Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Budgeting for a crisis
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Budgeting for a crisis
It used to be that after a Budget the days and papers would be full of analysis and reactions and, often, the discovery of nasty surprises or other changes backfiring on the government. (Remember Osborne’s “pasty tax” or Hammond’s NI surprise?) Not this year, obviously. The measures introduced in the Budget to help deal with the economic consequences of the coronavirus, however welcome, now seem too little for the scale of the task. In summary (the details are here – in sections 1.31 and 1.32) there is (1) extra funding for the NHS and public services; (2) extending Statutory Sick Pay for those advised to self-isolate; (3) welfare support for those who cannot claim SSP and a hardship fund; (4) support for businesses experiencing increased costs or cash flow disruptions via Business Rates relief (which will help SMEs in the South rather more than in the North), a Business Interruption Loan scheme of up to £1 billion, a £2.2 billion grant scheme for small businesses and a helpline re tax.
Comments
On topic, former treasury adviser saying that around half a trillion is the likely figure. Equivalent to about £10,000 per adult. Could even be on the low side of what is needed.
for anyone looking for something to do while locked down. You can play for free
Hoping everyone and the families comes through ok
I'm not sure how the hotel sector copes without a massive intervention from government.
https://twitter.com/andrew_lilico/status/1239868529022775300
https://twitter.com/andrew_lilico/status/1239869936106954752
The number of unemployed people in the UK increased by 5,000 to 1.34 million in the three months to January compared to the same period last year.
It marks the first annual increase in unemployment since May to June 2012.
https://news.sky.com/story/gloomy-outlook-for-workers-as-unemployment-increases-11958839
https://twitter.com/lobs/status/1239870836883980294
If only. This is going to be much, much worse.
It would have taken three seconds for the Prime Minister to say "financial measures will be announced tomorrow". He didn't. Because it hadn't crossed his mutton head.
Apple website banner now says retail stores are closed ‘until further notice’.
Late on Friday, Apple announced that it would close all Apple Stores outside of Greater China until March 27th. Over the weekend, Apple added a banner to its homepage to inform customers that ‘Our retail stores are closed until March 27’. However, that message has now been changed …
As spotted by 9to5Mac readers, the banner now reads ‘Our retail stores are closed until further notice’. As far as we know, Apple retail has not told stores of a change of plans just yet. The FAQ page for the store closures still says March 27th as well.
However, it seems Apple is bracing for the likely scenario in which it will need to extend the deadline further. The global coronavirus pandemic continues to impact more and more industries, with no clear end date.
https://9to5mac.com/2020/03/17/apple-website-banner-now-says-retail-stores-are-closed-until-further-notice/
Apple is the motor of the world economy.
Don't let anyone tell you the two aren't related.
The major risk with locking society down is that the vaccine takes too long to arrive or it never does. Then at some point the money will run out and when it does the lockdowns will have to be lifted.
For me the bigger issue is that humanity seems to be running up the white flag in the face of this virus. I fail to see why this is necessary when we have overcome so many hardships in our previous history while still making progress as a species. I could understand these extreme measures if the virus had a high mortality such as 40% but it does not. Perhaps we have become so risk averse that this kind of reaction to something was inevitable eventually. These measures are going to use up a lot of the wealth that we are going to need to deal with global warming eventually, a matter that could well become a much bigger threat than this virus.
That's hilarious!
Instead of 10% hospitalised, we're talking about 1%. Instead of a 1% death rate (half a million dead if the virus runs rampant), we're talking about a 0.1% (50,000).
Commensurately, this means the virus will be much harder to control, because there are at least an order of magnitude more people with the disease than we think, and possibly more.
A total waste of Twitter space, and that bar is set Planck-length low.
https://twitter.com/DanielFalush/status/1239049733974433798
This may have been with us for a while. Some people put down to dying of flu may have died of Corona as they were never tested.
Testing, testing, testing....
Once we have got transmission rates down to China/Singapore/Taiwan/Korea levels we can routinely test people and allow them to go about their normal business.
Talking to a friend last night he reported his firm which is neither laid off half its workers yesterday due to cancelled orders (his firm makes branded goods for conventions). If they don't announce wide scale assistance soon a lot of workers its aimed to save will already have been laid off
Whoever this guys is, he strikes me as an utter moron.
Is there any accessible scientific report ?
