But regardless of the exact figures you need to compare how much doing nothing costs. It could easily end up costing more on a national level, 200,000 families in mourning and a health service brought to its knees.
NICE determines cost-effectiveness of treatment using a figure of £20k-£30k per year of life (QALY) gained.
This appears to have been thrown out of the window for Corona. We are now in 'whatever it takes' territory.
Have the government stated how many lives they hope to save from the action they have taken?
Aren't they saying they hope to keep deaths below 20,000 about 6 times more than China who have a much larger population
If the government is spending £350,000,000,000 to save 200,000 lives thats £1.75M each. That is quite striking.
This is one of the most stupid comments I have ever heard. For a start you have written 350 Billion not 350 Million the figure being quoted in the newspapers. That alone brings your figure down to 1.75 thousand per "life saved"
But regardless of the exact figures you need to compare how much doing nothing costs. It could easily end up costing more on a national level, 200,000 families in mourning and a health service brought to its knees.
One of my pet peeves is journos who mix up their millions and their billions. If they can be casually out a thousand-fold, then they really haven't understood a thing they are writing about.
Anyone who thinks £350 million is what is being offered to solve the nation's virus woes has no concept of our public finances.
One effect of the GFC is that once we got to trillions people stopped even thinking about large numbers, which have lost their shock value. Anything with an -illion on the end is just big.
At home again today but Mrs Stodge has had to go into work - she's a contractor and the laptops are being issued to the permanent staff first. Her ability to work at home (she uses two screens) will test my IT support skills but I have a plan of sorts.
Have decided my usual cafe in the Barking Road will be off-limits (they do a decent breakfast) but I suspect the "regulars" will be in the Wetherspoons. With schools still open there's a deceptive normality during the day - I'm also wondering if construction sites are still open.
The cafe is run by a nice Turkish couple and apart from passing trade, their "regulars" are a group of teachers who come in for their lunch and a whinge about the children, local council works from the nearby depot and sad old gits like me looking for a decent breakfast and a chance to read what I think will be a very thin Racing Post.
Will the cafe survive? It depends how much people can or will change their lives before they are compelled to. I don't like the idea of Police drones going up and down every street to check we are all indoors and I shall continue my daily walk for as long as I am able - Barking and East Ham aren't without their less unpleasant vistas.
Stay safe everyone - my brother, who has tested positive for COVID-19, is in good spirits and it seems so far to be a mild infection but I worry,
I wonder if HS2 might come back on to the table. Desperation to get to and from London to get riddled with something seems a bit silly now, when we're all being asked to work from home anyway. People working out of London are 100% the same as people working out of Scunthorpe now.
Given HS2 isn’t going to open until 2031 I think you might be indulging in a touch of wishful, cranky thinking.
One outcome of this could be a boycott China movement - until they pay reparations.
Harsh to blame China for long-standing cultural practices.
However I do think the it has proved significant that China got hit first from a global response perspective. The lockdown model radiated out from China and western governments have been put under extreme pressure to follow it, thereby making health considerations the one-and-only driver (despite the low mortality rate).
As I have said before, the economic and loss of freedoms hit will be crushing to us all, whether we contract the virus or not.
If the virus hit USA first, or us first, I think that the balance of considerations would have been different and the global response accordingly.
From a personal perspective, I`m not scared of the virus at all. My concern is financial for my family and I`m trying desperately to limit the damage, but it`s too late. My retirement is destroyed, I can`t financially protect my children as I would have liked (they are still at school, one in GCSE year). Where are they going to get jobs. Feeling pretty destroyed this morning. Stupid, stupid lockdown policy. That`s the culprit, not the virus.
This is the quandary, we are destroying the futures of many young people for years to try to extend the lifes of mainly very old and ill people.
"Destroying the futures" is a ridiculous exaggeration.
I think that the long term consequences of the pandemic will be mostly good, even if the human cost will be high this year and next.
1. More work from home and less commuting. 2. Much more focus on public health, preventative measures, and healthy lifestyles. 3. More resiliant trade and infrastructure. 4. More medical reasearch generally, but specifically to fight epidemics. 5. Changes to the benefit system and welfare state to protect jobs, incomes, and health when there is systemic failure.
It's a shame it takes a catastrophe, but we do generally learn from them.
One outcome of this could be a boycott China movement - until they pay reparations.
Harsh to blame China for long-standing cultural practices.
However I do think the it has proved significant that China got hit first from a global response perspective. The lockdown model radiated out from China and western governments have been put under extreme pressure to follow it, thereby making health considerations the one-and-only driver (despite the low mortality rate).
As I have said before, the economic and loss of freedoms hit will be crushing to us all, whether we contract the virus or not.
