We know that social contact these days is out. We know that alcohol above 70% kills the virus. We know that hydroxychloroqin has proven an effective treatment in some cases and is a derivative of quinine. We now find out that lying on your front can stop you needing a ventilator. So really, the solution is to get sh*t-faced on maximum strength G&T, alone, and end up passing out face forward.
We do not know that chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine have been proven effective, though studies are ongoing. The Chinese study communicated yesterday showed no effect. In addition it can interfere with cardiac conduction, potentially an issue with COVID19 myocarditis. I appreciate there is a certain amount of levity in your comment, but would be cautious about the rush to judgement.
In terms of positioning, there is an interesting review of prone ventilation for ARDS here:
There are some benefits, and some downsides. The better oxygenation and reduced lung injury vs increased cardiac arrest.
A little breathless, and tight chest, coughing again, but O2 sats OK, and still no fever.
Testing later. The view is that leaving it a couple of days after symptoms appear increases the chances of an accurate result. It shouldn't increase my self isolation or alter treatment in the short term.
Indeed! And to bring some semblance of normality I am sat at my desk in a 3 piece suit. #dressupfriday
With cufflinks like David Cameron or Jacob Rees-Mogg, or ordinary, buttoned single cuffs like our man-of-the-people, Eton and Oxford Prime Minister?
Double-cuff shirts are the only shirts. Lets have a bit of fucking decorum
Decorum? Aren't they so you can wipe your nose on the cuff and then fold it back with the debris inside. An innovation from Napoleonic France.
Ewwww. Double cuff plus cufflink does feel like overkill at the best of times, as does a tie. I don't need to wear a tie much any more, never mind a waistcoat. But at the end of a week where its been flat out every day and Groundhog Day every day, why not try and mix it up and try to go back to "normal" times.
If you can't wipe your nose on the back of your tie, I guess the argument for having a long double cuff is stronger?
The comms over this antibody test is starting to piss me off. One day we hear it is just days away. Later same day there is a discussion of how must be absolutely sure it works before using it, so tests on going. Now it seems it is within two weeks away, but unsure whether wide public will have it at first.
Why don't they just say there may be such a test, it would really help, but we are still testing the test and will get back to you.
I have followed the governments advice from day one, ordered my parents to stay in, clapped for the NHS at the front door at 8pm tonight, the whole shebang... but am I really the only one on here who doesn’t have nagging doubts that the 24hr news cycle, the tabloid headlines, the way of human nature to be preoccupied with catastrophe might mean we are over reacting?
I feel slightly like one of the Peoples Temple folk who drank the pretend poison Jim Jones gave them to test their loyalty before the kool aid came out
Normalcy bias is very hard to shift. Even tho i first identified this bias here on PB, I still suffer from it. Sometimes I walk out of my door, and think, “WTF, let’s go back to London. Have a nice lunch. This is absurd.”
But this isn’t absurd. This is a virus with the potential to collapse societies, via their health systems. Those are the cold hard facts, as we see in Wuhan, Italy and Spain.
We cannot deny it.
Indeed.
If anything I think a lot of people are still in denial.
We're about to see a death surge, especially in London.
By the way, I know a lot of people who have it, or we assume so. No testing so no proof.
FWIW I'm horrified that a cordon sanitaire hasn't been thrown up around London - roadblocks, no trains in or out - simply to protect the provinces.
If the capital goes the way of Lombardy then the obvious risk is that panicked Londoners will try to flee - not just wealthy second home owners, but those with friends or family elsewhere who are willing to put them up - thus spreading the disease everywhere else.
I'm not one of these self-proclaimed experts and I may very well be wrong, but this does have the appearance of a catastrophe waiting to happen.
Horse, stable....
Panicked Londoners are already all over.
Some of them taking multiple personalities with them..
We know that social contact these days is out. We know that alcohol above 70% kills the virus. We know that hydroxychloroqin has proven an effective treatment in some cases and is a derivative of quinine. We now find out that lying on your front can stop you needing a ventilator. So really, the solution is to get sh*t-faced on maximum strength G&T, alone, and end up passing out face forward.
We do not know that chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine have been proven effective, though studies are ongoing. The Chinese study communicated yesterday showed no effect. In addition it can interfere with cardiac conduction, potentially an issue with COVID19 myocarditis. I appreciate there is a certain amount of levity in your comment, but would be cautious about the rush to judgement.
In terms of positioning, there is an interesting review of prone ventilation for ARDS here:
There are some benefits, and some downsides. The better oxygenation and reduced lung injury vs increased cardiac arrest.
A little breathless, and tight chest, coughing again, but O2 sats OK, and still no fever.
Testing later. The view is that leaving it a couple of days after symptoms appear increases the chances of an accurate result. It shouldn't increase my self isolation or alter treatment in the short term.
Glad that you've managed to get a test, a couple of my cousins were able to get tests done too. They are just waiting for results now. Oddly both are hoping they have it so they can go back to work as soon as they are over it and not have to worry about contracting it or giving it to patients.
We know that social contact these days is out. We know that alcohol above 70% kills the virus. We know that hydroxychloroqin has proven an effective treatment in some cases and is a derivative of quinine. We now find out that lying on your front can stop you needing a ventilator. So really, the solution is to get sh*t-faced on maximum strength G&T, alone, and end up passing out face forward.
We do not know that chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine have been proven effective, though studies are ongoing. The Chinese study communicated yesterday showed no effect. In addition it can interfere with cardiac conduction, potentially an issue with COVID19 myocarditis. I appreciate there is a certain amount of levity in your comment, but would be cautious about the rush to judgement.
In terms of positioning, there is an interesting review of prone ventilation for ARDS here:
There are some benefits, and some downsides. The better oxygenation and reduced lung injury vs increased cardiac arrest.
Have to say that. although I'm obviously out of date now, I don't see HOW chloroquine could work on a virus and agree with Dr F that there could be cardiac problems. There's also the possibility, according to the BNF, of ophthalmic problems, although it probably has to be used for a while to get those.
Professor Barclay on Newsnight again making the point that the severity of your illness is influenced by the amount of virus you receive on first infection. She is a professor of infectious diseases so ought to know.
Hence the worryingly high proportion of reported cases in Spain found in the medical profession.
Now that most people are keeping their distance from each other and all the shops and workplaces that are still operational are getting better at implementing good hygiene and social distancing practices, one wonders if the proportion of very mild or asymptomatic cases might increase accordingly?
In a best case scenario, we might find after three months that a large chunk of the country has had this illness whilst being either wholly unaware of it, or having self-isolated without being at all certain that they were suffering from it. Though this can only be determined once the testing capacity is sufficient to check a representative sample of the general population, of course.
A really striking thing about Spain is the percentage of deaths there have been in private rest homes for the elderly - about a third of the total. These are required to provide affordable care, but also turn a profit. The resulting trade-offs are only now coming to light. You cannot do social care on the cheap.
I'm not that close to the care home option personally yet I hope but it has made me consider my options for the future quite carefully. I think the Spanish generally show great care and respect for the elderly and pensions are very generous. Obviously care homes are going to be very vulnerable to this kind of disease but I think the scandals in Madrid is the exception rather tha normal.
The stories coming out of Spain of care home staff legging it and the home is found unstaffed with dead or dying residents, aren't great.
Indeed - but they don't reflect the norm I think - certainly where I live in the rural coastal south-east the respect for us 'ancianos' is a wonder to behold.
One thing we need to talk about is courage.
A long time ago, I talked with a veteran of the Falklands. He said that in every battle there a small percentage of the men were curled up in a ball in the deepest hole they could find. Interestingly who it was varied from battle to battle - the guy sobbing with fear one night, was a screaming dervish the next, bayonetting with the best of them.
He reckoned that because it wasn't talked about, a lot of people were damaged for life by their behaviour on their "off night".
This matches reports from other wars and struggles - cowardice can hit anyone, and is often an unusual event.
In WWII the RAF recognised this and rehabiliated Lack of Moral Fibre (LMF) cases - most returned to the front lines.... There is an oft told story about such a case who ended up flying for 617 squadron...
There have been reports of medics, in various countries, breaking and abandoning their posts. This will happen here. Demanding absolute bravery 100% of the time doesn't match the human condition.
In the discussion yesterday about the lady who evicted the doctor from her house, I noticed that others were quick to say that they would have taken the risk. Are you so very sure?
We should all be sure not to be "killing Kruger with our mouths"... And think on what will need to be done - not just support for the heroes, but the ones who trip as well.
The comms over this antibody test is starting to piss me off. One day we hear it is just days away. Later same day there is a discussion of how must be absolutely sure it works before using it, so tests on going. Now it seems it is within two weeks away, but unsure whether wide public will have it at first.
Why don't they just say there may be such a test, it would really help, but we are still testing the test and will get back to you.
One of the fair criticisms of the government’s emergency response is that reality often doesn’t match the rhetoric. The details don’t follow or match the headline announcements. It was certainly the case with exams. It is the case on tests. Bailouts and benefits seem slow to materialise.
"Shortages have eased in recent days, but many products are still out of stock and supermarket shelves are unlikely to look the way they usually do for a long time."
Shortages have eased because the shopping frenzy has slowed. A marked pull back from last week's double the normal demand, its tracking at about 40% up. The point about the risk of disrupted production is very real - if enough people go off sick then factories won't be able to maintain normal production.
For how long? The public can't be eating that much more, and there must be a physical limit to most people's stockpiling.
No, the issue is that 20-30% of our intake comes from eating out. Lunches, work canteens, nights out, pubs etc... All of this now has to be replaced by home cooking.
We know that social contact these days is out. We know that alcohol above 70% kills the virus. We know that hydroxychloroqin has proven an effective treatment in some cases and is a derivative of quinine. We now find out that lying on your front can stop you needing a ventilator. So really, the solution is to get sh*t-faced on maximum strength G&T, alone, and end up passing out face forward.
We do not know that chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine have been proven effective, though studies are ongoing. The Chinese study communicated yesterday showed no effect. In addition it can interfere with cardiac conduction, potentially an issue with COVID19 myocarditis. I appreciate there is a certain amount of levity in your comment, but would be cautious about the rush to judgement.
In terms of positioning, there is an interesting review of prone ventilation for ARDS here:
There are some benefits, and some downsides. The better oxygenation and reduced lung injury vs increased cardiac arrest.
Have to say that. although I'm obviously out of date now, I don't see HOW chloroquine could work on a virus and agree with Dr F that there could be cardiac problems. There's also the possibility, according to the BNF, of ophthalmic problems, although it probably has to be used for a while to get those.
In both the US and Nigeria there have already been cases of death from people getting hold of chloroquine thinking it wards off the virus (which no-one is suggesting)
Although it is not getting a lot of airtime, the Chancellor is already flagging that he is thinking about how to balance the books.
Harmonising self employed tax and NI with that of the employed clearly makes sense, and has been on the Treasury wish list for a while.
Was there ever a better time to make a bold move toward simplification and merge tax and NI altogether? Yes, there’ll be an extra burden on wealthier pensioners, but not an unreasonable one in the circumstances.
