I am not impressed with the only help to renters being preventing them being evicted. I don't want to fall out with my landlord by not paying him.
£330bn is about £5k each, I will be a bit annoyed if business gets most of that and individuals get nothing. Especially since it will be people like me that will be paying for it all with higher taxes and worse public services for decades.
I think it's so businesses can continue to pay individuals, and we expect more announcements on individuals soon, right?
That works if a business continues to employ people, Will they though. The firm my friend works for laid off everyone. It is now just a warehouse full of stock with an empty office. That business however will have no rates for a year and get a 25k grant which will help pay the rent. In 6 months time it can just come out of hibernation saved by tax payers while all 30 employees have been thrown on the largess of the state for food and rent.
Friday will be the big lay off day. I would expect between 500K-750K laid off.
I am not impressed with the only help to renters being preventing them being evicted. I don't want to fall out with my landlord by not paying him.
£330bn is about £5k each, I will be a bit annoyed if business gets most of that and individuals get nothing. Especially since it will be people like me that will be paying for it all with higher taxes and worse public services for decades.
I think it's so businesses can continue to pay individuals, and we expect more announcements on individuals soon, right?
Yes, some people can't help carping. As you know, I'm not a supporter of this government politically but I think it's doing its best. Let's wait and see what the Chancellor comes up with.
P.S. He is in Select Ctte on BBC News 24.
Perhaps because people don't believe he will come out with anything much worthwhile. In my case not because he is a tory but purely because frankly I don't think many in parliament realise how hand to mouth a good 15 odd million people are in this country.
Positive test rate above 10% today. Doubtful that it's because triage is more accurate. Not good.
And we know London is a hot spot. I can't see how some sort of lockdown isn't coming shortly.
It would require Sadiq Khan to give the order. The order would be unpopular, so he wouldn't do it. Especially not in the run up to his re-election (albeit it's now over a year away), and considering all the people most likely to be adversely affected won't vote for him anyway.
Isn't there a logical fail somewhere in that analysis?
I am not impressed with the only help to renters being preventing them being evicted. I don't want to fall out with my landlord by not paying him.
£330bn is about £5k each, I will be a bit annoyed if business gets most of that and individuals get nothing. Especially since it will be people like me that will be paying for it all with higher taxes and worse public services for decades.
I think it's so businesses can continue to pay individuals, and we expect more announcements on individuals soon, right?
That works if a business continues to employ people, Will they though. The firm my friend works for laid off everyone. It is now just a warehouse full of stock with an empty office. That business however will have no rates for a year and get a 25k grant which will help pay the rent. In 6 months time it can just come out of hibernation saved by tax payers while all 30 employees have been thrown on the largess of the state for food and rent.
Easy, the loan requires you not to lay off staff.
Did they make any mention of that yesterday? Do you believe they will make that a condition? I think we both know the answer to both will be no
I am not impressed with the only help to renters being preventing them being evicted. I don't want to fall out with my landlord by not paying him.
£330bn is about £5k each, I will be a bit annoyed if business gets most of that and individuals get nothing. Especially since it will be people like me that will be paying for it all with higher taxes and worse public services for decades.
I think it's so businesses can continue to pay individuals, and we expect more announcements on individuals soon, right?
Yes, some people can't help carping. As you know, I'm not a supporter of this government politically but I think it's doing its best. Let's wait and see what the Chancellor comes up with.
P.S. He is in Select Ctte on BBC News 24.
Perhaps because people don't believe he will come out with anything much worthwhile. In my case not because he is a tory but purely because frankly I don't think many in parliament realise how hand to mouth a good 15 odd million people are in this country.
If this continues for a month there will be anarchy as people run out of money
I am not impressed with the only help to renters being preventing them being evicted. I don't want to fall out with my landlord by not paying him.
£330bn is about £5k each, I will be a bit annoyed if business gets most of that and individuals get nothing. Especially since it will be people like me that will be paying for it all with higher taxes and worse public services for decades.
I think it's so businesses can continue to pay individuals, and we expect more announcements on individuals soon, right?
That works if a business continues to employ people, Will they though. The firm my friend works for laid off everyone. It is now just a warehouse full of stock with an empty office. That business however will have no rates for a year and get a 25k grant which will help pay the rent. In 6 months time it can just come out of hibernation saved by tax payers while all 30 employees have been thrown on the largess of the state for food and rent.
Friday will be the big lay off day. I would expect between 500K-750K laid off.
Not sure the layoffs havent already happened tbh. As I said my friends firm laid of half monday, the other half tuesday. Apparently the other half was to finish packing the last order they had
Labour probably only needs to recover to circa 260 seats given the Anti-Tory bloc in Scotland. I also expect some Labour recovery in Scotland under Starmer.
I would say Labour actually needs to get to 280 to 290 seats if the LDs do not gain any seats as any Labour gains from the SNP make no net change in the anti Tory block. If the LDs reach 30 to 40 seats however then yes 260 seats for Labour would be enough to form a minority or coalition Labour government with LD and SNP support
I don't disagree with that really. Labour would only need 260 or so on the basis of the SNP still having circa 45 seats.Were Labour to gain at SNP to reach 270 seats, the SNP would only need circa 35.
I really don't get this idea....we will have a government allied with the snp. Surely their price will be independence referendum which they will likely win. At which point SNP are no longer part of rump uk government so labour then is no longer the majority and government becomes the tories again.....what am I missing?
We are talking about the mid-2020s and I see little point speculating at this point as to Scotland's likely attitude in any Independence Referendum which might then occur. Highly unlikely,however, that Labour would simply bow to such SNP demands - and equally unlikely that the SNP would wish to be seen to bring Labour down.
I am not impressed with the only help to renters being preventing them being evicted. I don't want to fall out with my landlord by not paying him.
£330bn is about £5k each, I will be a bit annoyed if business gets most of that and individuals get nothing. Especially since it will be people like me that will be paying for it all with higher taxes and worse public services for decades.
I think it's so businesses can continue to pay individuals, and we expect more announcements on individuals soon, right?
That works if a business continues to employ people, Will they though. The firm my friend works for laid off everyone. It is now just a warehouse full of stock with an empty office. That business however will have no rates for a year and get a 25k grant which will help pay the rent. In 6 months time it can just come out of hibernation saved by tax payers while all 30 employees have been thrown on the largess of the state for food and rent.
Friday will be the big lay off day. I would expect between 500K-750K laid off.
The question isn't really about keeping businesses in operation. For many that doesn't make sense.
What we need is for a number of business is to enter an orderly hibernation, and to help their employees until normal business can be resumed.
"The median incubation period was estimated to be 5.1 days (95% CI, 4.5 to 5.8 days), and 97.5% of those who develop symptoms will do so within 11.5 days (CI, 8.2 to 15.6 days) of infection. "
Just had an update from work that while working from home has been implemented in all other locations, our China offices (HK, Beijing and Shanghai) have returned to normal save for international travel. I take that as a positive - others may be sceptical I appreciate.
Possible solutions for GCSEs and A-levels if schools shut for the summer: 1). Base grades on teacher assessments. This could work if parents were not able to appeal, but would be very tricky to moderate. Might be the best solution though if it were genuinely one-off situation. 2). For A-levels at least just assume everyone would have got their first choice offer. This might cause problems in terms of numbers for some universities who rely on clearing, but students would not complain. 3). Rapidly deploy some form of online testing that students could do from home. Making that secure would be quite a challenge I think. 4). Run the exams but in a very cut down form: only one paper per subject with enough optional questions so that those who could not finish the course are not penalised. This would be very difficult for practical subjects like Art but could work as the candidates are widely separated in an exam hall. Might need to recruit invigilators who have recovered from CV-19 for that one.
I’m sure there are other solutions, and I’m sure that many students will be hard done by whichever one is picked.
I'd suggested completing them in October, then marked for them to start a shortened new year 12 or University year in January. Might cause problems with students moving onto jobs and some other groups, though.
Labour probably only needs to recover to circa 260 seats given the Anti-Tory bloc in Scotland. I also expect some Labour recovery in Scotland under Starmer.
I would say Labour actually needs to get to 280 to 290 seats if the LDs do not gain any seats as any Labour gains from the SNP make no net change in the anti Tory block. If the LDs reach 30 to 40 seats however then yes 260 seats for Labour would be enough to form a minority or coalition Labour government with LD and SNP support
I don't disagree with that really. Labour would only need 260 or so on the basis of the SNP still having circa 45 seats.Were Labour to gain at SNP to reach 270 seats, the SNP would only need circa 35.
I really don't get this idea....we will have a government allied with the snp. Surely their price will be independence referendum which they will likely win. At which point SNP are no longer part of rump uk government so labour then is no longer the majority and government becomes the tories again.....what am I missing?
