competitive advantage that the EU can't mitigate with tariff/non-tariff barriers and which would hurt their own domestic producers). If the UK wishes to diverge on standards then the EU may feel the need to apply tariffs or other barriers (latter potentially just to allow checks).
I hope (and think, assuming the extreme hardliners are not too involved) that the UK will also approach the talks with it's own interests first. There are legitimate differences of opinion on what is in UK's best interests. I'd prioritise frictionless trade with EU above all else, but others believe there would be more advantage on diverging in standards and/or getting a US trade deal (which would probably mean diverging from EU standards).
I can respect different positions on what is in the UK's best interests and whether that ultimately leads to a deal or not. I cannot respect childish ideas that the EU are out to punish us, which confuses simply putting their best interests before ours (as we're no longer EU) as we should also put our best interests before theirs - do you imagine/hope we also to have hurting the EU (possibly against our interests) as a negotiating objective?
While I would agree with that, there are elements of the EU that are too religious about things.
For example the refusal to allow the U.K. to be part of Euratom, Galileo or the pandemic warning system unless we accept free movement of people.
In a rational world people could come up with a structure that would allow collaboration where it makes sense. But they have decided that free movement is a matter of principle.
Yes, I'd agree with that. I hope that we'll still see bilateral agreements here in the end, even if there's no wider trade agreement.
I think that if someone is grieving for their dead Uncle Bob it's not much solace to them if a Minister argues that if they'd been in Italy they would have had it worse and their Aunt Alice would have died too.
This is not to say that I expect the government to be blamed, but I don't think relative performance will be the determining factor.
Britain might arguably have been better prepared for WWII than France, but it didn't do Chamberlain much good.
We were better prepared than France but the Frogs weren't our rivals. We weren't as prepared as the Nazis.
People die every day of every year. I'm hopeful my octagenarian and nonagenarian grandparents survive this, but accept that morbidity is an issue for everyone ultimately.
The French aren't our rivals this time either. The virus is.
My concern is that in delaying further measures to protect the economy from undue stress, Boris will end up exposing the NHS to stress that it cannot manage without there being excess deaths due to lack of ICU capacity, trained staff and equipment.
We'll see. Perhaps his timing will be optimal. I certainly hope so.
Ultimately that’s the heart of the decision he needs to make. Unknown risk vs certain economic damage
If he gets it wrong he will be correctly punished
That's the problem with being a politician once you've won power the only way from there is backward..
And no matter which decision Boris makes now people will argue it's the wrong one
Indeed they will but the key is whether they are in a majority
Indeed, one is undeniably in the past and the other is ahead of us; hard to avoid speculation when talking about the future.
I notice you say nothing of the damage caused to our recovery by the Cameron/Osborne ideological determination to cut spending deeply (rather than tax those who could afford to pay, and who in many indstances had benefitted from the boom years ahead of the GFC).
Because there's no evidence of damage to our recovery. In the past decade we've grown faster than the Eurozone grew. Despite "Tory austerity" or "Brexit" or whatever else you want to moan about.
That depends on the criteria you used - GDP per capita figures tell a very different story to GDP figures...
No, they don't. The UK has grown faster than the Eurozone per capita over the past decade. Despite us importing many European low-skilled labourers.
If this works here it should work for any other developed country, although I guess Britain and the US will wait until a couple of hundred of their people have died before they copy it, after which you'll need a few more weeks before you see the effect.
Can't tell from the link what it is they have actually done.
I'm just linking to show the trends but the strategy was: - Ask people to work from home where practical - Ask people to cancel events where practical, run sporting events without spectators etc - Ask people to stay away from crowds, they spontaneously stayed at home a lot - Close schools - Handwashing etc etc
The thing about this is that it doesn't particularly destroy the economy; Everything is still working, and working from home is probably more productive for a lot of people. So it's not like China where they had to do radical things that aren't compatible with a free society.
Agreed. Although there was a bizarre episode on PB these last few days where several of the bedwetters on here said they couldn't work at home as they needed a traditional office, complete with schoolmaster-like father figure otherwise they couldn't motivate themselves to work! Very odd in this day and age I thought.
He needs to be winning Washington State by about 30 points to have a sniff I think. Nate's 1% for Sanders maj and at most 4% chance (24-1) feels more correct.
Reading the comments, it is interesting to see how strong the dislike and mistrust of foreigners is from some commenters and commentators.
This place just gets more unpleasant by the day. I just hope it does not reflect society in general.
Polling consistently shows that the UK is considerably more tolerant than some of our European friends. Anecdotally living in Spain I'd say some of the 'expats' here are relatively intolerant compared to Brits as a whole but the local Spanish here are pretty intolerant generally esoecially wrt Moroccans and Romanies.
Small deficit? It was maxed out at the limit of the "stability pact" that Labour claimed they were following. Considering it had been a surplus only a few years earlier and there'd been no downturn since it was unprecedented since the war to see the deficit blow out like that without a downturn and left us massively exposed.
Had the government been running a small surplus (as the Tories were running when the UK had last had a recession) then the resulting correction would have been manageable. Unfortunately Brown thought he'd abolished boom and bust.
I said modest. Which it was. About 3%. Nobody other than Tory propagandists would with a straight face suggest that this - rather than the malfunction of a bloated and poorly regulated financial sector - is the main thing to focus on when discussing the impact on the UK of the Global Financial Crisis.
3% is not modest. Especially not after 16 years of growth and no downturn since it was a surplus.
Had there been a small surplus instead of an historically high 3% deficit going into the recession then the deficit would have spiked to 7% not 10%, far more manageable.
The issue was he believed his own hype about abolishing boom and bust
He basically took a cyclical surplus and used it to justify a massive increase in structural spending
That’s why the deficit was so hard to rein back
What he believed was the nonsense that the Finance Sector understood Risk Management and could regulate itself. He believed this because (i) everyone else did - most particularly and influentially Alan Greenspan - and (ii) the taxes funded his spending.
I would be more confident in the UK response if I knew about the non-populist, science-based measures the UK government is taking, which the Italians haven't.
Johnson is chairing his weekly crisis meeting today so no doubt we'll get an update.
That quote sounds exactly like Cummings. He clearly sees this as a test of his approach.
It certainly shows Cummings influence. "Science-based" is a soundbite continually used by the Johnson government, which is nevertheless the most ideological administration in all of UK history.
It's so cool that your view of the administration as ideologically based rather than science based, is, itself, ideologically based.
I definitely have an empirical basis for saying this government is ideologically driven to an unusual degree. See my other post on its approach to negotiations with the EU. Also note this government never comes up with a cause and effect justification for what it does: we do this in this way to achieve such and such a desirable outcome. "Get Brexit done" doesn't count.
Nah that is still just your own ideologically based view. Perfectly valid of course in your own terms but meaningless as far as empiricism is concerned.
My understanding since this began has been that appropriate anti-virals not (despite media attention) vaccination is the key to what happens with this wave, at least with regards to fatality rate. But the thing I'm not sure about and would appreciate an expert answer to is - how easy would it be to step up production of whichever anti-virals prove most effective? Demand for anything which seems to make a difference is surely going to jump through the roof globally - I presume a lot of traditional effectiveness and cost-effectiveness assessments would be rushed through, procedures skipped if necessary. Would there be capacity to meet this kind of demand? Would certain countries get priority? Opinion of @Charles or another subject expert would be greatly appreciated.
