So the NHS isn't the best in the world (at procurement) after all ?
Being the best at regular procurement is completely different to being the best at extraordinary competitive recruitment in this crisis. One does not lead to the other.
(I have no idea if the NHS is the best at regular procurement or not but its centralised purchasing power probably puts it high up the list).
I can see a major central London road from my window, it is normally at 5 mph and full throughout a working day and most of the evening.
Since the lockdown including today if I look I can normally but not always see at least one vehicle but the traffic is flowing very freely and Id say 90%+ down on normal.
And when I go for a run/walk I have noticed most buses have zero passengers, just the driver (admittedly those are timed to avoid whats left of rush hour).
TfL and other bus and train companies may need new subsidies before long because they are running services on almost no fare revenue.
Local govts generally will certainly need bailouts as well as businesses. Ive not been paying much attention on that front but it will need to be done if it hasnt already.
I can see a major central London road from my window, it is normally at 5 mph and full throughout a working day and most of the evening.
Since the lockdown including today if I look I can normally but not always see at least one vehicle but the traffic is flowing very freely and Id say 90%+ down on normal.
And when I go for a run/walk I have noticed most buses have zero passengers, just the driver (admittedly those are timed to avoid whats left of rush hour).
I have noticed little difference in traffic at home - but that is because there is zero drop in tractor movement and apart from them, we have bugger all traffic anyway...
We are now 10 years into a Tory government, only 3 governments since WW2 have lasted more than 10 years and only 1 government, the Tories in 1992, won a general election after more than 10 years in power.
So the Government should have expected things to get much tougher even without Covid 19 and a likely new and more centrist and media savvy Labour leader
At risk of being pedantic, only two governments have lasted more than ten years since World War Two. A government in our system is identified by who leads it, not which party forms it.
Except in the case of a national government a government in our system is actually defined by the party which forms it, we have not had a national government since WW2 but single party government bar 2010 to 2015 which was still a Tory led Government
That is simply not correct in law. It is in practice, of course, but constitutionally parties have no actual role in the system. A government is defined by the person who leads it, which under usual circumstances is whoever commands a majority in the Commons.
We have no written constitution, the Ministers of the Crown have all come from one party in any one government since WW2 bar 2010 to 2015 when most of them were still Tory
Even that isn’t correct, as in the 1950s the Liberal Nationals were still a separate party.
John Maclay was backed by the Tories in a straight fight against Labour in West Renfrewshire, he was only a National Liberal in name in reality a Tory and ultimately it became the National Liberal and Conservative party before merging into the Tories too
Leaving aside the trifling detail that you don’t seem to understand what they were or how they operated, it occurs to me that Gwilym Lloyd George was still officially a Liberal while Home Secretary in the mid-1950s, although he had lost the Liberal whip in 1946. So you would still be wrong.
Let it go. Trying to defend an indefensible position just makes you look silly, although I know you’re used to that.
Gwilym Lloyd George stood as a National Liberal and Conservative in 1945 and 1950 and in 1951 Churchill endorsed his candidacy
Idiots like Hitchens are not even sparing a moments thought for the health care workers who are risking their lives trying to deal with this, and would be completely swamped in coronavirus patients without a lockdown, infecting and killing even more of our health care workers. Perhaps those who do not want lockdown should be allowed back on the streets on the condition that they waive the right to go to hospital if they do get ill.
So the Swedes hate their healthcare workers ?
Perhaps effort should have been focussed on allowing business to continue with improved social distancing measures.
I can see a major central London road from my window, it is normally at 5 mph and full throughout a working day and most of the evening.
Since the lockdown including today if I look I can normally but not always see at least one vehicle but the traffic is flowing very freely and Id say 90%+ down on normal.
And when I go for a run/walk I have noticed most buses have zero passengers, just the driver (admittedly those are timed to avoid whats left of rush hour).
TfL and other bus and train companies may need new subsidies before long because they are running services on almost no fare revenue.
Local govts generally will certainly need bailouts as well as businesses. Ive not been paying much attention on that front but it will need to be done if it hasnt already.
Or they massively increase council tax
Those have just been set and aiui are subject to caps on increases? Business rates are decimated, as is transport income. They will need bailouts from the centre.
I must admit to not understanding the logic of this, I must be missing something.
As I see it the lockdown will eventually get the numbers down low enough that tracking and tracing those with the virus will be possible in the way South Korea are doing it.
Waiting until more are infected before the lockdown just means more deaths before that point is reached. The fact that say 0.5% rather than 0.2% of the population have had the virus after makes no real difference in terms of a herd immunity strategy.
So what is the advantage of having a lockdown later?
I think that's a fair point - I think the government is still pursuing a herd immunity strategy, they just aren't talking about it.
Worth noting that football is still suspended in the Far East.
So if for example 0.5% of the population have had the virus after the lockdown is completed, we just need to do the same thing again around 150 times and we've got herd immunity.
