The most hardline thing to do from a long-term economic management viewpoint would be to let it rip. You'd have a massive and immediate health bonus from a million or two not requiring long-term care. Your NHS could then cope with pretty much any subsequent pandemic that got thrown at it. You'll get tourism back up and running in months. Domestic consumption some way ahead of that. Tand the interests of old people. Sorry kids, Granny ain't checking out just yet....
Which is what they are doing it for. Economic reasons. Johnson won't care if grannies die.
I don't know a single young person who thinks this is right.
But the obviously correct thing to do is to hold this at bay as long as possible so that a) we get it into the summer months b) we develop better cures c) we develop better facilities incl nursing staff and d) we make further progress on the vaccine
The British Government won't do this just as they wouldn't cancel Cheltenham because they want to make as much money as they can.
Herd immunity isn't going to happen - too many people are going to think fuck this for a game of soldiers and avoid unnecessary social contact like the plague.
My 73-year old dad's view: "If you're going to get it, you're going to get it. And if it's going to kill you, it's going to kill you."
My parents went to London yesterday - they said it was heaving.
Perhaps images of people dying will change this view, I'm not so sure.
What is changing is 1) people are panic buying - which is weird, but there you go. And 2) business (as in bigger purchases) is shutting down. Irrespective of what we do, there is going to be a huge recession.
The depth of the recession and the speed of the recovery are unknowable, though FWIW I think the UK Government's approach so far has been designed to try to mitigate economic damage insofar as is possible.
In the short term, the panic buying may be a more pressing problem. If it abates after another few days and the supermarket shelves gradually replenish then all will be well. But if the activity of the existing panic buyers encourages/forces everyone else to try to hoard because they're afraid they'll run out of basic supplies then some mechanism of rationing will need to be introduced.
Panic buying is self-limiting, as people run out of storage space and (highly relevantly) ready cash.
Soon there'll be a financial market in bog roll futures
This is an excellent piece. It's very rare to see someone, particularly a political leader unravel in front of you. And that's because most political leaders have had their fair share of difficult political times - disappointments, failures, lost elections, mistakes, etc. You get hardened over the years by the difficulties of engaging in the art of the possible.
Trump has never been seasoned like that. He's a developer and reality TV star.
All that being said, it's too early to completely write Trump off. The virus did come from abroad. Most Americans can't compare their country's performance with others. If their Commander in Chief says the US is doing better, many will believe it. And if there'd been a wall... maybe the damn virus would never have arrived.
Still. Trump is diminished. Physically and mentally. He's not confident and blustering. He's struggling to cope with the pressures of the job, and he's becoming paralysed by the magnitude of the issues in front of him. His lies are now more to convince himself than anyone else.
If he survives this, he'll be an older, sadder, weaker man. We've seen these transformations before. You can go from virile to decrepit surprisingly quickly.
Trump and Johnson are much the same , a pair of useless chancers
They have some similarities, but people overplay just how similar they are. Boris on occasion can be Trump like but he's not the Britain Trump.
As he says, our policy is “risky and rests on assumptions”, but when I noted this yesterday morning you went all “you think you know better than the PM of Singapore”?
I think this is my only actual problem with the British strategy (for all my over the top posts about it).
The overall long term strategy is utterly opaque. Although they may have a strategy there is no appearance of strategy.
There may be good reasons for this, they may think the public will act badly if they have all the info but at the moment without their plan and projected numbers I cannot see how they achieve a single summer peak and avoid a double hump.
Why do you think it’s opaque? It seems clear and obvious to me. They want the virus to spread but slowly enough that the NHS can cope. They want the bulk of cases to have happened before winter strains on the NHS come into play. They want, so far as possible, for herd immunity to be built up among the young and the fit whilst protecting or isolating the most vulnerable. They recognise that they will have limited success in this and some of the vulnerable will die as a result, as will a small number of the less vulnerable who are just unlucky.
It’s a tough policy with horrendous consequences but there really is nothing opaque about it.
Herd immunity isn't going to happen - too many people are going to think fuck this for a game of soldiers and avoid unnecessary social contact like the plague.
My 73-year old dad's view: "If you're going to get it, you're going to get it. And if it's going to kill you, it's going to kill you."
My parents went to London yesterday - they said it was heaving.
Perhaps images of people dying will change this view, I'm not so sure.
What is changing is 1) people are panic buying - which is weird, but there you go. And 2) business (as in bigger purchases) is shutting down. Irrespective of what we do, there is going to be a huge recession.
The depth of the recession and the speed of the recovery are unknowable, though FWIW I think the UK Government's approach so far has been designed to try to mitigate economic damage insofar as is possible.
In the short term, the panic buying may be a more pressing problem. If it abates after another few days and the supermarket shelves gradually replenish then all will be well. But if the activity of the existing panic buyers encourages/forces everyone else to try to hoard because they're afraid they'll run out of basic supplies then some mechanism of rationing will need to be introduced.
Panic buying is self-limiting, as people run out of storage space and (highly relevantly) ready cash.
Soon there'll be a financial market in bog roll futures
Keir Starmer is 1.04 to be next Labour leader; in other words, to keep breathing for the next three weeks or so. This is the same price you'd see about a horse with a clear lead before it has jumped the final fence.
I have taken time to come to terms with this. I have raised questions and expressed reservations based on the evidence of what other countries were doing. It seemed to me at times that the government’s policy was a counsel of despair resulting in the deaths of at least tens of thousands of our citizens. I do not accept that asking such questions and expressing such doubts is setting myself up as some form of “expert” or armchair general. We all have a stake in this. We are all going to lose family and friends.
With considerable reluctance and no little trepidation I have come to the view that the government’s policy is the best we can do on the known facts. Those facts may still change, especially if there is a breakthrough in treatment or vaccine but we cannot count on that. In the absence of such a breakthrough all we can do is get through this and take the pain.
We can discuss and second-guess the decisions in the pub (or at home).
The Government has to actually make them.
Yes. This government is having to take some of the toughest decisions any government has for a very long time. I don’t envy them their task.
Herd immunity isn't going to happen - too many people are going to think fuck this for a game of soldiers and avoid unnecessary social contact like the plague.
My 73-year old dad's view: "If you're going to get it, you're going to get it. And if it's going to kill you, it's going to kill you."
My parents went to London yesterday - they said it was heaving.
Perhaps images of people dying will change this view, I'm not so sure.
What is changing is 1) people are panic buying - which is weird, but there you go. And 2) business (as in bigger purchases) is shutting down. Irrespective of what we do, there is going to be a huge recession.
The depth of the recession and the speed of the recovery are unknowable, though FWIW I think the UK Government's approach so far has been designed to try to mitigate economic damage insofar as is possible.
In the short term, the panic buying may be a more pressing problem. If it abates after another few days and the supermarket shelves gradually replenish then all will be well. But if the activity of the existing panic buyers encourages/forces everyone else to try to hoard because they're afraid they'll run out of basic supplies then some mechanism of rationing will need to be introduced.
Depending on how badly this year’s growing season is affected by farmer downtime, it may be sometime before the full range of products we’re use to seeing at the prices we’re used to paying returns.
Price gouging has already started of course, and that's not limited to the cost of hand sanitisers and digital thermometers on Amazon. I was discussing with my Mum, who's now in her more mature years and therefore likely to be told to start self-isolating soon, the practicalities of online grocery delivery (which, despite being in possession of the required basic computer skills, she's not felt any need to use before.) One of her friends has told her that, whilst the service in their area is busy, slots are still available within a reasonable timeframe - but that the supermarket has ramped up its delivery charges. One does wonder how long it will be before that kind of inflation begins to be seen in the price of various scarce commodities?
The irony of that is that the idiot panic buyers may end up looking rather clever, if bog roll appreciates in value by 200%.
This, and the likely disruptions in supply chains, is why I believe inflation will be an end product of this crisis.
It is quite possible to be better prepared for a second wave, in terms of vaccines, treatments, or even mundane things like adequate stores of protective equipment, training and ICU capacity.
How feasible and practical is a vaccine?
Is the Government preparing for herd immunity because it thinks it will take too long, or won't work, or because they think they won't get enough of it? Or do you always do both to be prudent?