If the virus hit USA first, or us first, I think that the balance of considerations would have been different and the global response accordingly.
From a personal perspective, I`m not scared of the virus at all. My concern is financial for my family and I`m trying desperately to limit the damage, but it`s too late. My retirement is destroyed, I can`t financially protect my children as I would have liked (they are still at school, one in GCSE year). Where are they going to get jobs. Feeling pretty destroyed this morning. Stupid, stupid lockdown policy. That`s the culprit, not the virus.
Sorry to hear of your smashed retirement plans. We can only hope this is a V shaped financial crisis.
Thanks - I probably shouldn`t have posted that, but I`m feeling pretty wretched right now.
Makes whether or not I`m in the green on my political bets of negligible consequence.
There's no reason not to think that in a couple of years the economy will be fully functioning again and, whilst there will be damage from this crisis, the majority of investments will be recovering their value.
Unlike in the old days, the new pension flexibility means that you don't have to crystalise the value of your fund on retirement day, but can leave it invested and take out just what you need, as you go along. During which time the remainder will hopefully be recovering in value. If you are very near retirement, go get some good advice.
Thanks IanB2 - your second paragraph has brought a smile to my foace - which you would understand if you knew my job.
It could have been worse - I took 25% tax free from my pension plan just after Christmas. This has turned out to be the best financial decision of my life!
I wonder if HS2 might come back on to the table. Desperation to get to and from London to get riddled with something seems a bit silly now, when we're all being asked to work from home anyway. People working out of London are 100% the same as people working out of Scunthorpe now.
The Government is going to have to get Big Projects on the move after this has ended.
The first D boat won't hit the water until 2028 and steel won't be cut on the fourth until 2025. It could easily be cancelled any time in the next few years.
I love the way you constantly comment on defence as if you're the only one who knows anything about it.
My company is working on this job. There's a huge team up at Barrow right now. The contracts have all been let, with penalty clauses, and two are under construction already.
That won't be stopped.
It's possible the boats might be sold or mothballed before they're ever brought into service, but I very much doubt it.
It's one of the last strategic political assets the Government would ditch.
Mr. glw, the third of those points ought to include decreasing reliance on one country, especially as said part of the world seems to have a bad habit of brewing up exciting new infectious diseases.
Not to mention, we worry about security of supply regarding energy, we should do likewise for supply chains that are so dependent on a single nation.
I wonder if HS2 might come back on to the table. Desperation to get to and from London to get riddled with something seems a bit silly now, when we're all being asked to work from home anyway. People working out of London are 100% the same as people working out of Scunthorpe now.
The Government is going to have to get Big Projects on the move after this has ended.
I like Rory but think he was out of order and unhelpful last week. Not seen anything to change my mind.
How can he be out of order if he was correct?
Because he didn't have access to the detailed data to KNOW he was correct?
So he was correct but for the wrong reasons?
Rather than outsourcing our thinking to just models, what about observing the world and making a judgement?
Sometimes people can be blinded by models and data. I say that as someone who develops healthcare models for a living.
Having written numerical models myself, I know that they are indeed essential for decision making. However, they have to be used sensibly and, critically, one must be aware of their limitations and the validity of the assumptions on which they are based. These factors must be taken into account when using the model.
It didn't take a PhD to figure that 60% infection for herd immunity with 1% mortality equates to a shit load of dead people.
Literally everyone who did the back of the fag packet calculation came to the completely obvious conclusion.
Yes I did as did several other people on here.
The idea that it was brand new data that only Imperial had and no one else had access to is nonsense.
Have the government stated how many lives they hope to save from the action they have taken?
Aren't they saying they hope to keep deaths below 20,000 about 6 times more than China who have a much larger population
If the government is spending £350,000,000,000 to save 200,000 lives thats £1.75M each. That is quite striking.
This is one of the most stupid comments I have ever heard. For a start you have written 350 Billion not 350 Million the figure being quoted in the newspapers. That alone brings your figure down to 1.75 thousand per "life saved"
But regardless of the exact figures you need to compare how much doing nothing costs. It could easily end up costing more on a national level, 200,000 families in mourning and a health service brought to its knees.
One of my pet peeves is journos who mix up their millions and their billions. If they can be casually out a thousand-fold, then they really haven't understood a thing they are writing about.
Anyone who thinks £350 million is what is being offered to solve the nation's virus woes has no concept of our public finances.
Yup. I was once taught (at work) that if you are talking about millions re: public finances you are almost certainly wrong. That one piece of advice has helped me catch several mistakes over the years.
Oil and gas talks in billions and trillions. Get to the North Dome and you are heading to quadrillions.
Just read about Sainsbury's plans for priority of online deliveries being over 70s and vulnerable disabled.