Your capacity for self-delusion really knows no bounds right now.
They have also suggested that it is essential to avoid NHS capacity being exceeded. This is not their call, it is a political decision.
So, we need approximately 60% of the UK population to have the disease before spreading become hard due to most people already having had it.
Assuming the 90% number, that means that 6% of the population would need to have symptomatic CV-19, of which 10% would end up in hospital (0.6%), and approximately one third of those would require ICU (0.2%). Those would be incredibly serious numbers. But they'd also suggest that we're not going to end up with a massive number of deaths. Indeed, assuming a 2.5% death rate for symptomatic cases, that results in about 0.15% of the UK population dying.
Horrendous, horrendous numbers. But also just a one-off shock that saw a 100,000 person spike in the UK death rate.
If the 90% number were true, then hiding the vulnerable away, while the rest of us went about our daily business would probably be the right thing to do.
But I'm sceptical. Why? Because the Diamond Princess did not have a large number of symptom-less cases. It had a lot of mild-ish ones, but not asymptomatic ones. On the other hand, the random testing from Iceland tells a similar story...
Helicopter money and a basis universal income will certainly need to be considered.
As well as a national unity government , including the new labour leader and Scottish , Welsh , NI leaders plus regional English leaders.
But I’ve ordered via John Lewis now.
But it is worth remembering that a lot of the early tests were of people with none to very few symptoms, going through drive in centres. At that stage perhaps 0.05% of the population was infected (assuming we're doubling every three or four days). So, we were going to see very few cases regardless.
If we did random testing now, would be we see 0.25, 0.5%, 1%, or 2% infection rates?
The problem is that: (1) it's hard (although not impossible) to find out if someone has had the disease but has since recovered), and (2) there is very little genuinely random testing.
Reasons.
1. Amazingly nutritious and high in vitamin C - fermentation makes the nutrients more bioavailable
2. Delicious
3. Full of beneficial bacteria to look after your gut microbiome, which is part of a healthy immune system
3. A natural form of preservation, will last and last, but be WAY healthier than tinned foods
4. Panic buyers are avoiding fresh cabbages.
You'll need a Kilner jar or similar, salt (better quality the better), and potentially a small quantity of natural yoghurt to kick start the process.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUwC7bTjLkQ
I will criticise this government if I have a reason to do so. Announcing financial measures within 24 hours, or following through the stages of its plans, or not closing schools sending kids to grandparents putting them at greater risk are not actions I find worthy of criticism. That's my true, honest opinion not a partisan matter.
If measures are found (like @rcs1000 has suggested his area is doing) to provide childcare for those who need it then I would be OK with closing schools. Simply announcing a closure without thinking through its consequences is not something I would be OK with - any more than I would not have been OK with there being no financial package coming today.
Oh and if the financial package doesn't go far enough then I'll be happy to criticse that too.
Step 2: Implement routine testing on entrances to buildings. Allow those that test negative to go through and carry out their normal activities, possibly accompanied by some constraints.
Step 3: Develop a vaccine.
We need to be totally focused on Step 1. Asian countries, who in many cases didn't allow the epidemic to be uncontrolled in the first place, are moving to step 2. Over time I would expect the allowed activities to be broadened and the constraints lifted. Step 3 is for later.
An interesting discussion on infection rates etc
Or is this an excuse to lock up women and choose their partners/husbands for them?
If & when they have a cheap & reliable blood test (CMO was suggesting 'soon'), then random population sampling might give an answer relatively quickly.
What policies to pursue (or not) would then be a great deal clearer.
But the cost benefit analysis changes somewhat, doesn't it?
Something incredibly virulent with a 0.1% death rate calls for one set of responses, compared to less virulent one with a 1% death rate.
In the second scenario, lockdown is the preferred tactic. But in the first?
Ten days ago, my son got a dry cough and a fever, no other symptoms (we took him out of school). My wife and I got more traditional cold symptoms. Was it largely asymptomatic CV-19? Or was it a cold?
It's a lifeform that's interested only in replicating its RNA genome and then moving on.
It's entirely understandable that for lots of people it will do this to a very limited extent with very few symptoms, but they'll still test positive at the right time.
#TooHighAPrice
Until then, it is not.
But it does require that we work out who has already had the virus, and who is still vulnerable.
It's madness that they haven't been tested in particular with dry cough, fever and a recent contact from Italy.