So what is the advantage of having a lockdown later?
Because it is known that people will only tolerate it for so long.
I think what DAlexander is getting at is that we could have snuffed it out entirely if we'd gone into lockdown a month ago. I think our government came to the conclusion that herd immunity is the only game in town so we might as well get on with it.
I can see a major central London road from my window, it is normally at 5 mph and full throughout a working day and most of the evening.
Since the lockdown including today if I look I can normally but not always see at least one vehicle but the traffic is flowing very freely and Id say 90%+ down on normal.
And when I go for a run/walk I have noticed most buses have zero passengers, just the driver (admittedly those are timed to avoid whats left of rush hour).
TfL and other bus and train companies may need new subsidies before long because they are running services on almost no fare revenue.
Local govts generally will certainly need bailouts as well as businesses. Ive not been paying much attention on that front but it will need to be done if it hasnt already.
Or they massively increase council tax
Those have just been set and aiui are subject to caps on increases? Business rates are decimated, as is transport income. They will need bailouts from the centre.
Government could just end the caps this year, let councils take the flack for tax rises not just central government
Why should he? Journalists should write whatever they like, we are not behind the iron curtain
I agree he should write what he wants, he should get less exposure though. Because of his quirky presentation and arguing style media companies pretend he is an expert thinker on everything whereas he is just someone who likes being angry and to belittle others.
I must admit to not understanding the logic of this, I must be missing something.
As I see it the lockdown will eventually get the numbers down low enough that tracking and tracing those with the virus will be possible in the way South Korea are doing it.
Waiting until more are infected before the lockdown just means more deaths before that point is reached. The fact that say 0.5% rather than 0.2% of the population have had the virus after makes no real difference in terms of a herd immunity strategy.
So what is the advantage of having a lockdown later?
I think that's a fair point - I think the government is still pursuing a herd immunity strategy, they just aren't talking about it.
Worth noting that football is still suspended in the Far East.
So if for example 0.5% of the population have had the virus after the lockdown is completed, we just need to do the same thing again around 150 times and we've got herd immunity.
I must admit to not understanding the logic of this, I must be missing something.
As I see it the lockdown will eventually get the numbers down low enough that tracking and tracing those with the virus will be possible in the way South Korea are doing it.
Waiting until more are infected before the lockdown just means more deaths before that point is reached. The fact that say 0.5% rather than 0.2% of the population have had the virus after makes no real difference in terms of a herd immunity strategy.
So what is the advantage of having a lockdown later?
This is, I think, a point that several on here (including me) made at the time.
Against that there is the (perhaps reasonable) argument that it would not have been followed so well without people witnessing a significant number of deaths. I have my doubts about that one.
There's also the fact that we might not have had sufficient testing capacity to return to effective (as opposed to ineffective) track and trace after an earlier lockdown. (Possible/probable.)
And the silly argument put forward by statisticians at the time that we 'wouldn't have been able to see the effects' of an earlier lockdown. (I think the Imperial guy said this.)
Its funny how the world has been reduced to Yesterday / Today / Tomorrow. Other measures are Working / Not Working. But thats it. The name of the day doesn't really matter...
I must admit to not understanding the logic of this, I must be missing something.
As I see it the lockdown will eventually get the numbers down low enough that tracking and tracing those with the virus will be possible in the way South Korea are doing it.
Waiting until more are infected before the lockdown just means more deaths before that point is reached. The fact that say 0.5% rather than 0.2% of the population have had the virus after makes no real difference in terms of a herd immunity strategy.
So what is the advantage of having a lockdown later?
perhaps better to think of least disadvantage.
Lockdowns need enforcing and the public onside. A lockdown is useless if unenforced and broadly ignored by a significant proportion of the public. The public themselves swayed opinion in favour of one in that shambles weekend just after the pubs closed.
There's also a related argument that you can only lockdown once. If you relieve the measures, it will be much harder to put them back on.
Once you have locked down, in effect, a countdown starts before increasing public disobedience of the lockdown renders it useless or requires you to increase the measures further. Or send in the troops.
I can see a major central London road from my window, it is normally at 5 mph and full throughout a working day and most of the evening.
Since the lockdown including today if I look I can normally but not always see at least one vehicle but the traffic is flowing very freely and Id say 90%+ down on normal.
And when I go for a run/walk I have noticed most buses have zero passengers, just the driver (admittedly those are timed to avoid whats left of rush hour).
TfL and other bus and train companies may need new subsidies before long because they are running services on almost no fare revenue.
Local govts generally will certainly need bailouts as well as businesses. Ive not been paying much attention on that front but it will need to be done if it hasnt already.
Or they massively increase council tax
Thank god for my student exemption.
Just remember to fail your exams in order to keep the exemption for another year.
ETA which come to think of it was a subplot of Doctor in the House.
So what is the advantage of having a lockdown later?
Because it is known that people will only tolerate it for so long.