The economy has been tanked largely to save the elderly. The elderly are going to have to accept that there must be a price to pay for that.
The end of the triple lock for sure. We are going to be at risk of inflation. It has to go.
Wasnt one of the issues of triple lock that very low inflation meant pensions went up by more? Higher inflation removes one lock.
Introduced in 2011 by the coalition government, the triple lock guarantees that the basic state pension will rise by a minimum of either 2.5%, the rate of inflation or average earnings growth, whichever is largest.
The triple lock is doomed.
You're understanding it backwards.
Increasing by the rate of inflation doesn't cost anything at all in real terms.
Increasing by 2.5% if inflation is extremely low is expensive in real terms.
But I'm looking forwards, not backwards.
State pensioners have done very well for a decade out of the triple lock. That ends now.
We know that social contact these days is out. We know that alcohol above 70% kills the virus. We know that hydroxychloroqin has proven an effective treatment in some cases and is a derivative of quinine. We now find out that lying on your front can stop you needing a ventilator. So really, the solution is to get sh*t-faced on maximum strength G&T, alone, and end up passing out face forward.
We do not know that chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine have been proven effective, though studies are ongoing. The Chinese study communicated yesterday showed no effect. In addition it can interfere with cardiac conduction, potentially an issue with COVID19 myocarditis. I appreciate there is a certain amount of levity in your comment, but would be cautious about the rush to judgement.
In terms of positioning, there is an interesting review of prone ventilation for ARDS here:
There are some benefits, and some downsides. The better oxygenation and reduced lung injury vs increased cardiac arrest.
A little breathless, and tight chest, coughing again, but O2 sats OK, and still no fever.
Testing later. The view is that leaving it a couple of days after symptoms appear increases the chances of an accurate result. It shouldn't increase my self isolation or alter treatment in the short term.
Fingers crossed for you, Foxy. A question that has puzzled me a bit - clearly London is running a bit ahead of the rest of the country but, since we slammed on the brakes at the same rate everywhere, does it not follow that the peak will take place at the same time everywhere, just with a lower amplitude outside London? I've heard several colleagues say that the peak will be deferred (i.e., later) outside London but I don't see, from a social distancing perspective why this should be the case. Am I missing something?
Although it is not getting a lot of airtime, the Chancellor is already flagging that he is thinking about how to balance the books.
Harmonising self employed tax and NI with that of the employed clearly makes sense, and has been on the Treasury wish list for a while.
Was there ever a better time to make a bold move toward simplification and merge tax and NI altogether? Yes, there’ll be an extra burden on wealthier pensioners, but not an unreasonable one in the circumstances.
The economy has been tanked largely to save the elderly. The elderly are going to have to accept that there must be a price to pay for that.
The end of the triple lock for sure. We are going to be at risk of inflation. It has to go.
Wasnt one of the issues of triple lock that very low inflation meant pensions went up by more? Higher inflation removes one lock.
Introduced in 2011 by the coalition government, the triple lock guarantees that the basic state pension will rise by a minimum of either 2.5%, the rate of inflation or average earnings growth, whichever is largest.
The triple lock is doomed.
You're understanding it backwards.
Increasing by the rate of inflation doesn't cost anything at all in real terms.
Increasing by 2.5% if inflation is extremely low is expensive in real terms.
It depends if you're hoping to use inflation to reduce your costs, then having an outgoing index-linked stands in the way of that.
Keeping expenses the same in real terms is more expensive than reducing them in real terms, but far cheaper than compound increasing it in real terms.
The triple lock is more expensive in an era of low inflation than high inflation.
For how long? The public can't be eating that much more, and there must be a physical limit to most people's stockpiling.
No, demand will stay high as long as people are at home. Before this, I would have got work lunches 5 days a week, and my daughters would have had lunch at school/nursery. We might have gone out for a meal every other week or so or ordered a takeaway.
Now all of that needs to be done with home cooking, and will need to be until this is over.
Although it is not getting a lot of airtime, the Chancellor is already flagging that he is thinking about how to balance the books.
Harmonising self employed tax and NI with that of the employed clearly makes sense, and has been on the Treasury wish list for a while.
Was there ever a better time to make a bold move toward simplification and merge tax and NI altogether? Yes, there’ll be an extra burden on wealthier pensioners, but not an unreasonable one in the circumstances.
The economy has been tanked largely to save the elderly. The elderly are going to have to accept that there must be a price to pay for that.
The end of the triple lock for sure. We are going to be at risk of inflation. It has to go.
Wasnt one of the issues of triple lock that very low inflation meant pensions went up by more? Higher inflation removes one lock.
Introduced in 2011 by the coalition government, the triple lock guarantees that the basic state pension will rise by a minimum of either 2.5%, the rate of inflation or average earnings growth, whichever is largest.
The triple lock is doomed.
You're understanding it backwards.
Increasing by the rate of inflation doesn't cost anything at all in real terms.
Increasing by 2.5% if inflation is extremely low is expensive in real terms.
But I'm looking forwards, not backwards.
State pensioners have done very well for a decade out of the triple lock. That ends now.
If inflation takes off then yes it ends as inflation will be the cap not 2.5% being the floor. Unless wages grow faster, in which case taxes will be going up too.
The comms over this antibody test is starting to piss me off. One day we hear it is just days away. Later same day there is a discussion of how must be absolutely sure it works before using it, so tests on going. Now it seems it is within two weeks away, but unsure whether wide public will have it at first.
Why don't they just say there may be such a test, it would really help, but we are still testing the test and will get back to you.
One of the fair criticisms of the government’s emergency response is that reality often doesn’t match the rhetoric. The details don’t follow or match the headline announcements. It was certainly the case with exams. It is the case on tests. Bailouts and benefits seem slow to materialise.
We had our board meeting yesterday by zoom (it was ok, rather too much of people talking over one another or awkward silences) and there was genuine uncertainty about how the furlough scheme was going to work, who was eligible etc. Apparently the employee has to be furloughed for at least 3 weeks. They can't do any proper work but they can still undertake training etc. We pay the employees wages and then claim this back. But so much is unclear.
The comms over this antibody test is starting to piss me off. One day we hear it is just days away. Later same day there is a discussion of how must be absolutely sure it works before using it, so tests on going. Now it seems it is within two weeks away, but unsure whether wide public will have it at first.
Why don't they just say there may be such a test, it would really help, but we are still testing the test and will get back to you.
Because Kay Burley will still be asking each hour, on the hour.
For how long? The public can't be eating that much more, and there must be a physical limit to most people's stockpiling.
No, the issue is that 20-30% of our intake comes from eating out. Lunches, work canteens, nights out, pubs etc... All of this now has to be replaced by home cooking.
Its not just that. Work from home + full fridges and cupboards means food gets eaten faster. Also these aren't normal times. People think they need to keep 14 days of food at home in stock at all times - so that means a lot of sizable top-up shops. The data is clear - more consumers making more trips and buying more on those trips. It has slowed down vs last week but its still way above anything normal.
In other news, the LibDems have postponed their leadership election until 2021.
From a betting perspective I reckon this makes Davey a good bet: he'll effectively have been doing the job for over a year and may well be a shoo-in when the vote eventually comes. Currently 2.3 on BFE.
Although it is not getting a lot of airtime, the Chancellor is already flagging that he is thinking about how to balance the books.
Harmonising self employed tax and NI with that of the employed clearly makes sense, and has been on the Treasury wish list for a while.
Was there ever a better time to make a bold move toward simplification and merge tax and NI altogether? Yes, there’ll be an extra burden on wealthier pensioners, but not an unreasonable one in the circumstances.
The economy has been tanked largely to save the elderly. The elderly are going to have to accept that there must be a price to pay for that.
The end of the triple lock for sure. We are going to be at risk of inflation. It has to go.
Wasnt one of the issues of triple lock that very low inflation meant pensions went up by more? Higher inflation removes one lock.
Introduced in 2011 by the coalition government, the triple lock guarantees that the basic state pension will rise by a minimum of either 2.5%, the rate of inflation or average earnings growth, whichever is largest.
The triple lock is doomed.
You're understanding it backwards.
Increasing by the rate of inflation doesn't cost anything at all in real terms.
Increasing by 2.5% if inflation is extremely low is expensive in real terms.
But I'm looking forwards, not backwards.
State pensioners have done very well for a decade out of the triple lock. That ends now.
Yes, time to remove the inflation link and set the minimum increase to 1%. Pensioners need to take the weight of this. I'd also look at NI on pension income.
Although it is not getting a lot of airtime, the Chancellor is already flagging that he is thinking about how to balance the books.
Harmonising self employed tax and NI with that of the employed clearly makes sense, and has been on the Treasury wish list for a while.
Was there ever a better time to make a bold move toward simplification and merge tax and NI altogether? Yes, there’ll be an extra burden on wealthier pensioners, but not an unreasonable one in the circumstances.
The economy has been tanked largely to save the elderly. The elderly are going to have to accept that there must be a price to pay for that.
The end of the triple lock for sure. We are going to be at risk of inflation. It has to go.
Wasnt one of the issues of triple lock that very low inflation meant pensions went up by more? Higher inflation removes one lock.
Introduced in 2011 by the coalition government, the triple lock guarantees that the basic state pension will rise by a minimum of either 2.5%, the rate of inflation or average earnings growth, whichever is largest.
The triple lock is doomed.
You're understanding it backwards.
Increasing by the rate of inflation doesn't cost anything at all in real terms.
Increasing by 2.5% if inflation is extremely low is expensive in real terms.
But I'm looking forwards, not backwards.
State pensioners have done very well for a decade out of the triple lock. That ends now.
We pensioners are goona get fuck all help in terms of who hets medical help if we get covid.. leave our effing pensions alone!!
Although it is not getting a lot of airtime, the Chancellor is already flagging that he is thinking about how to balance the books.
Harmonising self employed tax and NI with that of the employed clearly makes sense, and has been on the Treasury wish list for a while.
Was there ever a better time to make a bold move toward simplification and merge tax and NI altogether? Yes, there’ll be an extra burden on wealthier pensioners, but not an unreasonable one in the circumstances.
The economy has been tanked largely to save the elderly. The elderly are going to have to accept that there must be a price to pay for that.
The end of the triple lock for sure. We are going to be at risk of inflation. It has to go.
Not a chance. Unless it was announced now, during the most intense panic, people will go nuts about losing perks like the triple lock once the crisis has ebbed. Doesnt matter inflation is coming, it'll be 'I was at risk and people i knew died, and now you're punishing me for surviving?'. There will always be other changes to be made instead. Same with other measures - ideas need floating now to get some agreement evening detail must be later (given we dont know how much impact there will be).
We know that social contact these days is out. We know that alcohol above 70% kills the virus. We know that hydroxychloroqin has proven an effective treatment in some cases and is a derivative of quinine. We now find out that lying on your front can stop you needing a ventilator. So really, the solution is to get sh*t-faced on maximum strength G&T, alone, and end up passing out face forward.