Which?
1) Will "herd immunity" be futile with a shift in virus antigenicity?
2) Will a second wave occur at all? Equally the virus could mutate to a less virulent form.
3) Will there be no effective treatment or vaccine by the time a second wave arrives that renders "herd immunity" pointless?
The government strategy, such as it is*, fails if any of these three is true.
* people are self isolating to the point that we may well not get "herd immunity" at all.
As I am fairly nailed on to get it in the first wave, I have a certain amount of skin in this game. Protective equipment stocks will last just days as far as I can see. Unless there is a massive shipment coming our way.
This is what I don’t understand about the government’s strategy: if the idea is for the less vulnerable to get it and build up “herd” immunity, isn’t that counteracted by all the advice to wash hands etc which is designed to stop us getting it?
Presumably as that slows the spread but does not eliminate it as not everyone follows advice etc?
As he says, our policy is “risky and rests on assumptions”, but when I noted this yesterday morning you went all “you think you know better than the PM of Singapore”?
I think this is my only actual problem with the British strategy (for all my over the top posts about it).
The overall long term strategy is utterly opaque. Although they may have a strategy there is no appearance of strategy.
There may be good reasons for this, they may think the public will act badly if they have all the info but at the moment without their plan and projected numbers I cannot see how they achieve a single summer peak and avoid a double hump.
It would possibly help more if they went far stronger on the relative level of risk for those young and healthy, and the old and vulnerable groups. Maybe that was what Jeremy Hunt was getting at. There is a danger that their strategy is going to be massively undermined by the large scale voluntary self isolation that is happening. When actually they don't want self isolation of healthy people but do want self isolation of vulnerable people.
If they can get that message out then the strategy may be more successful in its aims.
BTW it was interesting to read that in the planned emergency legislation next week (which I think may have been misinterpreted as things the Govt is actually going to do immediately, as opposed to things they want the power to be able to do at the appropriate time) there was reference to being able to force schools to stay open. Which will be interesting, given the debate about whether they should be closed or not. Suggests, as above, that they are concerned that the population are derisking themselves on an individual level to an excess that they don't want.
Herd immunity isn't going to happen - too many people are going to think fuck this for a game of soldiers and avoid unnecessary social contact like the plague.
My 73-year old dad's view: "If you're going to get it, you're going to get it. And if it's going to kill you, it's going to kill you."
My parents went to London yesterday - they said it was heaving.
Perhaps images of people dying will change this view, I'm not so sure.
What is changing is 1) people are panic buying - which is weird, but there you go. And 2) business (as in bigger purchases) is shutting down. Irrespective of what we do, there is going to be a huge recession.
The depth of the recession and the speed of the recovery are unknowable, though FWIW I think the UK Government's approach so far has been designed to try to mitigate economic damage insofar as is possible.
In the short term, the panic buying may be a more pressing problem. If it abates after another few days and the supermarket shelves gradually replenish then all will be well. But if the activity of the existing panic buyers encourages/forces everyone else to try to hoard because they're afraid they'll run out of basic supplies then some mechanism of rationing will need to be introduced.
Depending on how badly this year’s growing season is affected by farmer downtime, it may be sometime before the full range of products we’re use to seeing at the prices we’re used to paying returns.
Price gouging has already started of course, and that's not limited to the cost of hand sanitisers and digital thermometers on Amazon. I was discussing with my Mum, who's now in her more mature years and therefore likely to be told to start self-isolating soon, the practicalities of online grocery delivery (which, despite being in possession of the required basic computer skills, she's not felt any need to use before.) One of her friends has told her that, whilst the service in their area is busy, slots are still available within a reasonable timeframe - but that the supermarket has ramped up its delivery charges. One does wonder how long it will be before that kind of inflation begins to be seen in the price of various scarce commodities?
The irony of that is that the idiot panic buyers may end up looking rather clever, if bog roll appreciates in value by 200%.
This, and the likely disruptions in supply chains, is why I believe inflation will be an end product of this crisis.
I think one end point is likely to be widescale (possibly temporary) nationalisations. Probably British Airways as a minimum.
A Friday, of course, but yesterday was the first day that the Tube was appreciably quieter. Returning home at 5.30 on the Jubilee and Central lines, I was able to get a seat on both trains. Unprecedented for that time in the evening.
Lunchtime walk in St James Park. Yes, there were still a lot of people around, but it was notably less mobbed, and far fewer tourists.
I have no view on which strategy is right but I know of no one out here who is against the lockdown. It might just stop widespread infection in a community where, at the moment, is 60%+ over 65 with many octogenarians. it’s going to be hard on the businesses and looking around my nearest neighbors seems to have worked in that no one has arrived from Murcia or Madrid. Will see what new measures come out of this mornings cabinet meeting.
How long do you expect to be locked down?
It’s initially fo 15 days but my guess is it will stay like this for a month at least. If the government bring in internal travel restrictions then it could be shorter. There are worse places to have nothing to do, I just pray the hospitals keep functioning as normally As possible.
How do people get food? What about those who need care at home?
Supermarkets open all care services functioning it really is the social side that is being made unattractive to put of people coming. Unless you are happy to sit on your terrace in the sun then fair enough as long as you have no symptoms.
Donald Trump certainly hasn’t handled Covid-19 well. It will have damaged him and the point of damage is likely to continue to be relevant all the way to the election.
It’s a bit too soon to say that damage is fatal. It’s certainly serious.
It is quite possible to be better prepared for a second wave, in terms of vaccines, treatments, or even mundane things like adequate stores of protective equipment, training and ICU capacity.
How feasible and practical is a vaccine?
Is the Government preparing for herd immunity because it thinks it will take too long, or won't work, or because they think they won't get enough of it? Or do you always do both to be prudent?
Which?
1) Will "herd immunity" be futile with a shift in virus antigenicity?
2) Will a second wave occur at all? Equally the virus could mutate to a less virulent form.
3) Will there be no effective treatment or vaccine by the time a second wave arrives that renders "herd immunity" pointless?
The government strategy, such as it is*, fails if any of these three is true.
* people are self isolating to the point that we may well not get "herd immunity" at all.
As I am fairly nailed on to get it in the first wave, I have a certain amount of skin in this game. Protective equipment stocks will last just days as far as I can see. Unless there is a massive shipment coming our way.
This is what I don’t understand about the government’s strategy: if the idea is for the less vulnerable to get it and build up “herd” immunity, isn’t that counteracted by all the advice to wash hands etc which is designed to stop us getting it?
Presumably as that slows the spread but does not eliminate it as not everyone follows advice etc?
Of people who get the virus, they guess one in seven will need to be in hospital. Of those, one in five will need intensive care. So maybe one out of thirty five people who catch the virus will need an intensive care bed. This ratio gets hugely better if mostly younger people catch it and older people don't.
It's the ability of health services to provide the necessary care that is the key constraint. So long as the load on the NHS remains (projecting a week or two ahead) below what it can provide, we want more people to get infected. When it looks likely to meet capacity, we need more isolation.
We're in for a long haul, with a lot of bad news (and false hope, as those countries in lockdown will discover when they emerge expecting problem solved) along the way. It isn't surprising that politicians don't want to spell all of this out in advance.
One of the upsides of the government's (pitiful) boycott of our national broadcaster is that there has been a lot more space for real experts to spell it out for us, if we are willing to listen. Newsnight last week was excellent throughout.
The most hardline thing to do from a long-term economic management viewpoint would be to let it rip. You'd have a massive and immediate health bonus from a million or two not requiring long-term care. Your NHS could then cope with pretty much any subsequent pandemic that got thrown at it. You'll get tourism back up and running in months. Domestic consumption some way ahead of that. Tand the interests of old people. Sorry kids, Granny ain't checking out just yet....
Which is what they are doing it for. Economic reasons. Johnson won't care if grannies die.
I don't know a single young person who thinks this is right.
But the obviously correct thing to do is to hold this at bay as long as possible so that a) we get it into the summer months b) we develop better cures c) we develop better facilities incl nursing staff and d) we make further progress on the vaccine
The British Government won't do this just as they wouldn't cancel Cheltenham because they want to make as much money as they can.