Yes, it's a very good question. I imagine it would depend on exactly which drug(s) were identified as useful.
I’m pretty sure the answer will indeed be that depends .... In any event, AFAIK there’s been no magic bullet antiviral identified ?
And bringing a novel compound to market would take a lot longer than a vaccine.
I would be more confident in the UK response if I knew about the non-populist, science-based measures the UK government is taking, which the Italians haven't.
Johnson is chairing his weekly crisis meeting today so no doubt we'll get an update.
According to my father we’re managing the quarantine/isolation and tracing much better.
We’re actually keeping people quarantined/isolated rather than the Italian approach which is to tell people to quarantine/isolate them then letting do whatever they like.
There was a lady on CH4 news last night who lives in the affected party of Italy and basically said loads of people are still totally ignoring the restrictions and no punishment for doing so. They see it as optional. Despite shopping centres being closed, kids still meeting up to hang out in the car parks etc.
Yup. The Italian 'shutdown' is looking like an utter shambles. Really, really amateurish.
One of the reasons the GFC was so damaging to Britain - longer and deeper than almost every other country in the developed world - was because Brown had so mismanaged the economy prior to the crash. He didn't cause the crash but he made sure the UK economy suffered more than many others and for longer than was necessary.
Interesting hint of the political battle to come this morning in R4 this morning. How well prepared are we for Coronavirus? Did austerity help by impacting deficit or did it hinder by degrading our health and social care capability?
The political legacy may be a reverse of the credit crunch. Labour spent a bit too much and took their eyes of the ball but were mostly unfairly blamed for what was a global issue for a decade.
It could easily play the same way for the right over coronavirus, whatever they had done in terms of austerity probably wouldnt have made much difference on this issue, but its an obvious (if unfair and largely incorrect) conclusion to make that austerity is to blame.
That only works if the UK deaths are worse than say Germany or France.
In a global event, the obvious thing to do is compare the UK to other similar countries.
The Tories have an enormous advantage that the UK are behind Italy, France and Germany in terms of timescale.
Only if the UK death rate is say double the German or French one will it pan out as you say.
How much did the public compare what happened in the UK re credit crunch with the rest of the world? If your in charge when it happens (and the build up to it) you get the blame. You are assigning the great British public far too much rationality.
Greatly. The public rightly recognised that what happened in the UK was much worse than what happened in the rest of the world thanks to Gordon Brown's mismanagement and blamed him accordingly.
Not sure much of southern Europe would agree with you.
Yes they would. Much of Southern Europe's governments had also mismanaged their economies like Gordon Brown had mismanaged Britain's. The voters of those nations paid attention and ejected their governments like we did ours, while voters in nations that hadn't mismanaged the economy unlike Brown were less likely to eject their government in response. See for example Canada.
Gordon Brown did not mismanage the economy. Southern Europe was screwed by Germany and the Euro. Canada's rapid recovery was largely due to exports to China and the United States, aided by a drop in exchange rates. See also Australia.
Gordon Brown did mismanage the economy. Are you a deficit denier still? Its hard to imagine they still exist, its like meeting a climate change denier.
The deficit exists, is important but rarely the most important thing. You might also recall that before the global financial crisis, our deficit was low by international standards and also low by our own historical standards. Osborne's focus on the deficit flatlined the recovery he inherited from Labour; stimulating growth would have been a better way to reduce the deficit. It is ironic that Osborne's austerity was a factor in losing the Brexit referendum and ending his own political career.
One of the reasons the GFC was so damaging to Britain - longer and deeper than almost every other country in the developed world - was because Brown had so mismanaged the economy prior to the crash. He didn't cause the crash but he made sure the UK economy suffered more than many others and for longer than was necessary.
Let's hope we're not reading this in 10 year's time:
One of the reasons the Covid-19 crisis was so damaging to Britain - longer and deeper than almost every other country in the developed world - was because the Conservatives had so starved the NHS of cash prior to the crisis. They didn't cause the crash but he made sure the UK suffered more than many others and for longer than was necessary.
That might well be the case though I hope not of course. Not because I care about Boris and his Government but because of the people who will have died as a result.
But of course the difference between yours and mine is that mine is a matter of historic fact whereas yours is currently a bit of speculative fiction.
Indeed, one is undeniably in the past and the other is ahead of us; hard to avoid speculation when talking about the future.
I notice you say nothing of the damage caused to our recovery by the Cameron/Osborne ideological determination to cut spending deeply (rather than tax those who could afford to pay, and who in many indstances had benefitted from the boom years ahead of the GFC).
Because I don't recognise that it did damage our recovery. If anything we didn't cut deeply enough.
Indeed, one is undeniably in the past and the other is ahead of us; hard to avoid speculation when talking about the future.
I notice you say nothing of the damage caused to our recovery by the Cameron/Osborne ideological determination to cut spending deeply (rather than tax those who could afford to pay, and who in many indstances had benefitted from the boom years ahead of the GFC).
Because there's no evidence of damage to our recovery. In the past decade we've grown faster than the Eurozone grew. Despite "Tory austerity" or "Brexit" or whatever else you want to moan about.
That depends on the criteria you used - GDP per capita figures tell a very different story to GDP figures...
Comparison with the United States rather than Europe might be instructive too, especially since they too were practising austerity, and the main reason we are not in the Eurozone is our economies are different.
I would be more confident in the UK response if I knew about the non-populist, science-based measures the UK government is taking, which the Italians haven't.
Johnson is chairing his weekly crisis meeting today so no doubt we'll get an update.
According to my father we’re managing the quarantine/isolation and tracing much better.
We’re actually keeping people quarantined/isolated rather than the Italian approach which is to tell people to quarantine/isolate them then letting do whatever they like.
There was a lady on CH4 news last night who lives in the affected party of Italy and basically said loads of people are still totally ignoring the restrictions and no punishment for doing so. They see it as optional. Despite shopping centres being closed, kids still meeting up to hang out in the car parks etc.
Yup. The Italian 'shutdown' is looking like an utter shambles. Really, really amateurish.
Indeed, one is undeniably in the past and the other is ahead of us; hard to avoid speculation when talking about the future.
I notice you say nothing of the damage caused to our recovery by the Cameron/Osborne ideological determination to cut spending deeply (rather than tax those who could afford to pay, and who in many indstances had benefitted from the boom years ahead of the GFC).
Because there's no evidence of damage to our recovery. In the past decade we've grown faster than the Eurozone grew. Despite "Tory austerity" or "Brexit" or whatever else you want to moan about.
That depends on the criteria you used - GDP per capita figures tell a very different story to GDP figures...
No, they don't. The UK has grown faster than the Eurozone per capita over the past decade. Despite us importing many European low-skilled labourers.
Given that we don't know what the UK's population is, how do we know what the real per capita figure is (and yes I do know it means we are arguing over unverifiable figures)
Sorry to be vulgar and political, but does Coronavirus mean we'll now get a great trade deal from the EU? I can't see anyone in the EU now taking the attitude of punishing the UK even if it means hurting the EU a bit.
Do you see anyone in th UK government holding out for free trade with no obligations?
Yes.
Why would the UK stick to its guns despite the crisis and the EU cave in because of it?