We do not know that chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine have been proven effective, though studies are ongoing. The Chinese study communicated yesterday showed no effect. In addition it can interfere with cardiac conduction, potentially an issue with COVID19 myocarditis. I appreciate there is a certain amount of levity in your comment, but would be cautious about the rush to judgement.
In terms of positioning, there is an interesting review of prone ventilation for ARDS here:
There are some benefits, and some downsides. The better oxygenation and reduced lung injury vs increased cardiac arrest.
Have to say that. although I'm obviously out of date now, I don't see HOW chloroquine could work on a virus and agree with Dr F that there could be cardiac problems. There's also the possibility, according to the BNF, of ophthalmic problems, although it probably has to be used for a while to get those.
The mooted mechanism is through mediating the inflammatory response to the virus, and possibly boosting host virucidal response.
Eye problems are with long term use generally, but there are cases of acute toxicity. It is a problem in Africa, where the response to a fever is to think it a flare up of malaria, and swallow a handful of chloroquine from the market.
For how long? The public can't be eating that much more, and there must be a physical limit to most people's stockpiling.
I think there a number of basic problems. One is that people have changed how they eat (e.g. home rather than restaurant), so the supply chain has to be reconfigured to support this. Secondly, the absences from work and social distancing rules are bound to impact the efficiency of supply lines. Then, further into the future, we have problems in production such as lack of availability of seasonal labour for harvesting, etc.
Probably best not to run down that food stash quite yet!
We know that social contact these days is out. We know that alcohol above 70% kills the virus. We know that hydroxychloroqin has proven an effective treatment in some cases and is a derivative of quinine. We now find out that lying on your front can stop you needing a ventilator. So really, the solution is to get sh*t-faced on maximum strength G&T, alone, and end up passing out face forward.
We do not know that chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine have been proven effective, though studies are ongoing. The Chinese study communicated yesterday showed no effect. In addition it can interfere with cardiac conduction, potentially an issue with COVID19 myocarditis. I appreciate there is a certain amount of levity in your comment, but would be cautious about the rush to judgement.
In terms of positioning, there is an interesting review of prone ventilation for ARDS here:
There are some benefits, and some downsides. The better oxygenation and reduced lung injury vs increased cardiac arrest.
A little breathless, and tight chest, coughing again, but O2 sats OK, and still no fever.
Testing later. The view is that leaving it a couple of days after symptoms appear increases the chances of an accurate result. It shouldn't increase my self isolation or alter treatment in the short term.
Fingers crossed for you, Foxy. A question that has puzzled me a bit - clearly London is running a bit ahead of the rest of the country but, since we slammed on the brakes at the same rate everywhere, does it not follow that the peak will take place at the same time everywhere, just with a lower amplitude outside London? I've heard several colleagues say that the peak will be deferred (i.e., later) outside London but I don't see, from a social distancing perspective why this should be the case. Am I missing something?
The peak would have been much later outside London, if nothing had been done, since it takes time for widespread infection to gather pace, and clearly London is running ahead.
You might be right if the lockdown is 100% effective, since in a fortnight all new infection would stop, everywhere.
But since the lockdown will actually be X% effective, where X is considerably short of 100%, the reality will be inbetween, and London will still peak first.
Although it is not getting a lot of airtime, the Chancellor is already flagging that he is thinking about how to balance the books.
Harmonising self employed tax and NI with that of the employed clearly makes sense, and has been on the Treasury wish list for a while.
Was there ever a better time to make a bold move toward simplification and merge tax and NI altogether? Yes, there’ll be an extra burden on wealthier pensioners, but not an unreasonable one in the circumstances.
The economy has been tanked largely to save the elderly. The elderly are going to have to accept that there must be a price to pay for that.
The end of the triple lock for sure. We are going to be at risk of inflation. It has to go.
Not a chance. Unless it was announced now, during the most intense panic, people will go nuts about losing perks like the triple lock once the crisis has ebbed. Doesnt matter inflation is coming, it'll be 'I was at risk and people i knew died, and now you're punishing me for surviving?'. There will always be other changes to be made instead. Same with other measures - ideas need floating now to get some agreement evening detail must be later (given we dont know how much impact there will be).
Rishi has a lot of capital. He is going to have to spend it.
Sorry, pensioners. The next few years are going to be about improving the efficacy of the economically active.
Although it is not getting a lot of airtime, the Chancellor is already flagging that he is thinking about how to balance the books.
Harmonising self employed tax and NI with that of the employed clearly makes sense, and has been on the Treasury wish list for a while.
Was there ever a better time to make a bold move toward simplification and merge tax and NI altogether? Yes, there’ll be an extra burden on wealthier pensioners, but not an unreasonable one in the circumstances.
The economy has been tanked largely to save the elderly. The elderly are going to have to accept that there must be a price to pay for that.
The end of the triple lock for sure. We are going to be at risk of inflation. It has to go.
Not a chance. Unless it was announced now, during the most intense panic, people will go nuts about losing perks like the triple lock once the crisis has ebbed. Doesnt matter inflation is coming, it'll be 'I was at risk and people i knew died, and now you're punishing me for surviving?'. There will always be other changes to be made instead. Same with other measures - ideas need floating now to get some agreement evening detail must be later (given we dont know how much impact there will be).
Rishi has a lot of capital. He is going to have to spend it.
Sorry, pensioners. The next few years are going to be about improving the efficacy of the economically active.
For how long? The public can't be eating that much more, and there must be a physical limit to most people's stockpiling.
No, the issue is that 20-30% of our intake comes from eating out. Lunches, work canteens, nights out, pubs etc... All of this now has to be replaced by home cooking.
Its not just that. Work from home + full fridges and cupboards means food gets eaten faster. Also these aren't normal times. People think they need to keep 14 days of food at home in stock at all times - so that means a lot of sizable top-up shops. The data is clear - more consumers making more trips and buying more on those trips. It has slowed down vs last week but its still way above anything normal.
Indeed I went to the supermarket for the first time since lockdown last night. It was eerie with the social distancing regulations in force. Our stocks were very low at home which is why I went shopping but now I've got stuff in my children are already eager to eat the snacks that we now have.
The comms over this antibody test is starting to piss me off. One day we hear it is just days away. Later same day there is a discussion of how must be absolutely sure it works before using it, so tests on going. Now it seems it is within two weeks away, but unsure whether wide public will have it at first.
Why don't they just say there may be such a test, it would really help, but we are still testing the test and will get back to you.
Pretty much what the lady said yesterday or the day before at the PC.
Although it is not getting a lot of airtime, the Chancellor is already flagging that he is thinking about how to balance the books.
Harmonising self employed tax and NI with that of the employed clearly makes sense, and has been on the Treasury wish list for a while.
Was there ever a better time to make a bold move toward simplification and merge tax and NI altogether? Yes, there’ll be an extra burden on wealthier pensioners, but not an unreasonable one in the circumstances.
The economy has been tanked largely to save the elderly. The elderly are going to have to accept that there must be a price to pay for that.
The end of the triple lock for sure. We are going to be at risk of inflation. It has to go.
Not a chance. Unless it was announced now, during the most intense panic, people will go nuts about losing perks like the triple lock once the crisis has ebbed. Doesnt matter inflation is coming, it'll be 'I was at risk and people i knew died, and now you're punishing me for surviving?'. There will always be other changes to be made instead. Same with other measures - ideas need floating now to get some agreement evening detail must be later (given we dont know how much impact there will be).
Rishi has a lot of capital. He is going to have to spend it.
Sorry, pensioners. The next few years are going to be about improving the efficacy of the economically active.
That's what should happen. What will happen remains to be seen.
But I agree we cant stay in a world where everything on offer to working age people is relentlessly cut back, whereas pensioners only need to write a few letters and the most modest cutback in their perks is immediately shelved.
Although it is not getting a lot of airtime, the Chancellor is already flagging that he is thinking about how to balance the books.
Harmonising self employed tax and NI with that of the employed clearly makes sense, and has been on the Treasury wish list for a while.
Was there ever a better time to make a bold move toward simplification and merge tax and NI altogether? Yes, there’ll be an extra burden on wealthier pensioners, but not an unreasonable one in the circumstances.
The economy has been tanked largely to save the elderly. The elderly are going to have to accept that there must be a price to pay for that.
The end of the triple lock for sure. We are going to be at risk of inflation. It has to go.
Wasnt one of the issues of triple lock that very low inflation meant pensions went up by more? Higher inflation removes one lock.
Introduced in 2011 by the coalition government, the triple lock guarantees that the basic state pension will rise by a minimum of either 2.5%, the rate of inflation or average earnings growth, whichever is largest.
The triple lock is doomed.
You're understanding it backwards.
Increasing by the rate of inflation doesn't cost anything at all in real terms.
Increasing by 2.5% if inflation is extremely low is expensive in real terms.
But I'm looking forwards, not backwards.
State pensioners have done very well for a decade out of the triple lock. That ends now.
We pensioners are goona get fuck all help in terms of who hets medical help if we get covid.. leave our effing pensions alone!!
Except that's not the case. We've trashed the economy to keep over 70s alive. The correct decision, of course, but it's only fair that the group who have benefited from it make the largest contribution to getting the nation back on its feet.
In other news, the LibDems have postponed their leadership election until 2021.
From a betting perspective I reckon this makes Davey a good bet: he'll effectively have been doing the job for over a year and may well be a shoo-in when the vote eventually comes. Currently 2.3 on BFE.
What's that going to do to all the Corbynites demanding Labour's leadership election be postponed?
Indeed! And to bring some semblance of normality I am sat at my desk in a 3 piece suit. #dressupfriday
With cufflinks like David Cameron or Jacob Rees-Mogg, or ordinary, buttoned single cuffs like our man-of-the-people, Eton and Oxford Prime Minister?
Double-cuff shirts are the only shirts. Lets have a bit of fucking decorum
Decorum? Aren't they so you can wipe your nose on the cuff and then fold it back with the debris inside. An innovation from Napoleonic France.
I wear double cuffs in court but I can't say that I have ever done that. And a waistcoat, striped trousers, tails, a white bow tie, wing collar and a horsehair wig. I look like a total prat tbh. Thankfully the courts are starting to restrict this nonsense to proofs (civil trials). Can't have the general public knowing we are actually relatively normal in reality.
Although it is not getting a lot of airtime, the Chancellor is already flagging that he is thinking about how to balance the books.
Harmonising self employed tax and NI with that of the employed clearly makes sense, and has been on the Treasury wish list for a while.
Was there ever a better time to make a bold move toward simplification and merge tax and NI altogether? Yes, there’ll be an extra burden on wealthier pensioners, but not an unreasonable one in the circumstances.
The economy has been tanked largely to save the elderly. The elderly are going to have to accept that there must be a price to pay for that.
The end of the triple lock for sure. We are going to be at risk of inflation. It has to go.
Wasnt one of the issues of triple lock that very low inflation meant pensions went up by more? Higher inflation removes one lock.
Introduced in 2011 by the coalition government, the triple lock guarantees that the basic state pension will rise by a minimum of either 2.5%, the rate of inflation or average earnings growth, whichever is largest.