For BJ and Cummings it's all about the £££££££
Obviously rubbish, because yet again you're ignoring the fact that they are basing decisions on scientific advice. But anyway, even despite that, ££££££ matter! Our entire way of life is economy dependent. The funding of our health service is economy dependent. The ability of people to eat is economy dependent. If our economy collapses people die. You are concerned about the number of people who will die of Coronavirus. The Government also has to consider the number of people who will die of everything else.
Do people not listen. The egg heads said the other day this was now the policy and was quite clear that they estimated the real number is at least x10 i.e. ~10,000. There is no attempts at an Iranian downplaying of the issue, it is about focusing testing on front line staff (note I still personally not sure why we can't copy South Korea two strand approach to testing).
With the government’s strategy, to cocoon the old and those with underlying conditions, then that divide needs to happen now, so that society continues in its slimmed down state.
As far as I can see, next to nothing has been said about this. To be effective, employers need to know which employees they can keep and those still working need to know that they will be legally protected of they cannot. Those already retired will also need a support network setting up, especially those on their own.
These things are necessary to make it work, if the government is serious about this then they are dithering dangerously. Surely the next set of announcements is going to give such guidance?
On my Sainsbury’s run the shelves were empty of toilet roll, pasta, rice, tinned tomatoes, aspirin, paracetomol and ibuprofen. Kitchen roll was abundant, which indicates a certain lack of imagination from the panic posse.
He’s not an expert. He’s a man in his bedroom who was a nurse teacher and had found a new hobby. DW interviewed him as he’s a YouTube sensation. I looked at one of his videos a few days ago. It’s not exactly insight, it’s webscraping with a veneer.
Thanks for the warning. I know Feist who's an expert in his own field and assumed he'd take more care than that.
I also don't know of anyone who is happy to go along with being part of Boris Johnson's cull
It goes right against the most basic animal survival instinct
I'm hunkering down. Fuck Boris.
Could you also turn off your internet connection, please. All of your alter egos, if you don’t mind.
I am me. Not Eadric. Not Sean.
So no, ta.
This place, as a number have said recently, provides a really good social outlet in this crisis. We need to get along, no matter a variety of viewpoints and be welcoming to one another even when we don't agree with one another.
Do people not listen. The egg heads said the other day this was now the policy and was quite clear that they estimated the real number is at least 10,000. There is no attempts at an Iranian downplaying of the issue, it is about focusing testing on front line staff (note I still personally not sure why we can't copy South Korea two strand approach to testing).
The lesson is not to rely on people whose occupation is making stuff up and writing it down for our entertainment - however good at it they might be - when it comes to judging the right actions to take in a crisis of public policy.
Fortunately there are a lot of people in here who have experience of having managed people, processes, organisations and budgets through smaller crises, and who at least have some sort of understanding of the myriad of conflicting pressures and the balances of judgement that need to be made.
I haven't been able to stand it anymore and have laid her another big one.
Perhaps we need to consider what currently unimaginable political outcomes might arise if the US is, by the autumn, overwhelmed by a significant peak of its projected million plus deaths coming at once?
We do. We absolutely do.
And she still isn't a 19/1 shot.
I'm not arguing she's not a shot at *any* price - for example, I'd definitely back her above 100/1 for small stakes - but I'm a layer at anything beneath 40/1.
They said yesterday (do pay attention!) they estimate 10,000.
And if Mr McFarlane was paying attention he too would have known not to phone 111 but go online.
One big point of criticism I would have is that the government have done a good job with the wash your hands mantra, but they really need to step up the don't go to hospital or your GP, don't ring 111, use the website. It needs repeating time and time and time again like Get Brexit Done, because in general people really don't take that much notice of things.
I also don't know of anyone who is happy to go along with being part of Boris Johnson's cull
It goes right against the most basic animal survival instinct
I'm hunkering down. Fuck Boris.
Could you also turn off your internet connection, please. All of your alter egos, if you don’t mind.
I'm wondering what he thinks his personal chances of dieing from catching the virus are? I suppose if we are correct in our beliefs of his identity his history might make him high risk. But in principle all the activities he engaged in when younger were far higher.
I have no view on which strategy is right but I know of no one out here who is against the lockdown. It might just stop widespread infection in a community where, at the moment, is 60%+ over 65 with many octogenarians. it’s going to be hard on the businesses and looking around my nearest neighbors seems to have worked in that no one has arrived from Murcia or Madrid. Will see what new measures come out of this mornings cabinet meeting.
How long do you expect to be locked down?
It’s initially fo 15 days but my guess is it will stay like this for a month at least. If the government bring in internal travel restrictions then it could be shorter. There are worse places to have nothing to do, I just pray the hospitals keep functioning as normally As possible.
How do people get food? What about those who need care at home?
Supermarkets open all care services functioning it really is the social side that is being made unattractive to put of people coming. Unless you are happy to sit on your terrace in the sun then fair enough as long as you have no symptoms.
One of the issues with this type of lock down (and with a potential future UK family lock down) is that transmissions happy most easily in confined spaces - the family home being one obvious example! Well best of luck and hope its not too wearisome!
I also don't know of anyone who is happy to go along with being part of Boris Johnson's cull
It goes right against the most basic animal survival instinct
I'm hunkering down. Fuck Boris.
Could you also turn off your internet connection, please. All of your alter egos, if you don’t mind.
I am me. Not Eadric. Not Sean.
So no, ta.
This place, as a number have said recently, provides a really good social outlet in this crisis. We need to get along, no matter a variety of viewpoints and be welcoming to one another even when we don't agree with one another.
OK fine, but in that case stop the infantile shit about "culls" and so on.
On a lighter note, just looked in a couple of cupboards and turns out I've been stockpiling loo roll for months. Didn't even realise it was happening. Got about six months supply!
I'd be careful about advertising the fact, you might get burgled...
All those screaming flip-flop / U-Turn...I am glad they weren't about in the war.
Rightly or wrongly the UK government strategy is herd immunity, but the policies are going to shift as the war goes on. Furthermore, we aren't privy to all the legal requirements, which must be incredibly complex. I am not just talking about detaining people, but how do you decide what is a mass gathering and how are you going to compensate companies you are just about to basically put out of business, how do you enforce any restrictions on travel properly i.e. not like Italian nonsense self-certify system.
They said yesterday (do pay attention!) they estimate 10,000.
And if Mr McFarlane was paying attention he too would have known not to phone 111 but go online.
One big point of criticism I would have is that the government have done a good job with the wash your hands mantra, but they really need to step up the don't go to hospital or your GP, don't ring 111, use the website. It needs repeating time and time and time again like Get Brexit Done, because in general people really don't take that much notice of things.
I agree - you can't say it often enough - you need people to be thoroughly pissed off with it and able to recite it by heart.
I also don't know of anyone who is happy to go along with being part of Boris Johnson's cull
It goes right against the most basic animal survival instinct
I'm hunkering down. Fuck Boris.
I kind of hope you are getting paid by a foreign state to disrupt the UK. If you are genuinely writing this nonsense from your own beliefs it is very sad.
I also don't know of anyone who is happy to go along with being part of Boris Johnson's cull
It goes right against the most basic animal survival instinct
I'm hunkering down. Fuck Boris.
Could you also turn off your internet connection, please. All of your alter egos, if you don’t mind.
I am me. Not Eadric. Not Sean.
So no, ta.
This place, as a number have said recently, provides a really good social outlet in this crisis. We need to get along, no matter a variety of viewpoints and be welcoming to one another even when we don't agree with one another.
OK fine, but in that case stop the infantile shit about "culls" and so on.
It isn't infantile or wrong. It's exactly what the Gov't are proposing.
So I'll continue to post it and everyone out there is agreeing with me.
I also don't know of anyone who is happy to go along with being part of Boris Johnson's cull
It goes right against the most basic animal survival instinct
I'm hunkering down. Fuck Boris.
Could you also turn off your internet connection, please. All of your alter egos, if you don’t mind.
I am me. Not Eadric. Not Sean.
So no, ta.