Because its critically important to the UK and what the government cares about. Its not critically important to the EU and the EU have other concerns they'd rather be dealing with.
Asymmetric ambitions.
I call it wishful thinking.
The FT have had some interesting articles recently on the asymmetry in the negotiations. The UK and EU have different ambitions and also different views on what happens if no trade deal is reached.
Normally in trade negotiations no trade deal would mean both sides lose out proportionately equally but that's no longer the case due to both sides having completely different ambitions. If there is no trade deal now then that moves our trading arrangements very close to what the UK is seeking and completely away from what the EU wants.
The UK doesn't so much have different ambition, as lacking ambition. A trade deal in my view is perfectly achievable because the UK is asking for so little. This minimal ask, I think, is what Lucky Guy implies is the EU punishing the UK by not giving it a good deal.
Well precisely. What you define as lacking ambition is what we define as ambitious. If the UK is "asking for so little" then there's little reason why the UK shouldn't get that.
I don't speak for Lucky Guy. If the EU gives the UK what it asks for it can't be punishing the UK.
Interesting hint of the political battle to come this morning in R4 this morning. How well prepared are we for Coronavirus? Did austerity help by impacting deficit or did it hinder by degrading our health and social care capability?
The political legacy may be a reverse of the credit crunch. Labour spent a bit too much and took their eyes of the ball but were mostly unfairly blamed for what was a global issue for a decade.
It could easily play the same way for the right over coronavirus, whatever they had done in terms of austerity probably wouldnt have made much difference on this issue, but its an obvious (if unfair and largely incorrect) conclusion to make that austerity is to blame.
That only works if the UK deaths are worse than say Germany or France.
In a global event, the obvious thing to do is compare the UK to other similar countries.
The Tories have an enormous advantage that the UK are behind Italy, France and Germany in terms of timescale.
Only if the UK death rate is say double the German or French one will it pan out as you say.
How much did the public compare what happened in the UK re credit crunch with the rest of the world? If your in charge when it happens (and the build up to it) you get the blame. You are assigning the great British public far too much rationality.
Greatly. The public rightly recognised that what happened in the UK was much worse than what happened in the rest of the world thanks to Gordon Brown's mismanagement and blamed him accordingly.
Not sure much of southern Europe would agree with you.
Yes they would. Much of Southern Europe's governments had also mismanaged their economies like Gordon Brown had mismanaged Britain's. The voters of those nations paid attention and ejected their governments like we did ours, while voters in nations that hadn't mismanaged the economy unlike Brown were less likely to eject their government in response. See for example Canada.
Gordon Brown did not mismanage the economy. Southern Europe was screwed by Germany and the Euro. Canada's rapid recovery was largely due to exports to China and the United States, aided by a drop in exchange rates. See also Australia.
Gordon Brown did mismanage the economy. Are you a deficit denier still? Its hard to imagine they still exist, its like meeting a climate change denier.
The deficit exists, is important but rarely the most important thing. You might also recall that before the global financial crisis, our deficit was low by international standards and also low by our own historical standards. Osborne's focus on the deficit flatlined the recovery he inherited from Labour; stimulating growth would have been a better way to reduce the deficit. It is ironic that Osborne's austerity was a factor in losing the Brexit referendum and ending his own political career.
One of the reasons the GFC was so damaging to Britain - longer and deeper than almost every other country in the developed world - was because Brown had so mismanaged the economy prior to the crash. He didn't cause the crash but he made sure the UK economy suffered more than many others and for longer than was necessary.
Let's hope we're not reading this in 10 year's time:
One of the reasons the Covid-19 crisis was so damaging to Britain - longer and deeper than almost every other country in the developed world - was because the Conservatives had so starved the NHS of cash prior to the crisis. They didn't cause the crash but he made sure the UK suffered more than many others and for longer than was necessary.
That might well be the case though I hope not of course. Not because I care about Boris and his Government but because of the people who will have died as a result.
But of course the difference between yours and mine is that mine is a matter of historic fact whereas yours is currently a bit of speculative fiction.
Indeed, one is undeniably in the past and the other is ahead of us; hard to avoid speculation when talking about the future.
I notice you say nothing of the damage caused to our recovery by the Cameron/Osborne ideological determination to cut spending deeply (rather than tax those who could afford to pay, and who in many indstances had benefitted from the boom years ahead of the GFC).
Because I don't recognise that it did damage our recovery. If anything we didn't cut deeply enough.
I know we'll never agree but I like to hear why apparently intelligent people take such perverse views...
Interesting hint of the political battle to come this morning in R4 this morning. How well prepared are we for Coronavirus? Did austerity help by impacting deficit or did it hinder by degrading our health and social care capability?
The political legacy may be a reverse of the credit crunch. Labour spent a bit too much and took their eyes of the ball but were mostly unfairly blamed for what was a global issue for a decade.
It could easily play the same way for the right over coronavirus, whatever they had done in terms of austerity probably wouldnt have made much difference on this issue, but its an obvious (if unfair and largely incorrect) conclusion to make that austerity is to blame.
That only works if the UK deaths are worse than say Germany or France.
In a global event, the obvious thing to do is compare the UK to other similar countries.
The Tories have an enormous advantage that the UK are behind Italy, France and Germany in terms of timescale.
Only if the UK death rate is say double the German or French one will it pan out as you say.
How much did the public compare what happened in the UK re credit crunch with the rest of the world? If your in charge when it happens (and the build up to it) you get the blame. You are assigning the great British public far too much rationality.
Greatly. The public rightly recognised that what happened in the UK was much worse than what happened in the rest of the world thanks to Gordon Brown's mismanagement and blamed him accordingly.
Not sure much of southern Europe would agree with you.
Yes they would. Much of Southern Europe's governments had also mismanaged their economies like Gordon Brown had mismanaged Britain's. The voters of those nations paid attention and ejected their governments like we did ours, while voters in nations that hadn't mismanaged the economy unlike Brown were less likely to eject their government in response. See for example Canada.
Gordon Brown did not mismanage the economy. Southern Europe was screwed by Germany and the Euro. Canada's rapid recovery was largely due to exports to China and the United States, aided by a drop in exchange rates. See also Australia.
Gordon Brown did mismanage the economy. Are you a deficit denier still? Its hard to imagine they still exist, its like meeting a climate change denier.
The deficit exists, is important but rarely the most important thing. You might also recall that before the global financial crisis, our deficit was low by international standards and also low by our own historical standards. Osborne's focus on the deficit flatlined the recovery he inherited from Labour; stimulating growth would have been a better way to reduce the deficit. It is ironic that Osborne's austerity was a factor in losing the Brexit referendum and ending his own political career.
One of the reasons the GFC was so damaging to Britain - longer and deeper than almost every other country in the developed world - was because Brown had so mismanaged the economy prior to the crash. He didn't cause the crash but he made sure the UK economy suffered more than many others and for longer than was necessary.
Let's hope we're not reading this in 10 year's time:
One of the reasons the Covid-19 crisis was so damaging to Britain - longer and deeper than almost every other country in the developed world - was because the Conservatives had so starved the NHS of cash prior to the crisis. They didn't cause the crash but he made sure the UK suffered more than many others and for longer than was necessary.