That's our household
Any details on how one would register for this? How they will determine who needs it?
I can't see any detail in the news reports.
I ordered Ocado this morning. A half-hour wait just to get on the website (I was in a queue of over 4,000) and no delivery slots until Tuesday 7th April.
I went for it anyway. I may ordered a delivery once a week now for the next 6 weeks, factoring in there will be a three-week lag on each.
"We will also help elderly and vulnerable customers access food online. From Monday 23rd March, our online customers who are over 70 years of age or have a disability will have priority access to online delivery slots. We will contact these customers in the coming days with more details."
How will they know which of their customers are 70 and/or have disability?
Work colleague took her daughter to A and E the other night for non virus related reasons.
Only 4 people there.
Must admit told my family to avoid doctors / hospital unless absolutely no choice
Doctors being a bit of a pain re repeat prescriptions at moment - bearing in mind my son is in high risk category you would have thought this could be sorted over phone and sent through - but oh no.......
One outcome of this could be a boycott China movement - until they pay reparations.
Harsh to blame China for long-standing cultural practices.
However I do think the it has proved significant that China got hit first from a global response perspective. The lockdown model radiated out from China and western governments have been put under extreme pressure to follow it, thereby making health considerations the one-and-only driver (despite the low mortality rate).
As I have said before, the economic and loss of freedoms hit will be crushing to us all, whether we contract the virus or not.
If the virus hit USA first, or us first, I think that the balance of considerations would have been different and the global response accordingly.
From a personal perspective, I`m not scared of the virus at all. My concern is financial for my family and I`m trying desperately to limit the damage, but it`s too late. My retirement is destroyed, I can`t financially protect my children as I would have liked (they are still at school, one in GCSE year). Where are they going to get jobs. Feeling pretty destroyed this morning. Stupid, stupid lockdown policy. That`s the culprit, not the virus.
Sorry to hear of your smashed retirement plans. We can only hope this is a V shaped financial crisis.
Thanks - I probably shouldn`t have posted that, but I`m feeling pretty wretched right now.
Makes whether or not I`m in the green on my political bets of negligible consequence.
There's no reason not to think that in a couple of years the economy will be fully functioning again and, whilst there will be damage from this crisis, the majority of investments will be recovering their value.
Unlike in the old days, the new pension flexibility means that you don't have to crystalise the value of your fund on retirement day, but can leave it invested and take out just what you need, as you go along. During which time the remainder will hopefully be recovering in value. If you are very near retirement, go get some good advice.
Thanks IanB2 - your second paragraph has brought a smile to my foace - which you would understand if you knew my job.
It could have been worse - I took 25% tax free from my pension plan just after Christmas. This has turned out to be the best financial decision of my life!
Then you have enough to be going along with, I hope! And you can bin the world cruise you had been planning, which is a big saving
I am guessing that you don't actually need advice, then.
The other point is that in crises the market always recovers in advance of the economy - because of course once there is a sniff of light at the end of the tunnel, everyone wants to buy in at the front end. So investments could be well on the way back up whilst we are still skulking about avoiding the plague.
I'm reasonably familiar with economic theory but I'm genuinely unclear about the impact of the current crisis and counter-measures. As Cyclefree says, the Government is asking us to avoid several major industries, including all hospitality and most retail. They are lending said industries pots of money, and let's assume that works and saves most bnusinesses. In principle this increases the money supply, because the £20 we've not spent on a meal out is being covered by the Government lending £20.
But at some point the loan will need to be repaid, unless this or a future government says "Oh, forget it". If so, the businesses will struggle for years - if we didn't eat out this month, we probably won't eat out twice as much as usual when it's all over, so that revenue has gone for good. So the decline of the High Steeet will accelerate rapidly.
If the loans turn into grants, then the effect will be inflationary, reducing the value of the £20 we didn't spend but helping the shops and hotels through the crisis.
In reality, it's all a very blunt instrument though no doubt difficult to do better at almost zero notice. Some companies will be OK, others will go bust despite the loan, or be unable to get it for some reason. Possibly the most helpful thing the Government could do for business would be to require insurers to waive exemptions for losses caused by epidemics, and then compensate the insurers - that would simply the Government's job and devolve the task of sorting out who is affected to the insurance companies.
Meanwhile, at individual level there are countless people facing ruin - there will be a huge divide between people working for organisations that keep paying their staff and those who abruptly get laid off, plus those in self-employment who don't seem to be getting much help. Support for people who rent is a really urgent priority, as these will disproportionately be in these categories.
But that's all back of the envelope stuff. Is there a serious analysis out there?
"We will also help elderly and vulnerable customers access food online. From Monday 23rd March, our online customers who are over 70 years of age or have a disability will have priority access to online delivery slots. We will contact these customers in the coming days with more details."