Well my point was really that if we end the lockdown in the same position as a few weeks before we started it (smaller numbers with the virus, but it's still spreading and growing) and we're only going to be able to do it once, then what was the point of it exactly?
If it was to buy time to get systems in place that means we can either eliminate it through track and tracing or let it rip and deal with all the ill people then it makes some sense. But are either of those the plan?
I can see a major central London road from my window, it is normally at 5 mph and full throughout a working day and most of the evening.
Since the lockdown including today if I look I can normally but not always see at least one vehicle but the traffic is flowing very freely and Id say 90%+ down on normal.
And when I go for a run/walk I have noticed most buses have zero passengers, just the driver (admittedly those are timed to avoid whats left of rush hour).
TfL and other bus and train companies may need new subsidies before long because they are running services on almost no fare revenue.
Local govts generally will certainly need bailouts as well as businesses. Ive not been paying much attention on that front but it will need to be done if it hasnt already.
Or they massively increase council tax
Those have just been set and aiui are subject to caps on increases? Business rates are decimated, as is transport income. They will need bailouts from the centre.
Government could just end the caps this year, let councils take the flack for tax rises not just central government
No, it is not possible. The maths of this situation are that the costs are going to be paid back over the next 20-30 years. People in work would not be able to pay the council tax rise that would be needed, let alone those who have lost their jobs or were struggling before.
Fortunately the people at the Treasury are not so wedded to ideology as some, and will look at it pragmatically and mathematically.
Why should he? Journalists should write whatever they like, we are not behind the iron curtain
I agree he should write what he wants, he should get less exposure though. Because of his quirky presentation and arguing style media companies pretend he is an expert thinker on everything whereas he is just someone who likes being angry and to belittle others.
That Peston takes being told facts in a straight-forward, non-passive aggressive way as being belittled - that tells you all you need to know....
He is having a terrible Covid-19. Without even getting it.
I can see a major central London road from my window, it is normally at 5 mph and full throughout a working day and most of the evening.
Since the lockdown including today if I look I can normally but not always see at least one vehicle but the traffic is flowing very freely and Id say 90%+ down on normal.
And when I go for a run/walk I have noticed most buses have zero passengers, just the driver (admittedly those are timed to avoid whats left of rush hour).
I have noticed little difference in traffic at home - but that is because there is zero drop in tractor movement and apart from them, we have bugger all traffic anyway...
The usually busy A road that passes my house has started to get dirty through underuse.
The car manufacturers must be in the absolute shit. I just got an email from PFS UK offering absolutely ridiculously cheap leases on 992s for 2021 delivery. Might weigh in Mrs DA's gold jewelry down and get a 7 speed manual base model with no options.
The car manufacturers must be in the absolute shit. I just got an email from PFS UK offering absolutely ridiculously cheap leases on 992s for 2021 delivery. Might weigh in Mrs DA's gold jewelry down and get a 7 speed manual base model with no options.
I must admit to not understanding the logic of this, I must be missing something.
As I see it the lockdown will eventually get the numbers down low enough that tracking and tracing those with the virus will be possible in the way South Korea are doing it.
Waiting until more are infected before the lockdown just means more deaths before that point is reached. The fact that say 0.5% rather than 0.2% of the population have had the virus after makes no real difference in terms of a herd immunity strategy.
So what is the advantage of having a lockdown later?
There's no logic, it's pure bootlicking. The idea that the government has carefully planned and timed the lockdown since the start is clearly untrue because if they had, they'd have started explaining it clearly since January, along with the economic mitigations they'd put in place, instead of only giving people a few days' notice or less about things like childcare, or how their livelihoods would be protected.
And anyone waxing on about how great the government is for following expert medical advice needs to account for why they spent months ignoring the WHO.
I can see a major central London road from my window, it is normally at 5 mph and full throughout a working day and most of the evening.
Since the lockdown including today if I look I can normally but not always see at least one vehicle but the traffic is flowing very freely and Id say 90%+ down on normal.
And when I go for a run/walk I have noticed most buses have zero passengers, just the driver (admittedly those are timed to avoid whats left of rush hour).
TfL and other bus and train companies may need new subsidies before long because they are running services on almost no fare revenue.
Local govts generally will certainly need bailouts as well as businesses. Ive not been paying much attention on that front but it will need to be done if it hasnt already.
Or they massively increase council tax
Those have just been set and aiui are subject to caps on increases? Business rates are decimated, as is transport income. They will need bailouts from the centre.
Government could just end the caps this year, let councils take the flack for tax rises not just central government
No, it is not possible. The maths of this situation are that the costs are going to be paid back over the next 20-30 years. People in work would not be able to pay the council tax rise that would be needed, let alone those who have lost their jobs or were struggling before.
Fortunately the people at the Treasury are not so wedded to ideology as some, and will look at it pragmatically and mathematically.
So they can just pay the massive hike in income tax and VAT instead?
Why should he? Journalists should write whatever they like, we are not behind the iron curtain
'Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.'