This place, as a number have said recently, provides a really good social outlet in this crisis. We need to get along, no matter a variety of viewpoints and be welcoming to one another even when we don't agree with one another.
We know you're not Sean.
We also know that writers are f*****g useless in a crisis.
Do people not listen. The egg heads said the other day this was now the policy and was quite clear that they estimated the real number is at least x10 i.e. ~10,000. There is no attempts at an Iranian downplaying of the issue, it is about focusing testing on front line staff (note I still personally not sure why we can't copy South Korea two strand approach to testing).
May I point out PB has spent the last few weeks admonishing the US for lack of testing...
I haven't been able to stand it anymore and have laid her another big one.
Perhaps we need to consider what currently unimaginable political outcomes might arise if the US is, by the autumn, overwhelmed by a significant peak of its projected million plus deaths coming at once?
We do. We absolutely do.
And she still isn't a 19/1 shot.
I'm not arguing she's not a shot at *any* price - for example, I'd definitely back her above 100/1 for small stakes - but I'm a layer at anything beneath 40/1.
I've seen this before in this type of market. It's going to happen. Or at the very least she will come in significantly further.
I also don't know of anyone who is happy to go along with being part of Boris Johnson's cull
It goes right against the most basic animal survival instinct
I'm hunkering down. Fuck Boris.
Could you also turn off your internet connection, please. All of your alter egos, if you don’t mind.
I am me. Not Eadric. Not Sean.
So no, ta.
This place, as a number have said recently, provides a really good social outlet in this crisis. We need to get along, no matter a variety of viewpoints and be welcoming to one another even when we don't agree with one another.
OK fine, but in that case stop the infantile shit about "culls" and so on.
It isn't infantile or wrong. It's exactly what the Gov't are proposing.
So I'll continue to post it and everyone out there is agreeing with me.
It's eugenics.
You read a whole book about the Black Death, and came away with the impression that it is caused by a virus. Your other beliefs need to be triangulated against that jawdropping fact.
I haven't been able to stand it anymore and have laid her another big one.
Perhaps we need to consider what currently unimaginable political outcomes might arise if the US is, by the autumn, overwhelmed by a significant peak of its projected million plus deaths coming at once?
We do. We absolutely do.
And she still isn't a 19/1 shot.
I'm not arguing she's not a shot at *any* price - for example, I'd definitely back her above 100/1 for small stakes - but I'm a layer at anything beneath 40/1.
Surely Warren is in better health for 72, is quick-witted and less awkward with people. She certainly *looks* fitter.
As he says, our policy is “risky and rests on assumptions”, but when I noted this yesterday morning you went all “you think you know better than the PM of Singapore”?
I think this is my only actual problem with the British strategy (for all my over the top posts about it).
The overall long term strategy is utterly opaque. Although they may have a strategy there is no appearance of strategy.
There may be good reasons for this, they may think the public will act badly if they have all the info but at the moment without their plan and projected numbers I cannot see how they achieve a single summer peak and avoid a double hump.
Why do you think it’s opaque? It seems clear and obvious to me. They want the virus to spread but slowly enough that the NHS can cope. They want the bulk of cases to have happened before winter strains on the NHS come into play. They want, so far as possible, for herd immunity to be built up among the young and the fit whilst protecting or isolating the most vulnerable. They recognise that they will have limited success in this and some of the vulnerable will die as a result, as will a small number of the less vulnerable who are just unlucky.
It’s a tough policy with horrendous consequences but there really is nothing opaque about it.
The opacity is in many facets but the basic o e is the numbers. If they are looking for herd immunity to be in place before winter then they are looking at approx a million new coronavirus infections per week for the next 6 months.
If just 0.1% of those require hospitalisation that's a thousand people a week extra admissions into hospital.
As a result, based on the lack of information I have I do not believe they are aiming for a single peak and for herd immunity to be in place for this winter.
On a lighter note, just looked in a couple of cupboards and turns out I've been stockpiling loo roll for months. Didn't even realise it was happening. Got about six months supply!
I'd be careful about advertising the fact, you might get burgled...
I was - 4 weeks ago. They showed no imagination and went for the jewellery.
Ms. Rose, China quarantined settlements and welded shut the doors of homes.
That seems quite family isolation-ist to me.
We'll only know whether the Government is making the right call months from now. Just because other places are doing things differently doesn't mean they're right. Nobody knows. Whatever the Government does, a large number of people will die.
I think Boris is pursuing the correct tactics. Bring in the experts and listen to them. They might be wrong but it is defensible. If he did anything else, it would give the armchair 'experts' an extra stick to beat him with.
There is still a political element to some of the criticisms, but there always will be. If he took notice of the assorted thickos jostling to shout loudest, they'd still criticise him for pandering to ignorance.
What’s disappointing is things like Ian Donald’s thread above. Thoughtful and useful thread. And then he added at the end “way to clever for Boris Johnson to have thought of”. Unnecessary and unhelpful. Johnson is listening to the specialists in this area and making a judgement on the right strategy.
It’s a gutsy call and I hope it goes right. For all our sakes.
I saw that - a potential flaw in the future UK plan of "household lock down" - maybe the calculation is that for nuclear families the kids will be relatively unscathed and the parents ok. Of course its potentially a huge problem for families with elderly relatives at home.
I remain sceptical about the figures worldwide. Last time I looked Turkey, for instance, was declaring 2 cases but I have been told via someone in the capital that there are hundreds of cases in Ankara alone.
The Chinese situation now looks great but what would actually be stopping a totalitarian regime that badly wants to save face simply not testing people are attributing most deaths to other causes?
I also don't know of anyone who is happy to go along with being part of Boris Johnson's cull
It goes right against the most basic animal survival instinct
I'm hunkering down. Fuck Boris.
Could you also turn off your internet connection, please. All of your alter egos, if you don’t mind.
I am me. Not Eadric. Not Sean.
So no, ta.
This place, as a number have said recently, provides a really good social outlet in this crisis. We need to get along, no matter a variety of viewpoints and be welcoming to one another even when we don't agree with one another.
OK fine, but in that case stop the infantile shit about "culls" and so on.
It isn't infantile or wrong. It's exactly what the Gov't are proposing.
So I'll continue to post it and everyone out there is agreeing with me.
It's eugenics.
A cull is the opposite to what the government is proposing. The government wants the brunt to be borne by young and healthy people who will not die but who will contribute to herd immunity. This will also allow the NHS to concentrate on aiding the sick. The plan may be blown off course by sports, schools and others taking their own decisions to close down for the duration but that is another story.
I remain sceptical about the figures worldwide. Last time I looked Turkey, for instance, was declaring 2 cases but I have been told via someone in the capital that there are hundreds of cases in Ankara alone.
The Chinese situation now looks great but what would actually be stopping a totalitarian regime that badly wants to save face simply not testing people are attributing most deaths to other causes?
I don't think the UK government believe the Chinese figures, both during the outbreak or now. That isn't to say they haven't massively suppressed it, but if it was that you could limit it to 100k cases, I can't see them going for this herd immunity strategy.
As he says, our policy is “risky and rests on assumptions”, but when I noted this yesterday morning you went all “you think you know better than the PM of Singapore”?
I think this is my only actual problem with the British strategy (for all my over the top posts about it).
The overall long term strategy is utterly opaque. Although they may have a strategy there is no appearance of strategy.
There may be good reasons for this, they may think the public will act badly if they have all the info but at the moment without their plan and projected numbers I cannot see how they achieve a single summer peak and avoid a double hump.
Why do you think it’s opaque? It seems clear and obvious to me. They want the virus to spread but slowly enough that the NHS can cope. They want the bulk of cases to have happened before winter strains on the NHS come into play. They want, so far as possible, for herd immunity to be built up among the young and the fit whilst protecting or isolating the most vulnerable. They recognise that they will have limited success in this and some of the vulnerable will die as a result, as will a small number of the less vulnerable who are just unlucky.
It’s a tough policy with horrendous consequences but there really is nothing opaque about it.
The opacity is in many facets but the basic o e is the numbers. If they are looking for herd immunity to be in place before winter then they are looking at approx a million new coronavirus infections per week for the next 6 months.