That might well be the case though I hope not of course. Not because I care about Boris and his Government but because of the people who will have died as a result.
But of course the difference between yours and mine is that mine is a matter of historic fact whereas yours is currently a bit of speculative fiction.
Indeed, one is undeniably in the past and the other is ahead of us; hard to avoid speculation when talking about the future.
I notice you say nothing of the damage caused to our recovery by the Cameron/Osborne ideological determination to cut spending deeply (rather than tax those who could afford to pay, and who in many indstances had benefitted from the boom years ahead of the GFC).
Because I don't recognise that it did damage our recovery. If anything we didn't cut deeply enough.
I know we'll never agree but I like to hear why apparently intelligent people take such perverse views...
Where should we have cut deeper?
We could have actually cut spending instead of increasing it.
That is unlikely to be the reason at this stage. I've seen no reports even in Italy that anyone needing ICU has been denied it nor that Germany has placed lots of cases in ICU beds.
Haven't looked at US polls for a couple of days, but I see Biden is now romping away. Only an endorsement of Sanders by Warren might stop the rot somewhat, but I doubt it, and I shouldn't think she will (last time she carefully stayed on the fence).
Indeed, one is undeniably in the past and the other is ahead of us; hard to avoid speculation when talking about the future.
I notice you say nothing of the damage caused to our recovery by the Cameron/Osborne ideological determination to cut spending deeply (rather than tax those who could afford to pay, and who in many indstances had benefitted from the boom years ahead of the GFC).
Because there's no evidence of damage to our recovery. In the past decade we've grown faster than the Eurozone grew. Despite "Tory austerity" or "Brexit" or whatever else you want to moan about.
That depends on the criteria you used - GDP per capita figures tell a very different story to GDP figures...
No, they don't. The UK has grown faster than the Eurozone per capita over the past decade. Despite us importing many European low-skilled labourers.
Given that we don't know what the UK's population is, how do we know what the real per capita figure is (and yes I do know it means we are arguing over unverifiable figures)
We do have statistics on the UK's population and the UK's GDP per capita and the UK's GDP per capita growth is above the Eurozones.
If you think official statistics are nonsense then that's a whole another story and goes beyond just population.
The first case of COVID-19 has been confirmed on Lesbos, sparking concerns it could spread to refugee camps, reports journalist Katy Fallon from the island.
If the Italians are screwing this up, anybody think the Greeks will make a better job of it? And don't they also have a very old population.
I would be more confident in the UK response if I knew about the non-populist, science-based measures the UK government is taking, which the Italians haven't.
Johnson is chairing his weekly crisis meeting today so no doubt we'll get an update.
That quote sounds exactly like Cummings. He clearly sees this as a test of his approach.
It certainly shows Cummings influence. "Science-based" is a soundbite continually used by the Johnson government, which is nevertheless the most ideological administration in all of UK history.
It's so cool that your view of the administration as ideologically based rather than science based, is, itself, ideologically based.
I definitely have an empirical basis for saying this government is ideologically driven to an unusual degree. See my other post on its approach to negotiations with the EU. Also note this government never comes up with a cause and effect justification for what it does: we do this in this way to achieve such and such a desirable outcome. "Get Brexit done" doesn't count.
"Never" is a strong word, especially for an administration less than three months old.
I would point out that Johnson had the advantage of watching the appalling hash his predecessor made of negotiating with the EU, and is indulging in an age-old scientific approach commonly known as "trying something different".
The FTSE 100 has revcovered to only 6.5% down I see. Going to be interesting to see how the DJ fares when it opens.
Futures markets have been pretty stable at 24.5k for several hours, so I'd go with that unless something major happens between now and the opening bell.
Have to say I don’t take much notice of the Royal family’s goings on, and never had an opinion on Meghan Markle one way or the other. But seeing this clip of her with the young boy from Robert Clack in Dagenham on Saturday makes me think it is a real opportunity missed for the Royal Family to have a black princess. It could have given Black people a feeling of having a stake in the country, skin in the game, and bring us closer together, which I guess is what the RF are for.There is another bit where he winks as he hugs her that I can’t find, it really is great.
The Markle sparkle. It is a loss.
If black people can only identify with black people and white people only with white people then we’ve got absolutely nowhere in the last 50 years.
The key fact is that Markle brings black identification with a historically very different and arguably white institution. She's providing something distinctive, while sharing something with the whole. This is the only way genuine multiculturalism can work - not oppressive and fearful assimilation, or polarised identity politics.
I’m not sure the monarchy had any real problem with black identification prior to the arrival of Markle, which was barely three years ago.
It’s as if the decades of work the Queen and her family (including Prince Charles and Diana) had been doing with inner cities, Commonwealth leaders and commonwealth institutions didn’t matter.
I wouldn’t know, and maybe all Royals get the kind of reception that Meghan got on Saturday, but I just don’t remember seeing it before. I don’t reckon the young boy would have had the confidence to hug Kate and wink like he did with Meghan, and I think that breaking of protocol, and his ‘beautiful’ comment that will be, or could have been, a landmark moment in breaking down barriers between the establishment and people that feel they’re not really part of it
I strongly agree with your posts on this issue, and Whispering Oracle. But couldn't resist the temptation to mention the irony that the lad made explicit something key to Meghan's (also Kate's) success which isn't really so feminist or modern at all - judging her by her appearance. They've both got many other talents and it isn't their "fault" they are beautiful, but there's not much point denying they'd have got a different public reception if they'd had less glamour. In fact it's hard to imagine either of them marrying a Prince if they hadn't looked so good (there's an interesting story about how Kate won Wills back after a breakup and it was very much based on her wowing him with her looks) and indeed in Meghan's case hard to see how she would have risen to fame (and hence met Harry at all) without the benefits of her beauty. Perhaps I'm harsh to see this as ironic but in two figures who very much identify with and try to spread the gospel of female empowerment, it would be more in tune with the times if their success boiled down rather more to "be ambitious and work hard at school" (which to be fair they both did), rather than that aspect getting overshadowed by "get born with good genes, look your best and marry a Prince". Still, this is probably less ironic than the fact members of the Royal Family are campaigning in favour of "equality" at all(!)
(This is coming from someone who would probably describe themselves as a moderate pragmatic monarchist, or at least, can't-think-of-a-satisfactory-alternativist)
No mystery, they will have quality practices and quality health care facilities with enough capacity to handle emergencies.
No, that’s bollocks. France has one of the best-funded health systems in the world, has a very similar number of cases to Germany, yet France has a fairly high death rate.
The solution to the no-deaths-in-Germany mystery lies elsewhere
Could just be a matter of random dumb luck and time so far.
Overwhelming majority of Germany's cases are less than a week old so the deaths may just have not occurred yet, plus when you're talking in low digits still in France, Germany or the UK then individual semi-random variance can be overblown.
What are the error margins on "death" samples of 3 (UK), 19 (France) and 0 (Germany), and has anyone done the relevant normalisation process so that comparisons have even a shred of credibility?
Very quick calculation (with some assumptions about distribution that are probably not true, but shouldn't be way out).
France and UK death rates not different (using 0.05 significance cut-off) UK and Germany death rates not different (using 0.05 significance cut-off) Germany death rate lower than France (p < 0.05)
Now, that's three comparisons, if I did 20 I'd, on average, get one with p < 0.05 even if there were no real differences. So I wouldn't conclude there's necessarily any differences at all other than chance.