The triple lock is doomed.
You're understanding it backwards.
Increasing by the rate of inflation doesn't cost anything at all in real terms.
Increasing by 2.5% if inflation is extremely low is expensive in real terms.
It depends if you're hoping to use inflation to reduce your costs, then having an outgoing index-linked stands in the way of that.
Keeping expenses the same in real terms is more expensive than reducing them in real terms, but far cheaper than compound increasing it in real terms.
The triple lock is more expensive in an era of low inflation than high inflation.
That's true, but it could still be too expensive with high inflation. We saw this to a limited extent during the Coalition years when pay increases were below inflation, which ultimately has an impact on the tax take to support index-linked pensions.
In other news, the LibDems have postponed their leadership election until 2021.
From a betting perspective I reckon this makes Davey a good bet: he'll effectively have been doing the job for over a year and may well be a shoo-in when the vote eventually comes. Currently 2.3 on BFE.
Surely he is the only sensible option for them so probably the not so fragrant Layla will win
For how long? The public can't be eating that much more, and there must be a physical limit to most people's stockpiling.
No, the issue is that 20-30% of our intake comes from eating out. Lunches, work canteens, nights out, pubs etc... All of this now has to be replaced by home cooking.
Its not just that. Work from home + full fridges and cupboards means food gets eaten faster. Also these aren't normal times. People think they need to keep 14 days of food at home in stock at all times - so that means a lot of sizable top-up shops. The data is clear - more consumers making more trips and buying more on those trips. It has slowed down vs last week but its still way above anything normal.
I think you are right. I also think a lot of the "panic buying" was people trying to get 3 month of shopping done.
One chap I know has confessed that his actions were - Put the junk in the garage on the council tip. Buy shelves. Buy a chest freezer. Buy a bread maker. Fill shelves and chest freezer.
We know that social contact these days is out. We know that alcohol above 70% kills the virus. We know that hydroxychloroqin has proven an effective treatment in some cases and is a derivative of quinine. We now find out that lying on your front can stop you needing a ventilator. So really, the solution is to get sh*t-faced on maximum strength G&T, alone, and end up passing out face forward.
We do not know that chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine have been proven effective, though studies are ongoing. The Chinese study communicated yesterday showed no effect. In addition it can interfere with cardiac conduction, potentially an issue with COVID19 myocarditis. I appreciate there is a certain amount of levity in your comment, but would be cautious about the rush to judgement.
In terms of positioning, there is an interesting review of prone ventilation for ARDS here:
There are some benefits, and some downsides. The better oxygenation and reduced lung injury vs increased cardiac arrest.
A little breathless, and tight chest, coughing again, but O2 sats OK, and still no fever.
Testing later. The view is that leaving it a couple of days after symptoms appear increases the chances of an accurate result. It shouldn't increase my self isolation or alter treatment in the short term.
Fingers crossed for you, Foxy. A question that has puzzled me a bit - clearly London is running a bit ahead of the rest of the country but, since we slammed on the brakes at the same rate everywhere, does it not follow that the peak will take place at the same time everywhere, just with a lower amplitude outside London? I've heard several colleagues say that the peak will be deferred (i.e., later) outside London but I don't see, from a social distancing perspective why this should be the case. Am I missing something?
Yes, I would expect the peak to be near simultaneous across the country, but lower in amplitude in less affected areas too.
There may well be patchy peaks reflecting local variation, such as a big outbreak in large nursing home etc.
I think the problem in Leicester is not yet overwhelming numbers (we reported 9 fatalities in total yesterday, for a population of a million) but more the numbers of staff needing to self isolate, including myself.
Although it is not getting a lot of airtime, the Chancellor is already flagging that he is thinking about how to balance the books.
Harmonising self employed tax and NI with that of the employed clearly makes sense, and has been on the Treasury wish list for a while.
Was there ever a better time to make a bold move toward simplification and merge tax and NI altogether? Yes, there’ll be an extra burden on wealthier pensioners, but not an unreasonable one in the circumstances.
The economy has been tanked largely to save the elderly. The elderly are going to have to accept that there must be a price to pay for that.
The end of the triple lock for sure. We are going to be at risk of inflation. It has to go.
Wasnt one of the issues of triple lock that very low inflation meant pensions went up by more? Higher inflation removes one lock.
Introduced in 2011 by the coalition government, the triple lock guarantees that the basic state pension will rise by a minimum of either 2.5%, the rate of inflation or average earnings growth, whichever is largest.
The triple lock is doomed.
You're understanding it backwards.
Increasing by the rate of inflation doesn't cost anything at all in real terms.
Increasing by 2.5% if inflation is extremely low is expensive in real terms.
But I'm looking forwards, not backwards.
State pensioners have done very well for a decade out of the triple lock. That ends now.
We pensioners are goona get fuck all help in terms of who hets medical help if we get covid.. leave our effing pensions alone!!
Except that's not the case. We've trashed the economy to keep over 70s alive. The correct decision, of course, but it's only fair that the group who have benefited from it make the largest contribution to getting the nation back on its feet.
Agreed. That is going to require the Boris and Rishi show to be at their salesmen best.....because it is their core vote who have to lose out.
We know that social contact these days is out. We know that alcohol above 70% kills the virus. We know that hydroxychloroqin has proven an effective treatment in some cases and is a derivative of quinine. We now find out that lying on your front can stop you needing a ventilator. So really, the solution is to get sh*t-faced on maximum strength G&T, alone, and end up passing out face forward.
We do not know that chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine have been proven effective, though studies are ongoing. The Chinese study communicated yesterday showed no effect. In addition it can interfere with cardiac conduction, potentially an issue with COVID19 myocarditis. I appreciate there is a certain amount of levity in your comment, but would be cautious about the rush to judgement.
In terms of positioning, there is an interesting review of prone ventilation for ARDS here:
There are some benefits, and some downsides. The better oxygenation and reduced lung injury vs increased cardiac arrest.
A little breathless, and tight chest, coughing again, but O2 sats OK, and still no fever.
Testing later. The view is that leaving it a couple of days after symptoms appear increases the chances of an accurate result. It shouldn't increase my self isolation or alter treatment in the short term.
Fingers crossed for you, Foxy. A question that has puzzled me a bit - clearly London is running a bit ahead of the rest of the country but, since we slammed on the brakes at the same rate everywhere, does it not follow that the peak will take place at the same time everywhere, just with a lower amplitude outside London? I've heard several colleagues say that the peak will be deferred (i.e., later) outside London but I don't see, from a social distancing perspective why this should be the case. Am I missing something?
The peak would have been much later outside London, if nothing had been done, since it takes time for widespread infection to gather pace, and clearly London is running ahead.
You might be right if the lockdown is 100% effective, since in a fortnight all new infection would stop, everywhere.
But since the lockdown will actually be X% effective, where X is considerably short of 100%, the reality will be inbetween, and London will still peak first.
I'm not sure I follow.
The peak amplitude depends upon the number of individuals infected at the point when a lockdown begins, with the time until the peak arises depending only upon when lockdown starts (in principle). Once lockdown begins, if it is equally effective across the country, a subset of those infected prior to lockdown will display serious symptoms between 1 and 21 days after lockdown (peaking around day 14 but with a plateau in the middle) and a subset will be able to spread the virus to others (e.g., family members) giving a tail of cases.
But in any event, the timing of the peak should be consistent everywhere. Indeed, since I suspect lockdown is less effective in London (e.g., the tube still functioning) I would not be so surprised if they peak after (or certainly have a longer plateau) than other parts of the country.
Although it is not getting a lot of airtime, the Chancellor is already flagging that he is thinking about how to balance the books.
Harmonising self employed tax and NI with that of the employed clearly makes sense, and has been on the Treasury wish list for a while.
Was there ever a better time to make a bold move toward simplification and merge tax and NI altogether? Yes, there’ll be an extra burden on wealthier pensioners, but not an unreasonable one in the circumstances.
The economy has been tanked largely to save the elderly. The elderly are going to have to accept that there must be a price to pay for that.
The end of the triple lock for sure. We are going to be at risk of inflation. It has to go.
Not a chance. Unless it was announced now, during the most intense panic, people will go nuts about losing perks like the triple lock once the crisis has ebbed. Doesnt matter inflation is coming, it'll be 'I was at risk and people i knew died, and now you're punishing me for surviving?'. There will always be other changes to be made instead. Same with other measures - ideas need floating now to get some agreement evening detail must be later (given we dont know how much impact there will be).
I am pretty comfortably off wrt pension income and I think the triple lock has been very useful but yes it's not sustainable.
Although it is not getting a lot of airtime, the Chancellor is already flagging that he is thinking about how to balance the books.
Harmonising self employed tax and NI with that of the employed clearly makes sense, and has been on the Treasury wish list for a while.
Was there ever a better time to make a bold move toward simplification and merge tax and NI altogether? Yes, there’ll be an extra burden on wealthier pensioners, but not an unreasonable one in the circumstances.
The economy has been tanked largely to save the elderly. The elderly are going to have to accept that there must be a price to pay for that.
The end of the triple lock for sure. We are going to be at risk of inflation. It has to go.
Wasnt one of the issues of triple lock that very low inflation meant pensions went up by more? Higher inflation removes one lock.
Introduced in 2011 by the coalition government, the triple lock guarantees that the basic state pension will rise by a minimum of either 2.5%, the rate of inflation or average earnings growth, whichever is largest.
The triple lock is doomed.
You're understanding it backwards.
Increasing by the rate of inflation doesn't cost anything at all in real terms.
Increasing by 2.5% if inflation is extremely low is expensive in real terms.
But I'm looking forwards, not backwards.
State pensioners have done very well for a decade out of the triple lock. That ends now.
Yes, time to remove the inflation link and set the minimum increase to 1%. Pensioners need to take the weight of this. I'd also look at NI on pension income.
Pick battles that matter.
If inflation is going to be higher then 1% or 2.5% is immaterial, no money will be saved by making that change. If inflation is the cap then no money is gained by pensioners in real terms by keeping pensions in line with inflation.
Merging NI with Income Tax will be a massive tax hike and will bring a lot of money into the Exchequer. It also won't violate the manifesto.
Although it is not getting a lot of airtime, the Chancellor is already flagging that he is thinking about how to balance the books.
Harmonising self employed tax and NI with that of the employed clearly makes sense, and has been on the Treasury wish list for a while.
Was there ever a better time to make a bold move toward simplification and merge tax and NI altogether? Yes, there’ll be an extra burden on wealthier pensioners, but not an unreasonable one in the circumstances.
The economy has been tanked largely to save the elderly. The elderly are going to have to accept that there must be a price to pay for that.
The end of the triple lock for sure. We are going to be at risk of inflation. It has to go.
Not a chance. Unless it was announced now, during the most intense panic, people will go nuts about losing perks like the triple lock once the crisis has ebbed. Doesnt matter inflation is coming, it'll be 'I was at risk and people i knew died, and now you're punishing me for surviving?'. There will always be other changes to be made instead. Same with other measures - ideas need floating now to get some agreement evening detail must be later (given we dont know how much impact there will be).
