For the record, who actually thinks whatever it takes part one is doable, delivered as promised?
(I am expecting the lefties on here to simply reply yes, and those economically right of centre and government supporters to remain largely silent)
My view from the beginning is that the missing element is a temporary supertax.
What the fuck for?
Ultimately the COVID19 costs will need to be paid for. People who maintained very high incomes throughout are good candidates for a larger contribution.
Absolutely right.
The problem the economy has isn’t the lack of spending power, it’s the preventing money from circulating.
Anyone with a secure income has saved during the lockdown from not spending on meals out, pub visits, personal services, travel, and the rest.
Meanwhile the people employed in said industries have suffered a collapse in income.
If we do nothing, tons of people and businesses providing these services go to the wall.
If the state provides their income, we end up with an inflationary spike and a burden upon the state that will take a generation to clear.
The right answer is to levy a supertax to extract the unspent surplus from those relatively unaffected and to redirect the proceeds to those not receiving.
Trump with best approval ratings since beginning of his presidency. Still net 6% disapproval according to 538.
Can't imagine that'll last as the number of cases rockets, and the horror stories dominate the press.
Exactly one month ago today he was boasting about only 15 cases, that it was all nothing, and would soon be zero. Today they'll catch China on the number of cases, over 80 thousand. In a week's time, 200k.
The US has been running around 10 days behind the combined EU total for cases, but is closing.
The EU hit 5k on 5 March; the US, on 17 March - 12 days later The EU hit 12k on 9 March; the US, on 20 March - 11 days later The EU hit 30k on 13 March; the US, on 23 March - 10 days later The EU hit 50k on 16 March; the US, on 25 March - 9 days later
The rate of growth of reported cases in the US is phenomenal - up 624% in the last week, compared with +263% for the UK, 108% for Italy and +228% for Spain - and instances look to be well-established in pretty much all states.
If anything like a similar rate continues, the US will be *way* in excess of 200k in a week's time - and could quite conceivably be double that.
A worrying complacency seems to be creeping in in some quarters, Maybe it’s just the same people who were claiming that it was ‘just the flu’ in the first place but this is a clear danger. Maybe it’s just the natural temptation to cherry pick anything that looks positive. Again, look at places like China or Korea, you don’t soften up, you keep tight control. Given that we are still weeks short of any first wave peak, created by this lockdown (admittedly a weak one in the UK), the time to relax is far, far away yet.
I had the misfortune to read an article from the Telegraph website earlier arguing that Trump was on the right track. That sort of thing is just irresponsible.
OT just back from Sainsbury's. The 2m-separated queue even to be allowed into the store stretched a fair old way. I'm not sure this system will cope with the normal Saturday crowd, even allowing for most being four or five yards apart.
Toilet roll (own brand only) near the entrance to confuse people looking in the normal aisle; no soap (except for the £9 fancy soap I had to buy because I'm running out of the £1 stuff) or sanitiser; no paper towels, tissues or paracetamol. A 3-items per customer limit even on things I normally buy six of each week.
There are still one or two anomalies. Asking for card payments rather than cash is fine but get rid of the cardboard promotional wrap round the card reader, as customers are forced to touch it. Maybe have someone visibly cleaning card reader keyboards and trolley handles.
Just done the same. Long queue but it was in the sunshine and as friendly as it could be 2m apart and was fast and well organised.
Most stuff in stock, including loo rolls that I didn't need and tinned tomatoes which I did need. Plenty of meat (none last week). Still no flour (ordinary or bread) nor rice. I tried to jump the queue at checkout not realising there was a queue with the 2m gap. Embarrassed!
Yes -- that happened with queues inside and outside the shop. It might be best to deploy staff or better signs so people can see what is happening, rather than risk a punch-up.
in Denmark we have floor markings and plastic screens for staff - is that not the case in the uk?
Trump with best approval ratings since beginning of his presidency. Still net 6% disapproval according to 538.
Can't imagine that'll last as the number of cases rockets, and the horror stories dominate the press.
Exactly one month ago today he was boasting about only 15 cases, that it was all nothing, and would soon be zero. Today they'll catch China on the number of cases, over 80 thousand. In a week's time, 200k.
The US has been running around 10 days behind the combined EU total for cases, but is closing.
The EU hit 5k on 5 March; the US, on 17 March - 12 days later The EU hit 12k on 9 March; the US, on 20 March - 11 days later The EU hit 30k on 13 March; the US, on 23 March - 10 days later The EU hit 50k on 16 March; the US, on 25 March - 9 days later
The rate of growth of reported cases in the US is phenomenal - up 624% in the last week, compared with +263% for the UK, 108% for Italy and +228% for Spain - and instances look to be well-established in pretty much all states.
If anything like a similar rate continues, the US will be *way* in excess of 200k in a week's time - and could quite conceivably be double that.
Just seen a New York Doctor describe the situation there as "Biblical, I kid you not"
For the record, who actually thinks whatever it takes part one is doable, delivered as promised?
(I am expecting the lefties on here to simply reply yes, and those economically right of centre and government supporters to remain largely silent)
My view from the beginning is that the missing element is a temporary supertax.
What the fuck for?
Ultimately the COVID19 costs will need to be paid for. People who maintained very high incomes throughout are good candidates for a larger contribution.
Absolutely right.
The problem the economy has isn’t the lack of spending power, it’s the preventing money from circulating.
Anyone with a secure income has saved during the lockdown from not spending on meals out, pub visits, personal services, travel, and the rest.
Meanwhile the people employed in said industries have suffered a collapse in income.
If we do nothing, tons of people and businesses providing these services go to the wall.
If the state provides their income, we end up with an inflationary spike and a burden upon the state that will take a generation to clear.
The right answer is to levy a supertax to extract the unspent surplus from those relatively unaffected and to redirect the proceeds to those not receiving.
The would be an enormously inefficient and slow means of trying to achieve what you think it would. Look how long the government is taking just to hand out cash...
For the record, who actually thinks whatever it takes part one is doable, delivered as promised?
(I am expecting the lefties on here to simply reply yes, and those economically right of centre and government supporters to remain largely silent)
My view from the beginning is that the missing element is a temporary supertax.
What the fuck for?
Ultimately the COVID19 costs will need to be paid for. People who maintained very high incomes throughout are good candidates for a larger contribution.
Absolutely right. The problem the economy has isn’t the lack of spending power, it’s the preventing money from circulating. Anyone with a secure income has saved during the lockdown from not spending on meals out, pub visits, personal services, travel, and the rest. Meanwhile the people employed in said industries have suffered a collapse in income. If we do nothing, tons of people and businesses providing these services go to the wall. If the state provides their income, we end up with an inflationary spike and a burden upon the state that will take a generation to clear. The right answer is to levy a supertax to extract the unspent surplus from those relatively unaffected and to redirect the proceeds to those not receiving.
OT just back from Sainsbury's. The 2m-separated queue even to be allowed into the store stretched a fair old way. I'm not sure this system will cope with the normal Saturday crowd, even allowing for most being four or five yards apart.