How will they know which of their customers are 70 and/or have disability?
Have you ever signed up to a website which didn't ask for your date of birth?
Pass on disabilities. Perhaps they ask this too to see how much help you need unpacking?
One outcome of this could be a boycott China movement - until they pay reparations.
Harsh to blame China for long-standing cultural practices.
However I do think the it has proved significant that China got hit first from a global response perspective. The lockdown model radiated out from China and western governments have been put under extreme pressure to follow it, thereby making health considerations the one-and-only driver (despite the low mortality rate).
As I have said before, the economic and loss of freedoms hit will be crushing to us all, whether we contract the virus or not.
If the virus hit USA first, or us first, I think that the balance of considerations would have been different and the global response accordingly.
From a personal perspective, I`m not scared of the virus at all. My concern is financial for my family and I`m trying desperately to limit the damage, but it`s too late. My retirement is destroyed, I can`t financially protect my children as I would have liked (they are still at school, one in GCSE year). Where are they going to get jobs. Feeling pretty destroyed this morning. Stupid, stupid lockdown policy. That`s the culprit, not the virus.
Sorry to hear of your smashed retirement plans. We can only hope this is a V shaped financial crisis.
Thanks - I probably shouldn`t have posted that, but I`m feeling pretty wretched right now.
Makes whether or not I`m in the green on my political bets of negligible consequence.
There's no reason not to think that in a couple of years the economy will be fully functioning again and, whilst there will be damage from this crisis, the majority of investments will be recovering their value.
Unlike in the old days, the new pension flexibility means that you don't have to crystalise the value of your fund on retirement day, but can leave it invested and take out just what you need, as you go along. During which time the remainder will hopefully be recovering in value. If you are very near retirement, go get some good advice.
Thanks IanB2 - your second paragraph has brought a smile to my foace - which you would understand if you knew my job.
It could have been worse - I took 25% tax free from my pension plan just after Christmas. This has turned out to be the best financial decision of my life!
Then you have enough to be going along with, I hope!
I am guessing that you don't actually need advice, then.
The other point is that in crises the market always recovers in advance of the economy - because of course once there is a sniff of light at the end of the tunnel, everyone wants to buy in at the front end. So investments could be well on the way back up whilst we are still skulking about avoiding the plague.
I think there is a danger that in lockdown firms fall like nine-pins and the stockmarket gets suspended for a period. At what level might it re-open?
From the ashes the markets will rise at some time, no doubt, as we are not about to abandon capitalism, but many firms, some household names, will be gone forever.
One outcome of this could be a boycott China movement - until they pay reparations.
Harsh to blame China for long-standing cultural practices.
However I do think the it has proved significant that China got hit first from a global response perspective. The lockdown model radiated out from China and western governments have been put under extreme pressure to follow it, thereby making health considerations the one-and-only driver (despite the low mortality rate).
As I have said before, the economic and loss of freedoms hit will be crushing to us all, whether we contract the virus or not.
If the virus hit USA first, or us first, I think that the balance of considerations would have been different and the global response accordingly.
From a personal perspective, I`m not scared of the virus at all. My concern is financial for my family and I`m trying desperately to limit the damage, but it`s too late. My retirement is destroyed, I can`t financially protect my children as I would have liked (they are still at school, one in GCSE year). Where are they going to get jobs. Feeling pretty destroyed this morning. Stupid, stupid lockdown policy. That`s the culprit, not the virus.
This is the quandary, we are destroying the futures of many young people for years to try to extend the lifes of mainly very old and ill people.
"Destroying the futures" is a ridiculous exaggeration.
I think that the long term consequences of the pandemic will be mostly good, even if the human cost will be high this year and next.
1. More work from home and less commuting. 2. Much more focus on public health, preventative measures, and healthy lifestyles. 3. More resiliant trade and infrastructure. 4. More medical reasearch generally, but specifically to fight epidemics. 5. Changes to the benefit system and welfare state to protect jobs, incomes, and health when there is systemic failure.
It's a shame it takes a catastrophe, but we do generally learn from them.
I don't think "destroying the futures" is an exaggeration at all. The only chance to save us from a long term economic nightmare is a quick vaccine, a treatment or for the virus to disappear naturally. Otherwise we will be in a state of continued "lockdown" for years.
How on earth are the European countries ever going to start life again?
Say in two weeks Italys new infections are down to single figures and they let everyone out, then within a week infections are in the hundreds again. Lockdown will be enforced immediately again.
"We will also help elderly and vulnerable customers access food online. From Monday 23rd March, our online customers who are over 70 years of age or have a disability will have priority access to online delivery slots. We will contact these customers in the coming days with more details."