Rishi has a lot of capital. He is going to have to spend it.
Sorry, pensioners. The next few years are going to be about improving the efficacy of the economically active.
I dont think he or Boris have the balls for that. Its not even a criticism of them, I do not think any politician would. In general that is - some individual measures will happen, but I think it'll be a huge problem always put off for another day in the hope something will come up and it'll be someone else's problem.
Hopefully I am wrong as it needs thinking about now.
Indeed! And to bring some semblance of normality I am sat at my desk in a 3 piece suit. #dressupfriday
With cufflinks like David Cameron or Jacob Rees-Mogg, or ordinary, buttoned single cuffs like our man-of-the-people, Eton and Oxford Prime Minister?
Double-cuff shirts are the only shirts. Lets have a bit of fucking decorum
My 3 button cuff, Sea Island quality Turnbull & Asser sniffs condescendingly..
Your shirt looks down on you ?
It's the generations of snobby tailors - the echos of their curled lips and condescending silences are carefully coated into the fabric as part of the process of making the shirt.
Although it is not getting a lot of airtime, the Chancellor is already flagging that he is thinking about how to balance the books.
Harmonising self employed tax and NI with that of the employed clearly makes sense, and has been on the Treasury wish list for a while.
Was there ever a better time to make a bold move toward simplification and merge tax and NI altogether? Yes, there’ll be an extra burden on wealthier pensioners, but not an unreasonable one in the circumstances.
The economy has been tanked largely to save the elderly. The elderly are going to have to accept that there must be a price to pay for that.
The end of the triple lock for sure. We are going to be at risk of inflation. It has to go.
Not a chance. Unless it was announced now, during the most intense panic, people will go nuts about losing perks like the triple lock once the crisis has ebbed. Doesnt matter inflation is coming, it'll be 'I was at risk and people i knew died, and now you're punishing me for surviving?'. There will always be other changes to be made instead. Same with other measures - ideas need floating now to get some agreement evening detail must be later (given we dont know how much impact there will be).
Rishi has a lot of capital. He is going to have to spend it.
Sorry, pensioners. The next few years are going to be about improving the efficacy of the economically active.
I dont think he or Boris have the balls for that. Its not even a criticism of them, I do not think any politician would. In general that is - some individual measures will happen, but I think it'll be a huge problem always put off for another day in the hope something will come up and it'll be someone else's problem.
Hopefully I am wrong as it needs thinking about now.
Although it is not getting a lot of airtime, the Chancellor is already flagging that he is thinking about how to balance the books.
Harmonising self employed tax and NI with that of the employed clearly makes sense, and has been on the Treasury wish list for a while.
Was there ever a better time to make a bold move toward simplification and merge tax and NI altogether? Yes, there’ll be an extra burden on wealthier pensioners, but not an unreasonable one in the circumstances.
The economy has been tanked largely to save the elderly. The elderly are going to have to accept that there must be a price to pay for that.
The end of the triple lock for sure. We are going to be at risk of inflation. It has to go.
Wasnt one of the issues of triple lock that very low inflation meant pensions went up by more? Higher inflation removes one lock.
Introduced in 2011 by the coalition government, the triple lock guarantees that the basic state pension will rise by a minimum of either 2.5%, the rate of inflation or average earnings growth, whichever is largest.
The triple lock is doomed.
You're understanding it backwards.
Increasing by the rate of inflation doesn't cost anything at all in real terms.
Increasing by 2.5% if inflation is extremely low is expensive in real terms.
But I'm looking forwards, not backwards.
State pensioners have done very well for a decade out of the triple lock. That ends now.
We pensioners are goona get fuck all help in terms of who hets medical help if we get covid.. leave our effing pensions alone!!
We know that social contact these days is out. We know that alcohol above 70% kills the virus. We know that hydroxychloroqin has proven an effective treatment in some cases and is a derivative of quinine. We now find out that lying on your front can stop you needing a ventilator. So really, the solution is to get sh*t-faced on maximum strength G&T, alone, and end up passing out face forward.
We do not know that chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine have been proven effective, though studies are ongoing. The Chinese study communicated yesterday showed no effect. In addition it can interfere with cardiac conduction, potentially an issue with COVID19 myocarditis. I appreciate there is a certain amount of levity in your comment, but would be cautious about the rush to judgement.
In terms of positioning, there is an interesting review of prone ventilation for ARDS here:
There are some benefits, and some downsides. The better oxygenation and reduced lung injury vs increased cardiac arrest.
A little breathless, and tight chest, coughing again, but O2 sats OK, and still no fever.
Testing later. The view is that leaving it a couple of days after symptoms appear increases the chances of an accurate result. It shouldn't increase my self isolation or alter treatment in the short term.
Fingers crossed for you, Foxy. A question that has puzzled me a bit - clearly London is running a bit ahead of the rest of the country but, since we slammed on the brakes at the same rate everywhere, does it not follow that the peak will take place at the same time everywhere, just with a lower amplitude outside London? I've heard several colleagues say that the peak will be deferred (i.e., later) outside London but I don't see, from a social distancing perspective why this should be the case. Am I missing something?
The peak would have been much later outside London, if nothing had been done, since it takes time for widespread infection to gather pace, and clearly London is running ahead.
You might be right if the lockdown is 100% effective, since in a fortnight all new infection would stop, everywhere.
But since the lockdown will actually be X% effective, where X is considerably short of 100%, the reality will be inbetween, and London will still peak first.
I'm not sure I follow.
The peak amplitude depends upon the number of individuals infected at the point when a lockdown begins, with the time until the peak arises depending only upon when lockdown starts (in principle). Once lockdown begins, if it is equally effective across the country, a subset of those infected prior to lockdown will display serious symptoms between 1 and 21 days after lockdown (peaking around day 14 but with a plateau in the middle) and a subset will be able to spread the virus to others (e.g., family members) giving a tail of cases.
But in any event, the timing of the peak should be consistent everywhere. Indeed, since I suspect lockdown is less effective in London (e.g., the tube still functioning) I would not be so surprised if they peak after (or certainly have a longer plateau) than other parts of the country.
Does that make sense?
Correcting the blockquotes...not really. You still appear to be assuming the lockdown is 100% effective.
If 90% of people took no notice and carried on as normal, quite obviously the effect of the lockdown would be minimal.
If 10% carry on as normal, it would be much more effective. But, given the larger number of people already infected in London, the 10% sneaking out will spread the infection more quickly - and bring it back to their families - than in the rest of the country. Although at 10% this would be marginal.
Although it is not getting a lot of airtime, the Chancellor is already flagging that he is thinking about how to balance the books.
Harmonising self employed tax and NI with that of the employed clearly makes sense, and has been on the Treasury wish list for a while.
Was there ever a better time to make a bold move toward simplification and merge tax and NI altogether? Yes, there’ll be an extra burden on wealthier pensioners, but not an unreasonable one in the circumstances.
The economy has been tanked largely to save the elderly. The elderly are going to have to accept that there must be a price to pay for that.
The end of the triple lock for sure. We are going to be at risk of inflation. It has to go.
Not a chance. Unless it was announced now, during the most intense panic, people will go nuts about losing perks like the triple lock once the crisis has ebbed. Doesnt matter inflation is coming, it'll be 'I was at risk and people i knew died, and now you're punishing me for surviving?'. There will always be other changes to be made instead. Same with other measures - ideas need floating now to get some agreement evening detail must be later (given we dont know how much impact there will be).
Rishi has a lot of capital. He is going to have to spend it.
Sorry, pensioners. The next few years are going to be about improving the efficacy of the economically active.
I dont think he or Boris have the balls for that. Its not even a criticism of them, I do not think any politician would. In general that is - some individual measures will happen, but I think it'll be a huge problem always put off for another day in the hope something will come up and it'll be someone else's problem.
Hopefully I am wrong as it needs thinking about now.
I think that "another day" has arrived.
I dont disagree. But 4 months from now, 6 months from now, I doubt most people will. In theory, yes. But any actual proposals?
Although it is not getting a lot of airtime, the Chancellor is already flagging that he is thinking about how to balance the books.
Harmonising self employed tax and NI with that of the employed clearly makes sense, and has been on the Treasury wish list for a while.
Was there ever a better time to make a bold move toward simplification and merge tax and NI altogether? Yes, there’ll be an extra burden on wealthier pensioners, but not an unreasonable one in the circumstances.
The economy has been tanked largely to save the elderly. The elderly are going to have to accept that there must be a price to pay for that.
The end of the triple lock for sure. We are going to be at risk of inflation. It has to go.
Wasnt one of the issues of triple lock that very low inflation meant pensions went up by more? Higher inflation removes one lock.
Introduced in 2011 by the coalition government, the triple lock guarantees that the basic state pension will rise by a minimum of either 2.5%, the rate of inflation or average earnings growth, whichever is largest.
The triple lock is doomed.
You're understanding it backwards.
Increasing by the rate of inflation doesn't cost anything at all in real terms.
Increasing by 2.5% if inflation is extremely low is expensive in real terms.
But I'm looking forwards, not backwards.
State pensioners have done very well for a decade out of the triple lock. That ends now.
We pensioners are goona get fuck all help in terms of who hets medical help if we get covid.. leave our effing pensions alone!!
You think that if the severity and death rate of this virus were the same for everyone as it appears to be for, say, forty year olds, the entire population would be hiding indoors for a month while the whole economy goes to ruin? We don't do any of this for normal flu, which kills thousands every year.
We're only doing this because it hits the elderly more severely.
Unless it says to be ready next week I'd take away the 'very good'!
Sadly, no. (Though a few vaccines are ready to go into clinical trials.)
Trials take time... and aren't easy: Among the peculiarities of this pandemic, moreover, is the fact that we, the general populace, might determine how well human trials go. If huge swathes of society become infected before the vaccine is ready to test on humans, the trials will be difficult to conduct, said Sarah Gilbert, an immunologist at the University of Oxford’s Edward Jenner Institute for Vaccine Research. Gilbert’s team also has a vaccine candidate for Covid-19, based on an earlier vaccine it had devised for Middle East respiratory syndrome, or Mers, another coronavirus disease. In mid-March, Gilbert had to put an auto-response on her email. When her team was ready to recruit subjects for vaccine trials, it would be advertised on the website, she wrote. “Please do not contact me about volunteering.”
Gilbert’s worry is that, at the peak of infection, the virus will be bouncing so frantically around the population that “you can’t screen your volunteers. By the time you get their results back, they may have been exposed.” Organising trials after the peak subsides presents another problem, because so many people will have cultivated a natural immunity by then. Transmission will have dropped as well, Gilbert said – it’s hard to know how well a vaccine trial is going if the subjects aren’t being exposed to the virus at all. “This is herd immunity – good for the population, but it makes testing a vaccine more difficult,” she explained.
The best possible scenario involves delaying the pandemic’s peak – pushing it through the summer towards August, to buy scientists a few extra months to run their trials. “So we’d really be pleased,” Gilbert said sternly, “if everyone will just do what they’re being told and stay at home.”...