I would be more confident in the UK response if I knew about the non-populist, science-based measures the UK government is taking, which the Italians haven't.
Johnson is chairing his weekly crisis meeting today so no doubt we'll get an update.
According to my father we’re managing the quarantine/isolation and tracing much better.
We’re actually keeping people quarantined/isolated rather than the Italian approach which is to tell people to quarantine/isolate them then letting do whatever they like.
There was a lady on CH4 news last night who lives in the affected party of Italy and basically said loads of people are still totally ignoring the restrictions and no punishment for doing so. They see it as optional. Despite shopping centres being closed, kids still meeting up to hang out in the car parks etc.
Yup. The Italian 'shutdown' is looking like an utter shambles. Really, really amateurish.
It would be funny if it wasn't so serious.
Agreed. Reminiscent of that stereotyped European nightmare holiday from hell joke (the Greeks do the budgeting, the Germans do the food, the English do the sex, the French arrange the music and the Italians organise it all), but not, as you say, funny in the case because it's so important that they don't cock it up.
Interesting hint of the political battle to come this morning in R4 this morning. How well prepared are we for Coronavirus? Did austerity help by impacting deficit or did it hinder by degrading our health and social care capability?
The political legacy may be a reverse of the credit crunch. Labour spent a bit too much and took their eyes of the ball but were mostly unfairly blamed for what was a global issue for a decade.
It could easily play the same way for the right over coronavirus, whatever they had done in terms of austerity probably wouldnt have made much difference on this issue, but its an obvious (if unfair and largely incorrect) conclusion to make that austerity is to blame.
That only works if the UK deaths are worse than say Germany or France.
In a global event, the obvious thing to do is compare the UK to other similar countries.
The Tories have an enormous advantage that the UK are behind Italy, France and Germany in terms of timescale.
Only if the UK death rate is say double the German or French one will it pan out as you say.
How much did the public compare what happened in the UK re credit crunch with the rest of the world? If your in charge when it happens (and the build up to it) you get the blame. You are assigning the great British public far too much rationality.
Greatly. The public rightly recognised that what happened in the UK was much worse than what happened in the rest of the world thanks to Gordon Brown's mismanagement and blamed him accordingly.
Not sure much of southern Europe would agree with you.
Yes they would. Much of Southern Europe's governments had also mismanaged their economies like Gordon Brown had mismanaged Britain's. The voters of those nations paid attention and ejected their governments like we did ours, while voters in nations that hadn't mismanaged the economy unlike Brown were less likely to eject their government in response. See for example Canada.
Gordon Brown did not mismanage the economy. Southern Europe was screwed by Germany and the Euro. Canada's rapid recovery was largely due to exports to China and the United States, aided by a drop in exchange rates. See also Australia.
Gordon Brown did mismanage the economy. Are you a deficit denier still? Its hard to imagine they still exist, its like meeting a climate change denier.
The deficit exists, is important but rarely the most important thing. You might also recall that before the global financial crisis, our deficit was low by international standards and also low by our own historical standards. Osborne's focus on the deficit flatlined the recovery he inherited from Labour; stimulating growth would have been a better way to reduce the deficit. It is ironic that Osborne's austerity was a factor in losing the Brexit referendum and ending his own political career.
One of the reasons the GFC was so damaging to Britain - longer and deeper than almost every other country in the developed world - was because Brown had so mismanaged the economy prior to the crash. He didn't cause the crash but he made sure the UK economy suffered more than many others and for longer than was necessary.
It is not surprising that the countries hardest hit were those with the largest finance industries. Britain was already recovering from the global financial crisis until Osborne flatlined the recovery. In other words, Gordon Brown did not mismanage the economy; even if he had, that is not the reason we were hit; it was Osborne who slowed the recovery.
Have to say I don’t take much notice of the Royal family’s goings on, and never had an opinion on Meghan Markle one way or the other. But seeing this clip of her with the young boy from Robert Clack in Dagenham on Saturday makes me think it is a real opportunity missed for the Royal Family to have a black princess. It could have given Black people a feeling of having a stake in the country, skin in the game, and bring us closer together, which I guess is what the RF are for.There is another bit where he winks as he hugs her that I can’t find, it really is great.
The Markle sparkle. It is a loss.
If black people can only identify with black people and white people only with white people then we’ve got absolutely nowhere in the last 50 years.
The key fact is that Markle brings black identification with a historically very different and arguably white institution. She's providing something distinctive, while sharing something with the whole. This is the only way genuine multiculturalism can work - not oppressive and fearful assimilation, or polarised identity politics.
I’m not sure the monarchy had any real problem with black identification prior to the arrival of Markle, which was barely three years ago.
It’s as if the decades of work the Queen and her family (including Prince Charles and Diana) had been doing with inner cities, Commonwealth leaders and commonwealth institutions didn’t matter.
I wouldn’t know, and maybe all Royals get the kind of reception that Meghan got on Saturday, but I just don’t remember seeing it before. I don’t reckon the young boy would have had the confidence to hug Kate and wink like he did with Meghan, and I think that breaking of protocol, and his ‘beautiful’ comment that will be, or could have been, a landmark moment in breaking down barriers between the establishment and people that feel they’re not really part of it
I strongly agree with your posts on this issue, and Whispering Oracle. But couldn't resist the temptation to mention the irony that the lad made explicit something key to Meghan's (also Kate's) success which isn't really so feminist or modern at all - judging her by her appearance. They've both got many other talents and it isn't their "fault" they are beautiful, but there's not much point denying they'd have got a different public reception if they'd had less glamour. In fact it's hard to imagine either of them marrying a Prince if they hadn't looked so good (there's an interesting story about how Kate won Wills back after a breakup and it was very much based on her wowing him with her looks) and indeed in Meghan's case hard to see how she would have risen to fame (and hence met Harry at all) without the benefits of her beauty. Perhaps I'm harsh to see this as ironic but in two figures who very much identify with and try to spread the gospel of female empowerment, it would be more in tune with the times if their success boiled down rather more to "be ambitious and work hard at school" (which to be fair they both did), rather than that aspect getting overshadowed by "get born with good genes, look your best and marry a Prince". Still, this is probably less ironic than the fact members of the Royal Family are campaigning in favour of "equality" at all(!)
(This is coming from someone who would probably describe themselves as a moderate pragmatic monarchist, or at least, can't-think-of-a-satisfactory-alternativist)
Well, yes. Looks play a massive part in life, despite people wishing it wasn’t so. We are not equal, it isn’t fair, and that’s how it is!
I guess both princesses are examples of using their looks to highlight worthy causes though. They could have become ‘princesses’ in the other sense.
One of the reasons the GFC was so damaging to Britain - longer and deeper than almost every other country in the developed world - was because Brown had so mismanaged the economy prior to the crash. He didn't cause the crash but he made sure the UK economy suffered more than many others and for longer than was necessary.
The UK was the last of the G7 countries - and the last of the G20 countries - to come out of recession after the financial crisis. And measuring in terms of public debt is meaningless when Brown had transferred vast amounts of debt off the books through PFI agreements that still left us on the hook but made it look like our debt was less than it really was.
I would be more confident in the UK response if I knew about the non-populist, science-based measures the UK government is taking, which the Italians haven't.