How will they know which of their customers are 70 and/or have disability?
Have you ever signed up to a website which didn't ask for your date of birth?
Pass on disabilities. Perhaps they ask this too to see how much help you need unpacking?
Couldn't they just get their delivery team to give people who appear eligible a special code?
I am thinking that after all the measures to battle the virus have ended, possible in a year or twos time, some of the businesses that were perfectly viable in February 2020 won't be at all for a long time after if ever.
So I'm wondering if propping up all these businesses for potentially years is a good idea, which we'll all end up paying for through higher taxes and reduced government services for decades to come.
I'd be tempted to say prop up businesses that are vital, so food, medicine etc. and for all the others let the chips fall where they may.
Work colleague took her daughter to A and E the other night for non virus related reasons.
Only 4 people there.
Must admit told my family to avoid doctors / hospital unless absolutely no choice
Doctors being a bit of a pain re repeat prescriptions at moment - bearing in mind my son is in high risk category you would have thought this could be sorted over phone and sent through - but oh no.......
One positive long-term consequence of this horrible situation could be that people stop wasting NHS time with non-issues, or going to A&E with non-urgent ones. Or maybe we'll just revert to type. Hope you get your son's prescription sorted.
I'm reasonably familiar with economic theory but I'm genuinely unclear about the impact of the current crisis and counter-measures. As Cyclefree says, the Government is asking us to avoid several major industries, including all hospitality and most retail. They are lending said industries pots of money, and let's assume that works and saves most bnusinesses. In principle this increases the money supply, because the £20 we've not spent on a meal out is being covered by the Government lending £20.
But at some point the loan will need to be repaid, unless this or a future government says "Oh, forget it". If so, the businesses will struggle for years - if we didn't eat out this month, we probably won't eat out twice as much as usual when it's all over, so that revenue has gone for good. So the decline of the High Steeet will accelerate rapidly.
If the loans turn into grants, then the effect will be inflationary, reducing the value of the £20 we didn't spend but helping the shops and hotels through the crisis.
In reality, it's all a very blunt instrument though no doubt difficult to do better at almost zero notice. Some companies will be OK, others will go bust despite the loan, or be unable to get it for some reason. Possibly the most helpful thing the Government could do for business would be to require insurers to waive exemptions for losses caused by epidemics, and then compensate the insurers - that would simply the Government's job and devolve the task of sorting out who is affected to the insurance companies.
Meanwhile, at individual level there are countless people facing ruin - there will be a huge divide between people working for organisations that keep paying their staff and those who abruptly get laid off, plus those in self-employment who don't seem to be getting much help. Support for people who rent is a really urgent priority, as these will disproportionately be in these categories.
But that's all back of the envelope stuff. Is there a serious analysis out there?
The logic should be that they put up taxes on those who are still earning. So instead of paying £x for my meal out and £y for my evening out and £z for my weekend break, the government takes something approximating to £x+y+z (less the costs of my pasta suppers and Netflix) off me in extra tax, and gives it to the restaurant and the cinema and the hotel, and/or their staff as appropriate. End result, no change.
I have not yet had a chance to review yesterday’s proposals in detail.
But isn’t the big problem this: the government is requiring people to reduce their demand for anything other than essential items. That means a vastly reduced income for those providing such goods/services while their bills stay the same. Loans don’t help as there is no income out of which they can be repaid. Indeed increasing indebtedness at such a time is probably the worst thing you can do.
So the only ways are:-
1. Give money to those facing the drop in income. Make this conditional on keeping staff on. 2. Reduce costs eg rent holidays (and compensate those affected) / defer tax payments / no employers NI. 3. Lift the restrictions depressing demand as soon as it is possible - consistent with protecting health - to do so. 4. Businesses seeking other ways to get income consistent with the health restrictions eg takeaways for restaurants.
Have I missed anything?
And if the above is right, how do the proposals yesterday and those to come measure up?
I would really like to feel hopeful.
The proposals were a step in the right direction. He said there is more to come so reluctant to judge it too harshly, on its own its a plaster to fix something needing 10 stitches, but sure they will do more.
"We will also help elderly and vulnerable customers access food online. From Monday 23rd March, our online customers who are over 70 years of age or have a disability will have priority access to online delivery slots. We will contact these customers in the coming days with more details."
How will they know which of their customers are 70 and/or have disability?
I received an e mail from Asda two days ago with instructions for us isolated oldies
I am thinking that after all the measures to battle the virus have ended, possible in a year or twos time, some of the businesses that were perfectly viable in February 2020 won't be at all for a long time after if ever.
So I'm wondering if propping up all these businesses for potentially years is a good idea, which we'll all end up paying for through higher taxes and reduced government services for decades to come.