We are talking about the mid-2020s and I see little point speculating at this point as to Scotland's likely attitude in any Independence Referendum which might then occur. Highly unlikely,however, that Labour would simply bow to such SNP demands - and equally unlikely that the SNP would wish to be seen to bring Labour down.
Politically I think it will be impossible for the SNP not to demand a referendum as the price of cooperation. Instead they will abstain in westminster if labour refuses
Positive test rate above 10% today. Doubtful that it's because triage is more accurate. Not good.
And we know London is a hot spot. I can't see how some sort of lockdown isn't coming shortly.
It would require Sadiq Khan to give the order. The order would be unpopular, so he wouldn't do it. Especially not in the run up to his re-election (albeit it's now over a year away), and considering all the people most likely to be adversely affected won't vote for him anyway.
Isn't there a logical fail somewhere in that analysis?
If I change it to "adversely affected by not having a lockdown", does that resolve things?
Labour probably only needs to recover to circa 260 seats given the Anti-Tory bloc in Scotland. I also expect some Labour recovery in Scotland under Starmer.
I would say Labour actually needs to get to 280 to 290 seats if the LDs do not gain any seats as any Labour gains from the SNP make no net change in the anti Tory block. If the LDs reach 30 to 40 seats however then yes 260 seats for Labour would be enough to form a minority or coalition Labour government with LD and SNP support
I don't disagree with that really. Labour would only need 260 or so on the basis of the SNP still having circa 45 seats.Were Labour to gain at SNP to reach 270 seats, the SNP would only need circa 35.
I really don't get this idea....we will have a government allied with the snp. Surely their price will be independence referendum which they will likely win. At which point SNP are no longer part of rump uk government so labour then is no longer the majority and government becomes the tories again.....what am I missing?
You are missing the key point a Starmer premiership would take the UK back into the single market reducing the likelihood of a Yes vote in any indyref2.
The SNP thus face the problem Boris has banned indyref2 when his hard Brexit makes it winnable, while Starmer would allow indyref2 but his soft Brexit means Yes would likely lose it
LOL, Boris cannot ban a referendum if Scottish Government want to go ahead, you southern fanboys are deluded.
Time will shiw who is deluded - it might even be you.
Positive test rate above 10% today. Doubtful that it's because triage is more accurate. Not good.
And we know London is a hot spot. I can't see how some sort of lockdown isn't coming shortly.
It would require Sadiq Khan to give the order. The order would be unpopular, so he wouldn't do it. Especially not in the run up to his re-election (albeit it's now over a year away), and considering all the people most likely to be adversely affected won't vote for him anyway.
Isn't there a logical fail somewhere in that analysis?
If I change it to "adversely affected by not having a lockdown", does that resolve things?
There is no way there should be a London only lockdown. It's a small country and getting out, even on a bicycle, is easy. It just shifts the problem.
Also I don't think the Mayor of London has the statutory authority to take that sort of measure. I may be wrong but the role's remit doesn't stretch very far beyond policing and transport.
Agreed. This is the way we will come out of the lockdown without needing a vaccine.
A test to see if you have had the virus would be great.
But unless I've missed something it is not as yet known that getting it and recovering gives immunity for any length of time?
We need a few different types of test.
We have the gold-standard for confirmation that you are sick. This should be reserved for those on the front-line and should be close to 100% sensitive and specific. That's what we have been using so far but it only works in individuals with the virus currently. It takes up to 48 hours as the virus needs cultivating.
We need a rapid rule-out test which can be used for symptomatic sufferers. It needs to be reasonably sensitive and specific but crucially it needs to be fast. This can be used for surveillance and to ascertain incidence in the population.
We need an anti-body based test which can tell us if we have had the disease. Those patients who have had the disease can then start to function in society. Such a test can tell us about prevalence in society.
When sufficient numbers have had the lurgy using the anti-body test, we can then unlock. If it pops up again, we use the other different test modalities to isolate, contact trace and bring it under control in local populations.
It's far more feasible than a vaccine which is possible but is extremely complex to develop and hard to scale quickly.
If you have had Covid-19 and recover, and are then immume, does this also mean that you cannot carry it and pass it on to others? I think the answer to this is yes because I read somewhere that you can only pass it on if you are symptomatic and obviously you canot be symptomatic if you are immune.
Have I understood this correctly?
Almost.
You can pass it on if you are infected but asymptomatic. If you're immune you won't get infected (AFAIK).
That is correct. It is possible that future iterations of the virus will be sufficiently mutated that you will not have total immunity, but there is no sign of that currently. (And if that were to happen then symptoms would likely be less severe as your immune system would still have a headstart.)
I don't think it's quite so simple as that (and how effective and durable acquired immunity to this virus might be is certainly a matter of current debate amongst scientists).
(Measles, for example, can erase immune memory.)
You would not have been about to recover from this virus (or any virus), if your body's immune system did not learn to fight it. The only reason why your body's immune system would "forget" the virus would be if it had mutated sufficiently so as to be less recognisable. There is no evidence of any reinfection.
Not yet. We haven't had time yet though have we. Might be worth testing the theory over 12 months before we make any hasty assumptions and decisions.
Could you give me one example of any virus where - without mutations - the body becomes susceptible to reinfection based on normal viral loads?
Just one. Any virus at all.
I have no expertise at all in immuno response to viruses. That's why I defer to the experts in that specialty on that. The experts are not sure.
Why are you so sure about something which is presumably outside of your expertise?
Just as a follow-up Robert.
When I say the experts aren't sure, I am talking about the British Society for Immunology.
I am not impressed with the only help to renters being preventing them being evicted. I don't want to fall out with my landlord by not paying him.
£330bn is about £5k each, I will be a bit annoyed if business gets most of that and individuals get nothing. Especially since it will be people like me that will be paying for it all with higher taxes and worse public services for decades.
I think it's so businesses can continue to pay individuals, and we expect more announcements on individuals soon, right?
That works if a business continues to employ people, Will they though. The firm my friend works for laid off everyone. It is now just a warehouse full of stock with an empty office. That business however will have no rates for a year and get a 25k grant which will help pay the rent. In 6 months time it can just come out of hibernation saved by tax payers while all 30 employees have been thrown on the largess of the state for food and rent.
Realistically what alternative do you have? In 6 months time [if it takes that long] that business will be able to start taking revenues and can rehire people, but what's it supposed to do in the mean time? Pay everyone a six month vacation?
That only works if the government takes up the tab - and not in a loan but a grant.
I have no expertise at all in immuno response to viruses. That's why I defer to the experts in that specialty on that. The experts are not sure.
Why are you so sure about something which is presumably outside of your expertise?
That's an excellent question.
My guess is that I'm reading different general science publications to you. And I think they tend to have a different tone to newspapers. Newspapers, for example, will tend to look to show "balance" - so one person said X, another said Y. Nature and New Scientist and those kind of publications will tend to report studies with findings, and while they'll report disagreements, they tend not to look for false balance.
My point is that this isn't some kind of super virus. It's a Coronavirus, like SARS or MERS. Both of these conferred immunity on people who got them. There have been no confirmed cases of reinfection. There is also evidence that this virus is not mutating quickly.
Let me quote infectious diseases professor Jon Cohen "The answer is that we simply don’t know" - which supports your point... But then he says "However, it is very likely, based on other viral infections, that yes, once a person has had the infection they will generally be immune and won’t get it again. There will always be the odd exception, but that is certainly a reasonable expectation."
There's nothing certain about my view. But the balance of probabilities - and by which I'm talking 90%, not 55% - is that there is immunity conferred.
Positive test rate above 10% today. Doubtful that it's because triage is more accurate. Not good.
And we know London is a hot spot. I can't see how some sort of lockdown isn't coming shortly.
It would require Sadiq Khan to give the order. The order would be unpopular, so he wouldn't do it. Especially not in the run up to his re-election (albeit it's now over a year away), and considering all the people most likely to be adversely affected won't vote for him anyway.
Isn't there a logical fail somewhere in that analysis?
If I change it to "adversely affected by not having a lockdown", does that resolve things?
There is no way there should be a London only lockdown. It's a small country and getting out, even on a bicycle, is easy. It just shifts the problem.
Also I don't think the Mayor of London has the statutory authority to take that sort of measure. I may be wrong but the role's remit doesn't stretch very far beyond policing and transport.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but the key word in your post might well be "policing".
I am not impressed with the only help to renters being preventing them being evicted. I don't want to fall out with my landlord by not paying him.
£330bn is about £5k each, I will be a bit annoyed if business gets most of that and individuals get nothing. Especially since it will be people like me that will be paying for it all with higher taxes and worse public services for decades.
I think it's so businesses can continue to pay individuals, and we expect more announcements on individuals soon, right?