If just 0.1% of those require hospitalisation that's a thousand people a week extra admissions into hospital.
As a result, based on the lack of information I have I do not believe they are aiming for a single peak and for herd immunity to be in place for this winter.
I'm not really sure that they're expecting or aiming for complete herd immunity by the winter. But some is better than none. And will be needed for the winter after. If we were going to reach a level which protected us by the winter, they wouldn't be referring to it as a multi year problem.
As he says, our policy is “risky and rests on assumptions”, but when I noted this yesterday morning you went all “you think you know better than the PM of Singapore”?
I think this is my only actual problem with the British strategy (for all my over the top posts about it).
The overall long term strategy is utterly opaque. Although they may have a strategy there is no appearance of strategy.
There may be good reasons for this, they may think the public will act badly if they have all the info but at the moment without their plan and projected numbers I cannot see how they achieve a single summer peak and avoid a double hump.
Why do you think it’s opaque? It seems clear and obvious to me. They want the virus to spread but slowly enough that the NHS can cope. They want the bulk of cases to have happened before winter strains on the NHS come into play. They want, so far as possible, for herd immunity to be built up among the young and the fit whilst protecting or isolating the most vulnerable. They recognise that they will have limited success in this and some of the vulnerable will die as a result, as will a small number of the less vulnerable who are just unlucky.
It’s a tough policy with horrendous consequences but there really is nothing opaque about it.
The opacity is in many facets but the basic o e is the numbers. If they are looking for herd immunity to be in place before winter then they are looking at approx a million new coronavirus infections per week for the next 6 months.
If just 0.1% of those require hospitalisation that's a thousand people a week extra admissions into hospital.
As a result, based on the lack of information I have I do not believe they are aiming for a single peak and for herd immunity to be in place for this winter.
I'm not really sure that they're expecting or aiming for complete herd immunity by the winter. But some is better than none. And will be needed for the winter after. If we were going to reach a level which protected us by the winter, they wouldn't be referring to it as a multi year problem.
If they want to get it through the young population as quickly as possible, say that all festivals are for under 30s only, announce casting calls for Love Island across the country and roll Jezza out for a Jez-Live roadshow.
On a lighter note, just looked in a couple of cupboards and turns out I've been stockpiling loo roll for months. Didn't even realise it was happening. Got about six months supply!
On Trump press conference...so it wasn't a really bad acid trip then?
Even by Trump standards, I don't think I have ever seen anything quite so bizarre. It was as if he had signed an international trade deal. And what were all those CEOs thinking, lets go and all get into close contact with a load of other important people, shake hands etc.
If one of them has it, that is probably the heads of 10-15 major companies who have now contracted it.
I also don't know of anyone who is happy to go along with being part of Boris Johnson's cull
It goes right against the most basic animal survival instinct
I'm hunkering down. Fuck Boris.
Could you also turn off your internet connection, please. All of your alter egos, if you don’t mind.
I am me. Not Eadric. Not Sean.
So no, ta.
This place, as a number have said recently, provides a really good social outlet in this crisis. We need to get along, no matter a variety of viewpoints and be welcoming to one another even when we don't agree with one another.
OK fine, but in that case stop the infantile shit about "culls" and so on.
It isn't infantile or wrong. It's exactly what the Gov't are proposing.
So I'll continue to post it and everyone out there is agreeing with me.
It's eugenics.
It rather looks it. Cull the old who aren't together enough to self-isolate and rely on their regular Waitrose deliveries. Save on pensions and future use of the NHS by those who still ignore the warnings.
Cull the young who are genetically unlucky ... before they have children. (OTOH this is too late to stop teenage pregnancies which Cummings's weirdos dislike.)
To get it in perspective, a flu outbreak in 2009 killed ~1% of over-65s. A friend tells me that the estimated fatality rate for this is 3-4%. Not nice given that I'm 66.
It would be good if the NHS hadn't been out of stock of pneumonia vaccine for 3-4 months.
On a lighter note, just looked in a couple of cupboards and turns out I've been stockpiling loo roll for months. Didn't even realise it was happening. Got about six months supply!
I also don't know of anyone who is happy to go along with being part of Boris Johnson's cull
It goes right against the most basic animal survival instinct
I'm hunkering down. Fuck Boris.
Could you also turn off your internet connection, please. All of your alter egos, if you don’t mind.
I am me. Not Eadric. Not Sean.
So no, ta.
This place, as a number have said recently, provides a really good social outlet in this crisis. We need to get along, no matter a variety of viewpoints and be welcoming to one another even when we don't agree with one another.
OK fine, but in that case stop the infantile shit about "culls" and so on.
It isn't infantile or wrong. It's exactly what the Gov't are proposing.
So I'll continue to post it and everyone out there is agreeing with me.
It's eugenics.
It rather looks it. Cull the old who aren't together enough to self-isolate and rely on their regular Waitrose deliveries. Save on pensions and future use of the NHS by those who still ignore the warnings.
Cull the young who are genetically unlucky ... before they have children. (OTOH this is too late to stop teenage pregnancies which Cummings's weirdos dislike.)
To get it in perspective, a flu outbreak in 2009 killed ~1% of over-65s. A friend tells me that the estimated fatality rate for this is 3-4%. Not nice given that I'm 66.
It would be good if the NHS hadn't been out of stock of pneumonia vaccine for 3-4 months.
And there is your problem. The CMO says he believes it is < 1%. The 3-4% figure is based upon Wuhan and incomplete data. The rest of China is nothing like that, nor is the likes of South Korea. Among the under 50s, the rate is very very small, problematic cases are highly skewed (but not exclusively) to the old.
Witty maybe wrong, but that is the strategy they are working with.
I remain sceptical about the figures worldwide. Last time I looked Turkey, for instance, was declaring 2 cases but I have been told via someone in the capital that there are hundreds of cases in Ankara alone.
The Chinese situation now looks great but what would actually be stopping a totalitarian regime that badly wants to save face simply not testing people are attributing most deaths to other causes?
I saw that - a potential flaw in the future UK plan of "household lock down" - maybe the calculation is that for nuclear families the kids will be relatively unscathed and the parents ok. Of course its potentially a huge problem for families with elderly relatives at home.
So when Mum and Dad need hospitalisation but the kids are running around just fine, then what?
Do people not listen. The egg heads said the other day this was now the policy and was quite clear that they estimated the real number is at least x10 i.e. ~10,000. There is no attempts at an Iranian downplaying of the issue, it is about focusing testing on front line staff (note I still personally not sure why we can't copy South Korea two strand approach to testing).
May I point out PB has spent the last few weeks admonishing the US for lack of testing...
If the US wanted to adopt our sort of approach (which realistically is the only one open to them, for the reasons spelled out in the lead), they could still do so, if they act decisively and quickly. All they lack is information to make judgements about when to take which action - and by the sound of things they are quickly rolling out a testing programme that will do just that.
The lead is absolutely right that the crisis has shown up Trump's weakness - and also the weakness of its healthcare system to respond to a public health crisis.
But in terms of final outcome, it may not make that much difference - provided they act before their healthcare system is overwhelmed as per north Italy.
On a lighter note, just looked in a couple of cupboards and turns out I've been stockpiling loo roll for months. Didn't even realise it was happening. Got about six months supply!
November is a long way away so I'm taking this with a pinch of salt. All sorts of things could happen before then, not least of which could be the worst of the infection passes over America and then Trump passes an emergency stimulus and lifts restrictions just in time.
Also, we had a Herdson article just a few weeks ago tipping buying Sanders when he was odds on - and we know what happened next.
Things that look inevitable one week can look very different the next.
With respect, I didn't say it was inevitable and I did say that the White House bet was the better value, because "Trump’s typically self-centred and quite possibly grossly inadequate reaction to the coronavirus outbreak, should now be favourite in a head-to-head with Trump, the president’s skill at negative campaigning notwithstanding".
The Sanders call was the wrong one but it's the first wrong one I've made in a long time; I hope I can be forgiven that and the previous record taken into account?
I did, however, foresee where Covid-19 was going in the US, and what that would mean for Trump politically, and for the US economy.