I'd be tempted to say prop up businesses that are vital, so food, medicine etc. and for all the others let the chips fall where they may.
The across-the-board shutdown hasn't provided any standard measure of which businesses are more viable - some businesses may simply be more susceptible to a shut-down, not less sustainable or viable in the long-term.
Judging solely on their ability to ride out a two or three-month shutdown would be catastrophic.
Mr. Palmer, self-employed stuff can be very spotty.
My day-to-day work life (remote writing) has had almost no change at all. And because I get paid in US dollars I'm probably going to see an effective small pay rise at the end of the month.
By contrast, an electrician is screwed.
Trying to be fair, to both the self-employed and the taxpayer, is going to be very difficult.
Mr. Alexander, some hard choices will have to be made. I don't envy the politicians.
Edited extra bit: just thought to add that I've also seen a small decrease in work, so that'll balance things out a bit. Not sure how that'll go in coming months.
Work colleague took her daughter to A and E the other night for non virus related reasons.
Only 4 people there.
Must admit told my family to avoid doctors / hospital unless absolutely no choice
Doctors being a bit of a pain re repeat prescriptions at moment - bearing in mind my son is in high risk category you would have thought this could be sorted over phone and sent through - but oh no.......
Bizarre - here in Spain we phone in and they load it on the health card which allows the chemist to issue the prescription.
“There have been 175 deaths, an increase of 27 in a day. Jérôme Salomon, director of the French health authority, said 7% of those infected were under 70 years old. Of the sick, 699 are in intensive care, but 5,000 patients have recovered or are being treated at home. There are now 2,575 patients still in hospital, but more than 600 people have been successfully treated and allowed to go home in the last 24 hours alone."
I find this interesting - if 600 people were released yesterday, the net new cases was 'only' around 400. It would be very interesting to have similar figures from the UK - I think here patient's recovered is those who are clean of the virus and does not include people working at home. It's important for understanding the burden on hospitals and the fraction that will need intensive care moving forward.
There's no way only 7% of those infected are under 70.
What that suggests is that only 7% of those known to be infected are under 70.
Which suggests a huge number of asymptomatic cases among the under 70s and possibly those over 70 as well.
Which would match the idea that 55 thousand are already infected in the UK.
But regardless of the exact figures you need to compare how much doing nothing costs. It could easily end up costing more on a national level, 200,000 families in mourning and a health service brought to its knees.
NICE determines cost-effectiveness of treatment using a figure of £20k-£30k per year of life (QALY) gained.
This appears to have been thrown out of the window for Corona. We are now in 'whatever it takes' territory.
Not quite.
It's £20-£30K most of the time but not all. End of life it is 50K per year.
But the crucial bit is it is £20-30K PER YEAR. How many years shortfall will these people have missed out upon? For some not many (they are old and have multimorbidity etc). For many others it could be a LOT. Your doctors and nurses who are in their prime will lose a lot of QALYs (10+). Multiply that by 30K or 50K and we are talking serious numbers. Average all that out and it will probably be close to this package in monetary terms, given the population size.
However, that is the health effect that we are trying to counter-act. What none of the models currently are doing is calculating the general equilibrium problem and the feedback loops coming from an economy in recession. That's because these are infectious disease modellers not macroeconomic modellers. They are working in silo to with epidemiology data. When the government gets round the macro consequences they will realise they have offered economic policies which are basically a peashooter when we need a bazooker.
We need a radical plan, something like a free (but low) universal income combined with free utilities and a substantial (for the whole lockdown period) mortgage holiday.
One outcome of this could be a boycott China movement - until they pay reparations.
Harsh to blame China for long-standing cultural practices.
However I do think the it has proved significant that China got hit first from a global response perspective. The lockdown model radiated out from China and western governments have been put under extreme pressure to follow it, thereby making health considerations the one-and-only driver (despite the low mortality rate).
As I have said before, the economic and loss of freedoms hit will be crushing to us all, whether we contract the virus or not.
If the virus hit USA first, or us first, I think that the balance of considerations would have been different and the global response accordingly.
From a personal perspective, I`m not scared of the virus at all. My concern is financial for my family and I`m trying desperately to limit the damage, but it`s too late. My retirement is destroyed, I can`t financially protect my children as I would have liked (they are still at school, one in GCSE year). Where are they going to get jobs. Feeling pretty destroyed this morning. Stupid, stupid lockdown policy. That`s the culprit, not the virus.
This is the quandary, we are destroying the futures of many young people for years to try to extend the lifes of mainly very old and ill people.
If only those oldies had had the foresight not to have any children then the young would so much better off.