Toilet roll (own brand only) near the entrance to confuse people looking in the normal aisle; no soap (except for the £9 fancy soap I had to buy because I'm running out of the £1 stuff) or sanitiser; no paper towels, tissues or paracetamol. A 3-items per customer limit even on things I normally buy six of each week.
There are still one or two anomalies. Asking for card payments rather than cash is fine but get rid of the cardboard promotional wrap round the card reader, as customers are forced to touch it. Maybe have someone visibly cleaning card reader keyboards and trolley handles.
Just done the same. Long queue but it was in the sunshine and as friendly as it could be 2m apart and was fast and well organised.
Most stuff in stock, including loo rolls that I didn't need and tinned tomatoes which I did need. Plenty of meat (none last week). Still no flour (ordinary or bread) nor rice. I tried to jump the queue at checkout not realising there was a queue with the 2m gap. Embarrassed!
Yes -- that happened with queues inside and outside the shop. It might be best to deploy staff or better signs so people can see what is happening, rather than risk a punch-up.
in Denmark we have floor markings and plastic screens for staff - is that not the case in the uk?
They have floor markings in the local Sainsbury's. Just starting to get a few screens up.
A worrying complacency seems to be creeping in in some quarters, Maybe it’s just the same people who were claiming that it was ‘just the flu’ in the first place but this is a clear danger. Maybe it’s just the natural temptation to cherry pick anything that looks positive. Again, look at places like China or Korea, you don’t soften up, you keep tight control. Given that we are still weeks short of any first wave peak, created by this lockdown (admittedly a weak one in the UK), the time to relax is far, far away yet.
I had the misfortune to read an article from the Telegraph website earlier arguing that Trump was on the right track. That sort of thing is just irresponsible.
Agreed. Easing the lockdown has to be done very carefully and slowly. We have to think about, where possible, shift working to minimise interactions (e.g., in an office with 10 people, only 2 come in on any one day). Additionally, all those able to work at home should be asked to continue doing so once the lockdown ends. Similarly, shops will need to have bars on the number of people who can enter, restaurants will have to function at half capacity for a while and sports events run behind closed doors. Until we understand the disease better, relaxing is extremely dangerous.
A worrying complacency seems to be creeping in in some quarters, Maybe it’s just the same people who were claiming that it was ‘just the flu’ in the first place but this is a clear danger. Maybe it’s just the natural temptation to cherry pick anything that looks positive. Again, look at places like China or Korea, you don’t soften up, you keep tight control. Given that we are still weeks short of any first wave peak, created by this lockdown (admittedly a weak one in the UK), the time to relax is far, far away yet.
I had the misfortune to read an article from the Telegraph website earlier arguing that Trump was on the right track. That sort of thing is just irresponsible.
Agreed. Easing the lockdown has to be done very carefully and slowly. We have to think about, where possible, shift working to minimise interactions (e.g., in an office with 10 people, only 2 come in on any one day). Additionally, all those able to work at home should be asked to continue doing so once the lockdown ends. Similarly, shops will need to have bars on the number of people who can enter, restaurants will have to function at half capacity for a while and sports events run behind closed doors. Until we understand the disease better, relaxing is extremely dangerous.
And about those mortality numbers... It's possible they could be significantly higher than reported so far:
The only risk with going ahead with the EU allocation of ventilators is the cost of equipment. Which is trivial in the scheme of things. If the government finds they are surplus to requirements, it can sell them on. It's a no brainer.
The risks are much higher of depending on a manufacturer, who hasn't made this equipment before to productise a new design in a matter of days without testing in the field. It is sensible to mitigate that risk.
Brexit is the only reason I can see for not doing so. The government hasn't actually put forward a justification for not doing so..
Do you know?
My guess - and it is just a guess - that if you participate in the scheme then *all* equipment has to be purchased through it (and shared according to whatever the scheme sets out). This is sensible because it stops the various countries also going direct and competing for supply.
Given that Smiths Medical (one of the leading manufacturers of ventilators), Medlock Medical (ditto for PPE) and Regent Biogel (ditto for surgical gloves) are all based in the UK it may have been rational for the UK to decline.
I can quite imagine that the government doesn't want to stand up publicly and say "f*ck everyone else, we are hoarding stuff for our own population". The optics would not be good.
Do you have the list of countries participating? I don't think it is all of them.
I'd be particularly interested in Sweden (Molnlycke, Getinge) and Germany (Hartmann).
A worrying complacency seems to be creeping in in some quarters, Maybe it’s just the same people who were claiming that it was ‘just the flu’ in the first place but this is a clear danger. Maybe it’s just the natural temptation to cherry pick anything that looks positive. Again, look at places like China or Korea, you don’t soften up, you keep tight control. Given that we are still weeks short of any first wave peak, created by this lockdown (admittedly a weak one in the UK), the time to relax is far, far away yet.
I had the misfortune to read an article from the Telegraph website earlier arguing that Trump was on the right track. That sort of thing is just irresponsible.
Agreed. Easing the lockdown has to be done very carefully and slowly. We have to think about, where possible, shift working to minimise interactions (e.g., in an office with 10 people, only 2 come in on any one day). Additionally, all those able to work at home should be asked to continue doing so once the lockdown ends. Similarly, shops will need to have bars on the number of people who can enter, restaurants will have to function at half capacity for a while and sports events run behind closed doors. Until we understand the disease better, relaxing is extremely dangerous.
A major concern in the coming months has to be how this spreads through developing countries. Most of the country’s that are being hit (maybe through their greater international and intranational travel) are developed economies with good access to healthcare. What price relaxation when that is on the horizon?
For the record, who actually thinks whatever it takes part one is doable, delivered as promised?
(I am expecting the lefties on here to simply reply yes, and those economically right of centre and government supporters to remain largely silent)
My view from the beginning is that the missing element is a temporary supertax.
What the fuck for?
Ultimately the COVID19 costs will need to be paid for. People who maintained very high incomes throughout are good candidates for a larger contribution.
Absolutely right.
The problem the economy has isn’t the lack of spending power, it’s the preventing money from circulating.
Anyone with a secure income has saved during the lockdown from not spending on meals out, pub visits, personal services, travel, and the rest.
Meanwhile the people employed in said industries have suffered a collapse in income.
If we do nothing, tons of people and businesses providing these services go to the wall.
If the state provides their income, we end up with an inflationary spike and a burden upon the state that will take a generation to clear.
The right answer is to levy a supertax to extract the unspent surplus from those relatively unaffected and to redirect the proceeds to those not receiving.
The would be an enormously inefficient and slow means of trying to achieve what you think it would. Look how long the government is taking just to hand out cash...
End of the tax year will be fine.
The alternative is that the state drops helicopter money on those losing their income because other people are not spending, while the saving from their not spending still sits with them whose incomes are stable. When the music stops, that will mean a good burst of inflation.