I also don't know of anyone who is happy to go along with being part of Boris Johnson's cull
It goes right against the most basic animal survival instinct
I'm hunkering down. Fuck Boris.
Could you also turn off your internet connection, please. All of your alter egos, if you don’t mind.
I am me. Not Eadric. Not Sean.
So no, ta.
This place, as a number have said recently, provides a really good social outlet in this crisis. We need to get along, no matter a variety of viewpoints and be welcoming to one another even when we don't agree with one another.
OK fine, but in that case stop the infantile shit about "culls" and so on.
It isn't infantile or wrong. It's exactly what the Gov't are proposing.
So I'll continue to post it and everyone out there is agreeing with me.
It's eugenics.
It rather looks it. Cull the old who aren't together enough to self-isolate and rely on their regular Waitrose deliveries. Save on pensions and future use of the NHS by those who still ignore the warnings.
Cull the young who are genetically unlucky ... before they have children. (OTOH this is too late to stop teenage pregnancies which Cummings's weirdos dislike.)
To get it in perspective, a flu outbreak in 2009 killed ~1% of over-65s. A friend tells me that the estimated fatality rate for this is 3-4%. Not nice given that I'm 66.
It would be good if the NHS hadn't been out of stock of pneumonia vaccine for 3-4 months.
You and Mysticrose are as bad as the conspiracy lunatics who think it is all because of 5G. I genuinely worry about your sanity.
November is a long way away so I'm taking this with a pinch of salt. All sorts of things could happen before then, not least of which could be the worst of the infection passes over America and then Trump passes an emergency stimulus and lifts restrictions just in time.
Also, we had a Herdson article just a few weeks ago tipping buying Sanders when he was odds on - and we know what happened next.
Things that look inevitable one week can look very different the next.
Much as most of us want to see the back of Trump I think you are right. Too early to call. Large numbers of Trump fans are low-information voters (aka thick as mince) and believe what the orange one tells them. They dismiss any facts or information to the contrary and parrot their leader calling it all lies and fake news.
That's not the point. All countries with stable party systems will have many voters who always vote the same way but these usually cancel each other out.
I haven't been able to stand it anymore and have laid her another big one.
Perhaps we need to consider what currently unimaginable political outcomes might arise if the US is, by the autumn, overwhelmed by a significant peak of its projected million plus deaths coming at once?
We do. We absolutely do.
And she still isn't a 19/1 shot.
I'm not arguing she's not a shot at *any* price - for example, I'd definitely back her above 100/1 for small stakes - but I'm a layer at anything beneath 40/1.
I've seen this before in this type of market. It's going to happen. Or at the very least she will come in significantly further.
A Header with which I agree. Would go further - Trump was going to lose without Corona and will now be crushed. Struggle for 200 in the EC.
The public health disaster about to unfold in the US over the next few months will IMO dwarf that of anywhere else. Chickens coming home to roost.
It started with a beautiful impenetrable wall to keep the Hispanics out, it ends with Mexico closing the border to keep the Americans out and Mexican troops shooting Americans as they try to break in. And the Chinese and Iranians manufacturing big bold red baseball caps with slogan KEEP AMERICA DEAD
I also don't know of anyone who is happy to go along with being part of Boris Johnson's cull
It goes right against the most basic animal survival instinct
I'm hunkering down. Fuck Boris.
Could you also turn off your internet connection, please. All of your alter egos, if you don’t mind.
I am me. Not Eadric. Not Sean.
So no, ta.
This place, as a number have said recently, provides a really good social outlet in this crisis. We need to get along, no matter a variety of viewpoints and be welcoming to one another even when we don't agree with one another.
OK fine, but in that case stop the infantile shit about "culls" and so on.
It isn't infantile or wrong. It's exactly what the Gov't are proposing.
So I'll continue to post it and everyone out there is agreeing with me.
It's eugenics.
It rather looks it. Cull the old who aren't together enough to self-isolate and rely on their regular Waitrose deliveries. Save on pensions and future use of the NHS by those who still ignore the warnings.
Cull the young who are genetically unlucky ... before they have children. (OTOH this is too late to stop teenage pregnancies which Cummings's weirdos dislike.)
To get it in perspective, a flu outbreak in 2009 killed ~1% of over-65s. A friend tells me that the estimated fatality rate for this is 3-4%. Not nice given that I'm 66.
It would be good if the NHS hadn't been out of stock of pneumonia vaccine for 3-4 months.
You and Mysticrose are as bad as the conspiracy lunatics who think it is all because of 5G. I genuinely worry about your sanity.
The confused old lady in the centre is clearly on to something.
November is a long way away so I'm taking this with a pinch of salt. All sorts of things could happen before then, not least of which could be the worst of the infection passes over America and then Trump passes an emergency stimulus and lifts restrictions just in time.
Also, we had a Herdson article just a few weeks ago tipping buying Sanders when he was odds on - and we know what happened next.
Things that look inevitable one week can look very different the next.
With respect, I didn't say it was inevitable and I did say that the White House bet was the better value, because "Trump’s typically self-centred and quite possibly grossly inadequate reaction to the coronavirus outbreak, should now be favourite in a head-to-head with Trump, the president’s skill at negative campaigning notwithstanding".
The Sanders call was the wrong one but it's the first wrong one I've made in a long time; I hope I can be forgiven that and the previous record taken into account?
I did, however, foresee where Covid-19 was going in the US, and what that would mean for Trump politically, and for the US economy.
I didn't say you said it was inevitable - just that it can look that way.
My point is that the dislike of Trump is so strong it can cloud our judgement.
I think what @SouthamObserver said earlier is fair. The culture wars in the US are so embedded that I can't see his base deserting even if casualties are in the low millions.
They'll blame someone else.
That doesn't mean he'll win but I could still see it being a close fight.
November is a long way away so I'm taking this with a pinch of salt. All sorts of things could happen before then, not least of which could be the worst of the infection passes over America and then Trump passes an emergency stimulus and lifts restrictions just in time.
Also, we had a Herdson article just a few weeks ago tipping buying Sanders when he was odds on - and we know what happened next.
Things that look inevitable one week can look very different the next.
With respect, I didn't say it was inevitable and I did say that the White House bet was the better value, because "Trump’s typically self-centred and quite possibly grossly inadequate reaction to the coronavirus outbreak, should now be favourite in a head-to-head with Trump, the president’s skill at negative campaigning notwithstanding".
The Sanders call was the wrong one but it's the first wrong one I've made in a long time; I hope I can be forgiven that and the previous record taken into account?
I did, however, foresee where Covid-19 was going in the US, and what that would mean for Trump politically, and for the US economy.
I think you are right on this (Trump failing).
The trouble is I also desperately hope you are right on this and am unclear how much that is affecting my ability to analyse things clearly.
On a lighter note, just looked in a couple of cupboards and turns out I've been stockpiling loo roll for months. Didn't even realise it was happening. Got about six months supply!
A cull is the opposite to what the government is proposing. The government wants the brunt to be borne by young and healthy people who will not die but who will contribute to herd immunity. This will also allow the NHS to concentrate on aiding the sick. The plan may be blown off course by sports, schools and others taking their own decisions to close down for the duration but that is another story.
Cull is not the right term but "sacrifice" seems apt.
As compared to the Lockdown Trace & Test approach we are accepting a higher death toll during this epidemic in exchange for herd immunity and better prospects post the epidemic.
I am glad the twitterati weren't about during WWII, they would be claiming that because Churchill was a posho he wanted us all to die and we aren't going to fight the Nazi's because its very risky.
I also don't know of anyone who is happy to go along with being part of Boris Johnson's cull
It goes right against the most basic animal survival instinct
I'm hunkering down. Fuck Boris.
Could you also turn off your internet connection, please. All of your alter egos, if you don’t mind.
I am me. Not Eadric. Not Sean.
So no, ta.
This place, as a number have said recently, provides a really good social outlet in this crisis. We need to get along, no matter a variety of viewpoints and be welcoming to one another even when we don't agree with one another.
OK fine, but in that case stop the infantile shit about "culls" and so on.
It isn't infantile or wrong. It's exactly what the Gov't are proposing.