The crap and whining on here about oldies is vomit inducing, I hope the barstewards are poor for the rest of their lives and their oldies leave the cash to cat and dog homes
Mr. glw, the third of those points ought to include decreasing reliance on one country, especially as said part of the world seems to have a bad habit of brewing up exciting new infectious diseases.
There is a ridiculous overdependence on a relatively small portion of Asia for manufacturing in some sectors, electronics in particular. I've thought for a long time that we have had too many eggs in the one basket, but mainly in regard to natural disasters rather than disease.
Clearly there needs to be much more thought at governmental level about security, in the broadest sense, as it applies to international trade.
One outcome of this could be a boycott China movement - until they pay reparations.
Harsh to blame China for long-standing cultural practices.
However I do think the it has proved significant that China got hit first from a global response perspective. The lockdown model radiated out from China and western governments have been put under extreme pressure to follow it, thereby making health considerations the one-and-only driver (despite the low mortality rate).
As I have said before, the economic and loss of freedoms hit will be crushing to us all, whether we contract the virus or not.
If the virus hit USA first, or us first, I think that the balance of considerations would have been different and the global response accordingly.
From a personal perspective, I`m not scared of the virus at all. My concern is financial for my family and I`m trying desperately to limit the damage, but it`s too late. My retirement is destroyed, I can`t financially protect my children as I would have liked (they are still at school, one in GCSE year). Where are they going to get jobs. Feeling pretty destroyed this morning. Stupid, stupid lockdown policy. That`s the culprit, not the virus.
Sorry to hear of your smashed retirement plans. We can only hope this is a V shaped financial crisis.
Thanks - I probably shouldn`t have posted that, but I`m feeling pretty wretched right now.
Makes whether or not I`m in the green on my political bets of negligible consequence.
You definitely should have posted that as it shows the choice that this Country has taken. What surprises me is that the dramatic increases in winter deaths that happen regulalrly because of a nasty bout of flu, 40,000+ in some years, gets absolutely no coverage and nothing is done. For Covid-19 we have decided to destroy the economy, our way of life and peoples futures. I may be wrong but I cannot see the death toll in this Country from Covid-19 getting anywhere near 40,000.
So two key figures at the heart of the govt's response to the crisis are Rishi Sunak and Alok Sharma.
Racist Tory bastards.
Indian Hindu heritage.
So the wrong type of non-white for some people.
You are picking a fight in an empty room. Nobody is saying this. Your posts are often interesting. This one is an utterly moronic exception.
Well let me develop my idea.
Anti-establishment types approve of minority groups because they are not of the establishment.
But when a minority group becomes successful and part of the establishment, as Jews and increasingly Hindus have in the UK, then the anti-establishment types become hostile to them.
I am thinking that after all the measures to battle the virus have ended, possible in a year or twos time, some of the businesses that were perfectly viable in February 2020 won't be at all for a long time after if ever.
So I'm wondering if propping up all these businesses for potentially years is a good idea, which we'll all end up paying for through higher taxes and reduced government services for decades to come.
I'd be tempted to say prop up businesses that are vital, so food, medicine etc. and for all the others let the chips fall where they may.
I'm not sure what food and medicine businesses you feel need Government support at this time? Some wheelbarrows to transport their money?
Comments
This appears to have been thrown out of the window for Corona. We are now in 'whatever it takes' territory.
LOL
1. More work from home and less commuting.
2. Much more focus on public health, preventative measures, and healthy lifestyles.
3. More resiliant trade and infrastructure.
4. More medical reasearch generally, but specifically to fight epidemics.
5. Changes to the benefit system and welfare state to protect jobs, incomes, and health when there is systemic failure.
It's a shame it takes a catastrophe, but we do generally learn from them.
It could have been worse - I took 25% tax free from my pension plan just after Christmas. This has turned out to be the best financial decision of my life!
My company is working on this job. There's a huge team up at Barrow right now. The contracts have all been let, with penalty clauses, and two are under construction already.
That won't be stopped.
It's possible the boats might be sold or mothballed before they're ever brought into service, but I very much doubt it.
It's one of the last strategic political assets the Government would ditch.
Not to mention, we worry about security of supply regarding energy, we should do likewise for supply chains that are so dependent on a single nation.
Plenty of others on here have far greater (and more important) challenges.
The idea that it was brand new data that only Imperial had and no one else had access to is nonsense.
I went for it anyway. I may ordered a delivery once a week now for the next 6 weeks, factoring in there will be a three-week lag on each.
I've got plenty for the next 2.5 weeks.
"We will also help elderly and vulnerable customers access food online. From Monday 23rd March, our online customers who are over 70 years of age or have a disability will have priority access to online delivery slots. We will contact these customers in the coming days with more details."
How will they know which of their customers are 70 and/or have disability?