Beginning to resemble the global warming debate - those with differing opinions must be hounded regardless of any data.
Stocky made the case against extending the lockdown on here yesterday eloquently and although most did not agree with him, it received widespread praise.
Differing opinions are welcomed by the vast majority, ill informed ranting less so.
I must admit to not understanding the logic of this, I must be missing something.
As I see it the lockdown will eventually get the numbers down low enough that tracking and tracing those with the virus will be possible in the way South Korea are doing it.
Waiting until more are infected before the lockdown just means more deaths before that point is reached. The fact that say 0.5% rather than 0.2% of the population have had the virus after makes no real difference in terms of a herd immunity strategy.
So what is the advantage of having a lockdown later?
I think that's a fair point - I think the government is still pursuing a herd immunity strategy, they just aren't talking about it.
Worth noting that football is still suspended in the Far East.
So if for example 0.5% of the population have had the virus after the lockdown is completed, we just need to do the same thing again around 150 times and we've got herd immunity.
10 years of lockdown - why not ?
Well that is a plan of sorts, although massively disruptive and expensive and not the one I would have chosen which was to (at least try to) eliminate it as early as possible.
But it only works if we know that having the virus grants long term immunity from catching it again. Do we know that this is the case?
I've been WFH for the past few years so nothing new but in the past couple of weeks have for the first time started to lose track of what day it is. Covid-19 and lockdown have removed the structure of the week as each day has an amorphous nothingness about it.
Yes, this is striking, the loss of shape and distraction. One is left experiencing a lot of one's own head. The anxieties and neuroses, usually the faint background hum to everything, are promoted front and centre where they can make one hell of a racket.
Why should he? Journalists should write whatever they like, we are not behind the iron curtain
I agree he should write what he wants, he should get less exposure though. Because of his quirky presentation and arguing style media companies pretend he is an expert thinker on everything whereas he is just someone who likes being angry and to belittle others.
Less exposure? He writes a weekly column in the Mail on Sunday and is on Twitter. He is rarely on tv, hasn’t been on QT in two years. When he is on tv he generally gets talked over by the presenter
Each to their own. I find him a thoughtful and independent minded writer. One of the few people around today who are prepared to resist jumping on bandwagons for ‘likes’
We are now 10 years into a Tory government, only 3 governments since WW2 have lasted more than 10 years and only 1 government, the Tories in 1992, won a general election after more than 10 years in power.
So the Government should have expected things to get much tougher even without Covid 19 and a likely new and more centrist and media savvy Labour leader
At risk of being pedantic, only two governments have lasted more than ten years since World War Two. A government in our system is identified by who leads it, not which party forms it.
Except in the case of a national government a government in our system is actually defined by the party which forms it, we have not had a national government since WW2 but single party government bar 2010 to 2015 which was still a Tory led Government
That is simply not correct in law. It is in practice, of course, but constitutionally parties have no actual role in the system. A government is defined by the person who leads it, which under usual circumstances is whoever commands a majority in the Commons.
We have no written constitution, the Ministers of the Crown have all come from one party in any one government since WW2 bar 2010 to 2015 when most of them were still Tory
Even that isn’t correct, as in the 1950s the Liberal Nationals were still a separate party.
John Maclay was backed by the Tories in a straight fight against Labour in West Renfrewshire, he was only a National Liberal in name in reality a Tory and ultimately it became the National Liberal and Conservative party before merging into the Tories too
Leaving aside the trifling detail that you don’t seem to understand what they were or how they operated, it occurs to me that Gwilym Lloyd George was still officially a Liberal while Home Secretary in the mid-1950s, although he had lost the Liberal whip in 1946. So you would still be wrong.
Let it go. Trying to defend an indefensible position just makes you look silly, although I know you’re used to that.
Gwilym Lloyd George stood as a National Liberal and Conservative in 1945 and 1950 and in 1951 Churchill endorsed his candidacy
No, he did not. I think you’ve taken that off Wikipedia, and it is wrong. He stood ‘as a Liberal, supportive of the National Government.’ (Richard Toye, Lloyd George and Churchill: Rivals for Greatness, p. 393.) In 1951 he actually faced a Conservative candidate at Newcastle although Churchill had asked that he be given a clear run at Labour.
Now if you wish to tell me you know his political allegiance better than he did, based on reading a Wikipedia article, be my guest. Forgive me if I go with his statements and therefore to come back to the point:
1) Parties do not form governments, Prime Ministers do;
2) There have been multiparty governments in Britain since 1945;
3) This is because parties have no technical role in the House of Commons, MPs being elected as individuals.
If you don’t like those trifling facts, that is your problem. Can you stop bothering the rest of us with them though so we can get on with important subjects, including awesome punning and why pineapple should never be added to pizza?
I can see a major central London road from my window, it is normally at 5 mph and full throughout a working day and most of the evening.
Since the lockdown including today if I look I can normally but not always see at least one vehicle but the traffic is flowing very freely and Id say 90%+ down on normal.