So I'll continue to post it and everyone out there is agreeing with me.
It's eugenics.
Eugenics is targetted killing. The virus is indeterminate. It does not kill only certain social groups.
But the govt's "Typhoid Mary" approach to disease control seems to be drawing attention around the world.
I also don't know of anyone who is happy to go along with being part of Boris Johnson's cull
It goes right against the most basic animal survival instinct
I'm hunkering down. Fuck Boris.
Could you also turn off your internet connection, please. All of your alter egos, if you don’t mind.
I am me. Not Eadric. Not Sean.
So no, ta.
This place, as a number have said recently, provides a really good social outlet in this crisis. We need to get along, no matter a variety of viewpoints and be welcoming to one another even when we don't agree with one another.
OK fine, but in that case stop the infantile shit about "culls" and so on.
It isn't infantile or wrong. It's exactly what the Gov't are proposing.
So I'll continue to post it and everyone out there is agreeing with me.
It's eugenics.
It rather looks it. Cull the old who aren't together enough to self-isolate and rely on their regular Waitrose deliveries. Save on pensions and future use of the NHS by those who still ignore the warnings.
Cull the young who are genetically unlucky ... before they have children. (OTOH this is too late to stop teenage pregnancies which Cummings's weirdos dislike.)
To get it in perspective, a flu outbreak in 2009 killed ~1% of over-65s. A friend tells me that the estimated fatality rate for this is 3-4%. Not nice given that I'm 66.
It would be good if the NHS hadn't been out of stock of pneumonia vaccine for 3-4 months.
You and Mysticrose are as bad as the conspiracy lunatics who think it is all because of 5G. I genuinely worry about your sanity.
The confused old lady in the centre is clearly on to something.
The deadly coronavirus mutated to get around the quarantine in Wuhan, according to Chinese scientists. A second strain showed mild or no symptoms in the early stages, meaning people were released from the lockdown and infected others.
November is a long way away so I'm taking this with a pinch of salt. All sorts of things could happen before then, not least of which could be the worst of the infection passes over America and then Trump passes an emergency stimulus and lifts restrictions just in time.
Also, we had a Herdson article just a few weeks ago tipping buying Sanders when he was odds on - and we know what happened next.
Things that look inevitable one week can look very different the next.
With respect, I didn't say it was inevitable and I did say that the White House bet was the better value, because "Trump’s typically self-centred and quite possibly grossly inadequate reaction to the coronavirus outbreak, should now be favourite in a head-to-head with Trump, the president’s skill at negative campaigning notwithstanding".
The Sanders call was the wrong one but it's the first wrong one I've made in a long time; I hope I can be forgiven that and the previous record taken into account?
I did, however, foresee where Covid-19 was going in the US, and what that would mean for Trump politically, and for the US economy.
I think you are right on this (Trump failing).
The trouble is I also desperately hope you are right on this and am unclear how much that is affecting my ability to analyse things clearly.
A cull is the opposite to what the government is proposing. The government wants the brunt to be borne by young and healthy people who will not die but who will contribute to herd immunity. This will also allow the NHS to concentrate on aiding the sick. The plan may be blown off course by sports, schools and others taking their own decisions to close down for the duration but that is another story.
Cull is not the right term but "sacrifice" seems apt.
As compared to the Lockdown Trace & Test approach we are accepting a higher death toll during this epidemic in exchange for herd immunity and better prospects post the epidemic.
Is that not a fair way of putting it?
Lets see if the countries with extreme measures do have a lower growth rate of the virus than the UK? So far its been the reverse.
If it goes as you expect then it depends on your definition of "the pandemic" - if you only include the first wave then yours is right, if you include all waves then the govt believes it is the opposite.
On the family isolation issue, I think this is where the schools being open idea comes in. Students up to eighteen will have parents who are fifty or younger in the vast majority of cases. This then puts them all in the herd immunity attempt. They want the children to pass it on to parents.
Of course, there are some who are older and who would need to be isolated in the home (maybe community isolation with friends or older relatives would be a good thing, rather than individually?). Also, parents with underlying conditions would have to do the same.
That leaves any household with no parent who is low risk as being a problem. Maybe get other relatives or families to temporarily adopt?
Musing out loud, but these strategies need to be shared rather than letting people just do what they want piecemeal. There is still an important government role here as a national pandemic response.
The idea of larger class sizes and allowing well staff to move between schools now makes perfect sense if this is what is going to happen. It’s not to have students educated in any real sense, it’s to spread the virus and schools are incubators overseen by younger, fitter teachers.
Exams will need to be suspended now, schools put onto emergency timetables, I think.
Interesting and well-argued article David, thank-you.
Looking at the coronavirus map on the UK dashboard* it's hard not to be struck by how evenly spread across the country the confirmed cases are. On the plus side we have no Lombardy or Wuhan type hotspots; on the downside the virus is clearly well-seeded throughout the country.
I have taken time to come to terms with this. I have raised questions and expressed reservations based on the evidence of what other countries were doing. It seemed to me at times that the government’s policy was a counsel of despair resulting in the deaths of at least tens of thousands of our citizens. I do not accept that asking such questions and expressing such doubts is setting myself up as some form of “expert” or armchair general. We all have a stake in this. We are all going to lose family and friends.
With considerable reluctance and no little trepidation I have come to the view that the government’s policy is the best we can do on the known facts. Those facts may still change, especially if there is a breakthrough in treatment or vaccine but we cannot count on that. In the absence of such a breakthrough all we can do is get through this and take the pain.
On the family isolation issue, I think this is where the schools being open idea comes in. Students up to eighteen will have parents who are fifty or younger in the vast majority of cases. This then puts them all in the herd immunity attempt. They want the children to pass it on to parents.
Of course, there are some who are older and who would need to be isolated in the home (maybe community isolation with friends or older relatives would be a good thing, rather than individually?). Also, parents with underlying conditions would have to do the same.
That leaves any household with no parent who is low risk as being a problem. Maybe get other relatives or families to temporarily adopt?
Musing out loud, but these strategies need to be shared rather than letting people just do what they want piecemeal. There is still an important government role here as a national pandemic response.
I thought Hunt's suggestion was very sensible. To run schools with much more flexibility for the next few months.
Interesting and well-argued article David, thank-you.
Looking at the coronavirus map on the UK dashboard* it's hard not to be struck by how evenly spread across the country the confirmed cases are. On the plus side we have no Lombardy or Wuhan type hotspots; on the downside the virus is clearly well-seeded throughout the country.
(* I was pretty dismissive of this dashboard yesterday and still think it is light on data detail but the zoomable map is quite good.)
It has been claimed by people better in the know, that this is because basically they managed to shut down some hotspots like Brighton through the testing / isolation programme early on.
On the family isolation issue, I think this is where the schools being open idea comes in. Students up to eighteen will have parents who are fifty or younger in the vast majority of cases. This then puts them all in the herd immunity attempt. They want the children to pass it on to parents.
Of course, there are some who are older and who would need to be isolated in the home (maybe community isolation with friends or older relatives would be a good thing, rather than individually?). Also, parents with underlying conditions would have to do the same.
That leaves any household with no parent who is low risk as being a problem. Maybe get other relatives or families to temporarily adopt?
Musing out loud, but these strategies need to be shared rather than letting people just do what they want piecemeal. There is still an important government role here as a national pandemic response.
I thought Hunt's suggestion was very sensible. To run schools with much more flexibility for the next few months.
Getting sixth formers to do some of the childcare and even teaching would make sense to me.
With respect, I didn't say it was inevitable and I did say that the White House bet was the better value, because "Trump’s typically self-centred and quite possibly grossly inadequate reaction to the coronavirus outbreak, should now be favourite in a head-to-head with Trump, the president’s skill at negative campaigning notwithstanding".
The Sanders call was the wrong one but it's the first wrong one I've made in a long time; I hope I can be forgiven that and the previous record taken into account?
I did, however, foresee where Covid-19 was going in the US, and what that would mean for Trump politically, and for the US economy.
I think you should be calling it more strongly than you are. Trump is unelectable.
And this is not said because I want it so much to be true. If anything, when superforecasting and betting, I tend to err on the side of things that I do NOT want to happen happening.