OT just back from Sainsbury's. The 2m-separated queue even to be allowed into the store stretched a fair old way. I'm not sure this system will cope with the normal Saturday crowd, even allowing for most being four or five yards apart.
Toilet roll (own brand only) near the entrance to confuse people looking in the normal aisle; no soap (except for the £9 fancy soap I had to buy because I'm running out of the £1 stuff) or sanitiser; no paper towels, tissues or paracetamol. A 3-items per customer limit even on things I normally buy six of each week.
There are still one or two anomalies. Asking for card payments rather than cash is fine but get rid of the cardboard promotional wrap round the card reader, as customers are forced to touch it. Maybe have someone visibly cleaning card reader keyboards and trolley handles.
Just done the same. Long queue but it was in the sunshine and as friendly as it could be 2m apart and was fast and well organised.
Most stuff in stock, including loo rolls that I didn't need and tinned tomatoes which I did need. Plenty of meat (none last week). Still no flour (ordinary or bread) nor rice. I tried to jump the queue at checkout not realising there was a queue with the 2m gap. Embarrassed!
Yes -- that happened with queues inside and outside the shop. It might be best to deploy staff or better signs so people can see what is happening, rather than risk a punch-up.
in Denmark we have floor markings and plastic screens for staff - is that not the case in the uk?
There were floor markings at the tills but no-one had told customers what they signified.
When we get the antibodies test maybe we can work out rates of hypochondria nervosa amongst the general population.
My money is on Eadric being negative.
He's been pretty negative since the start... (Albeit not without reason.)
Without reason? There was never any credible reason for predicting two million dead Britons.
The most unedifying of all aspects of this crisis has been watching those whose income is secure getting positively excited, the worse that things have looked like they may become.
For the record, who actually thinks whatever it takes part one is doable, delivered as promised?
(I am expecting the lefties on here to simply reply yes, and those economically right of centre and government supporters to remain largely silent)
My view from the beginning is that the missing element is a temporary supertax.
What the fuck for?
Ultimately the COVID19 costs will need to be paid for. People who maintained very high incomes throughout are good candidates for a larger contribution.
Absolutely right.
The problem the economy has isn’t the lack of spending power, it’s the preventing money from circulating.
Anyone with a secure income has saved during the lockdown from not spending on meals out, pub visits, personal services, travel, and the rest.
Meanwhile the people employed in said industries have suffered a collapse in income.
If we do nothing, tons of people and businesses providing these services go to the wall.
If the state provides their income, we end up with an inflationary spike and a burden upon the state that will take a generation to clear.
The right answer is to levy a supertax to extract the unspent surplus from those relatively unaffected and to redirect the proceeds to those not receiving.
I'd say the answer is the other way round. Spray the money around now, to keep people in notional jobs (i.e. ones which are temporarily redundant because of the crisis but should resume afterwards), and then whack up taxes afterwards.
A worrying complacency seems to be creeping in in some quarters, Maybe it’s just the same people who were claiming that it was ‘just the flu’ in the first place but this is a clear danger. Maybe it’s just the natural temptation to cherry pick anything that looks positive. Again, look at places like China or Korea, you don’t soften up, you keep tight control. Given that we are still weeks short of any first wave peak, created by this lockdown (admittedly a weak one in the UK), the time to relax is far, far away yet.
I had the misfortune to read an article from the Telegraph website earlier arguing that Trump was on the right track. That sort of thing is just irresponsible.
Agreed. Easing the lockdown has to be done very carefully and slowly. We have to think about, where possible, shift working to minimise interactions (e.g., in an office with 10 people, only 2 come in on any one day). Additionally, all those able to work at home should be asked to continue doing so once the lockdown ends. Similarly, shops will need to have bars on the number of people who can enter, restaurants will have to function at half capacity for a while and sports events run behind closed doors. Until we understand the disease better, relaxing is extremely dangerous.
A major concern in the coming months has to be how this spreads through developing countries. Most of the country’s that are being hit (maybe through their greater international and intranational travel) are developed economies with good access to healthcare. What price relaxation when that is on the horizon?
Oh, absolutely. We have to invest in testing and medical care for less developed countries. Otherwise, unless we are lucky the situation could be appalling.
For the record, who actually thinks whatever it takes part one is doable, delivered as promised?
(I am expecting the lefties on here to simply reply yes, and those economically right of centre and government supporters to remain largely silent)
My view from the beginning is that the missing element is a temporary supertax.
What the fuck for?
Ultimately the COVID19 costs will need to be paid for. People who maintained very high incomes throughout are good candidates for a larger contribution.
Absolutely right.
The problem the economy has isn’t the lack of spending power, it’s the preventing money from circulating.
Anyone with a secure income has saved during the lockdown from not spending on meals out, pub visits, personal services, travel, and the rest.
Meanwhile the people employed in said industries have suffered a collapse in income.
If we do nothing, tons of people and businesses providing these services go to the wall.
If the state provides their income, we end up with an inflationary spike and a burden upon the state that will take a generation to clear.
The right answer is to levy a supertax to extract the unspent surplus from those relatively unaffected and to redirect the proceeds to those not receiving.
The would be an enormously inefficient and slow means of trying to achieve what you think it would. Look how long the government is taking just to hand out cash...
End of the tax year will be fine.
The alternative is that the state drops helicopter money on those losing their income because other people Are not spending, while the saving from their not spending still sits with them whose incomes are stable. When the music stops, that will mean a good burst of inflation.
Isn't that the plan? To inflate the debt away.
The biggest beneficiciaries of inflation are borrowers. The bigger the borrower, the greater the benefit. And the government is the biggest borrower of all...
For the record, who actually thinks whatever it takes part one is doable, delivered as promised?
(I am expecting the lefties on here to simply reply yes, and those economically right of centre and government supporters to remain largely silent)
My view from the beginning is that the missing element is a temporary supertax.
What the fuck for?
Ultimately the COVID19 costs will need to be paid for. People who maintained very high incomes throughout are good candidates for a larger contribution.
Absolutely right.
The problem the economy has isn’t the lack of spending power, it’s the preventing money from circulating.
Anyone with a secure income has saved during the lockdown from not spending on meals out, pub visits, personal services, travel, and the rest.
Meanwhile the people employed in said industries have suffered a collapse in income.
If we do nothing, tons of people and businesses providing these services go to the wall.
If the state provides their income, we end up with an inflationary spike and a burden upon the state that will take a generation to clear.
The right answer is to levy a supertax to extract the unspent surplus from those relatively unaffected and to redirect the proceeds to those not receiving.
I'd say the answer is the other way round. Spray the money around now, to keep people in notional jobs (i.e. ones which are temporarily redundant because of the crisis but should resume afterwards), and then whack up taxes afterwards.
If I still have a job by the end of this, taxes will be the last thing I worry about.
For the record, who actually thinks whatever it takes part one is doable, delivered as promised?
(I am expecting the lefties on here to simply reply yes, and those economically right of centre and government supporters to remain largely silent)
My view from the beginning is that the missing element is a temporary supertax.
What the fuck for?