Well hopefully, but the measures on renters seem to have been partially announced? Unless I got the wrong end of the stick.
But I would say the idea that big business gets billions, whilst those who are on minimum wage zero hours contracts will get nothing is not a fair use of the money.
Possible solutions for GCSEs and A-levels if schools shut for the summer: 1). Base grades on teacher assessments. This could work if parents were not able to appeal, but would be very tricky to moderate. Might be the best solution though if it were genuinely one-off situation. 2). For A-levels at least just assume everyone would have got their first choice offer. This might cause problems in terms of numbers for some universities who rely on clearing, but students would not complain. 3). Rapidly deploy some form of online testing that students could do from home. Making that secure would be quite a challenge I think. 4). Run the exams but in a very cut down form: only one paper per subject with enough optional questions so that those who could not finish the course are not penalised. This would be very difficult for practical subjects like Art but could work as the candidates are widely separated in an exam hall. Might need to recruit invigilators who have recovered from CV-19 for that one.
I’m sure there are other solutions, and I’m sure that many students will be hard done by whichever one is picked.
I'd suggested completing them in October, then marked for them to start a shortened new year 12 or University year in January. Might cause problems with students moving onto jobs and some other groups, though.
My son will be submitting his University applications next October. He really wants to have his Highers then although he will have predicted grades for his advanced Highers. Those who are in final year now need to know whether they can get into their degree courses or whether they need to apply for something else. October is really too late.
Positive test rate above 10% today. Doubtful that it's because triage is more accurate. Not good.
And we know London is a hot spot. I can't see how some sort of lockdown isn't coming shortly.
It would require Sadiq Khan to give the order. The order would be unpopular, so he wouldn't do it. Especially not in the run up to his re-election (albeit it's now over a year away), and considering all the people most likely to be adversely affected won't vote for him anyway.
Isn't there a logical fail somewhere in that analysis?
If I change it to "adversely affected by not having a lockdown", does that resolve things?
There is no way there should be a London only lockdown. It's a small country and getting out, even on a bicycle, is easy. It just shifts the problem.
Also I don't think the Mayor of London has the statutory authority to take that sort of measure. I may be wrong but the role's remit doesn't stretch very far beyond policing and transport.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but the key word in your post might well be "policing".
The Mayor of London stands as the surrogate for the PCC (previously Police Authorities) in Greater London i.e. deals with funding and oversight but has no input in operational matters.
I am not impressed with the only help to renters being preventing them being evicted. I don't want to fall out with my landlord by not paying him.
£330bn is about £5k each, I will be a bit annoyed if business gets most of that and individuals get nothing. Especially since it will be people like me that will be paying for it all with higher taxes and worse public services for decades.
I think it's so businesses can continue to pay individuals, and we expect more announcements on individuals soon, right?
That works if a business continues to employ people, Will they though. The firm my friend works for laid off everyone. It is now just a warehouse full of stock with an empty office. That business however will have no rates for a year and get a 25k grant which will help pay the rent. In 6 months time it can just come out of hibernation saved by tax payers while all 30 employees have been thrown on the largess of the state for food and rent.
Friday will be the big lay off day. I would expect between 500K-750K laid off.
Not sure the layoffs havent already happened tbh. As I said my friends firm laid of half monday, the other half tuesday. Apparently the other half was to finish packing the last order they had
In a years time it will be interesting what the global opinion is on the complete destruction of economies caused by the response to Covid-19
I am not impressed with the only help to renters being preventing them being evicted. I don't want to fall out with my landlord by not paying him.
£330bn is about £5k each, I will be a bit annoyed if business gets most of that and individuals get nothing. Especially since it will be people like me that will be paying for it all with higher taxes and worse public services for decades.
I think it's so businesses can continue to pay individuals, and we expect more announcements on individuals soon, right?
That works if a business continues to employ people, Will they though. The firm my friend works for laid off everyone. It is now just a warehouse full of stock with an empty office. That business however will have no rates for a year and get a 25k grant which will help pay the rent. In 6 months time it can just come out of hibernation saved by tax payers while all 30 employees have been thrown on the largess of the state for food and rent.
Realistically what alternative do you have? In 6 months time [if it takes that long] that business will be able to start taking revenues and can rehire people, but what's it supposed to do in the mean time? Pay everyone a six month vacation?
That only works if the government takes up the tab - and not in a loan but a grant.
While I agree with what you said I think you do miss the point somewhat that I was making
well off business owner gets chucked money to make sure he doesn't lose out plebs on minimum wage so far (pending on what they announce) get nothing
Yes when its over the business can restart and can rehire which I agree is a good thing, doesn't alter the fact that a lot of people are going to be seeing this of once more the people with money being bailed out while those at the bottom get discarded.
as an aside my job is safe and I am not minimum wage and lock down will leave me largely unaffected except for pensions and I am really just putting the case for those people here
I am not impressed with the only help to renters being preventing them being evicted. I don't want to fall out with my landlord by not paying him.
£330bn is about £5k each, I will be a bit annoyed if business gets most of that and individuals get nothing. Especially since it will be people like me that will be paying for it all with higher taxes and worse public services for decades.
I think it's so businesses can continue to pay individuals, and we expect more announcements on individuals soon, right?
Well hopefully, but the measures on renters seem to have been partially announced? Unless I got the wrong end of the stick.
But I would say the idea that big business gets billions, whilst those who are on minimum wage zero hours contracts will get nothing is not a fair use of the money.
I think that was in response to a questions at PMQs, but I could be mistaken.
I am not impressed with the only help to renters being preventing them being evicted. I don't want to fall out with my landlord by not paying him.
£330bn is about £5k each, I will be a bit annoyed if business gets most of that and individuals get nothing. Especially since it will be people like me that will be paying for it all with higher taxes and worse public services for decades.
I think it's so businesses can continue to pay individuals, and we expect more announcements on individuals soon, right?
That works if a business continues to employ people, Will they though. The firm my friend works for laid off everyone. It is now just a warehouse full of stock with an empty office. That business however will have no rates for a year and get a 25k grant which will help pay the rent. In 6 months time it can just come out of hibernation saved by tax payers while all 30 employees have been thrown on the largess of the state for food and rent.
Realistically what alternative do you have? In 6 months time [if it takes that long] that business will be able to start taking revenues and can rehire people, but what's it supposed to do in the mean time? Pay everyone a six month vacation?
That only works if the government takes up the tab - and not in a loan but a grant.
I wish I'd made a business to pay myself for my contract work, instead of going self employed to do the right thing and paying more tax. I could have had 6 months free money!
This idea creates so many loopholes, perverse incentives and arbitrary winners and losers it seems unworkable to me.
I have no expertise at all in immuno response to viruses. That's why I defer to the experts in that specialty on that. The experts are not sure.
Why are you so sure about something which is presumably outside of your expertise?
That's an excellent question.
My guess is that I'm reading different general science publications to you. And I think they tend to have a different tone to newspapers. Newspapers, for example, will tend to look to show "balance" - so one person said X, another said Y. Nature and New Scientist and those kind of publications will tend to report studies with findings, and while they'll report disagreements, they tend not to look for false balance.
My point is that this isn't some kind of super virus. It's a Coronavirus, like SARS or MERS. Both of these conferred immunity on people who got them. There have been no confirmed cases of reinfection. There is also evidence that this virus is not mutating quickly.
Let me quote infectious diseases professor Jon Cohen "The answer is that we simply don’t know" - which supports your point... But then he says "However, it is very likely, based on other viral infections, that yes, once a person has had the infection they will generally be immune and won’t get it again. There will always be the odd exception, but that is certainly a reasonable expectation."
There's nothing certain about my view. But the balance of probabilities - and by which I'm talking 90%, not 55% - is that there is immunity conferred.
Yes. That is one expert and he's not sure, as you say. If you see the link above from the British Society of Immunology, they say they are not sure, as a professional body.
So yes, we can attach probabilities to our uncertainty that's fine. If we then attach them and propagate them through a very simple decision-tree with costs and benefits attached to the nodes we can do some quick and dirty analysis. Compare a lock-down with a strategy of flattening the curve where we are not sure about immunity long-term (say 90% sure but 10% not).
What you will find is that given even that uncertainty (which is generous), it is far superior to be cautious because the risk of getting it wrong is quite catastrophic. That's the process the government went through this week.
When we decide to unlock we will go through a similar process. It will be fairly important to be sure about this idea of immunity. So we wait for long enough that we can be sure.
I am not impressed with the only help to renters being preventing them being evicted. I don't want to fall out with my landlord by not paying him.
£330bn is about £5k each, I will be a bit annoyed if business gets most of that and individuals get nothing. Especially since it will be people like me that will be paying for it all with higher taxes and worse public services for decades.