Johnson is chairing his weekly crisis meeting today so no doubt we'll get an update.
According to my father we’re managing the quarantine/isolation and tracing much better.
We’re actually keeping people quarantined/isolated rather than the Italian approach which is to tell people to quarantine/isolate them then letting do whatever they like.
There was a lady on CH4 news last night who lives in the affected party of Italy and basically said loads of people are still totally ignoring the restrictions and no punishment for doing so. They see it as optional. Despite shopping centres being closed, kids still meeting up to hang out in the car parks etc.
Yup. The Italian 'shutdown' is looking like an utter shambles. Really, really amateurish.
It would be funny if it wasn't so serious.
Agreed. Reminiscent of that stereotyped European nightmare holiday from hell joke (the Greeks do the budgeting, the Germans do the food, the English do the sex, the French arrange the music and the Italians organise it all), but not, as you say, funny in the case because it's so important that they don't cock it up.
Milan Malpersa Airport still open with lots of flights going all over the world. Some lockdown!
No mystery, they will have quality practices and quality health care facilities with enough capacity to handle emergencies.
No, that’s bollocks. France has one of the best-funded health systems in the world, has a very similar number of cases to Germany, yet France has a fairly high death rate.
The solution to the no-deaths-in-Germany mystery lies elsewhere
Could just be a matter of random dumb luck and time so far.
Overwhelming majority of Germany's cases are less than a week old so the deaths may just have not occurred yet, plus when you're talking in low digits still in France, Germany or the UK then individual semi-random variance can be overblown.
What are the error margins on "death" samples of 3 (UK), 19 (France) and 0 (Germany), and has anyone done the relevant normalisation process so that comparisons have even a shred of credibility?
Very quick calculation (with some assumptions about distribution that are probably not true, but shouldn't be way out).
France and UK death rates not different (using 0.05 significance cut-off) UK and Germany death rates not different (using 0.05 significance cut-off) Germany death rate lower than France (p < 0.05)
Now, that's three comparisons, if I did 20 I'd, on average, get one with p < 0.05 even if there were no real differences. So I wouldn't conclude there's necessarily any differences at all other than chance.
Great to see you doing a multiple hypothesis type 1 error correction!
It is not surprising that the countries hardest hit were those with the largest finance industries. Britain was already recovering from the global financial crisis until Osborne flatlined the recovery. In other words, Gordon Brown did not mismanage the economy; even if he had, that is not the reason we were hit; it was Osborne who slowed the recovery.
Given the UK has grown faster than the Eurozone for the past decade what evidence do you have that any recovery was flatlined?
Just how much faster than the Eurozone do you think we should have grown?
I would be more confident in the UK response if I knew about the non-populist, science-based measures the UK government is taking, which the Italians haven't.
Johnson is chairing his weekly crisis meeting today so no doubt we'll get an update.
According to my father we’re managing the quarantine/isolation and tracing much better.
We’re actually keeping people quarantined/isolated rather than the Italian approach which is to tell people to quarantine/isolate them then letting do whatever they like.
There was a lady on CH4 news last night who lives in the affected party of Italy and basically said loads of people are still totally ignoring the restrictions and no punishment for doing so. They see it as optional. Despite shopping centres being closed, kids still meeting up to hang out in the car parks etc.
Yup. The Italian 'shutdown' is looking like an utter shambles. Really, really amateurish.
It would be funny if it wasn't so serious.
Agreed. Reminiscent of that stereotyped European nightmare holiday from hell joke (the Greeks do the budgeting, the Germans do the food, the English do the sex, the French arrange the music and the Italians organise it all), but not, as you say, funny in the case because it's so important that they don't cock it up.
Milan Malpersa Airport still open with lots of flights going all over the world. Some lockdown!
I have just learned that trains are going in and out too – or at least that's what I surmised from Sky News. What an utter shambles. The Italian government should hang their head in shame.
No mystery, they will have quality practices and quality health care facilities with enough capacity to handle emergencies.
No, that’s bollocks. France has one of the best-funded health systems in the world, has a very similar number of cases to Germany, yet France has a fairly high death rate.
The solution to the no-deaths-in-Germany mystery lies elsewhere
Could just be a matter of random dumb luck and time so far.
Overwhelming majority of Germany's cases are less than a week old so the deaths may just have not occurred yet, plus when you're talking in low digits still in France, Germany or the UK then individual semi-random variance can be overblown.
What are the error margins on "death" samples of 3 (UK), 19 (France) and 0 (Germany), and has anyone done the relevant normalisation process so that comparisons have even a shred of credibility?
Very quick calculation (with some assumptions about distribution that are probably not true, but shouldn't be way out).
France and UK death rates not different (using 0.05 significance cut-off) UK and Germany death rates not different (using 0.05 significance cut-off) Germany death rate lower than France (p < 0.05)
Now, that's three comparisons, if I did 20 I'd, on average, get one with p < 0.05 even if there were no real differences. So I wouldn't conclude there's necessarily any differences at all other than chance.
Great to see you doing a multiple hypothesis type 1 error correction!
Why, thank you. Though I'd expect to get sacked from my job if I didn't
Labour Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell has criticised the UK Government's response to Coronavirus.
In a speech ahead of Wednesday's Budget, Mr McDonnell said: “I regret that we have not seen that leadership, commitment, indeed political, diplomatic and indeed managerial ability from either the prime minister or the chancellor.
I would be more confident in the UK response if I knew about the non-populist, science-based measures the UK government is taking, which the Italians haven't.
Johnson is chairing his weekly crisis meeting today so no doubt we'll get an update.
According to my father we’re managing the quarantine/isolation and tracing much better.
We’re actually keeping people quarantined/isolated rather than the Italian approach which is to tell people to quarantine/isolate them then letting do whatever they like.
There was a lady on CH4 news last night who lives in the affected party of Italy and basically said loads of people are still totally ignoring the restrictions and no punishment for doing so. They see it as optional. Despite shopping centres being closed, kids still meeting up to hang out in the car parks etc.
Yup. The Italian 'shutdown' is looking like an utter shambles. Really, really amateurish.
It would be funny if it wasn't so serious.
Agreed. Reminiscent of that stereotyped European nightmare holiday from hell joke (the Greeks do the budgeting, the Germans do the food, the English do the sex, the French arrange the music and the Italians organise it all), but not, as you say, funny in the case because it's so important that they don't cock it up.
Odd combination of stereotypes. It is England that has a very wide spread reputation for bad food (but not one that I agree with). Presumably the Germans write the jokes, the irish provide the accomodation and the French organise the welcome.
Interesting hint of the political battle to come this morning in R4 this morning. How well prepared are we for Coronavirus? Did austerity help by impacting deficit or did it hinder by degrading our health and social care capability?
The political legacy may be a reverse of the credit crunch. Labour spent a bit too much and took their eyes of the ball but were mostly unfairly blamed for what was a global issue for a decade.
It could easily play the same way for the right over coronavirus, whatever they had done in terms of austerity probably wouldnt have made much difference on this issue, but its an obvious (if unfair and largely incorrect) conclusion to make that austerity is to blame.
That only works if the UK deaths are worse than say Germany or France.
In a global event, the obvious thing to do is compare the UK to other similar countries.