Ultimately the COVID19 costs will need to be paid for. People who maintained very high incomes throughout are good candidates for a larger contribution.
Absolutely right.
The problem the economy has isn’t the lack of spending power, it’s the preventing money from circulating.
Anyone with a secure income has saved during the lockdown from not spending on meals out, pub visits, personal services, travel, and the rest.
Meanwhile the people employed in said industries have suffered a collapse in income.
If we do nothing, tons of people and businesses providing these services go to the wall.
If the state provides their income, we end up with an inflationary spike and a burden upon the state that will take a generation to clear.
The right answer is to levy a supertax to extract the unspent surplus from those relatively unaffected and to redirect the proceeds to those not receiving.
The would be an enormously inefficient and slow means of trying to achieve what you think it would. Look how long the government is taking just to hand out cash...
End of the tax year will be fine.
The alternative is that the state drops helicopter money on those losing their income because other people are not spending, while the saving from their not spending still sits with them whose incomes are stable. When the music stops, that will mean a good burst of inflation.
Higher inflation needed to restore value of employment vs assets anyway. (Higher not hyper inflation of course).
For the record, who actually thinks whatever it takes part one is doable, delivered as promised?
(I am expecting the lefties on here to simply reply yes, and those economically right of centre and government supporters to remain largely silent)
My view from the beginning is that the missing element is a temporary supertax.
What the fuck for?
Ultimately the COVID19 costs will need to be paid for. People who maintained very high incomes throughout are good candidates for a larger contribution.
Absolutely right.
The problem the economy has isn’t the lack of spending power, it’s the preventing money from circulating.
Anyone with a secure income has saved during the lockdown from not spending on meals out, pub visits, personal services, travel, and the rest.
Meanwhile the people employed in said industries have suffered a collapse in income.
If we do nothing, tons of people and businesses providing these services go to the wall.
If the state provides their income, we end up with an inflationary spike and a burden upon the state that will take a generation to clear.
The right answer is to levy a supertax to extract the unspent surplus from those relatively unaffected and to redirect the proceeds to those not receiving.
I'd say the answer is the other way round. Spray the money around now, to keep people in notional jobs (i.e. ones which are temporarily redundant because of the crisis but should resume afterwards), and then whack up taxes afterwards.
That’s what will happen. It would just have been more sensible, and politically easier, to deal with both at the same time.
King Bongo, when I went shopping there was a small queue outside just to limit interior numbers (it wasn't too busy). There were floor markings to space the queue within, though no more screens than usual.
Does anyone have a plausible explanation why over recent days the devolved parts of the UK have reported much higher rises in cases and fatalities than England did?
A worrying complacency seems to be creeping in in some quarters, Maybe it’s just the same people who were claiming that it was ‘just the flu’ in the first place but this is a clear danger. Maybe it’s just the natural temptation to cherry pick anything that looks positive. Again, look at places like China or Korea, you don’t soften up, you keep tight control. Given that we are still weeks short of any first wave peak, created by this lockdown (admittedly a weak one in the UK), the time to relax is far, far away yet.
I had the misfortune to read an article from the Telegraph website earlier arguing that Trump was on the right track. That sort of thing is just irresponsible.
Afraid so. It's the brain worms again. We need a punchy example to explain the counterfactual to these people. It's so obvious that I'm struggling but someone must have one.
The best I can think of is someone observing a neighbour having a heart attack, having coronary artery bypass surgery, seeing them recover then concluding that the heart attack must not be that dangerous because they are walking about now and so the surgery wasn't necessary.
On the other hand, well done Sainsbury's and the staff member she spoke to.
Yes, well done Sainsbury's
Well done all supermarket staff for sticking to their jobs which are not without hazard.
And petrol station cashiers and refuse guys and delivery people and warehouse folk and bus drivers. Never was so much owed by so many etc.
Quite. There are lots of us still going to work (as we should if it's not possible to work from home, and we can maintain physical distancing), but there are those who have to keep going to work despite not being entirely secure, because the rest of us depend on them.
The right answer is to levy a supertax to extract the unspent surplus from those relatively unaffected and to redirect the proceeds to those not receiving.
Easy to say, but how would you target this effectively without the BBC finding an edge case to highlight every night?
Just reviewed the SI, was thinking something like this was coming along when our livery yard owner asked us all for our details. Heading out to tend to the horses will fall under "reasonable excuse".
Does anyone have a plausible explanation why over recent days the devolved parts of the UK have reported much higher rises in cases and fatalities than England did?
Ireland, Wales, and Scotland all played Italy, or had a large number of Italians come over in the 6N. The rugby hotspots of Italy are the worst affected regions of Italy.
Does anyone have a plausible explanation why over recent days the devolved parts of the UK have reported much higher rises in cases and fatalities than England did?
I read on Twitter that England only reported haf a day's figures yesterday. That might account for skewed numbers.
FPT The government has gone further than it has in our history in underwriting 80% of the wages of those who have temporarily run out of work because of the CV and they have gone further than most other countries but have they gone far enough?
For me the problem ultimately is that these payments are a loan. If the company receiving the money is in a business that is likely to bounce back quickly and catch up some of the lost production because there is even more pent up demand for their business this works but for the vast majority of businesses what they are facing is a one time hit in their business which is pretty likely to be a permanent loss. How do they then repay this additional debt? There is also a significant minority of businesses, airlines, cruise companies, holiday companies generally, who are likely to take a much longer term hit and have no realistic chance of paying back debt out of reduced incomes.
I am the director of a company. We are having a board meeting this afternoon to work out what to do about our staff. We will suffer a very significant reduction in income over the next 3-4 months. After that we might recoup some of it as the courts get back to business but, frankly, the courts were pretty damn busy before this hit and have limited additional capacity to deal with a backlog. What is likely to happen is that new work will be displaced by the old not recouping what has been lost.
What do we do? Fortunately we have sufficient reserves to see us out 3-4 months, more if we can get access to government funds. My guess is that we will keep most of our staff on pretty much full wages for now but our pot of money will be depleted. How long this lasts is the key question to which there is no clear answer. If we hadn't had those reserves I am really not clear how loans would have helped. The quid pro quo for keeping staff on should be grants not loans. Otherwise unemployment will rocket.
David, forgive me if I've misunderstood, but you seem to be mixing up the furlough payments, which are a grant, with the 80% government backed loan guarantees, which are indeed debt at seemingly commercial bank rates.
I am sorry I haven't made that clear. Reading it again it seems a bit confused. In the case of my company £2500 a month, generous though it is, will not cover very much of the wages so we will have to make good the shortfall from our reserves. As I said we can do this for a period but that period is a short number of months.
You dont have to make the remainder up. Though you can choose to do so. We have decided to wait a month to see how our income goes, as the amount saved isnt that great in the scheme of things and there issues of morale to consider as well. But we are probably in a better situation than most as it looks like our income hasn't collapsed totally.