And when I go for a run/walk I have noticed most buses have zero passengers, just the driver (admittedly those are timed to avoid whats left of rush hour).
TfL and other bus and train companies may need new subsidies before long because they are running services on almost no fare revenue.
Local govts generally will certainly need bailouts as well as businesses. Ive not been paying much attention on that front but it will need to be done if it hasnt already.
Or they massively increase council tax
Those have just been set and aiui are subject to caps on increases? Business rates are decimated, as is transport income. They will need bailouts from the centre.
Government could just end the caps this year, let councils take the flack for tax rises not just central government
No, it is not possible. The maths of this situation are that the costs are going to be paid back over the next 20-30 years. People in work would not be able to pay the council tax rise that would be needed, let alone those who have lost their jobs or were struggling before.
Fortunately the people at the Treasury are not so wedded to ideology as some, and will look at it pragmatically and mathematically.
So they can just pay the massive hike in income tax and VAT instead?
You don't understand either politics or economics at all.
I must admit to not understanding the logic of this, I must be missing something.
As I see it the lockdown will eventually get the numbers down low enough that tracking and tracing those with the virus will be possible in the way South Korea are doing it.
Waiting until more are infected before the lockdown just means more deaths before that point is reached. The fact that say 0.5% rather than 0.2% of the population have had the virus after makes no real difference in terms of a herd immunity strategy.
So what is the advantage of having a lockdown later?
The lockdown is to clamp down on community transmission of the virus. In the early stages most of our new cases were due to travel, so a lockdown at that stage wouldn't have made a difference.
I can see a major central London road from my window, it is normally at 5 mph and full throughout a working day and most of the evening.
Since the lockdown including today if I look I can normally but not always see at least one vehicle but the traffic is flowing very freely and Id say 90%+ down on normal.
And when I go for a run/walk I have noticed most buses have zero passengers, just the driver (admittedly those are timed to avoid whats left of rush hour).
TfL and other bus and train companies may need new subsidies before long because they are running services on almost no fare revenue.
Local govts generally will certainly need bailouts as well as businesses. Ive not been paying much attention on that front but it will need to be done if it hasnt already.
Or they massively increase council tax
Those have just been set and aiui are subject to caps on increases? Business rates are decimated, as is transport income. They will need bailouts from the centre.
Government could just end the caps this year, let councils take the flack for tax rises not just central government
No, it is not possible. The maths of this situation are that the costs are going to be paid back over the next 20-30 years. People in work would not be able to pay the council tax rise that would be needed, let alone those who have lost their jobs or were struggling before.
Fortunately the people at the Treasury are not so wedded to ideology as some, and will look at it pragmatically and mathematically.
So they can just pay the massive hike in income tax and VAT instead?
Income tax is clearly easier to pay than council tax, as it relies on having income.
But the point is central govt can repay over many years and borrow far cheaper than local govts. There will be tax rises but Id imagine they wont be massive, but instead last for a very long time.
I guess they've got all the diesels running and have a very light hotel load. The Captains used to compete to see who could get her across the pond in 6 days without lighting the turbines - of course with 7 & 8 day crossings thats much easier.
Does anyone know why I can't log in on Chrome on my laptop (Windows 10)? I log in but it just doesn't seem to save it. I can do it on Edge or my Android mobile on Chrome.
No idea but that is why I switched to Firefox for pb.
It's something to do with "Third-Party Cookies", which means it doesn't like you logging into one site (Vanillacommunity.com) from the page of another site (Politicalbetting.com).
The way around it, is to log in first from the Vanilla site http://politicalbetting.vanillacommunity.com/ then refresh the page to check the login worked, then go to the main site once logged in.
Thanks. That didn't work but I might just start reading discussions on Vanilla instead of the main site.
Why should he? Journalists should write whatever they like, we are not behind the iron curtain
I agree he should write what he wants, he should get less exposure though. Because of his quirky presentation and arguing style media companies pretend he is an expert thinker on everything whereas he is just someone who likes being angry and to belittle others.
Less exposure? He writes a weekly column in the Mail on Sunday and is on Twitter. He is rarely on tv, hasn’t been on QT in two years. When he is on tv he generally gets talked over by the presenter
Yet there's no shortage of people willing to spread his garbage far and wide.
Why should he? Journalists should write whatever they like, we are not behind the iron curtain
'Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.'
Beginning to resemble the global warming debate - those with differing opinions must be hounded regardless of any data.
And those who provide accurate information that people do not like are accused of providing misinformation
Nobody owes you the courtesy of pretending to respect your dangerous drivel. If you want commiserate about how sad that makes you feel, go join the flat earth society.
I must admit to not understanding the logic of this, I must be missing something.
As I see it the lockdown will eventually get the numbers down low enough that tracking and tracing those with the virus will be possible in the way South Korea are doing it.