I think it's so businesses can continue to pay individuals, and we expect more announcements on individuals soon, right?
That works if a business continues to employ people, Will they though. The firm my friend works for laid off everyone. It is now just a warehouse full of stock with an empty office. That business however will have no rates for a year and get a 25k grant which will help pay the rent. In 6 months time it can just come out of hibernation saved by tax payers while all 30 employees have been thrown on the largess of the state for food and rent.
Friday will be the big lay off day. I would expect between 500K-750K laid off.
Not sure the layoffs havent already happened tbh. As I said my friends firm laid of half monday, the other half tuesday. Apparently the other half was to finish packing the last order they had
In a years time it will be interesting what the global opinion is on the complete destruction of economies caused by the response to Covid-19
Employment law pedantry but in the UK a layoff is a temporary cessation of work and, if that is happening, frankly it is a medium-term positive. If they are being made redundant, less so.
Large scale redundancies (i.e. 20 or more people) in one establishment require a 30-day collective consultation period. How on earth you round that out with social distancing is something I have been struggling with all day. There is a 'special circumstances' defence but it requires you to take such steps as are possible in the circumstances.
I am not impressed with the only help to renters being preventing them being evicted. I don't want to fall out with my landlord by not paying him.
£330bn is about £5k each, I will be a bit annoyed if business gets most of that and individuals get nothing. Especially since it will be people like me that will be paying for it all with higher taxes and worse public services for decades.
I think it's so businesses can continue to pay individuals, and we expect more announcements on individuals soon, right?
That works if a business continues to employ people, Will they though. The firm my friend works for laid off everyone. It is now just a warehouse full of stock with an empty office. That business however will have no rates for a year and get a 25k grant which will help pay the rent. In 6 months time it can just come out of hibernation saved by tax payers while all 30 employees have been thrown on the largess of the state for food and rent.
Realistically what alternative do you have? In 6 months time [if it takes that long] that business will be able to start taking revenues and can rehire people, but what's it supposed to do in the mean time? Pay everyone a six month vacation?
That only works if the government takes up the tab - and not in a loan but a grant.
Which is exactly what it ought to do. We need these viable business still operating. Losing (or rather having to shed) all your staff surely does not leave you with a viable business ready to pick up immediately once restrictions are removed.
Consider also this: the likelihood is that we will go through several phases of thightening and relaxing of restrictions over the next year. It would be madness for the government to put in place a regime that allowed or encouraged business to shed staff each time restriction tightened and the attempt to re-hire each time restrictions are relaxed.
Positive test rate above 10% today. Doubtful that it's because triage is more accurate. Not good.
And we know London is a hot spot. I can't see how some sort of lockdown isn't coming shortly.
It would require Sadiq Khan to give the order. The order would be unpopular, so he wouldn't do it. Especially not in the run up to his re-election (albeit it's now over a year away), and considering all the people most likely to be adversely affected won't vote for him anyway.
Isn't there a logical fail somewhere in that analysis?
If I change it to "adversely affected by not having a lockdown", does that resolve things?
There is no way there should be a London only lockdown. It's a small country and getting out, even on a bicycle, is easy. It just shifts the problem.
Also I don't think the Mayor of London has the statutory authority to take that sort of measure. I may be wrong but the role's remit doesn't stretch very far beyond policing and transport.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but the key word in your post might well be "policing".
The Mayor of London stands as the surrogate for the PCC (previously Police Authorities) in Greater London i.e. deals with funding and oversight but has no input in operational matters.
Sure, in normal times.
Let's put this another way: a Tory Mayor was to ask a Tory PM for permission to impose and enforce more stringent measures in London than in the rest of the country, are you saying that would be completely impossible?
As before, I'm not disagreeing that it shouldn't happen, nor that it's unlikely under current circumstances.
I am not impressed with the only help to renters being preventing them being evicted. I don't want to fall out with my landlord by not paying him.
£330bn is about £5k each, I will be a bit annoyed if business gets most of that and individuals get nothing. Especially since it will be people like me that will be paying for it all with higher taxes and worse public services for decades.
I think it's so businesses can continue to pay individuals, and we expect more announcements on individuals soon, right?
That works if a business continues to employ people, Will they though. The firm my friend works for laid off everyone. It is now just a warehouse full of stock with an empty office. That business however will have no rates for a year and get a 25k grant which will help pay the rent. In 6 months time it can just come out of hibernation saved by tax payers while all 30 employees have been thrown on the largess of the state for food and rent.
Friday will be the big lay off day. I would expect between 500K-750K laid off.
Not sure the layoffs havent already happened tbh. As I said my friends firm laid of half monday, the other half tuesday. Apparently the other half was to finish packing the last order they had
In a years time it will be interesting what the global opinion is on the complete destruction of economies caused by the response to Covid-19
Employment law pedantry but in the UK a layoff is a temporary cessation of work and, if that is happening, frankly it is a medium-term positive. If they are being made redundant, less so.
Large scale redundancies (i.e. 20 or more people) in one establishment require a 30-day collective consultation period. How on earth you round that out with social distancing is something I have been struggling with all day. There is a 'special circumstances' defence but it requires you to take such steps as are possible in the circumstances.
I probably used the wrong word in lay-offs. Firms will be shutting in their droves this week. Its truly awful, millions of peoples lives are going to be ruined over the next month or two unless a treatment is found for Covid-19
I am not impressed with the only help to renters being preventing them being evicted. I don't want to fall out with my landlord by not paying him.
£330bn is about £5k each, I will be a bit annoyed if business gets most of that and individuals get nothing. Especially since it will be people like me that will be paying for it all with higher taxes and worse public services for decades.
I think it's so businesses can continue to pay individuals, and we expect more announcements on individuals soon, right?
That works if a business continues to employ people, Will they though. The firm my friend works for laid off everyone. It is now just a warehouse full of stock with an empty office. That business however will have no rates for a year and get a 25k grant which will help pay the rent. In 6 months time it can just come out of hibernation saved by tax payers while all 30 employees have been thrown on the largess of the state for food and rent.
Realistically what alternative do you have? In 6 months time [if it takes that long] that business will be able to start taking revenues and can rehire people, but what's it supposed to do in the mean time? Pay everyone a six month vacation?
That only works if the government takes up the tab - and not in a loan but a grant.
Some businesses go bust, assets become cheaper, people buy them up for pennies on the pound and new leaner businesses appear in 6 months when the demand returns.
Just like used to happen when we had a functioning free market.
I am not impressed with the only help to renters being preventing them being evicted. I don't want to fall out with my landlord by not paying him.
£330bn is about £5k each, I will be a bit annoyed if business gets most of that and individuals get nothing. Especially since it will be people like me that will be paying for it all with higher taxes and worse public services for decades.
I think it's so businesses can continue to pay individuals, and we expect more announcements on individuals soon, right?
That works if a business continues to employ people, Will they though. The firm my friend works for laid off everyone. It is now just a warehouse full of stock with an empty office. That business however will have no rates for a year and get a 25k grant which will help pay the rent. In 6 months time it can just come out of hibernation saved by tax payers while all 30 employees have been thrown on the largess of the state for food and rent.
Realistically what alternative do you have? In 6 months time [if it takes that long] that business will be able to start taking revenues and can rehire people, but what's it supposed to do in the mean time? Pay everyone a six month vacation?
That only works if the government takes up the tab - and not in a loan but a grant.
I wish I'd made a business to pay myself for my contract work, instead of going self employed to do the right thing and paying more tax. I could have had 6 months free money!
This idea creates so many loopholes, perverse incentives and arbitrary winners and losers it seems unworkable to me.
Something must be done for the self-employed too. Since we know how much each person earned the previous year (from tax returns) we could offer aninterest free loan of that amount, payable monthly or quarterly.
Positive test rate above 10% today. Doubtful that it's because triage is more accurate. Not good.
And we know London is a hot spot. I can't see how some sort of lockdown isn't coming shortly.
It would require Sadiq Khan to give the order. The order would be unpopular, so he wouldn't do it. Especially not in the run up to his re-election (albeit it's now over a year away), and considering all the people most likely to be adversely affected won't vote for him anyway.
Isn't there a logical fail somewhere in that analysis?
If I change it to "adversely affected by not having a lockdown", does that resolve things?
There is no way there should be a London only lockdown. It's a small country and getting out, even on a bicycle, is easy. It just shifts the problem.
Also I don't think the Mayor of London has the statutory authority to take that sort of measure. I may be wrong but the role's remit doesn't stretch very far beyond policing and transport.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but the key word in your post might well be "policing".
The Mayor of London stands as the surrogate for the PCC (previously Police Authorities) in Greater London i.e. deals with funding and oversight but has no input in operational matters.
Sure, in normal times.