What I think we are seeing in response to this virus is a change in the collective mindset towards, well, collectivism. We are (nearly) all much more conscious that we are affected by the behaviour of others and likewise them with us. We are more willing to recognise that, for example, people should not be penalised for doing the right thing and that society collectively needs to bail them out. We are (or at least I am) more aware of how many vulnerable people there are in our society and how important it is to help them.
Will we ever go back to people waiting weeks for their benefits and a vicious sanctions regime? Surely not.
If we can house the homeless now why the hell did we not do it years ago?
If the economy can sustain whateverittakes economics what were the arguments about relatively modest differences in public spending about?
After WW2 the country threw out Churchill and elected a Labour government who transformed our society, mainly for the good. I can see such a leftward swing happening again. I wonder if our ever flexible Boris and the clever Rishi just might be able to harness it as the Tory party reinvents itself once again.
A question that has puzzled me a bit - clearly London is running a bit ahead of the rest of the country but, since we slammed on the brakes at the same rate everywhere, does it not follow that the peak will take place at the same time everywhere, just with a lower amplitude outside London? I've heard several colleagues say that the peak will be deferred (i.e., later) outside London but I don't see, from a social distancing perspective why this should be the case. Am I missing something?
Doesn't the percentage of immune people locally come into the formula ?
Just gone on my Sky app and Sky are allowing you to suspend the Sky Sports package with immediate effect but still allow access to their sport channels.
They will re-instate the charge when sport becomes active again
Just gone on my Sky app and Sky are allowing you to suspend the Sky Sports package with immediate effect but still allow access to their sport channels.
They will re-instate the charge when sport becomes active again
I read reference to o2 levels. Is it worth getting an o2 device and what would one be looking for in terms of appropriate oxygen levels? Any device recommendations? Do they have wider uses beyond this crisis?
A question that has puzzled me a bit - clearly London is running a bit ahead of the rest of the country but, since we slammed on the brakes at the same rate everywhere, does it not follow that the peak will take place at the same time everywhere, just with a lower amplitude outside London? I've heard several colleagues say that the peak will be deferred (i.e., later) outside London but I don't see, from a social distancing perspective why this should be the case. Am I missing something?
Doesn't the percentage of immune people locally come into the formula ?
That was my uneducated understanding. Peak was when you reached the top of the curve and this occurred when the virus was running out of targets reducing the rate of spread. If you restrict too soon then there will still be plenty of targets for any remaining virus once the restrictions come off. It comes back to the same question: have the east Asians merely deferred pain or have they avoided it?
Although it is not getting a lot of airtime, the Chancellor is already flagging that he is thinking about how to balance the books.
Harmonising self employed tax and NI with that of the employed clearly makes sense, and has been on the Treasury wish list for a while.
Was there ever a better time to make a bold move toward simplification and merge tax and NI altogether? Yes, there’ll be an extra burden on wealthier pensioners, but not an unreasonable one in the circumstances.
The economy has been tanked largely to save the elderly. The elderly are going to have to accept that there must be a price to pay for that.
The end of the triple lock for sure. We are going to be at risk of inflation. It has to go.
Wasnt one of the issues of triple lock that very low inflation meant pensions went up by more? Higher inflation removes one lock.
Introduced in 2011 by the coalition government, the triple lock guarantees that the basic state pension will rise by a minimum of either 2.5%, the rate of inflation or average earnings growth, whichever is largest.
The triple lock is doomed.
That might the hardest of the 3 to get rid of. But if inflation stays steady above 2.5% it could be a good time to ditch that as the minimum, and maybe the earnings link too.
Why not add employer's NI to individual NI, re-name it National Health Insurance, and then hypothecate it to health and social care?
Because that wouldn't make a pennies difference to the Exchequer and isn't enough to pay for it.
My reason for suggesting a move to hypothecation is that you could then increase the NHI without the people paying suspecting they were funding general expenditure.
Nurses not diversity officers as the Sun might say.
Although it is not getting a lot of airtime, the Chancellor is already flagging that he is thinking about how to balance the books.
Harmonising self employed tax and NI with that of the employed clearly makes sense, and has been on the Treasury wish list for a while.
Was there ever a better time to make a bold move toward simplification and merge tax and NI altogether? Yes, there’ll be an extra burden on wealthier pensioners, but not an unreasonable one in the circumstances.
The economy has been tanked largely to save the elderly. The elderly are going to have to accept that there must be a price to pay for that.
The end of the triple lock for sure. We are going to be at risk of inflation. It has to go.
Wasnt one of the issues of triple lock that very low inflation meant pensions went up by more? Higher inflation removes one lock.
Introduced in 2011 by the coalition government, the triple lock guarantees that the basic state pension will rise by a minimum of either 2.5%, the rate of inflation or average earnings growth, whichever is largest.
The triple lock is doomed.
That might the hardest of the 3 to get rid of. But if inflation stays steady above 2.5% it could be a good time to ditch that as the minimum, and maybe the earnings link too.
Why bother though, unless you're expecting inflation to fall again too?
We know that social contact these days is out. We know that alcohol above 70% kills the virus. We know that hydroxychloroqin has proven an effective treatment in some cases and is a derivative of quinine. We now find out that lying on your front can stop you needing a ventilator. So really, the solution is to get sh*t-faced on maximum strength G&T, alone, and end up passing out face forward.
We do not know that chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine have been proven effective, though studies are ongoing. The Chinese study communicated yesterday showed no effect. In addition it can interfere with cardiac conduction, potentially an issue with COVID19 myocarditis. I appreciate there is a certain amount of levity in your comment, but would be cautious about the rush to judgement.
In terms of positioning, there is an interesting review of prone ventilation for ARDS here:
There are some benefits, and some downsides. The better oxygenation and reduced lung injury vs increased cardiac arrest.
A little breathless, and tight chest, coughing again, but O2 sats OK, and still no fever.
Testing later. The view is that leaving it a couple of days after symptoms appear increases the chances of an accurate result. It shouldn't increase my self isolation or alter treatment in the short term.
Fingers crossed for you, Foxy. A question that has puzzled me a bit - clearly London is running a bit ahead of the rest of the country but, since we slammed on the brakes at the same rate everywhere, does it not follow that the peak will take place at the same time everywhere, just with a lower amplitude outside London? I've heard several colleagues say that the peak will be deferred (i.e., later) outside London but I don't see, from a social distancing perspective why this should be the case. Am I missing something?
Yes, I would expect the peak to be near simultaneous across the country, but lower in amplitude in less affected areas too.
There may well be patchy peaks reflecting local variation, such as a big outbreak in large nursing home etc.
I think the problem in Leicester is not yet overwhelming numbers (we reported 9 fatalities in total yesterday, for a population of a million) but more the numbers of staff needing to self isolate, including myself.
Yes - I've heard that here as well, albeit the number of cases is also manageable locally (indeed, quite low I'm told). Given this, it feels like the local peak will be bad but manageable. But friends at hospitals in Herts tell me they are expecting the London overflow to go there, and all the anecdata from colleagues suggests that London is in a bad shape. Hence (and especially given the, I suspect, weaker social distancing there) that the plateau there will be worse than elsewhere in the country.
I read reference to o2 levels. Is it worth getting an o2 device and what would one be looking for in terms of appropriate oxygen levels? Any device recommendations? Do they have wider uses beyond this crisis?
Amazon, about £17. Below 93 is bad, apparently. 98 plus is good. To amuse your friends? You could also use it to hold papers together.
Just gone on my Sky app and Sky are allowing you to suspend the Sky Sports package with immediate effect but still allow access to their sport channels.
They will re-instate the charge when sport becomes active again
Fair play to Sky
Is it automatic or do we need to apply for it?
It looks as if you need to do it through the my sky app and it is easy to do
Although it is not getting a lot of airtime, the Chancellor is already flagging that he is thinking about how to balance the books.
Harmonising self employed tax and NI with that of the employed clearly makes sense, and has been on the Treasury wish list for a while.
Was there ever a better time to make a bold move toward simplification and merge tax and NI altogether? Yes, there’ll be an extra burden on wealthier pensioners, but not an unreasonable one in the circumstances.
The economy has been tanked largely to save the elderly. The elderly are going to have to accept that there must be a price to pay for that.
The end of the triple lock for sure. We are going to be at risk of inflation. It has to go.
Wasnt one of the issues of triple lock that very low inflation meant pensions went up by more? Higher inflation removes one lock.
Introduced in 2011 by the coalition government, the triple lock guarantees that the basic state pension will rise by a minimum of either 2.5%, the rate of inflation or average earnings growth, whichever is largest.
The triple lock is doomed.
You're understanding it backwards.
Increasing by the rate of inflation doesn't cost anything at all in real terms.
Increasing by 2.5% if inflation is extremely low is expensive in real terms.
But I'm looking forwards, not backwards.
State pensioners have done very well for a decade out of the triple lock. That ends now.
We pensioners are goona get fuck all help in terms of who hets medical help if we get covid.. leave our effing pensions alone!!
As I predicted.
Indeed. The most selfish generation at it again. Nowhere near the level of self sacrifice their parents generation went through and nothing close to what they are asking of their children and grandchildren.
What I think we are seeing in response to this virus is a change in the collective mindset towards, well, collectivism. We are (nearly) all much more conscious that we are affected by the behaviour of others and likewise them with us. We are more willing to recognise that, for example, people should not be penalised for doing the right thing and that society collectively needs to bail them out. We are (or at least I am) more aware of how many vulnerable people there are in our society and how important it is to help them.
Will we ever go back to people waiting weeks for their benefits and a vicious sanctions regime? Surely not.
If we can house the homeless now why the hell did we not do it years ago?
If the economy can sustain whateverittakes economics what were the arguments about relatively modest differences in public spending about?
After WW2 the country threw out Churchill and elected a Labour government who transformed our society, mainly for the good. I can see such a leftward swing happening again. I wonder if our ever flexible Boris and the clever Rishi just might be able to harness it as the Tory party reinvents itself once again.
Quite so. This is because from the late 1970s the New Right presented the welfare state simply as a timeless artefact of moral indulgence and decadence, without placing it in its historical context. Many people have forgotten why the country became more collectivist in the first place because of this.
What I think we are seeing in response to this virus is a change in the collective mindset towards, well, collectivism. We are (nearly) all much more conscious that we are affected by the behaviour of others and likewise them with us. We are more willing to recognise that, for example, people should not be penalised for doing the right thing and that society collectively needs to bail them out. We are (or at least I am) more aware of how many vulnerable people there are in our society and how important it is to help them.
Will we ever go back to people waiting weeks for their benefits and a vicious sanctions regime? Surely not.
If we can house the homeless now why the hell did we not do it years ago?
If the economy can sustain whateverittakes economics what were the arguments about relatively modest differences in public spending about?
After WW2 the country threw out Churchill and elected a Labour government who transformed our society, mainly for the good. I can see such a leftward swing happening again. I wonder if our ever flexible Boris and the clever Rishi just might be able to harness it as the Tory party reinvents itself once again.