Waiting until more are infected before the lockdown just means more deaths before that point is reached. The fact that say 0.5% rather than 0.2% of the population have had the virus after makes no real difference in terms of a herd immunity strategy.
So what is the advantage of having a lockdown later?
The lockdown is to clamp down on community transmission of the virus. In the early stages most of our new cases were due to travel, so a lockdown at that stage wouldn't have made a difference.
It would have prevented community spread in the first place.
We're going to be in the same position after a lockdown regardless of whether it was earlier or later, only doing it later causes more deaths.
The UK needs to expect that the lockdown will need to continue sometime yet and need to be more severe than it is now.
Lockdown is every bit severe enough if people followed it to the letter. What we do need to see are roadblocks and police questioning motorists and fining them if they are out and about for no good reason.
I've been WFH for the past few years so nothing new but in the past couple of weeks have for the first time started to lose track of what day it is. Covid-19 and lockdown have removed the structure of the week as each day has an amorphous nothingness about it.
Yes, this is striking, the loss of shape and distraction. One is left experiencing a lot of one's own head. The anxieties and neuroses, usually the faint background hum to everything, are promoted front and centre where they can make one hell of a racket.
Maybe that’s why we are encouraged to be busy busy busy all the time. It discourages confronting morally difficult thoughts
I can see a major central London road from my window, it is normally at 5 mph and full throughout a working day and most of the evening.
Since the lockdown including today if I look I can normally but not always see at least one vehicle but the traffic is flowing very freely and Id say 90%+ down on normal.
And when I go for a run/walk I have noticed most buses have zero passengers, just the driver (admittedly those are timed to avoid whats left of rush hour).
TfL and other bus and train companies may need new subsidies before long because they are running services on almost no fare revenue.
Local govts generally will certainly need bailouts as well as businesses. Ive not been paying much attention on that front but it will need to be done if it hasnt already.
Or they massively increase council tax
Those have just been set and aiui are subject to caps on increases? Business rates are decimated, as is transport income. They will need bailouts from the centre.
Government could just end the caps this year, let councils take the flack for tax rises not just central government
No, it is not possible. The maths of this situation are that the costs are going to be paid back over the next 20-30 years. People in work would not be able to pay the council tax rise that would be needed, let alone those who have lost their jobs or were struggling before.
Fortunately the people at the Treasury are not so wedded to ideology as some, and will look at it pragmatically and mathematically.
So they can just pay the massive hike in income tax and VAT instead?
Income tax is clearly easier to pay than council tax, as it relies on having income.
But the point is central govt can repay over many years and borrow far cheaper than local govts. There will be tax rises but Id imagine they wont be massive, but instead last for a very long time.
The final WWII loans were only repaid this century - and even then only because it was cheaper to borrow a new loan at lower rates and repay the old one than to keep paying WWII era interest.
This is a once-in-a-century short term shock. The idea it will paid off next year in taxes is utterly insane. It will be added to the national debt and we will only ever repay interest - so long as its short term that is viable.
Why should he? Journalists should write whatever they like, we are not behind the iron curtain
I agree he should write what he wants, he should get less exposure though. Because of his quirky presentation and arguing style media companies pretend he is an expert thinker on everything whereas he is just someone who likes being angry and to belittle others.
Less exposure? He writes a weekly column in the Mail on Sunday and is on Twitter. He is rarely on tv, hasn’t been on QT in two years. When he is on tv he generally gets talked over by the presenter
Yet there's no shortage of people willing to spread his garbage far and wide.
I don’t know what the par score is when it comes to excess or shortage, but I’d say there were more critics of him than supporters
Why should he? Journalists should write whatever they like, we are not behind the iron curtain
'Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.'
Beginning to resemble the global warming debate - those with differing opinions must be hounded regardless of any data.
Stocky made the case against extending the lockdown on here yesterday eloquently and although most did not agree with him, it received widespread praise.
Differing opinions are welcomed by the vast majority, ill informed ranting less so.
It's nothing like the global warming debate (the wisdom of a coronavirus lock down is not yet settled science), people paid by fossil fuel billionaires to spread misinformation have been given far too much credence for far too long in the interests of "balance" The nutters some of whom still claim that AIDS isn't caused by HIV are rightly ridiculed and ignored - hardly anybody complains (is it because they don't have a trillion dollar industry behind them that spends more on disinformation than any other?)
Why should he? Journalists should write whatever they like, we are not behind the iron curtain
I agree he should write what he wants, he should get less exposure though. Because of his quirky presentation and arguing style media companies pretend he is an expert thinker on everything whereas he is just someone who likes being angry and to belittle others.
Less exposure? He writes a weekly column in the Mail on Sunday and is on Twitter. He is rarely on tv, hasn’t been on QT in two years. When he is on tv he generally gets talked over by the presenter
Yet there's no shortage of people willing to spread his garbage far and wide.
I don’t know what the par score is when it comes to excess or shortage, but I’d say there were more critics of him than supporters
Just as there are for other muppets like Cadwaldr that he is like.