Let's put this another way: a Tory Mayor was to ask a Tory PM for permission to impose and enforce more stringent measures in London than in the rest of the country, are you saying that would be completely impossible?
As before, I'm not disagreeing that it shouldn't happen, nor that it's unlikely under current circumstances.
If I'm right, even then the PM would need new legislation empowering the Mayor to do so - even the Civil Contingencies Act requires secondary legislation. What's more likely is that the Mayor would request the central government to use its powers to do so and I don't think that is at all sensible.
I am not impressed with the only help to renters being preventing them being evicted. I don't want to fall out with my landlord by not paying him.
£330bn is about £5k each, I will be a bit annoyed if business gets most of that and individuals get nothing. Especially since it will be people like me that will be paying for it all with higher taxes and worse public services for decades.
I think it's so businesses can continue to pay individuals, and we expect more announcements on individuals soon, right?
That works if a business continues to employ people, Will they though. The firm my friend works for laid off everyone. It is now just a warehouse full of stock with an empty office. That business however will have no rates for a year and get a 25k grant which will help pay the rent. In 6 months time it can just come out of hibernation saved by tax payers while all 30 employees have been thrown on the largess of the state for food and rent.
Friday will be the big lay off day. I would expect between 500K-750K laid off.
Not sure the layoffs havent already happened tbh. As I said my friends firm laid of half monday, the other half tuesday. Apparently the other half was to finish packing the last order they had
In a years time it will be interesting what the global opinion is on the complete destruction of economies caused by the response to Covid-19
Employment law pedantry but in the UK a layoff is a temporary cessation of work and, if that is happening, frankly it is a medium-term positive. If they are being made redundant, less so.
Large scale redundancies (i.e. 20 or more people) in one establishment require a 30-day collective consultation period. How on earth you round that out with social distancing is something I have been struggling with all day. There is a 'special circumstances' defence but it requires you to take such steps as are possible in the circumstances.
I suspect that is why they were laid off, basically zero hour contracts with no hours. The firm doesn't expect to trade again for at least 12 months however as it services the conventions with branded goods.
Possible solutions for GCSEs and A-levels if schools shut for the summer: 1). Base grades on teacher assessments. This could work if parents were not able to appeal, but would be very tricky to moderate. Might be the best solution though if it were genuinely one-off situation. 2). For A-levels at least just assume everyone would have got their first choice offer. This might cause problems in terms of numbers for some universities who rely on clearing, but students would not complain. 3). Rapidly deploy some form of online testing that students could do from home. Making that secure would be quite a challenge I think. 4). Run the exams but in a very cut down form: only one paper per subject with enough optional questions so that those who could not finish the course are not penalised. This would be very difficult for practical subjects like Art but could work as the candidates are widely separated in an exam hall. Might need to recruit invigilators who have recovered from CV-19 for that one.
I’m sure there are other solutions, and I’m sure that many students will be hard done by whichever one is picked.
I'd suggested completing them in October, then marked for them to start a shortened new year 12 or University year in January. Might cause problems with students moving onto jobs and some other groups, though.
My son will be submitting his University applications next October. He really wants to have his Highers then although he will have predicted grades for his advanced Highers. Those who are in final year now need to know whether they can get into their degree courses or whether they need to apply for something else. October is really too late.
Grandson 2 is in a similar position, although as he's in England he's almost half-way through his VIth Form course.
And Good afternoon everyone, and thanks to the colleagues who commented on Zoom.
I am not impressed with the only help to renters being preventing them being evicted. I don't want to fall out with my landlord by not paying him.
£330bn is about £5k each, I will be a bit annoyed if business gets most of that and individuals get nothing. Especially since it will be people like me that will be paying for it all with higher taxes and worse public services for decades.
I think it's so businesses can continue to pay individuals, and we expect more announcements on individuals soon, right?
That works if a business continues to employ people, Will they though. The firm my friend works for laid off everyone. It is now just a warehouse full of stock with an empty office. That business however will have no rates for a year and get a 25k grant which will help pay the rent. In 6 months time it can just come out of hibernation saved by tax payers while all 30 employees have been thrown on the largess of the state for food and rent.
Friday will be the big lay off day. I would expect between 500K-750K laid off.
Not sure the layoffs havent already happened tbh. As I said my friends firm laid of half monday, the other half tuesday. Apparently the other half was to finish packing the last order they had
In a years time it will be interesting what the global opinion is on the complete destruction of economies caused by the response to Covid-19
Employment law pedantry but in the UK a layoff is a temporary cessation of work and, if that is happening, frankly it is a medium-term positive. If they are being made redundant, less so.
Large scale redundancies (i.e. 20 or more people) in one establishment require a 30-day collective consultation period. How on earth you round that out with social distancing is something I have been struggling with all day. There is a 'special circumstances' defence but it requires you to take such steps as are possible in the circumstances.
I suspect that is why they were laid off, basically zero hour contracts with no hours. The firm doesn't expect to trade again for at least 12 months however as it services the conventions with branded goods.
I'm dealing with a number of employment status cases at the moment - Uber style disputes where the workers are saying they're actually employees.
Having been static at 6% for more than 2 weeks there has been a pronounced increase in the proportion of cases ending in death. Today is a new high of 9%.
What I think that this is indicative of is that world wide we are still very much in the early stages of this with rapid growth and the early deaths being much more heavily weighted than the eventual recoveries (which have not happened yet). I suspect that this rate was held down by China who were a few weeks further ahead for a while but China is less and less dominant in the statistics. There are currently 115k recorded active cases, only 8k of which are in China.
I therefore completely get that we are getting a highly distorted view at the present time but it is troubling that distorted view is becoming more so, not less. If the fatality rate is to get under 1% we have a long, long way to go.
Assuming the figures are accurate, other governments may need to consider sending taskforces to Germany to find out why they're being so successful in combating the virus.
I have no expertise at all in immuno response to viruses. That's why I defer to the experts in that specialty on that. The experts are not sure.
Why are you so sure about something which is presumably outside of your expertise?
That's an excellent question.
My guess is that I'm reading different general science publications to you. And I think they tend to have a different tone to newspapers. Newspapers, for example, will tend to look to show "balance" - so one person said X, another said Y. Nature and New Scientist and those kind of publications will tend to report studies with findings, and while they'll report disagreements, they tend not to look for false balance.
My point is that this isn't some kind of super virus. It's a Coronavirus, like SARS or MERS. Both of these conferred immunity on people who got them. There have been no confirmed cases of reinfection. There is also evidence that this virus is not mutating quickly.
Let me quote infectious diseases professor Jon Cohen "The answer is that we simply don’t know" - which supports your point... But then he says "However, it is very likely, based on other viral infections, that yes, once a person has had the infection they will generally be immune and won’t get it again. There will always be the odd exception, but that is certainly a reasonable expectation."
There's nothing certain about my view. But the balance of probabilities - and by which I'm talking 90%, not 55% - is that there is immunity conferred.
It's important to remember, though, that immunity is not a steady state. Not just that immediate immunity is sometimes less than 100% protective, immunity tends to fade. Sometimes it persists for years, or even decades, sometimes it fades a lot faster, and any mutation can reshuffle the cards.
Positive test rate above 10% today. Doubtful that it's because triage is more accurate. Not good.
Worth remembering, of course, that the people testing positive today caught CV-19 ten to fourteen days ago.
Why could it not be less, does it have to take minimum 10 days to test positive, surely the virus will show up in test before that.
That's an average number, so obviously some people will get diagnosed earlier.
However, people are only being encouraged to go to the hospital and get tested when they are sick. Most people show very few or no symptoms for seven days, and then start with only mild ones.
Another bonkers day at the orifice! Apparently the cheap and cheerful ventilator now exists as prototype, working on version 2 and production starts in 2 weeks. Simple components.
Assuming the figures are accurate, other governments may need to consider sending taskforces to Germany to find out why they're being so successful in combating the virus.
Germany is testing a lot more people so they are catching a lot of the huge number of asymptomatic people. The UK and other countries are only testing those with symptoms so it shows a higher mortality rate.
Let's agree that's all a matter of probability. We do not know that exposure confers long-term immunity. (And it's worth remembering that the definition of long-term is 3+ years, as the body's immune system slowly "forget" the virus. And which is why we have tetanus shots every decade.)
It is therefore worth being cautious. And any scientist worth their salt will preface with "of course, we could be wrong."
However, where we disagree is about the probability we will see reinfection. (And again, bear in mind that your letter cautioned about possible long-term reinfection.)
I think that it is extremely unlikely - maybe a one-in-ten or one-in-twenty chance. You think, I presume, that it is much more likely, say one-in-two.
It would be interesting to get probability ranges from experts. Because I suspect if you asked for probabilities, you would get 5-10%, or even less.