Comments
I don't know a single young person who thinks this is right.
But the obviously correct thing to do is to hold this at bay as long as possible so that a) we get it into the summer months b) we develop better cures c) we develop better facilities incl nursing staff and d) we make further progress on the vaccine
The British Government won't do this just as they wouldn't cancel Cheltenham because they want to make as much money as they can.
For BJ and Cummings it's all about the £££££££
It’s a tough policy with horrendous consequences but there really is nothing opaque about it.
If they can get that message out then the strategy may be more successful in its aims.
BTW it was interesting to read that in the planned emergency legislation next week (which I think may have been misinterpreted as things the Govt is actually going to do immediately, as opposed to things they want the power to be able to do at the appropriate time) there was reference to being able to force schools to stay open. Which will be interesting, given the debate about whether they should be closed or not. Suggests, as above, that they are concerned that the population are derisking themselves on an individual level to an excess that they don't want.
It goes right against the most basic animal survival instinct
I'm hunkering down. Fuck Boris.
Lunchtime walk in St James Park. Yes, there were still a lot of people around, but it was notably less mobbed, and far fewer tourists.
It’s a bit too soon to say that damage is fatal. It’s certainly serious.
It's the ability of health services to provide the necessary care that is the key constraint. So long as the load on the NHS remains (projecting a week or two ahead) below what it can provide, we want more people to get infected. When it looks likely to meet capacity, we need more isolation.
We're in for a long haul, with a lot of bad news (and false hope, as those countries in lockdown will discover when they emerge expecting problem solved) along the way. It isn't surprising that politicians don't want to spell all of this out in advance.
One of the upsides of the government's (pitiful) boycott of our national broadcaster is that there has been a lot more space for real experts to spell it out for us, if we are willing to listen. Newsnight last week was excellent throughout.
And if Mr McFarlane was paying attention he too would have known not to phone 111 but go online.
As far as I can see, next to nothing has been said about this. To be effective, employers need to know which employees they can keep and those still working need to know that they will be legally protected of they cannot. Those already retired will also need a support network setting up, especially those on their own.
These things are necessary to make it work, if the government is serious about this then they are dithering dangerously. Surely the next set of announcements is going to give such guidance?
So no, ta.
This place, as a number have said recently, provides a really good social outlet in this crisis. We need to get along, no matter a variety of viewpoints and be welcoming to one another even when we don't agree with one another.
Fortunately there are a lot of people in here who have experience of having managed people, processes, organisations and budgets through smaller crises, and who at least have some sort of understanding of the myriad of conflicting pressures and the balances of judgement that need to be made.
And she still isn't a 19/1 shot.
I'm not arguing she's not a shot at *any* price - for example, I'd definitely back her above 100/1 for small stakes - but I'm a layer at anything beneath 40/1.
As the UK deaths rise the whole thing will continue to unravel. People simply won't put up with it.
Rightly or wrongly the UK government strategy is herd immunity, but the policies are going to shift as the war goes on. Furthermore, we aren't privy to all the legal requirements, which must be incredibly complex. I am not just talking about detaining people, but how do you decide what is a mass gathering and how are you going to compensate companies you are just about to basically put out of business, how do you enforce any restrictions on travel properly i.e. not like Italian nonsense self-certify system.
So I'll continue to post it and everyone out there is agreeing with me.
It's eugenics.
We also know that writers are f*****g useless in a crisis.
Write about it afterwards.
If just 0.1% of those require hospitalisation that's a thousand people a week extra admissions into hospital.
As a result, based on the lack of information I have I do not believe they are aiming for a single peak and for herd immunity to be in place for this winter.
That seems quite family isolation-ist to me.
We'll only know whether the Government is making the right call months from now. Just because other places are doing things differently doesn't mean they're right. Nobody knows. Whatever the Government does, a large number of people will die.
It’s a gutsy call and I hope it goes right. For all our sakes.
I saw that - a potential flaw in the future UK plan of "household lock down" - maybe the calculation is that for nuclear families the kids will be relatively unscathed and the parents ok. Of course its potentially a huge problem for families with elderly relatives at home.
The Chinese situation now looks great but what would actually be stopping a totalitarian regime that badly wants to save face simply not testing people are attributing most deaths to other causes?
Even by Trump standards, I don't think I have ever seen anything quite so bizarre. It was as if he had signed an international trade deal. And what were all those CEOs thinking, lets go and all get into close contact with a load of other important people, shake hands etc.
If one of them has it, that is probably the heads of 10-15 major companies who have now contracted it.
Cull the young who are genetically unlucky ... before they have children. (OTOH this is too late to stop teenage pregnancies which Cummings's weirdos dislike.)
To get it in perspective, a flu outbreak in 2009 killed ~1% of over-65s. A friend tells me that the estimated fatality rate for this is 3-4%. Not nice given that I'm 66.
It would be good if the NHS hadn't been out of stock of pneumonia vaccine for 3-4 months.
Witty maybe wrong, but that is the strategy they are working with.
The public health disaster about to unfold in the US over the next few months will IMO dwarf that of anywhere else. Chickens coming home to roost.
I know how about the ITV coverage of the Buffoon's tonking of Magic Grandpa.
I was up for Blyth Valley.
Happier days....
The lead is absolutely right that the crisis has shown up Trump's weakness - and also the weakness of its healthcare system to respond to a public health crisis.
But in terms of final outcome, it may not make that much difference - provided they act before their healthcare system is overwhelmed as per north Italy.
The Sanders call was the wrong one but it's the first wrong one I've made in a long time; I hope I can be forgiven that and the previous record taken into account?
I did, however, foresee where Covid-19 was going in the US, and what that would mean for Trump politically, and for the US economy.
Trump cannot win on his base alone.
The confused old lady in the centre is clearly on to something.
My point is that the dislike of Trump is so strong it can cloud our judgement.
I think what @SouthamObserver said earlier is fair. The culture wars in the US are so embedded that I can't see his base deserting even if casualties are in the low millions.
They'll blame someone else.
That doesn't mean he'll win but I could still see it being a close fight.
The trouble is I also desperately hope you are right on this and am unclear how much that is affecting my ability to analyse things clearly.
As compared to the Lockdown Trace & Test approach we are accepting a higher death toll during this epidemic in exchange for herd immunity and better prospects post the epidemic.
Is that not a fair way of putting it?
But the govt's "Typhoid Mary" approach to disease control seems to be drawing attention around the world.
Well we would, wouldn't we....
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8111697/Coronavirus-able-bypass-quarantine-lockdown-Wuhan-mutating-second-strain.html
Might explain why Jet2 flights turned back earlier.
If it goes as you expect then it depends on your definition of "the pandemic" - if you only include the first wave then yours is right, if you include all waves then the govt believes it is the opposite.
Of course, there are some who are older and who would need to be isolated in the home (maybe community isolation with friends or older relatives would be a good thing, rather than individually?). Also, parents with underlying conditions would have to do the same.
That leaves any household with no parent who is low risk as being a problem. Maybe get other relatives or families to temporarily adopt?
Musing out loud, but these strategies need to be shared rather than letting people just do what they want piecemeal. There is still an important government role here as a national pandemic response.
The idea of larger class sizes and allowing well staff to move between schools now makes perfect sense if this is what is going to happen. It’s not to have students educated in any real sense, it’s to spread the virus and schools are incubators overseen by younger, fitter teachers.
Exams will need to be suspended now, schools put onto emergency timetables, I think.
Any flaws that I’ve missed?
Looking at the coronavirus map on the UK dashboard* it's hard not to be struck by how evenly spread across the country the confirmed cases are. On the plus side we have no Lombardy or Wuhan type hotspots; on the downside the virus is clearly well-seeded throughout the country.
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/f94c3c90da5b4e9f9a0b19484dd4bb14
(* I was pretty dismissive of this dashboard yesterday and still think it is light on data detail but the zoomable map is quite good.)
https://twitter.com/khfcofficial/status/1238751797902262272?s=20
And this is not said because I want it so much to be true. If anything, when superforecasting and betting, I tend to err on the side of things that I do NOT want to happen happening.