The Tories have an enormous advantage that the UK are behind Italy, France and Germany in terms of timescale.
Only if the UK death rate is say double the German or French one will it pan out as you say.
How much did the public compare what happened in the UK re credit crunch with the rest of the world? If your in charge when it happens (and the build up to it) you get the blame. You are assigning the great British public far too much rationality.
Greatly. The public rightly recognised that what happened in the UK was much worse than what happened in the rest of the world thanks to Gordon Brown's mismanagement and blamed him accordingly.
Not sure much of southern Europe would agree with you.
Yes they would. Much of Southern Europe's governments had also mismanaged their economies like Gordon Brown had mismanaged Britain's. The voters of those nations paid attention and ejected their governments like we did ours, while voters in nations that hadn't mismanaged the economy unlike Brown were less likely to eject their government in response. See for example Canada.
Gordon Brown did not mismanage the economy. Southern Europe was screwed by Germany and the Euro. Canada's rapid recovery was largely due to exports to China and the United States, aided by a drop in exchange rates. See also Australia.
Gordon Brown did mismanage the economy. Are you a deficit denier still? Its hard to imagine they still exist, its like meeting a climate change denier.
The deficit exists, is important but rarely the most important thing. You might also recall that before the global financial crisis, our deficit was low by international standards and also low by our own historical standards. Osborne's focus on the deficit flatlined the recovery he inherited from Labour; stimulating growth would have been a better way to reduce the deficit. It is ironic that Osborne's austerity was a factor in losing the Brexit referendum and ending his own political career.
One of the reasons the GFC was so damaging to Britain - longer and deeper than almost every other country in the developed world - was because Brown had so mismanaged the economy prior to the crash. He didn't cause the crash but he made sure the UK economy suffered more than many others and for longer than was necessary.
It is not surprising that the countries hardest hit were those with the largest finance industries. Britain was already recovering from the global financial crisis until Osborne flatlined the recovery. In other words, Gordon Brown did not mismanage the economy; even if he had, that is not the reason we were hit; it was Osborne who slowed the recovery.
Your devotion to Gordon Brown's legacy is quite touching.
My understanding since this began has been that appropriate anti-virals not (despite media attention) vaccination is the key to what happens with this wave, at least with regards to fatality rate. But the thing I'm not sure about and would appreciate an expert answer to is - how easy would it be to step up production of whichever anti-virals prove most effective? Demand for anything which seems to make a difference is surely going to jump through the roof globally - I presume a lot of traditional effectiveness and cost-effectiveness assessments would be rushed through, procedures skipped if necessary. Would there be capacity to meet this kind of demand? Would certain countries get priority? Opinion of @Charles or another subject expert would be greatly appreciated.
Yes, it's a very good question. I imagine it would depend on exactly which drug(s) were identified as useful.
I’m pretty sure the answer will indeed be that depends .... In any event, AFAIK there’s been no magic bullet antiviral identified ?
And bringing a novel compound to market would take a lot longer than a vaccine.
I haven't seen anyone suggest a novel anti-viral was likely any time soon, whereas earlier in the epidemic I did see some over-optimistic speculation about vaccination coming over the hill to save us. My limited understanding was that there were several known anti-viral s either, either in use now or which had been developed for previous pandemics and passed safety trials, that had been deemed worth exploring, and even if no combination of them forms a magic bullet, there had been realistic (?) hopes of a clinically significant effect. Public health measures are going to determine how many people get this thing, but it would be nice if there were more treatment options for those who do!
Labour Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell has criticised the UK Government's response to Coronavirus.
In a speech ahead of Wednesday's Budget, Mr McDonnell said: “I regret that we have not seen that leadership, commitment, indeed political, diplomatic and indeed managerial ability from either the prime minister or the chancellor.
Labour Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell has criticised the UK Government's response to Coronavirus.
In a speech ahead of Wednesday's Budget, Mr McDonnell said: “I regret that we have not seen that leadership, commitment, indeed political, diplomatic and indeed managerial ability from either the prime minister or the chancellor.
Labour Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell has criticised the UK Government's response to Coronavirus.
In a speech ahead of Wednesday's Budget, Mr McDonnell said: “I regret that we have not seen that leadership, commitment, indeed political, diplomatic and indeed managerial ability from either the prime minister or the chancellor.
What does he think we should have been doing?
Pledging to nationalise everything that moves?
It is actually a bloody good job he isn't in power, because it would give him loads of cover to do exactly that under the guise of saving businesses.
Interesting hint of the political battle to come this morning in R4 this morning. How well prepared are we for Coronavirus? Did austerity help by impacting deficit or did it hinder by degrading our health and social care capability?
The political legacy may be a reverse of the credit crunch. Labour spent a bit too much and took their eyes of the ball but were mostly unfairly blamed for what was a global issue for a decade.
It could easily play the same way for the right over coronavirus, whatever they had done in terms of austerity probably wouldnt have made much difference on this issue, but its an obvious (if unfair and largely incorrect) conclusion to make that austerity is to blame.
That only works if the UK deaths are worse than say Germany or France.
In a global event, the obvious thing to do is compare the UK to other similar countries.
The Tories have an enormous advantage that the UK are behind Italy, France and Germany in terms of timescale.
Only if the UK death rate is say double the German or French one will it pan out as you say.
How much did the public compare what happened in the UK re credit crunch with the rest of the world? If your in charge when it happens (and the build up to it) you get the blame. You are assigning the great British public far too much rationality.
Greatly. The public rightly recognised that what happened in the UK was much worse than what happened in the rest of the world thanks to Gordon Brown's mismanagement and blamed him accordingly.
Not sure much of southern Europe would agree with you.
Yes they would. Much of Southern Europe's governments had also mismanaged their economies like Gordon Brown had mismanaged Britain's. The voters of those nations paid attention and ejected their governments like we did ours, while voters in nations that hadn't mismanaged the economy unlike Brown were less likely to eject their government in response. See for example Canada.
Gordon Brown did not mismanage the economy. Southern Europe was screwed by Germany and the Euro. Canada's rapid recovery was largely due to exports to China and the United States, aided by a drop in exchange rates. See also Australia.
Gordon Brown did mismanage the economy. Are you a deficit denier still? Its hard to imagine they still exist, its like meeting a climate change denier.
The deficit exists, is important but rarely the most important thing. You might also recall that before the global financial crisis, our deficit was low by international standards and also low by our own historical standards. Osborne's focus on the deficit flatlined the recovery he inherited from Labour; stimulating growth would have been a better way to reduce the deficit. It is ironic that Osborne's austerity was a factor in losing the Brexit referendum and ending his own political career.
One of the reasons the GFC was so damaging to Britain - longer and deeper than almost every other country in the developed world - was because Brown had so mismanaged the economy prior to the crash. He didn't cause the crash but he made sure the UK economy suffered more than many others and for longer than was necessary.
It is not surprising that the countries hardest hit were those with the largest finance industries. Britain was already recovering from the global financial crisis until Osborne flatlined the recovery. In other words, Gordon Brown did not mismanage the economy; even if he had, that is not the reason we were hit; it was Osborne who slowed the recovery.
Labour Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell has criticised the UK Government's response to Coronavirus.