Another bonkers day at the orifice! Apparently the cheap and cheerful ventilator now exists as prototype, working on version 2 and production starts in 2 weeks. Simple components.
Let's agree that's all a matter of probability. We do not know that exposure confers long-term immunity. (And it's worth remembering that the definition of long-term is 3+ years, as the body's immune system slowly "forget" the virus. And which is why we have tetanus shots every decade.)
It is therefore worth being cautious. And any scientist worth their salt will preface with "of course, we could be wrong."
However, where we disagree is about the probability we will see reinfection. (And again, bear in mind that your letter cautioned about possible long-term reinfection.)
I think that it is extremely unlikely - maybe a one-in-ten or one-in-twenty chance. You think, I presume, that it is much more likely, say one-in-two.
It would be interesting to get probability ranges from experts. Because I suspect if you asked for probabilities, you would get 5-10%, or even less.
I think the virus will drift rather than shift. Drift is a partial change in antigens, rather than total shift. This means that there should at least be partial immunity and much more mild disease.
Assuming the figures are accurate, other governments may need to consider sending taskforces to Germany to find out why they're being so successful in combating the virus.
Assuming the figures are accurate, other governments may need to consider sending taskforces to Germany to find out why they're being so successful in combating the virus.
Germany is testing a lot more people so they are catching a lot of the huge number of asymptomatic people. The UK and other countries are only testing those with symptoms so it shows a higher mortality rate.
We keep hearing Germany is testing way more people, but I haven't seen any figures about just how many they are doing.
Gold Standard South Korea were doing 15k a day at peak. Seems UK will be up to 10k soon and Boris said 25k is the target they are going for.
Positive test rate above 10% today. Doubtful that it's because triage is more accurate. Not good.
Worth remembering, of course, that the people testing positive today caught CV-19 ten to fourteen days ago.
Why could it not be less, does it have to take minimum 10 days to test positive, surely the virus will show up in test before that.
That's an average number, so obviously some people will get diagnosed earlier.
However, people are only being encouraged to go to the hospital and get tested when they are sick. Most people show very few or no symptoms for seven days, and then start with only mild ones.
The median in china (see paper below) was 5 days, give or take.
Another bonkers day at the orifice! Apparently the cheap and cheerful ventilator now exists as prototype, working on version 2 and production starts in 2 weeks. Simple components.
Assuming the figures are accurate, other governments may need to consider sending taskforces to Germany to find out why they're being so successful in combating the virus.
Germany is testing a lot more people so they are catching a lot of the huge number of asymptomatic people. The UK and other countries are only testing those with symptoms so it shows a higher mortality rate.
Exactly. If you catch (and count) people who are asymptomatic, then your death rate is going to look really low. If you only catch (and count) people who arrive at hospital with serious symptoms, then your death rate will look really high.
As an aside, there was some more hidden good news in the Vo study. (I.e. the town in Italy which followed the South Korean example and where, by aggressive testing, they have been Coronavirus free.)
Now, the Vo study skewed young, so you shouldn't read too much into this, but it was just under 10% of the people who tested positive for the virus ended up showing symptoms. Now, again, the Vo residents who tested positive were typically young, so we shouldn't read too much into this. However, it is some further evidence for the "iceberg" theory.
Assuming the figures are accurate, other governments may need to consider sending taskforces to Germany to find out why they're being so successful in combating the virus.
Many more ICU beds per capita?
I think there is perhaps something more.
The Italian Professor on CH4 news said 2 days ago, even those who were good candidates for ICU and were getting state of the art treatment under his care were dying at a rate far in excessive of what one would expect from people in their condition and just as importantly the ones not dying aren't improving.
He said they are following their standard protocol and usually they expect to see improvement in a good percentage and they aren't seeing any.
France and Spain also seeing similar kind of trends.
It would be really encouraging if Germany have found some sort of best practice that cuts down the death rate.
Labour probably only needs to recover to circa 260 seats given the Anti-Tory bloc in Scotland. I also expect some Labour recovery in Scotland under Starmer.
I would say Labour actually needs to get to 280 to 290 seats if the LDs do not gain any seats as any Labour gains from the SNP make no net change in the anti Tory block. If the LDs reach 30 to 40 seats however then yes 260 seats for Labour would be enough to form a minority or coalition Labour government with LD and SNP support
I don't disagree with that really. Labour would only need 260 or so on the basis of the SNP still having circa 45 seats.Were Labour to gain at SNP to reach 270 seats, the SNP would only need circa 35.
I really don't get this idea....we will have a government allied with the snp. Surely their price will be independence referendum which they will likely win. At which point SNP are no longer part of rump uk government so labour then is no longer the majority and government becomes the tories again.....what am I missing?
You are missing the key point a Starmer premiership would take the UK back into the single market reducing the likelihood of a Yes vote in any indyref2.
The SNP thus face the problem Boris has banned indyref2 when his hard Brexit makes it winnable, while Starmer would allow indyref2 but his soft Brexit means Yes would likely lose it
LOL, Boris cannot ban a referendum if Scottish Government want to go ahead, you southern fanboys are deluded.
Time will show who is deluded - it might even be you.
It may well be, especially given recent SNP stance , they seem to be getting too happy with status quo.
Positive test rate above 10% today. Doubtful that it's because triage is more accurate. Not good.
Worth remembering, of course, that the people testing positive today caught CV-19 ten to fourteen days ago.
Why could it not be less, does it have to take minimum 10 days to test positive, surely the virus will show up in test before that.
That's an average number, so obviously some people will get diagnosed earlier.
However, people are only being encouraged to go to the hospital and get tested when they are sick. Most people show very few or no symptoms for seven days, and then start with only mild ones.
Assuming the figures are accurate, other governments may need to consider sending taskforces to Germany to find out why they're being so successful in combating the virus.
Germany is testing a lot more people so they are catching a lot of the huge number of asymptomatic people. The UK and other countries are only testing those with symptoms so it shows a higher mortality rate.
Exactly. If you catch (and count) people who are asymptomatic, then your death rate is going to look really low. If you only catch (and count) people who arrive at hospital with serious symptoms, then your death rate will look really high.
As an aside, there was some more hidden good news in the Vo study. (I.e. the town in Italy which followed the South Korean example and where, by aggressive testing, they have been Coronavirus free.)
Now, the Vo study skewed young, so you shouldn't read too much into this, but it was just under 10% of the people who tested positive for the virus ended up showing symptoms. Now, again, the Vo residents who tested positive were typically young, so we shouldn't read too much into this. However, it is some further evidence for the "iceberg" theory.
Regardless of their death rate, the total number of deaths is amazingly small given a population of 82 million. It can't just be a "proximity to Italy effect" because the Dutch figures are much worse: 58 deaths.
Another bonkers day at the orifice! Apparently the cheap and cheerful ventilator now exists as prototype, working on version 2 and production starts in 2 weeks. Simple components.
02 delivery at my hospital now up to 3000 litres per minute with full tanks.
But will we have the staff to crew them?
It's all a bit scrap heap challenge, but in a really weird way it is all a bit exciting.
How's it looking @Foxy ? News on ventilators is kind of amazing and exciting! Hope you are holding up okay and that together we can manage the storm
At the moment we are mostly shutting elective stuff down, to create space, upskilling staff and ramping up ICU capacity. The paucity of PPE is the major stress for staff. This from Wales gives a good picture of what it is like at the moment, if you watch the video. https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/1240061717649829893?s=19
Labour probably only needs to recover to circa 260 seats given the Anti-Tory bloc in Scotland. I also expect some Labour recovery in Scotland under Starmer.
I would say Labour actually needs to get to 280 to 290 seats if the LDs do not gain any seats as any Labour gains from the SNP make no net change in the anti Tory block. If the LDs reach 30 to 40 seats however then yes 260 seats for Labour would be enough to form a minority or coalition Labour government with LD and SNP support
I don't disagree with that really. Labour would only need 260 or so on the basis of the SNP still having circa 45 seats.Were Labour to gain at SNP to reach 270 seats, the SNP would only need circa 35.
I really don't get this idea....we will have a government allied with the snp. Surely their price will be independence referendum which they will likely win. At which point SNP are no longer part of rump uk government so labour then is no longer the majority and government becomes the tories again.....what am I missing?
You are missing the key point a Starmer premiership would take the UK back into the single market reducing the likelihood of a Yes vote in any indyref2.
The SNP thus face the problem Boris has banned indyref2 when his hard Brexit makes it winnable, while Starmer would allow indyref2 but his soft Brexit means Yes would likely lose it
LOL, Boris cannot ban a referendum if Scottish Government want to go ahead, you southern fanboys are deluded.
Time will show who is deluded - it might even be you.