The car manufacturers must be in the absolute shit. I just got an email from PFS UK offering absolutely ridiculously cheap leases on 992s for 2021 delivery. Might weigh in Mrs DA's gold jewelry down and get a 7 speed manual base model with no options.
I thought you were banned from driving?
No, I've been back on the road for a while. Currently doing early morning tributes to the "Uppsala Run" on my MV.
The car manufacturers must be in the absolute shit. I just got an email from PFS UK offering absolutely ridiculously cheap leases on 992s for 2021 delivery. Might weigh in Mrs DA's gold jewelry down and get a 7 speed manual base model with no options.
Arent we hoping for as high a proportion of asymptomatic people as possible? That would be good news not scary?
For us in lockdown, sure. But think of India, Brazil, Nigeria, anywhere with tons of people living on top of each other and poor healthcare - it's going to spread like wildfire and lockdowns won't stop it.
I can see a major central London road from my window, it is normally at 5 mph and full throughout a working day and most of the evening.
Since the lockdown including today if I look I can normally but not always see at least one vehicle but the traffic is flowing very freely and Id say 90%+ down on normal.
And when I go for a run/walk I have noticed most buses have zero passengers, just the driver (admittedly those are timed to avoid whats left of rush hour).
TfL and other bus and train companies may need new subsidies before long because they are running services on almost no fare revenue.
Local govts generally will certainly need bailouts as well as businesses. Ive not been paying much attention on that front but it will need to be done if it hasnt already.
Or they massively increase council tax
Those have just been set and aiui are subject to caps on increases? Business rates are decimated, as is transport income. They will need bailouts from the centre.
Government could just end the caps this year, let councils take the flack for tax rises not just central government
No, it is not possible. The maths of this situation are that the costs are going to be paid back over the next 20-30 years. People in work would not be able to pay the council tax rise that would be needed, let alone those who have lost their jobs or were struggling before.
Fortunately the people at the Treasury are not so wedded to ideology as some, and will look at it pragmatically and mathematically.
So they can just pay the massive hike in income tax and VAT instead?
You don't understand either politics or economics at all.
There won't be a massive hike in tax.
No need to be patronising or rude, I have A grade A levels in both politics and economics. If central government had to bail out out all local councils then income tax and VAT would have to rise whether sharply in the short term or stretched out longer term
The car manufacturers must be in the absolute shit. I just got an email from PFS UK offering absolutely ridiculously cheap leases on 992s for 2021 delivery. Might weigh in Mrs DA's gold jewelry down and get a 7 speed manual base model with no options.
Spain is not quite as bleak as the media are trying to paint it, on a three day average new cases are flatlining at 8,200 approx and whilst deaths are still going up that is to be expected for a few days yet. Valencia day on day increase in new cases is 5% the lowest for a while. I see no sign of any large scale desire to break the lockdown, there are a declining number of fines etc being issued. Locally it’s becoming a highlight when the bin Larry comes round each night and the traffic has dropped by 95% on the road near me.
This is a not unreasonable point to ask about, given that different relative levels of the different antibody types (IgM and IgG specific to the virus) should be present during and after infection: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4574583/
I can see a major central London road from my window, it is normally at 5 mph and full throughout a working day and most of the evening.
Since the lockdown including today if I look I can normally but not always see at least one vehicle but the traffic is flowing very freely and Id say 90%+ down on normal.
And when I go for a run/walk I have noticed most buses have zero passengers, just the driver (admittedly those are timed to avoid whats left of rush hour).
TfL and other bus and train companies may need new subsidies before long because they are running services on almost no fare revenue.
Local govts generally will certainly need bailouts as well as businesses. Ive not been paying much attention on that front but it will need to be done if it hasnt already.
Or they massively increase council tax
Those have just been set and aiui are subject to caps on increases? Business rates are decimated, as is transport income. They will need bailouts from the centre.
Government could just end the caps this year, let councils take the flack for tax rises not just central government
No, it is not possible. The maths of this situation are that the costs are going to be paid back over the next 20-30 years. People in work would not be able to pay the council tax rise that would be needed, let alone those who have lost their jobs or were struggling before.
Fortunately the people at the Treasury are not so wedded to ideology as some, and will look at it pragmatically and mathematically.
So they can just pay the massive hike in income tax and VAT instead?
You don't understand either politics or economics at all.
There won't be a massive hike in tax.
No need to be patronising or rude, I have A grade A levels in both politics and economics. If central government had to bail out out all local councils then income tax and VAT would have to rise whether sharply in the short term or stretched out longer term
I say we tax London and the London commuter belt more. Could be popular in the “blue wall”.
I can see a major central London road from my window, it is normally at 5 mph and full throughout a working day and most of the evening.
Since the lockdown including today if I look I can normally but not always see at least one vehicle but the traffic is flowing very freely and Id say 90%+ down on normal.