In a speech ahead of Wednesday's Budget, Mr McDonnell said: “I regret that we have not seen that leadership, commitment, indeed political, diplomatic and indeed managerial ability from either the prime minister or the chancellor.
What does he think we should have been doing?
Pledging to nationalise everything that moves?
It is actually a bloody good job he isn't in power, because it would give him loads of cover to do exactly that under the guise of saving businesses.
Your devotion to Gordon Brown's legacy is quite touching.
If wholly misplaced.
Up until the Crash, why do you think the Conservatives (i) pledged to match Labour spending and (ii) argued for even looser regulation of the City?
Actually they didn't and Cameron briefly pledged to match it to neutralise the issue after losing the third consecutive election. A pledge that was politically rather than economically motivated.
Brown was the one making the decisions and the one responsible for blowing up our deficit in an historically unprecedented manner prior to the bust.
American indices have gone ‘limit down’, inhibiting the ability to sell them, and there is talk of possible market suspension today if stock selling looks like it might get out of hand.
Following Rishi Sunak’s Sunday announcement that he intends to move 20% of the Treasury out of London, Guido understands the new Chancellor’s personal top spot for the new campus is Teesside.
Futures markets have been pretty stable at 24.5k for several hours, so I'd go with that unless something major happens between now and the opening bell.
I would be more confident in the UK response if I knew about the non-populist, science-based measures the UK government is taking, which the Italians haven't.
Johnson is chairing his weekly crisis meeting today so no doubt we'll get an update.
According to my father we’re managing the quarantine/isolation and tracing much better.
We’re actually keeping people quarantined/isolated rather than the Italian approach which is to tell people to quarantine/isolate them then letting do whatever they like.
There was a lady on CH4 news last night who lives in the affected party of Italy and basically said loads of people are still totally ignoring the restrictions and no punishment for doing so. They see it as optional. Despite shopping centres being closed, kids still meeting up to hang out in the car parks etc.
Yup. The Italian 'shutdown' is looking like an utter shambles. Really, really amateurish.
It would be funny if it wasn't so serious.
Agreed. Reminiscent of that stereotyped European nightmare holiday from hell joke (the Greeks do the budgeting, the Germans do the food, the English do the sex, the French arrange the music and the Italians organise it all), but not, as you say, funny in the case because it's so important that they don't cock it up.
Milan Malpersa Airport still open with lots of flights going all over the world. Some lockdown!
I have just learned that trains are going in and out too – or at least that's what I surmised from Sky News. What an utter shambles. The Italian government should hang their head in shame.
If the Italian government can't make the trains run on time, what else do they have?
I really hope that the adults are busy working, while they leave Donald to Fox and Friends and tweeting, rather than have him interfere with their work.
Following Rishi Sunak’s Sunday announcement that he intends to move 20% of the Treasury out of London, Guido understands the new Chancellor’s personal top spot for the new campus is Teesside.
I haven't seen anyone suggest a novel anti-viral was likely any time soon, whereas earlier in the epidemic I did see some over-optimistic speculation about vaccination coming over the hill to save us. My limited understanding was that there were several known anti-viral s either, either in use now or which had been developed for previous pandemics and passed safety trials, that had been deemed worth exploring, and even if no combination of them forms a magic bullet, there had been realistic (?) hopes of a clinically significant effect. Public health measures are going to determine how many people get this thing, but it would be nice if there were more treatment options for those who do!
According to this article, there are thousands of potential compounds (used in existing medicines) to be evaluated, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is funding research on their potential effectiveness:
Comments
Outside of Brexit what evidence do you have?
I notice you say nothing of the damage caused to our recovery by the Cameron/Osborne ideological determination to cut spending deeply (rather than tax those who could afford to pay, and who in many indstances had benefitted from the boom years ahead of the GFC).
He basically took a cyclical surplus and used it to justify a massive increase in structural spending
That’s why the deficit was so hard to rein back
- Elizabeth Warren
- Kamala Harris
- Cory Booker
- Deval Patrick
- Stacey Abrams
- Amy Klobuchar
- Val Demings
- Tammy Duckworth
Apparently Jim Clyburn is going to be very involved in the choice, after rescuing the campaign with his endorsement.
Effectively the market is saying ~1% chance that Sanders wins this himself and ~6% that Biden screws up handing it to Sanders.
And no matter which decision Boris makes now people will argue it's the wrong one
He looks like toast.
Had there been a small surplus instead of an historically high 3% deficit going into the recession then the deficit would have spiked to 7% not 10%, far more manageable.
In any event, AFAIK there’s been no magic bullet antiviral identified ?
And bringing a novel compound to market would take a lot longer than a vaccine.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/GC.DOD.TOTL.GD.ZS?end=2007&locations=GB-DE-US-JP&start=1997
Or that it did particularly worse after the GFC:
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG?end=2018&locations=GB-DE-US-JP&start=2006
I don't speak for Lucky Guy. If the EU gives the UK what it asks for it can't be punishing the UK.
Where should we have cut deeper?
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/
If you think official statistics are nonsense then that's a whole another story and goes beyond just population.
If the Italians are screwing this up, anybody think the Greeks will make a better job of it? And don't they also have a very old population.
I would point out that Johnson had the advantage of watching the appalling hash his predecessor made of negotiating with the EU, and is indulging in an age-old scientific approach commonly known as "trying something different".
(This is coming from someone who would probably describe themselves as a moderate pragmatic monarchist, or at least, can't-think-of-a-satisfactory-alternativist)
France and UK death rates not different (using 0.05 significance cut-off)
UK and Germany death rates not different (using 0.05 significance cut-off)
Germany death rate lower than France (p < 0.05)
Now, that's three comparisons, if I did 20 I'd, on average, get one with p < 0.05 even if there were no real differences. So I wouldn't conclude there's necessarily any differences at all other than chance.
I guess both princesses are examples of using their looks to highlight worthy causes though. They could have become ‘princesses’ in the other sense.
https://twitter.com/DavidYoung2507/status/1236640359704395776?s=20
Just how much faster than the Eurozone do you think we should have grown?
Ha yes, that's quite funny.
In a speech ahead of Wednesday's Budget, Mr McDonnell said: “I regret that we have not seen that leadership, commitment, indeed political, diplomatic and indeed managerial ability from either the prime minister or the chancellor.
What does he think we should have been doing?
If wholly misplaced.
Hopefully the UK government will put him in quarantine for another 2 weeks, you know just to be on the safe side.
Truly a giant.
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1236945032285913089
https://twitter.com/ScottABC7/status/1236794140328890368?s=20
11 years on and you still cant accept the truth
Brown was the one making the decisions and the one responsible for blowing up our deficit in an historically unprecedented manner prior to the bust.
(It is true for international students, but that is not what the article seems to be discussing.)
So, a decade or more of obscurity hasn't improved Charles Clarke.
Once the back end of an elephant. always the back end of an elephant.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1236975196642390022
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1236980284744241154
You need to work on your sense of humour.
https://order-order.com/2020/03/09/teesside-crowned-frontrunner-new-treasury-campus/
There are going to be some London types who will get a massive culture shock if this goes ahead.
I remember going on a 2 week course there and it was a massive shock for me and I grew up in Stoke!
Game over, man. Game over.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/04/bill-and-melinda-gates-fund-study-into-finding-coronavirus-cure
No doubt there are other research initiatives as well.