It may well be, especially given recent SNP stance , they seem to be getting too happy with status quo.
Malc. I do believe this crisis, which is of epic proportions, will see UK PLC spending cash across the regions like never before and it will prove the case that Scotland does benefit from being part of the wider union
I do not want to upset you, and of course you may disagree, but I believe this has, and will continue to, strengthen the union and we may already have seen peak Indyref 2 demand
I am not impressed with the only help to renters being preventing them being evicted. I don't want to fall out with my landlord by not paying him.
£330bn is about £5k each, I will be a bit annoyed if business gets most of that and individuals get nothing. Especially since it will be people like me that will be paying for it all with higher taxes and worse public services for decades.
The £330bn isn't being handed out. It's allowing access to loans. Only £20bn is being actually handed out.
Another bonkers day at the orifice! Apparently the cheap and cheerful ventilator now exists as prototype, working on version 2 and production starts in 2 weeks. Simple components.
Let's agree that's all a matter of probability. We do not know that exposure confers long-term immunity. (And it's worth remembering that the definition of long-term is 3+ years, as the body's immune system slowly "forget" the virus. And which is why we have tetanus shots every decade.)
It is therefore worth being cautious. And any scientist worth their salt will preface with "of course, we could be wrong."
However, where we disagree is about the probability we will see reinfection. (And again, bear in mind that your letter cautioned about possible long-term reinfection.)
I think that it is extremely unlikely - maybe a one-in-ten or one-in-twenty chance. You think, I presume, that it is much more likely, say one-in-two.
It would be interesting to get probability ranges from experts. Because I suspect if you asked for probabilities, you would get 5-10%, or even less.
I think the virus will drift rather than shift. Drift is a partial change in antigens, rather than total shift. This means that there should at least be partial immunity and much more mild disease.
Yes. From a genetic perspective, this virus is very successful so there's not much motivation for it to mutate a lot.
Things don't mutate because they are motivated to, so the chances of mutation are not reduced by the success of the current form of the virus. The opposite, actually - the more viruses reproducing, the more random mutations have the chance of occurring.
Another bonkers day at the orifice! Apparently the cheap and cheerful ventilator now exists as prototype, working on version 2 and production starts in 2 weeks. Simple components.
02 delivery at my hospital now up to 3000 litres per minute with full tanks.
But will we have the staff to crew them?
It's all a bit scrap heap challenge, but in a really weird way it is all a bit exciting.
How's it looking @Foxy ? News on ventilators is kind of amazing and exciting! Hope you are holding up okay and that together we can manage the storm
At the moment we are mostly shutting elective stuff down, to create space, upskilling staff and ramping up ICU capacity. The paucity of PPE is the major stress for staff. This from Wales gives a good picture of what it is like at the moment, if you watch the video. https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/1240061717649829893?s=19
Inspiring and scary in equal measure. Well, OK, slightly more scary.
Let's agree that's all a matter of probability. We do not know that exposure confers long-term immunity. (And it's worth remembering that the definition of long-term is 3+ years, as the body's immune system slowly "forget" the virus. And which is why we have tetanus shots every decade.)
It is therefore worth being cautious. And any scientist worth their salt will preface with "of course, we could be wrong."
However, where we disagree is about the probability we will see reinfection. (And again, bear in mind that your letter cautioned about possible long-term reinfection.)
I think that it is extremely unlikely - maybe a one-in-ten or one-in-twenty chance. You think, I presume, that it is much more likely, say one-in-two.
It would be interesting to get probability ranges from experts. Because I suspect if you asked for probabilities, you would get 5-10%, or even less.
I think the virus will drift rather than shift. Drift is a partial change in antigens, rather than total shift. This means that there should at least be partial immunity and much more mild disease.
Yes. From a genetic perspective, this virus is very successful so there's not much motivation for it to mutate a lot.
Do you reckon mutation to be a motivation-driven, deliberate act, rather than a random occurance?
Let's agree that's all a matter of probability. We do not know that exposure confers long-term immunity. (And it's worth remembering that the definition of long-term is 3+ years, as the body's immune system slowly "forget" the virus. And which is why we have tetanus shots every decade.)
It is therefore worth being cautious. And any scientist worth their salt will preface with "of course, we could be wrong."
However, where we disagree is about the probability we will see reinfection. (And again, bear in mind that your letter cautioned about possible long-term reinfection.)
I think that it is extremely unlikely - maybe a one-in-ten or one-in-twenty chance. You think, I presume, that it is much more likely, say one-in-two.
It would be interesting to get probability ranges from experts. Because I suspect if you asked for probabilities, you would get 5-10%, or even less.
I think the virus will drift rather than shift. Drift is a partial change in antigens, rather than total shift. This means that there should at least be partial immunity and much more mild disease.
Yes. From a genetic perspective, this virus is very successful so there's not much motivation for it to mutate a lot.
Mutation is an ‘accident’ that doesn’t require motivation!
On Scottish independence, the big bazooka is the power of being in the Union. The Scottish government would never be able to sell £40-50bn worth of bonds as an independent nation and the UK government wouldn't allow for the BoE to buy Scottish Sterling bonds as they have no control over policy.
In times of crisis having a viable currency and central bank is really important.
Assuming the figures are accurate, other governments may need to consider sending taskforces to Germany to find out why they're being so successful in combating the virus.
Germany is testing a lot more people so they are catching a lot of the huge number of asymptomatic people. The UK and other countries are only testing those with symptoms so it shows a higher mortality rate.
Where are you getting your German testing numbers from - I struggled to find any.
On Scottish independence, the big bazooka is the power of being in the Union. The Scottish government would never be able to sell £40-50bn worth of bonds as an independent nation and the UK government wouldn't allow for the BoE to buy Scottish Sterling bonds as they have no control over policy.
In times of crisis having a viable currency and central bank is really important.
In lighter news, Amazon thinks I might like a audiobook called 'The Assistant' by a certain SK Tremayne, which is all about a creepy AI that controls a flat in Camden...
Look Amazon, I love you and I have indeed purchased enough loo roll to float a battleship, but I'm not desperate yet!
Feels like we're at a crossroads where either this crisis is seen as a foreshadowing of climate collapse, and we transition away from this rotten system, or the human project is stillborn. Have a great Wednesday everyone!
Let's agree that's all a matter of probability. We do not know that exposure confers long-term immunity. (And it's worth remembering that the definition of long-term is 3+ years, as the body's immune system slowly "forget" the virus. And which is why we have tetanus shots every decade.)
It is therefore worth being cautious. And any scientist worth their salt will preface with "of course, we could be wrong."
However, where we disagree is about the probability we will see reinfection. (And again, bear in mind that your letter cautioned about possible long-term reinfection.)
I think that it is extremely unlikely - maybe a one-in-ten or one-in-twenty chance. You think, I presume, that it is much more likely, say one-in-two.
It would be interesting to get probability ranges from experts. Because I suspect if you asked for probabilities, you would get 5-10%, or even less.
I think the virus will drift rather than shift. Drift is a partial change in antigens, rather than total shift. This means that there should at least be partial immunity and much more mild disease.
Yes. From a genetic perspective, this virus is very successful so there's not much motivation for it to mutate a lot.
Things don't mutate because they are motivated to, so the chances of mutation are not reduced by the success of the current form of the virus. The opposite, actually - the more viruses reproducing, the more random mutations have the chance of occurring.
This was my immediate thought, but I think the point is that the virus is now so widespread in its current form that any individual mutation is unlikely to be successful enough to become the dominant strain.
On Scottish independence, the big bazooka is the power of being in the Union. The Scottish government would never be able to sell £40-50bn worth of bonds as an independent nation and the UK government wouldn't allow for the BoE to buy Scottish Sterling bonds as they have no control over policy.
In times of crisis having a viable currency and central bank is really important.
Euro membership?
They probably wouldn't qualify, plus it's not something that would happen overnight. Also, didn't they pledge to keep the pound in 2014?
Feels like we're at a crossroads where either this crisis is seen as a foreshadowing of climate collapse, and we transition away from this rotten system, or the human project is stillborn. Have a great Wednesday everyone!
Labour probably only needs to recover to circa 260 seats given the Anti-Tory bloc in Scotland. I also expect some Labour recovery in Scotland under Starmer.
I would say Labour actually needs to get to 280 to 290 seats if the LDs do not gain any seats as any Labour gains from the SNP make no net change in the anti Tory block. If the LDs reach 30 to 40 seats however then yes 260 seats for Labour would be enough to form a minority or coalition Labour government with LD and SNP support
I don't disagree with that really. Labour would only need 260 or so on the basis of the SNP still having circa 45 seats.Were Labour to gain at SNP to reach 270 seats, the SNP would only need circa 35.