Only 4 people there.
Must admit told my family to avoid doctors / hospital unless absolutely no choice
Doctors being a bit of a pain re repeat prescriptions at moment - bearing in mind my son is in high risk category you would have thought this could be sorted over phone and sent through - but oh no.......
I am guessing that you don't actually need advice, then.
The other point is that in crises the market always recovers in advance of the economy - because of course once there is a sniff of light at the end of the tunnel, everyone wants to buy in at the front end. So investments could be well on the way back up whilst we are still skulking about avoiding the plague.
But at some point the loan will need to be repaid, unless this or a future government says "Oh, forget it". If so, the businesses will struggle for years - if we didn't eat out this month, we probably won't eat out twice as much as usual when it's all over, so that revenue has gone for good. So the decline of the High Steeet will accelerate rapidly.
If the loans turn into grants, then the effect will be inflationary, reducing the value of the £20 we didn't spend but helping the shops and hotels through the crisis.
In reality, it's all a very blunt instrument though no doubt difficult to do better at almost zero notice. Some companies will be OK, others will go bust despite the loan, or be unable to get it for some reason. Possibly the most helpful thing the Government could do for business would be to require insurers to waive exemptions for losses caused by epidemics, and then compensate the insurers - that would simply the Government's job and devolve the task of sorting out who is affected to the insurance companies.
Meanwhile, at individual level there are countless people facing ruin - there will be a huge divide between people working for organisations that keep paying their staff and those who abruptly get laid off, plus those in self-employment who don't seem to be getting much help. Support for people who rent is a really urgent priority, as these will disproportionately be in these categories.
But that's all back of the envelope stuff. Is there a serious analysis out there?
https://twitter.com/chrishaughton/status/1240095837499383811?s=19
Pass on disabilities. Perhaps they ask this too to see how much help you need unpacking?
From the ashes the markets will rise at some time, no doubt, as we are not about to abandon capitalism, but many firms, some household names, will be gone forever.
How on earth are the European countries ever going to start life again?
Say in two weeks Italys new infections are down to single figures and they let everyone out, then within a week infections are in the hundreds again. Lockdown will be enforced immediately again.
So I'm wondering if propping up all these businesses for potentially years is a good idea, which we'll all end up paying for through higher taxes and reduced government services for decades to come.
I'd be tempted to say prop up businesses that are vital, so food, medicine etc. and for all the others let the chips fall where they may.
Hope you get your son's prescription sorted.
No Government can bind its successor.
So the wrong type of non-white for some people.
In theory. In practice, who knows!
Judging solely on their ability to ride out a two or three-month shutdown would be catastrophic.
My day-to-day work life (remote writing) has had almost no change at all. And because I get paid in US dollars I'm probably going to see an effective small pay rise at the end of the month.
By contrast, an electrician is screwed.
Trying to be fair, to both the self-employed and the taxpayer, is going to be very difficult.
Mr. Alexander, some hard choices will have to be made. I don't envy the politicians.
Edited extra bit: just thought to add that I've also seen a small decrease in work, so that'll balance things out a bit. Not sure how that'll go in coming months.
New Thread. Keep your distance
What that suggests is that only 7% of those known to be infected are under 70.
Which suggests a huge number of asymptomatic cases among the under 70s and possibly those over 70 as well.
Which would match the idea that 55 thousand are already infected in the UK.
It's £20-£30K most of the time but not all. End of life it is 50K per year.
But the crucial bit is it is £20-30K PER YEAR. How many years shortfall will these people have missed out upon? For some not many (they are old and have multimorbidity etc). For many others it could be a LOT. Your doctors and nurses who are in their prime will lose a lot of QALYs (10+). Multiply that by 30K or 50K and we are talking serious numbers. Average all that out and it will probably be close to this package in monetary terms, given the population size.
However, that is the health effect that we are trying to counter-act. What none of the models currently are doing is calculating the general equilibrium problem and the feedback loops coming from an economy in recession. That's because these are infectious disease modellers not macroeconomic modellers. They are working in silo to with epidemiology data. When the government gets round the macro consequences they will realise they have offered economic policies which are basically a peashooter when we need a bazooker.
We need a radical plan, something like a free (but low) universal income combined with free utilities and a substantial (for the whole lockdown period) mortgage holiday.
NEW THREAD
On a related note I wonder how much anti-semitism is a result of the tendency of British Jews to vote Conservative.
Clearly there needs to be much more thought at governmental level about security, in the broadest sense, as it applies to international trade.
Anti-establishment types approve of minority groups because they are not of the establishment.
But when a minority group becomes successful and part of the establishment, as Jews and increasingly Hindus have in the UK, then the anti-establishment types become hostile to them.