A worrying complacency seems to be creeping in in some quarters, Maybe it’s just the same people who were claiming that it was ‘just the flu’ in the first place but this is a clear danger. Maybe it’s just the natural temptation to cherry pick anything that looks positive. Again, look at places like China or Korea, you don’t soften up, you keep tight control. Given that we are still weeks short of any first wave peak, created by this lockdown (admittedly a weak one in the UK), the time to relax is far, far away yet.
I had the misfortune to read an article from the Telegraph website earlier arguing that Trump was on the right track. That sort of thing is just irresponsible.
Agreed. Easing the lockdown has to be done very carefully and slowly. We have to think about, where possible, shift working to minimise interactions (e.g., in an office with 10 people, only 2 come in on any one day). Additionally, all those able to work at home should be asked to continue doing so once the lockdown ends. Similarly, shops will need to have bars on the number of people who can enter, restaurants will have to function at half capacity for a while and sports events run behind closed doors. Until we understand the disease better, relaxing is extremely dangerous.
Yes.
But do remember a couple of things:
1. We start with 100x the testing capacity we had back in January / February. This means we can be much more proactive about getting to cases before they spread. In an ideal world, people who have any symptoms use an app or dial a phone number, and a tester is sent around within a couple of hours. Furthermore, those people who worked with that person can be tested before they spread the disease.
2. There will be a proportion of the population (between 1% and 15%) who will likely have immunity. These people - once identified - can continue their regular lives, and can act as frontline testers.
3. As you say, we can be smart at removing restrictions. And we can also be smart at reimposing them.
4. We will have many more ventilators next time around. And we will likely know drug and treatment regimes that lower the hospitalisation and death rate. (And it's possible that hydroxychloroquine + azythromicin is pretty good.)
The goal is not for cases to stay close to zero as restrictions are removed. It is to ensure that the growth in new cases is 5% per day, not 25% per day. This means those who get sick can be treated. It ensures that large parts of economic activity can return to near normal. It also means that if you need to have future lockdowns, they can be planned in advance. We can have the two week Christmas lockdown, and the two week summer lockdown. By planning ahead of time, we minimise economic damage.
FPT The government has gone further than it has in our history in underwriting 80% of the wages of those who have temporarily run out of work because of the CV and they have gone further than most other countries but have they gone far enough?
For me the problem ultimately is that these payments are a loan. If the company receiving the money is in a business that is likely to bounce back quickly and catch up some of the lost production because there is even more pent up demand for their business this works but for the vast majority of businesses what they are facing is a one time hit in their business which is pretty likely to be a permanent loss. How do they then repay this additional debt? There is also a significant minority of businesses, airlines, cruise companies, holiday companies generally, who are likely to take a much longer term hit and have no realistic chance of paying back debt out of reduced incomes.
I am the director of a company. We are having a board meeting this afternoon to work out what to do about our staff. We will suffer a very significant reduction in income over the next 3-4 months. After that we might recoup some of it as the courts get back to business but, frankly, the courts were pretty damn busy before this hit and have limited additional capacity to deal with a backlog. What is likely to happen is that new work will be displaced by the old not recouping what has been lost.
What do we do? Fortunately we have sufficient reserves to see us out 3-4 months, more if we can get access to government funds. My guess is that we will keep most of our staff on pretty much full wages for now but our pot of money will be depleted. How long this lasts is the key question to which there is no clear answer. If we hadn't had those reserves I am really not clear how loans would have helped. The quid pro quo for keeping staff on should be grants not loans. Otherwise unemployment will rocket.
David, forgive me if I've misunderstood, but you seem to be mixing up the furlough payments, which are a grant, with the 80% government backed loan guarantees, which are indeed debt at seemingly commercial bank rates.
I am sorry I haven't made that clear. Reading it again it seems a bit confused. In the case of my company £2500 a month, generous though it is, will not cover very much of the wages so we will have to make good the shortfall from our reserves. As I said we can do this for a period but that period is a short number of months.
The assumption is that for those employees for whom £2500 is not very much of their wages, that they can look after themselves for a period of months through accumulated wealth. They still can be subsidised to £2500 and are also spending far less than normal with no leisure or hospitality facilities available. It depends on your business choices though, it is not something they are entitled to.
I agree. Apart from a Fortnum's wine delivery (half bottles are very helpful in the present circs!) which has just arrived, my discretionary spending this week has been £0. £2500 ought to be enough to tide most people in furlough over.
Especially as many on higher salaries will have mortgages which can be deferred for months.
1. We start with 100x the testing capacity we had back in January / February. This means we can be much more proactive about getting to cases before they spread. In an ideal world, people who have any symptoms use an app or dial a phone number, and a tester is sent around within a couple of hours. Furthermore, those people who worked with that person can be tested before they spread the disease.
2. There will be a proportion of the population (between 1% and 15%) who will likely have immunity. These people - once identified - can continue their regular lives, and can act as frontline testers.
3. As you say, we can be smart at removing restrictions. And we can also be smart at reimposing them.
4. We will have many more ventilators next time around. And we will likely know drug and treatment regimes that lower the hospitalisation and death rate. (And it's possible that hydroxychloroquine + azythromicin is pretty good.)
The goal is not for cases to stay close to zero as restrictions are removed. It is to ensure that the growth in new cases is 5% per day, not 25% per day. This means those who get sick can be treated. It ensures that large parts of economic activity can return to near normal. It also means that if you need to have future lockdowns, they can be planned in advance. We can have the two week Christmas lockdown, and the two week summer lockdown. By planning ahead of time, we minimise economic damage.
Agree with all of this. Many reasons to expect the second wave - in developed countries with resources - to be less bad than the first. Countries with less resources is a different story of course.
Oh, absolutely. We have to invest in testing and medical care for less developed countries. Otherwise, unless we are lucky the situation could be appalling.
Yes. A probable order -
1. Markets crash. 2. Western health crisis. 3. Global recession. 4. LDC health DISASTER.
Does anyone have a plausible explanation why over recent days the devolved parts of the UK have reported much higher rises in cases and fatalities than England did?
I read on Twitter that England only reported haf a day's figures yesterday. That might account for skewed numbers.
I read that they were only missing a few hours. 7:30 cut off, rather than 9.
A major concern in the coming months has to be how this spreads through developing countries. Most of the country’s that are being hit (maybe through their greater international and intranational travel) are developed economies with good access to healthcare. What price relaxation when that is on the horizon?
Oh, absolutely. We have to invest in testing and medical care for less developed countries. Otherwise, unless we are lucky the situation could be appalling.
Yes. A probable order -
1. Markets crash. 2. Western health crisis. 3. Global recession. 4. LDC health DISASTER.
3 and 4 in tandem.
Bear in mind that developing countries tend to have much younger populations
1. Markets crash. 2. Western health crisis. 3. Global recession. 4. LDC health DISASTER.
3 and 4 in tandem.
Yip - we are through 1 and, in Europe, about halfway through 2. 3 is on the way (probably worse in some places than others, but bad everywhere) and 4 is what I fear most.