Assuming the feeling lasts - a big if - there may be some changes. However, some social phenomena are not that simple. Some rough sleepers , eg, always prefer the streets to the alternatives. It seems to be just a quirk of human nature. Regarding the benefit system - it goes back at least as far as the 1600 Poor Laws remember and from day 1 there has always been a tension between desire to help those in poverty through no fault of their own and the idle and feckless. While over time the terminology has changed, in essence the tension remains. Those who work hard and save will always resent those who don't and game the system.
A question that has puzzled me a bit - clearly London is running a bit ahead of the rest of the country but, since we slammed on the brakes at the same rate everywhere, does it not follow that the peak will take place at the same time everywhere, just with a lower amplitude outside London? I've heard several colleagues say that the peak will be deferred (i.e., later) outside London but I don't see, from a social distancing perspective why this should be the case. Am I missing something?
Doesn't the percentage of immune people locally come into the formula ?
That was my uneducated understanding. Peak was when you reached the top of the curve and this occurred when the virus was running out of targets reducing the rate of spread. If you restrict too soon then there will still be plenty of targets for any remaining virus once the restrictions come off. It comes back to the same question: have the east Asians merely deferred pain or have they avoided it?
I don't think anywhere across the country are there enough immune people for this to have an effect yet (if we assume 3% are infected that still gives a huge reservoir of people without immunity). Simply - if we isolate entirely we cannot infect others. It means that next time there are more people to infect so we have a similar epidemic (without other actions) but the number of people infected in this first epidemic should theoretically depend only upon the efficiency of the lockdown.
I read reference to o2 levels. Is it worth getting an o2 device and what would one be looking for in terms of appropriate oxygen levels? Any device recommendations? Do they have wider uses beyond this crisis?
Amazon, about £17. Below 93 is bad, apparently. 98 plus is good. To amuse your friends? You could also use it to hold papers together.
I have had one for some time and it is good for me to use occassionally for my copd
A question that has puzzled me a bit - clearly London is running a bit ahead of the rest of the country but, since we slammed on the brakes at the same rate everywhere, does it not follow that the peak will take place at the same time everywhere, just with a lower amplitude outside London? I've heard several colleagues say that the peak will be deferred (i.e., later) outside London but I don't see, from a social distancing perspective why this should be the case. Am I missing something?
Doesn't the percentage of immune people locally come into the formula ?
That was my uneducated understanding. Peak was when you reached the top of the curve and this occurred when the virus was running out of targets reducing the rate of spread. If you restrict too soon then there will still be plenty of targets for any remaining virus once the restrictions come off. It comes back to the same question: have the east Asians merely deferred pain or have they avoided it?
I don't think anywhere across the country are there enough immune people for this to have an effect yet (if we assume 3% are infected that still gives a huge reservoir of people without immunity). Simply - if we isolate entirely we cannot infect others. It means that next time there are more people to infect so we have a similar epidemic (without other actions) but the number of people infected in this first epidemic should theoretically depend only upon the efficiency of the lockdown.
PS You would be correct about the peak if we were doing no social distancing.
For how long? The public can't be eating that much more, and there must be a physical limit to most people's stockpiling.
No, the issue is that 20-30% of our intake comes from eating out. Lunches, work canteens, nights out, pubs etc... All of this now has to be replaced by home cooking.
Its not just that. Work from home + full fridges and cupboards means food gets eaten faster. Also these aren't normal times. People think they need to keep 14 days of food at home in stock at all times - so that means a lot of sizable top-up shops. The data is clear - more consumers making more trips and buying more on those trips. It has slowed down vs last week but its still way above anything normal.
Am I the only person who is eating less now than before ?
And I've only had 1 unit of alcohol in the last 11 days and that was only a Fosters Radler so barely counts.
I'm also exercising more.
These have not been conscious decisions but rather seem to have happened 'naturally'.
I'm still working so its not as if my lifestyle has changed.
Although it is not getting a lot of airtime, the Chancellor is already flagging that he is thinking about how to balance the books.
Harmonising self employed tax and NI with that of the employed clearly makes sense, and has been on the Treasury wish list for a while.
Was there ever a better time to make a bold move toward simplification and merge tax and NI altogether? Yes, there’ll be an extra burden on wealthier pensioners, but not an unreasonable one in the circumstances.
The economy has been tanked largely to save the elderly. The elderly are going to have to accept that there must be a price to pay for that.
The end of the triple lock for sure. We are going to be at risk of inflation. It has to go.
Wasnt one of the issues of triple lock that very low inflation meant pensions went up by more? Higher inflation removes one lock.
Introduced in 2011 by the coalition government, the triple lock guarantees that the basic state pension will rise by a minimum of either 2.5%, the rate of inflation or average earnings growth, whichever is largest.
The triple lock is doomed.
That might the hardest of the 3 to get rid of. But if inflation stays steady above 2.5% it could be a good time to ditch that as the minimum, and maybe the earnings link too.
Why bother though, unless you're expecting inflation to fall again too?
Drop them during the inflationary spike so that we are ready for the deflationary slump?
What I think we are seeing in response to this virus is a change in the collective mindset towards, well, collectivism. We are (nearly) all much more conscious that we are affected by the behaviour of others and likewise them with us. We are more willing to recognise that, for example, people should not be penalised for doing the right thing and that society collectively needs to bail them out. We are (or at least I am) more aware of how many vulnerable people there are in our society and how important it is to help them.
Will we ever go back to people waiting weeks for their benefits and a vicious sanctions regime? Surely not.
If we can house the homeless now why the hell did we not do it years ago?
If the economy can sustain whateverittakes economics what were the arguments about relatively modest differences in public spending about?
After WW2 the country threw out Churchill and elected a Labour government who transformed our society, mainly for the good. I can see such a leftward swing happening again. I wonder if our ever flexible Boris and the clever Rishi just might be able to harness it as the Tory party reinvents itself once again.
Assuming the feeling lasts - a big if - there may be some changes. However, some social phenomena are not that simple. Some rough sleepers , eg, always prefer the streets to the alternatives. It seems to be just a quirk of human nature. Regarding the benefit system - it goes back at least as far as the 1600 Poor Laws remember and from day 1 there has always been a tension between desire to help those in poverty through no fault of their own and the idle and feckless. While over time the terminology has changed, in essence the tension remains. Those who work hard and save will always resent those who don't and game the system.
There was effectively no system to game before the collective experience of World War II.
Although it is not getting a lot of airtime, the Chancellor is already flagging that he is thinking about how to balance the books.
Harmonising self employed tax and NI with that of the employed clearly makes sense, and has been on the Treasury wish list for a while.
Was there ever a better time to make a bold move toward simplification and merge tax and NI altogether? Yes, there’ll be an extra burden on wealthier pensioners, but not an unreasonable one in the circumstances.
The economy has been tanked largely to save the elderly. The elderly are going to have to accept that there must be a price to pay for that.
The end of the triple lock for sure. We are going to be at risk of inflation. It has to go.
Wasnt one of the issues of triple lock that very low inflation meant pensions went up by more? Higher inflation removes one lock.
Introduced in 2011 by the coalition government, the triple lock guarantees that the basic state pension will rise by a minimum of either 2.5%, the rate of inflation or average earnings growth, whichever is largest.
The triple lock is doomed.
You're understanding it backwards.
Increasing by the rate of inflation doesn't cost anything at all in real terms.
Increasing by 2.5% if inflation is extremely low is expensive in real terms.
But I'm looking forwards, not backwards.
State pensioners have done very well for a decade out of the triple lock. That ends now.
Yes, time to remove the inflation link and set the minimum increase to 1%. Pensioners need to take the weight of this. I'd also look at NI on pension income.
Philip’s trying to make this point but inflation is NOT the expensive part of the triple lock. It is the only bit of the triple lock which doesn’t cost money. Linking to inflation only is what used to happen and the reason the triple lock was introduced (well since the 80s the main demand was a link to earnings, but the 2.5% was added as the third element when they slumped after the financial crash). Remove an inflation link and state pensions become worthless pretty quickly. Even more so if inflation takes off. Which just increases the burden on the state in other areas.
A question that has puzzled me a bit - clearly London is running a bit ahead of the rest of the country but, since we slammed on the brakes at the same rate everywhere, does it not follow that the peak will take place at the same time everywhere, just with a lower amplitude outside London? I've heard several colleagues say that the peak will be deferred (i.e., later) outside London but I don't see, from a social distancing perspective why this should be the case. Am I missing something?
Doesn't the percentage of immune people locally come into the formula ?
That was my uneducated understanding. Peak was when you reached the top of the curve and this occurred when the virus was running out of targets reducing the rate of spread. If you restrict too soon then there will still be plenty of targets for any remaining virus once the restrictions come off. It comes back to the same question: have the east Asians merely deferred pain or have they avoided it?
I don't think anywhere across the country are there enough immune people for this to have an effect yet (if we assume 3% are infected that still gives a huge reservoir of people without immunity). Simply - if we isolate entirely we cannot infect others. It means that next time there are more people to infect so we have a similar epidemic (without other actions) but the number of people infected in this first epidemic should theoretically depend only upon the efficiency of the lockdown.
But you're still going to get that effect quicker, the more infected people you start with. Even if the rate of spreading is slowed by a lockdown.
Just gone on my Sky app and Sky are allowing you to suspend the Sky Sports package with immediate effect but still allow access to their sport channels.
They will re-instate the charge when sport becomes active again
Fair play to Sky
Is it automatic or do we need to apply for it?
It looks as if you need to do it through the my sky app and it is easy to do
I do not think it is automatic at this stage
Anyone who is still paying for Sky at all has too much money.
My advice take your card out . Spot the fact you still get nearly all the channels and make a decision based on that.
What I think we are seeing in response to this virus is a change in the collective mindset towards, well, collectivism. We are (nearly) all much more conscious that we are affected by the behaviour of others and likewise them with us. We are more willing to recognise that, for example, people should not be penalised for doing the right thing and that society collectively needs to bail them out. We are (or at least I am) more aware of how many vulnerable people there are in our society and how important it is to help them.
Will we ever go back to people waiting weeks for their benefits and a vicious sanctions regime? Surely not.
If we can house the homeless now why the hell did we not do it years ago?
If the economy can sustain whateverittakes economics what were the arguments about relatively modest differences in public spending about?
After WW2 the country threw out Churchill and elected a Labour government who transformed our society, mainly for the good. I can see such a leftward swing happening again. I wonder if our ever flexible Boris and the clever Rishi just might be able to harness it as the Tory party reinvents itself once again.
Assuming the feeling lasts - a big if - there may be some changes. However, some social phenomena are not that simple. Some rough sleepers , eg, always prefer the streets to the alternatives. It seems to be just a quirk of human nature. Regarding the benefit system - it goes back at least as far as the 1600 Poor Laws remember and from day 1 there has always been a tension between desire to help those in poverty through no fault of their own and the idle and feckless. While over time the terminology has changed, in essence the tension remains. Those who work hard and save will always resent those who don't and game the system.