I really don't get this idea....we will have a government allied with the snp. Surely their price will be independence referendum which they will likely win. At which point SNP are no longer part of rump uk government so labour then is no longer the majority and government becomes the tories again.....what am I missing?
You are missing the key point a Starmer premiership would take the UK back into the single market reducing the likelihood of a Yes vote in any indyref2.
The SNP thus face the problem Boris has banned indyref2 when his hard Brexit makes it winnable, while Starmer would allow indyref2 but his soft Brexit means Yes would likely lose it
LOL, Boris cannot ban a referendum if Scottish Government want to go ahead, you southern fanboys are deluded.
Time will show who is deluded - it might even be you.
It may well be, especially given recent SNP stance , they seem to be getting too happy with status quo.
Malc. I do believe this crisis, which is of epic proportions, will see UK PLC spending cash across the regions like never before and it will prove the case that Scotland does benefit from being part of the wider union
I do not want to upset you, and of course you may disagree, but I believe this has, and will continue to, strengthen the union and we may already have seen peak Indyref 2 demand
For now I agree G , but it will be back , SNP don't seem in a rush anyway and they will pay long term for that.
Comments
What we need is for a number of business is to enter an orderly hibernation, and to help their employees until normal business can be resumed.
"The median incubation period was estimated to be 5.1 days (95% CI, 4.5 to 5.8 days), and 97.5% of those who develop symptoms will do so within 11.5 days (CI, 8.2 to 15.6 days) of infection. "
https://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/2762808/incubation-period-coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19-from-publicly-reported
Also I don't think the Mayor of London has the statutory authority to take that sort of measure. I may be wrong but the role's remit doesn't stretch very far beyond policing and transport.
When I say the experts aren't sure, I am talking about the British Society for Immunology.
https://www.immunology.org/news/bsi-open-letter-government-sars-cov-2-outbreak-response
That only works if the government takes up the tab - and not in a loan but a grant.
My guess is that I'm reading different general science publications to you. And I think they tend to have a different tone to newspapers. Newspapers, for example, will tend to look to show "balance" - so one person said X, another said Y. Nature and New Scientist and those kind of publications will tend to report studies with findings, and while they'll report disagreements, they tend not to look for false balance.
My point is that this isn't some kind of super virus. It's a Coronavirus, like SARS or MERS. Both of these conferred immunity on people who got them. There have been no confirmed cases of reinfection. There is also evidence that this virus is not mutating quickly.
Let me quote infectious diseases professor Jon Cohen "The answer is that we simply don’t know" - which supports your point... But then he says "However, it is very likely, based on other viral infections, that yes, once a person has had the infection they will generally be immune and won’t get it again. There will always be the odd exception, but that is certainly a reasonable expectation."
There's nothing certain about my view. But the balance of probabilities - and by which I'm talking 90%, not 55% - is that there is immunity conferred.
But I would say the idea that big business gets billions, whilst those who are on minimum wage zero hours contracts will get nothing is not a fair use of the money.
well off business owner gets chucked money to make sure he doesn't lose out
plebs on minimum wage so far (pending on what they announce) get nothing
Yes when its over the business can restart and can rehire which I agree is a good thing, doesn't alter the fact that a lot of people are going to be seeing this of once more the people with money being bailed out while those at the bottom get discarded.
as an aside my job is safe and I am not minimum wage and lock down will leave me largely unaffected except for pensions and I am really just putting the case for those people here
This idea creates so many loopholes, perverse incentives and arbitrary winners and losers it seems unworkable to me.
So yes, we can attach probabilities to our uncertainty that's fine. If we then attach them and propagate them through a very simple decision-tree with costs and benefits attached to the nodes we can do some quick and dirty analysis. Compare a lock-down with a strategy of flattening the curve where we are not sure about immunity long-term (say 90% sure but 10% not).
What you will find is that given even that uncertainty (which is generous), it is far superior to be cautious because the risk of getting it wrong is quite catastrophic. That's the process the government went through this week.
When we decide to unlock we will go through a similar process. It will be fairly important to be sure about this idea of immunity. So we wait for long enough that we can be sure.
Large scale redundancies (i.e. 20 or more people) in one establishment require a 30-day collective consultation period. How on earth you round that out with social distancing is something I have been struggling with all day. There is a 'special circumstances' defence but it requires you to take such steps as are possible in the circumstances.
Consider also this: the likelihood is that we will go through several phases of thightening and relaxing of restrictions over the next year. It would be madness for the government to put in place a regime that allowed or encouraged business to shed staff each time restriction tightened and the attempt to re-hire each time restrictions are relaxed.
Let's put this another way: a Tory Mayor was to ask a Tory PM for permission to impose and enforce more stringent measures in London than in the rest of the country, are you saying that would be completely impossible?
As before, I'm not disagreeing that it shouldn't happen, nor that it's unlikely under current circumstances.
Just like used to happen when we had a functioning free market.
And Good afternoon everyone, and thanks to the colleagues who commented on Zoom.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
What I think that this is indicative of is that world wide we are still very much in the early stages of this with rapid growth and the early deaths being much more heavily weighted than the eventual recoveries (which have not happened yet). I suspect that this rate was held down by China who were a few weeks further ahead for a while but China is less and less dominant in the statistics. There are currently 115k recorded active cases, only 8k of which are in China.
I therefore completely get that we are getting a highly distorted view at the present time but it is troubling that distorted view is becoming more so, not less. If the fatality rate is to get under 1% we have a long, long way to go.
However, people are only being encouraged to go to the hospital and get tested when they are sick. Most people show very few or no symptoms for seven days, and then start with only mild ones.
Apparently the cheap and cheerful ventilator now exists as prototype, working on version 2 and production starts in 2 weeks. Simple components.
Meanwhile in Canada:
https://twitter.com/alandrummond2/status/1240008793167192066?s=09
02 delivery at my hospital now up to 3000 litres per minute with full tanks.
But will we have the staff to crew them?
It's all a bit scrap heap challenge, but in a really weird way it is all a bit exciting.
I presume we are going to get this stupid situation where Boris will be asked what about school closures and then he will have to say wait until 5pm.
Let's agree that's all a matter of probability. We do not know that exposure confers long-term immunity. (And it's worth remembering that the definition of long-term is 3+ years, as the body's immune system slowly "forget" the virus. And which is why we have tetanus shots every decade.)
It is therefore worth being cautious. And any scientist worth their salt will preface with "of course, we could be wrong."
However, where we disagree is about the probability we will see reinfection. (And again, bear in mind that your letter cautioned about possible long-term reinfection.)
I think that it is extremely unlikely - maybe a one-in-ten or one-in-twenty chance. You think, I presume, that it is much more likely, say one-in-two.
It would be interesting to get probability ranges from experts. Because I suspect if you asked for probabilities, you would get 5-10%, or even less.
2 weeks before production starts...ekkk...isn't the shit storm predicted to peak in 3 weeks.
Gold Standard South Korea were doing 15k a day at peak. Seems UK will be up to 10k soon and Boris said 25k is the target they are going for.
As an aside, there was some more hidden good news in the Vo study. (I.e. the town in Italy which followed the South Korean example and where, by aggressive testing, they have been Coronavirus free.)
Now, the Vo study skewed young, so you shouldn't read too much into this, but it was just under 10% of the people who tested positive for the virus ended up showing symptoms. Now, again, the Vo residents who tested positive were typically young, so we shouldn't read too much into this. However, it is some further evidence for the "iceberg" theory.
The Italian Professor on CH4 news said 2 days ago, even those who were good candidates for ICU and were getting state of the art treatment under his care were dying at a rate far in excessive of what one would expect from people in their condition and just as importantly the ones not dying aren't improving.
He said they are following their standard protocol and usually they expect to see improvement in a good percentage and they aren't seeing any.
France and Spain also seeing similar kind of trends.
It would be really encouraging if Germany have found some sort of best practice that cuts down the death rate.
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/1240061717649829893?s=19
I do not want to upset you, and of course you may disagree, but I believe this has, and will continue to, strengthen the union and we may already have seen peak Indyref 2 demand
Only £20bn is being actually handed out.
sips of water / mentions of "nhs" / "lockdown" / "whatever it takes" etc
Don't know what we think about that.
Reprehensible? Boring? Fun?
Opportunity to use our above average expertise to make money?
https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1240295593483726848
https://twitter.com/hollyotterbein/status/1240295986343354376
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.12.20034728v1.full.pdf
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2003/2003.05003.pdf
In times of crisis having a viable currency and central bank is really important.
But on the Sporting one -
Mentions of "NHS, buy at 14, sell at 12.
That is intriguing. Feels like a sell to me.
NEW THREAD
Look Amazon, I love you and I have indeed purchased enough loo roll to float a battleship, but I'm not desperate yet!