Does anyone have a plausible explanation why over recent days the devolved parts of the UK have reported much higher rises in cases and fatalities than England did?
I read on Twitter that England only reported haf a day's figures yesterday. That might account for skewed numbers.
I read that they were only missing a few hours. 7:30 cut off, rather than 9.
1. Markets crash. 2. Western health crisis. 3. Global recession. 4. LDC health DISASTER.
3 and 4 in tandem.
Yip - we are through 1 and, in Europe, about halfway through 2. 3 is on the way (probably worse in some places than others, but bad everywhere) and 4 is what I fear most.
Yes. In poor countries, it could be horrendous. People packed tightly in the slums of Indian or Brazilian or Mexican cities are going to spread the disease rapidly from one to another. There is next to no healthcare in these places, so the death rate will be dreadful. Plus, in places like Africa the high incidence of AIDS is going to make matters even worse.
I agree. Apart from a Fortnum's wine delivery (half bottles are very helpful in the present circs!) which has just arrived, my discretionary spending this week has been £0. £2500 ought to be enough to tide most people in furlough over.
If you are buying wine from Fortnum's then you should be the one dishing out £2,500 to a few thousand people just on principle.
As a wine guide once observed: if you find yourself in Fortnum's wine department, walk outside and take a taxi to any proper wine shop within a 20 mile radius. The savings you make will be substantial enough to include both the taxi fare there and onward with your wine to home.
There's been a slight drop in both the number of cases and deaths in Spain today.
I think/hope we are near the peak. Certainly the spanish government is praying so as the coalition is fraying and the opposition parties somewhat less compliant. Also the Autonomous Communities are somewhat fretful.
The right answer is to levy a supertax to extract the unspent surplus from those relatively unaffected and to redirect the proceeds to those not receiving.
Easy to say, but how would you target this effectively without the BBC finding an edge case to highlight every night?
My preferred solution would have been to drop some helicopter money on everyone. Avoid all this admin with grant schemes and loan schemes and means testing forms and the rest.
Recover the cost on full from higher rate taxpayers by - for this year only - reducing the point at which you pay higher rate tax by a balancing amount. Push the enhanced higher rate tax back up to 50%.
Partially offset the cost of the helicopter money by reducing the personal tax allowance, for this year only. And by making the helicopter money taxable.
Those lucky enough to still be earning aren’t spending. Asking us to pay more tax, temporarily, to keep those not earning above water is entirely reasonable.
Coming along afterwards to try and balance the books will be a lot more difficult. The oldies will have forgotten by then all the sacrifices working age people made to keep them safe, including volunteering in huge numbers to do their shopping and deliver their medicines, and will go back to moaning about having to pay for their TV licence.
I agree. Apart from a Fortnum's wine delivery (half bottles are very helpful in the present circs!) which has just arrived, my discretionary spending this week has been £0. £2500 ought to be enough to tide most people in furlough over.
If you are buying wine from Fortnum's then you should be the one dishing out £2,500 to a few thousand people just on principle.
As a wine guide once observed: if you find yourself in Fortnum's wine department, walk outside and take a taxi to any proper wine shop within a 20 mile radius. The savings you make will be substantial enough to include both the taxi fare there and onward with your wine to home.
Yeah, but Fortnums has an unrivalled selection of half bottles.
Berry Brothers might a better wine merchant, but it simply doesn't stock them.
When my wife was pregnant, I used to buy loads of half bottles from there.
There's been a slight drop in both the number of cases and deaths in Spain today.
I think/hope we are near the peak. Certainly the spanish government is praying so as the coalition is fraying and the opposition parties somewhat less compliant. Also the Autonomous Communities are somewhat fretful.
I returned home from a week in Barcelona with my mum just five months ago today. I'm glad we went when we did. Around Christmas, we were sort of semi-planning another trip to Spain or to Portugal round about now. Even more glad we didn't book!
So the worse the situation in a country the better the position of the leader.
From a Psychological perspective I get that, 'rally round the leader' thing. but not a good thing for anybody who believes democracy will elevate compliant leaders.
Opposite my house, an elderly chap is helping clean the car of the young family who lives next-door. Yesterday he mowed my front lawn randomly. I don’t think he gets it.
I agree. Apart from a Fortnum's wine delivery (half bottles are very helpful in the present circs!) which has just arrived, my discretionary spending this week has been £0. £2500 ought to be enough to tide most people in furlough over.
If you are buying wine from Fortnum's then you should be the one dishing out £2,500 to a few thousand people just on principle.
As a wine guide once observed: if you find yourself in Fortnum's wine department, walk outside and take a taxi to any proper wine shop within a 20 mile radius. The savings you make will be substantial enough to include both the taxi fare there and onward with your wine to home.
Yeah, but Fortnums has an unrivalled selection of half bottles.
Berry Brothers might a better wine merchant, but it simply doesn't stock them.
When my wife was pregnant, I used to buy loads of half bottles from there.
The only risk with going ahead with the EU allocation of ventilators is the cost of equipment. Which is trivial in the scheme of things. If the government finds they are surplus to requirements, it can sell them on. It's a no brainer.
The risks are much higher of depending on a manufacturer, who hasn't made this equipment before to productise a new design in a matter of days without testing in the field. It is sensible to mitigate that risk.
Brexit is the only reason I can see for not doing so. The government hasn't actually put forward a justification for not doing so..
Do you know?
My guess - and it is just a guess - that if you participate in the scheme then *all* equipment has to be purchased through it (and shared according to whatever the scheme sets out). This is sensible because it stops the various countries also going direct and competing for supply.
Given that Smiths Medical (one of the leading manufacturers of ventilators), Medlock Medical (ditto for PPE) and Regent Biogel (ditto for surgical gloves) are all based in the UK it may have been rational for the UK to decline.
I can quite imagine that the government doesn't want to stand up publicly and say "f*ck everyone else, we are hoarding stuff for our own population". The optics would not be good.
Do you have the list of countries participating? I don't think it is all of them.
I'd be particularly interested in Sweden (Molnlycke, Getinge) and Germany (Hartmann).
It would be reasonable in that case for the government to offer this explanation in response to the direct question. In fact their very weak justification is that "we're no longer members of the EU", which supports my explanation.
I get the impression that this is something of a Boris Bus project where the project becomes the objective, not the product itself. So that might be part of it.
Italian polling looks crazy right now. Conte is notionally head of an M5S coalition, but is not M5S himself. And M5S has dropped from first in the polls in 2018 at the start of the coalition to almost fourth.
Brothers of Italy has taken much of the Forza vote, and is now competing with M5S in the mid-teens.
The Lega vote has dropped from the high 30s to the high 20s, although they maintain a healthy lead. And the PD (unusually) has moved from third to clear second, just five points behind.
And it's not entirely clear which party, if any, Conte would back in an election.
FPT The government has gone further than it has in our history in underwriting 80% of the wages of those who have temporarily run out of work because of the CV and they have gone further than most other countries but have they gone far enough?