There was effectively no system to game before the collective experience of World War II.
That is quite wrong - the mythology of no health care before the NHS, for example. The NHS was conceived as a tidying & simplification of the existing tangle of (inadequate) health care provision.
We know that social contact these days is out. We know that alcohol above 70% kills the virus. We know that hydroxychloroqin has proven an effective treatment in some cases and is a derivative of quinine. We now find out that lying on your front can stop you needing a ventilator. So really, the solution is to get sh*t-faced on maximum strength G&T, alone, and end up passing out face forward.
We do not know that chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine have been proven effective, though studies are ongoing. The Chinese study communicated yesterday showed no effect. In addition it can interfere with cardiac conduction, potentially an issue with COVID19 myocarditis. I appreciate there is a certain amount of levity in your comment, but would be cautious about the rush to judgement.
In terms of positioning, there is an interesting review of prone ventilation for ARDS here:
There are some benefits, and some downsides. The better oxygenation and reduced lung injury vs increased cardiac arrest.
As you noticed the tenor of my post was not wholly factual, and I had also couched my comments about chloroquine with 'in some cases'. Good info though, thanks.
For how long? The public can't be eating that much more, and there must be a physical limit to most people's stockpiling.
No, the issue is that 20-30% of our intake comes from eating out. Lunches, work canteens, nights out, pubs etc... All of this now has to be replaced by home cooking.
Its not just that. Work from home + full fridges and cupboards means food gets eaten faster. Also these aren't normal times. People think they need to keep 14 days of food at home in stock at all times - so that means a lot of sizable top-up shops. The data is clear - more consumers making more trips and buying more on those trips. It has slowed down vs last week but its still way above anything normal.
Am I the only person who is eating less now than before ?
And I've only had 1 unit of alcohol in the last 11 days and that was only a Fosters Radler so barely counts.
I'm also exercising more.
These have not been conscious decisions but rather seem to have happened 'naturally'.
I'm still working so its not as if my lifestyle has changed.
My personal weight loss programme has received an unexpected boost, Richard.
Comments
Testing later. The view is that leaving it a couple of days after symptoms appear increases the chances of an accurate result. It shouldn't increase my self isolation or alter treatment in the short term.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/27/millions-to-need-food-aid-in-days-as-virus-exposes-uk-supply
The comms over this antibody test is starting to piss me off. One day we hear it is just days away. Later same day there is a discussion of how must be absolutely sure it works before using it, so tests on going. Now it seems it is within two weeks away, but unsure whether wide public will have it at first.
Why don't they just say there may be such a test, it would really help, but we are still testing the test and will get back to you.
A long time ago, I talked with a veteran of the Falklands. He said that in every battle there a small percentage of the men were curled up in a ball in the deepest hole they could find. Interestingly who it was varied from battle to battle - the guy sobbing with fear one night, was a screaming dervish the next, bayonetting with the best of them.
He reckoned that because it wasn't talked about, a lot of people were damaged for life by their behaviour on their "off night".
This matches reports from other wars and struggles - cowardice can hit anyone, and is often an unusual event.
In WWII the RAF recognised this and rehabiliated Lack of Moral Fibre (LMF) cases - most returned to the front lines.... There is an oft told story about such a case who ended up flying for 617 squadron...
There have been reports of medics, in various countries, breaking and abandoning their posts. This will happen here. Demanding absolute bravery 100% of the time doesn't match the human condition.
In the discussion yesterday about the lady who evicted the doctor from her house, I noticed that others were quick to say that they would have taken the risk. Are you so very sure?
We should all be sure not to be "killing Kruger with our mouths"... And think on what will need to be done - not just support for the heroes, but the ones who trip as well.
Shortages have eased because the shopping frenzy has slowed. A marked pull back from last week's double the normal demand, its tracking at about 40% up. The point about the risk of disrupted production is very real - if enough people go off sick then factories won't be able to maintain normal production.
https://leadership.ng/2020/03/21/lagos-hospitals-flooded-with-chloroquine-overdose-patients/
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/03/arizona-man-dies-chloroquine-trump-coronavirus-advice.html
State pensioners have done very well for a decade out of the triple lock. That ends now.
The triple lock is more expensive in an era of low inflation than high inflation.
Now all of that needs to be done with home cooking, and will need to be until this is over.
From a betting perspective I reckon this makes Davey a good bet: he'll effectively have been doing the job for over a year and may well be a shoo-in when the vote eventually comes. Currently 2.3 on BFE.
Same with other measures - ideas need floating now to get some agreement evening detail must be later (given we dont know how much impact there will be).
https://english.elpais.com/society/2020-03-27/coronavirus-in-spain-five-crises-rolled-into-one.html?ssm=FB_CM_EN&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR3zastsDh-Ozan2n0ORxhV_N6FQIvCQF6FyAIGqf66s9gCuTKl9EOlnGZY#Echobox=1585297588
Eye problems are with long term use generally, but there are cases of acute toxicity. It is a problem in Africa, where the response to a fever is to think it a flare up of malaria, and swallow a handful of chloroquine from the market.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/03/insane-many-scientists-lament-trump-s-embrace-risky-malaria-drugs-coronavirus
Probably best not to run down that food stash quite yet!
You might be right if the lockdown is 100% effective, since in a fortnight all new infection would stop, everywhere.
But since the lockdown will actually be X% effective, where X is considerably short of 100%, the reality will be inbetween, and London will still peak first.
Sorry, pensioners. The next few years are going to be about improving the efficacy of the economically active.
HMG to house via LA's all rough sleepers by the weekend
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/27/inside-the-race-to-develop-a-coronavirus-vaccine-covid-19
https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/food/nation-incapable-of-not-eating-stockpiled-food-20200323194800
But I agree we cant stay in a world where everything on offer to working age people is relentlessly cut back, whereas pensioners only need to write a few letters and the most modest cutback in their perks is immediately shelved.
One chap I know has confessed that his actions were - Put the junk in the garage on the council tip. Buy shelves. Buy a chest freezer. Buy a bread maker. Fill shelves and chest freezer.
There may well be patchy peaks reflecting local variation, such as a big outbreak in large nursing home etc.
I think the problem in Leicester is not yet overwhelming numbers (we reported 9 fatalities in total yesterday, for a population of a million) but more the numbers of staff needing to self isolate, including myself.
You might be right if the lockdown is 100% effective, since in a fortnight all new infection would stop, everywhere.
But since the lockdown will actually be X% effective, where X is considerably short of 100%, the reality will be inbetween, and London will still peak first.
I'm not sure I follow.
The peak amplitude depends upon the number of individuals infected at the point when a lockdown begins, with the time until the peak arises depending only upon when lockdown starts (in principle). Once lockdown begins, if it is equally effective across the country, a subset of those infected prior to lockdown will display serious symptoms between 1 and 21 days after lockdown (peaking around day 14 but with a plateau in the middle) and a subset will be able to spread the virus to others (e.g., family members) giving a tail of cases.
But in any event, the timing of the peak should be consistent everywhere. Indeed, since I suspect lockdown is less effective in London (e.g., the tube still functioning) I would not be so surprised if they peak after (or certainly have a longer plateau) than other parts of the country.
Does that make sense?
If inflation is going to be higher then 1% or 2.5% is immaterial, no money will be saved by making that change.
If inflation is the cap then no money is gained by pensioners in real terms by keeping pensions in line with inflation.
Merging NI with Income Tax will be a massive tax hike and will bring a lot of money into the Exchequer. It also won't violate the manifesto.
Hopefully I am wrong as it needs thinking about now.
If 90% of people took no notice and carried on as normal, quite obviously the effect of the lockdown would be minimal.
If 10% carry on as normal, it would be much more effective. But, given the larger number of people already infected in London, the 10% sneaking out will spread the infection more quickly - and bring it back to their families - than in the rest of the country. Although at 10% this would be marginal.
You have Vanilla mail.
We're only doing this because it hits the elderly more severely.
Trials take time... and aren't easy:
Among the peculiarities of this pandemic, moreover, is the fact that we, the general populace, might determine how well human trials go. If huge swathes of society become infected before the vaccine is ready to test on humans, the trials will be difficult to conduct, said Sarah Gilbert, an immunologist at the University of Oxford’s Edward Jenner Institute for Vaccine Research. Gilbert’s team also has a vaccine candidate for Covid-19, based on an earlier vaccine it had devised for Middle East respiratory syndrome, or Mers, another coronavirus disease. In mid-March, Gilbert had to put an auto-response on her email. When her team was ready to recruit subjects for vaccine trials, it would be advertised on the website, she wrote. “Please do not contact me about volunteering.”
Gilbert’s worry is that, at the peak of infection, the virus will be bouncing so frantically around the population that “you can’t screen your volunteers. By the time you get their results back, they may have been exposed.” Organising trials after the peak subsides presents another problem, because so many people will have cultivated a natural immunity by then. Transmission will have dropped as well, Gilbert said – it’s hard to know how well a vaccine trial is going if the subjects aren’t being exposed to the virus at all. “This is herd immunity – good for the population, but it makes testing a vaccine more difficult,” she explained.
The best possible scenario involves delaying the pandemic’s peak – pushing it through the summer towards August, to buy scientists a few extra months to run their trials. “So we’d really be pleased,” Gilbert said sternly, “if everyone will just do what they’re being told and stay at home.”...
Will we ever go back to people waiting weeks for their benefits and a vicious sanctions regime? Surely not.
If we can house the homeless now why the hell did we not do it years ago?
If the economy can sustain whateverittakes economics what were the arguments about relatively modest differences in public spending about?
After WW2 the country threw out Churchill and elected a Labour government who transformed our society, mainly for the good. I can see such a leftward swing happening again. I wonder if our ever flexible Boris and the clever Rishi just might be able to harness it as the Tory party reinvents itself once again.
They will re-instate the charge when sport becomes active again
Fair play to Sky
Nurses not diversity officers as the Sun might say.
There may well be patchy peaks reflecting local variation, such as a big outbreak in large nursing home etc.
I think the problem in Leicester is not yet overwhelming numbers (we reported 9 fatalities in total yesterday, for a population of a million) but more the numbers of staff needing to self isolate, including myself.
Yes - I've heard that here as well, albeit the number of cases is also manageable locally (indeed, quite low I'm told). Given this, it feels like the local peak will be bad but manageable. But friends at hospitals in Herts tell me they are expecting the London overflow to go there, and all the anecdata from colleagues suggests that London is in a bad shape. Hence (and especially given the, I suspect, weaker social distancing there) that the plateau there will be worse than elsewhere in the country.
I do not think it is automatic at this stage
And I've only had 1 unit of alcohol in the last 11 days and that was only a Fosters Radler so barely counts.
I'm also exercising more.
These have not been conscious decisions but rather seem to have happened 'naturally'.
I'm still working so its not as if my lifestyle has changed.
My advice take your card out . Spot the fact you still get nearly all the channels and make a decision based on that.
The welfare state has very, very old roots.
It's an ill wind...