For me the problem ultimately is that these payments are a loan. If the company receiving the money is in a business that is likely to bounce back quickly and catch up some of the lost production because there is even more pent up demand for their business this works but for the vast majority of businesses what they are facing is a one time hit in their business which is pretty likely to be a permanent loss. How do they then repay this additional debt? There is also a significant minority of businesses, airlines, cruise companies, holiday companies generally, who are likely to take a much longer term hit and have no realistic chance of paying back debt out of reduced incomes.
I am the director of a company. We are having a board meeting this afternoon to work out what to do about our staff. We will suffer a very significant reduction in income over the next 3-4 months. After that we might recoup some of it as the courts get back to business but, frankly, the courts were pretty damn busy before this hit and have limited additional capacity to deal with a backlog. What is likely to happen is that new work will be displaced by the old not recouping what has been lost.
What do we do? Fortunately we have sufficient reserves to see us out 3-4 months, more if we can get access to government funds. My guess is that we will keep most of our staff on pretty much full wages for now but our pot of money will be depleted. How long this lasts is the key question to which there is no clear answer. If we hadn't had those reserves I am really not clear how loans would have helped. The quid pro quo for keeping staff on should be grants not loans. Otherwise unemployment will rocket.
David, forgive me if I've misunderstood, but you seem to be mixing up the furlough payments, which are a grant, with the 80% government backed loan guarantees, which are indeed debt at seemingly commercial bank rates.
I am sorry I haven't made that clear. Reading it again it seems a bit confused. In the case of my company £2500 a month, generous though it is, will not cover very much of the wages so we will have to make good the shortfall from our reserves. As I said we can do this for a period but that period is a short number of months.
The assumption is that for those employees for whom £2500 is not very much of their wages, that they can look after themselves for a period of months through accumulated wealth. They still can be subsidised to £2500 and are also spending far less than normal with no leisure or hospitality facilities available. It depends on your business choices though, it is not something they are entitled to.
I agree. Apart from a Fortnum's wine delivery (half bottles are very helpful in the present circs!) which has just arrived, my discretionary spending this week has been £0. £2500 ought to be enough to tide most people in furlough over.
If you earn £5K a month you may well be paying nearly a grand on child maintenance and well over a grand on rent.
Add in bills, insurance, council tax etc and you are in a hole before you've eaten anything.
I am not speculating, I'm telling you about me! Many people far worse off of course and i'm not as yet even furloughed anyway, but your statement is a little blithe for my tastes :-)
A worrying complacency seems to be creeping in in some quarters, Maybe it’s just the same people who were claiming that it was ‘just the flu’ in the first place but this is a clear danger. Maybe it’s just the natural temptation to cherry pick anything that looks positive. Again, look at places like China or Korea, you don’t soften up, you keep tight control. Given that we are still weeks short of any first wave peak, created by this lockdown (admittedly a weak one in the UK), the time to relax is far, far away yet.
I had the misfortune to read an article from the Telegraph website earlier arguing that Trump was on the right track. That sort of thing is just irresponsible.
Agreed. Easing the lockdown has to be done very carefully and slowly. We have to think about, where possible, shift working to minimise interactions (e.g., in an office with 10 people, only 2 come in on any one day). Additionally, all those able to work at home should be asked to continue doing so once the lockdown ends. Similarly, shops will need to have bars on the number of people who can enter, restaurants will have to function at half capacity for a while and sports events run behind closed doors. Until we understand the disease better, relaxing is extremely dangerous.
And about those mortality numbers... It's possible they could be significantly higher than reported so far:
It is looking that the hopeful idea that most of us might already have had it (one quoted part of the Oxford study) isn't looking that likely.
In any case, I understand that was predicated on one extreme being that only 1/1000 required hospitalisation from it when they caught it, and someone elsewhere pointed out that about 1/1000 of Lombardy's entire population is hospitalised right now (on top of which you've got those who've not caught it, those who've recovered, and those who've died). The herd immunity would have kicked in far, far sooner than now there if it was at the 1/1000 extreme.
My preferred solution would have been to drop some helicopter money on everyone. Avoid all this admin with grant schemes and loan schemes and means testing forms and the rest.
Elegantly simple, which suggests a flaw we are both missing.
Recover the cost on full from higher rate taxpayers by - for this year only - reducing the point at which you pay higher rate tax by a balancing amount. Push the enhanced higher rate tax back up to 50%.
Increasing higher rate taxes has a poor record of actually increasing revenue. Laffer curve etc etc.
The oldies [snip] will go back to moaning about having to pay for their TV licence.
Given the abysmal quality of the BBC output, I also don't like paying the TV Tax. I suggest we shut the BBC down and sell off the assets. Proceeds to contribute to your helicopter money fund.
The Republicans have gone back to odds on favourite for November.
I can't decide what to do.
Remember that while the pandemic will set a lot of the background fundamentals to the election those fundamentals will also be very different to the situation right now. So ignore the current polling and ask yourself how people's reactions are likely to change.
And when you do that, hopefully you'll recognise there is an unusually high level of uncertainty in answering that question. So don't come to too firm a conclusion.
Here is the latest world data. It appears the latest UK figures for deaths have not been added for some reason.
My pet peeve.
If you are going to have two charts with the same categories (in this case countries) side by side then use the same f*cking colours!
If anyone believes the figures from China, please contact me. I have a bridge for sale.
All the figures are suspect.
The cases reported are highly correlated with the number of tests conducted rather than the actual number of cases. The deaths could be from Covid-19 or with Covid-19. Who knows. But it is the only data available.
I'm assuming that the definition of "deaths from Covid-19" is consistent within a country. So the trends are of interest even if comparisons between countries are a bit dodgy.
Comments
The problem the economy has isn’t the lack of spending power, it’s the preventing money from circulating.
Anyone with a secure income has saved during the lockdown from not spending on meals out, pub visits, personal services, travel, and the rest.
Meanwhile the people employed in said industries have suffered a collapse in income.
If we do nothing, tons of people and businesses providing these services go to the wall.
If the state provides their income, we end up with an inflationary spike and a burden upon the state that will take a generation to clear.
The right answer is to levy a supertax to extract the unspent surplus from those relatively unaffected and to redirect the proceeds to those not receiving.
The EU hit 5k on 5 March; the US, on 17 March - 12 days later
The EU hit 12k on 9 March; the US, on 20 March - 11 days later
The EU hit 30k on 13 March; the US, on 23 March - 10 days later
The EU hit 50k on 16 March; the US, on 25 March - 9 days later
The rate of growth of reported cases in the US is phenomenal - up 624% in the last week, compared with +263% for the UK, 108% for Italy and +228% for Spain - and instances look to be well-established in pretty much all states.
If anything like a similar rate continues, the US will be *way* in excess of 200k in a week's time - and could quite conceivably be double that.
I had the misfortune to read an article from the Telegraph website earlier arguing that Trump was on the right track. That sort of thing is just irresponsible.
https://twitter.com/anitamassey86/status/1242816478849662985
(Albeit not without reason.)
Look how long the government is taking just to hand out cash...
Amazing.
When you see stuff like this you just know there will be a vaccine very soon.
It's possible they could be significantly higher than reported so far:
https://twitter.com/DellAnnaLuca/status/1242105241350234112
My guess - and it is just a guess - that if you participate in the scheme then *all* equipment has to be purchased through it (and shared according to whatever the scheme sets out). This is sensible because it stops the various countries also going direct and competing for supply.
Given that Smiths Medical (one of the leading manufacturers of ventilators), Medlock Medical (ditto for PPE) and Regent Biogel (ditto for surgical gloves) are all based in the UK it may have been rational for the UK to decline.
I can quite imagine that the government doesn't want to stand up publicly and say "f*ck everyone else, we are hoarding stuff for our own population". The optics would not be good.
Do you have the list of countries participating? I don't think it is all of them.
I'd be particularly interested in Sweden (Molnlycke, Getinge) and Germany (Hartmann).
If you are going to have two charts with the same categories (in this case countries) side by side then use the same f*cking colours!
The alternative is that the state drops helicopter money on those losing their income because other people are not spending, while the saving from their not spending still sits with them whose incomes are stable. When the music stops, that will mean a good burst of inflation.
https://twitter.com/nedoliver/status/1242914541605924875
The most unedifying of all aspects of this crisis has been watching those whose income is secure getting positively excited, the worse that things have looked like they may become.
Oh, absolutely. We have to invest in testing and medical care for less developed countries. Otherwise, unless we are lucky the situation could be appalling.
The biggest beneficiciaries of inflation are borrowers. The bigger the borrower, the greater the benefit. And the government is the biggest borrower of all...
We need a punchy example to explain the counterfactual to these people. It's so obvious that I'm struggling but someone must have one.
The best I can think of is someone observing a neighbour having a heart attack, having coronary artery bypass surgery, seeing them recover then concluding that the heart attack must not be that dangerous because they are walking about now and so the surgery wasn't necessary.
There are lots of us still going to work (as we should if it's not possible to work from home, and we can maintain physical distancing), but there are those who have to keep going to work despite not being entirely secure, because the rest of us depend on them.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/26/universal-basic-income-help-self-employed
But do remember a couple of things:
1. We start with 100x the testing capacity we had back in January / February. This means we can be much more proactive about getting to cases before they spread. In an ideal world, people who have any symptoms use an app or dial a phone number, and a tester is sent around within a couple of hours. Furthermore, those people who worked with that person can be tested before they spread the disease.
2. There will be a proportion of the population (between 1% and 15%) who will likely have immunity. These people - once identified - can continue their regular lives, and can act as frontline testers.
3. As you say, we can be smart at removing restrictions. And we can also be smart at reimposing them.
4. We will have many more ventilators next time around. And we will likely know drug and treatment regimes that lower the hospitalisation and death rate. (And it's possible that hydroxychloroquine + azythromicin is pretty good.)
The goal is not for cases to stay close to zero as restrictions are removed. It is to ensure that the growth in new cases is 5% per day, not 25% per day. This means those who get sick can be treated. It ensures that large parts of economic activity can return to near normal. It also means that if you need to have future lockdowns, they can be planned in advance. We can have the two week Christmas lockdown, and the two week summer lockdown. By planning ahead of time, we minimise economic damage.
1. Markets crash.
2. Western health crisis.
3. Global recession.
4. LDC health DISASTER.
3 and 4 in tandem.
And - sour point but I will say it - I bet when it's under control in the West but running riot elsewhere it will fade from the news.
Simply people and goods move from country to country. And even with quarantines and temperature sensors, it will traverse borders.
Which is why the key to this is massive testing capability.
As a wine guide once observed: if you find yourself in Fortnum's wine department, walk outside and take a taxi to any proper wine shop within a 20 mile radius. The savings you make will be substantial enough to include both the taxi fare there and onward with your wine to home.
Recover the cost on full from higher rate taxpayers by - for this year only - reducing the point at which you pay higher rate tax by a balancing amount. Push the enhanced higher rate tax back up to 50%.
Partially offset the cost of the helicopter money by reducing the personal tax allowance, for this year only. And by making the helicopter money taxable.
Those lucky enough to still be earning aren’t spending. Asking us to pay more tax, temporarily, to keep those not earning above water is entirely reasonable.
Coming along afterwards to try and balance the books will be a lot more difficult. The oldies will have forgotten by then all the sacrifices working age people made to keep them safe, including volunteering in huge numbers to do their shopping and deliver their medicines, and will go back to moaning about having to pay for their TV licence.
Berry Brothers might a better wine merchant, but it simply doesn't stock them.
When my wife was pregnant, I used to buy loads of half bottles from there.
From a Psychological perspective I get that, 'rally round the leader' thing. but not a good thing for anybody who believes democracy will elevate compliant leaders.
I can't decide what to do.
https://farrvintners.com/winelist.php?keywords=&keywordopt=1&vintage=&variation=®ion=&location=&size_format=HV&colourid=&scoremin=&pricemin=&pricemax=
I get the impression that this is something of a Boris Bus project where the project becomes the objective, not the product itself. So that might be part of it.
Italian polling looks crazy right now. Conte is notionally head of an M5S coalition, but is not M5S himself. And M5S has dropped from first in the polls in 2018 at the start of the coalition to almost fourth.
Brothers of Italy has taken much of the Forza vote, and is now competing with M5S in the mid-teens.
The Lega vote has dropped from the high 30s to the high 20s, although they maintain a healthy lead. And the PD (unusually) has moved from third to clear second, just five points behind.
And it's not entirely clear which party, if any, Conte would back in an election.
Spain 56,197 +6,682 4,145 +498
Add in bills, insurance, council tax etc and you are in a hole before you've eaten anything.
I am not speculating, I'm telling you about me! Many people far worse off of course and i'm not as yet even furloughed anyway, but your statement is a little blithe for my tastes :-)
It's possible they could be significantly higher than reported so far:
https://twitter.com/DellAnnaLuca/status/1242105241350234112
It is looking that the hopeful idea that most of us might already have had it (one quoted part of the Oxford study) isn't looking that likely.
In any case, I understand that was predicated on one extreme being that only 1/1000 required hospitalisation from it when they caught it, and someone elsewhere pointed out that about 1/1000 of Lombardy's entire population is hospitalised right now (on top of which you've got those who've not caught it, those who've recovered, and those who've died). The herd immunity would have kicked in far, far sooner than now there if it was at the 1/1000 extreme.
And when you do that, hopefully you'll recognise there is an unusually high level of uncertainty in answering that question. So don't come to too firm a conclusion.
The cases reported are highly correlated with the number of tests conducted rather than the actual number of cases.
The deaths could be from Covid-19 or with Covid-19. Who knows.
But it is the only data available.
I'm assuming that the definition of "deaths from Covid-19" is consistent within a country. So the trends are of interest even if comparisons between countries are a bit dodgy.