And when I go for a run/walk I have noticed most buses have zero passengers, just the driver (admittedly those are timed to avoid whats left of rush hour).
TfL and other bus and train companies may need new subsidies before long because they are running services on almost no fare revenue.
Local govts generally will certainly need bailouts as well as businesses. Ive not been paying much attention on that front but it will need to be done if it hasnt already.
Or they massively increase council tax
Those have just been set and aiui are subject to caps on increases? Business rates are decimated, as is transport income. They will need bailouts from the centre.
Government could just end the caps this year, let councils take the flack for tax rises not just central government
No, it is not possible. The maths of this situation are that the costs are going to be paid back over the next 20-30 years. People in work would not be able to pay the council tax rise that would be needed, let alone those who have lost their jobs or were struggling before.
Fortunately the people at the Treasury are not so wedded to ideology as some, and will look at it pragmatically and mathematically.
So they can just pay the massive hike in income tax and VAT instead?
You don't understand either politics or economics at all.
There won't be a massive hike in tax.
No need to be patronising or rude, I have A grade A levels in both politics and economics. If central government had to bail out out all local councils then income tax and VAT would have to rise whether sharply in the short term or stretched out longer term
There's no if about it, central government will have to and it will be stretched out long term - but there won't be massive tax rises to pay for it.
I must admit to not understanding the logic of this, I must be missing something.
As I see it the lockdown will eventually get the numbers down low enough that tracking and tracing those with the virus will be possible in the way South Korea are doing it.
Waiting until more are infected before the lockdown just means more deaths before that point is reached. The fact that say 0.5% rather than 0.2% of the population have had the virus after makes no real difference in terms of a herd immunity strategy.
So what is the advantage of having a lockdown later?
I think that's a fair point - I think the government is still pursuing a herd immunity strategy, they just aren't talking about it.
Worth noting that football is still suspended in the Far East.
So if for example 0.5% of the population have had the virus after the lockdown is completed, we just need to do the same thing again around 150 times and we've got herd immunity.
If the government are still pursuing a herd immunity strategy then they can approach a second wave with more ventilators, more treatment options, better testing and data on what happened in the first wave, so there would be an option of allowing the second wave to be larger to build herd immunity more quickly.
I can see a major central London road from my window, it is normally at 5 mph and full throughout a working day and most of the evening.
Since the lockdown including today if I look I can normally but not always see at least one vehicle but the traffic is flowing very freely and Id say 90%+ down on normal.
And when I go for a run/walk I have noticed most buses have zero passengers, just the driver (admittedly those are timed to avoid whats left of rush hour).
TfL and other bus and train companies may need new subsidies before long because they are running services on almost no fare revenue.
Local govts generally will certainly need bailouts as well as businesses. Ive not been paying much attention on that front but it will need to be done if it hasnt already.
Or they massively increase council tax
Those have just been set and aiui are subject to caps on increases? Business rates are decimated, as is transport income. They will need bailouts from the centre.
Government could just end the caps this year, let councils take the flack for tax rises not just central government
No, it is not possible. The maths of this situation are that the costs are going to be paid back over the next 20-30 years. People in work would not be able to pay the council tax rise that would be needed, let alone those who have lost their jobs or were struggling before.
Fortunately the people at the Treasury are not so wedded to ideology as some, and will look at it pragmatically and mathematically.
So they can just pay the massive hike in income tax and VAT instead?
You don't understand either politics or economics at all.
There won't be a massive hike in tax.
No need to be patronising or rude, I have A grade A levels in both politics and economics. If central government had to bail out out all local councils then income tax and VAT would have to rise whether sharply in the short term or stretched out longer term
I say we tax London and the London commuter belt more. Could be popular in the “blue wall”.
Potentially good rather than scary, if it indicates more people have already got/had it and are immune.
Not so good if you are going the SK route of rigorously testing and tracing the contacts of those with symptoms. Such a method is doomed to ultimate failure in such a scenario although the curve may be spread very long and shallow.
Why should he? Journalists should write whatever they like, we are not behind the iron curtain
I agree he should write what he wants, he should get less exposure though. Because of his quirky presentation and arguing style media companies pretend he is an expert thinker on everything whereas he is just someone who likes being angry and to belittle others.
Less exposure? He writes a weekly column in the Mail on Sunday and is on Twitter. He is rarely on tv, hasn’t been on QT in two years. When he is on tv he generally gets talked over by the presenter
Yet there's no shortage of people willing to spread his garbage far and wide.
Would have thought he would have been right up your reactionary street, or is it because he isn't a purist advocate of the fairy tale called Brexit?
Why should he? Journalists should write whatever they like, we are not behind the iron curtain
I agree he should write what he wants, he should get less exposure though. Because of his quirky presentation and arguing style media companies pretend he is an expert thinker on everything whereas he is just someone who likes being angry and to belittle others.
Less exposure? He writes a weekly column in the Mail on Sunday and is on Twitter. He is rarely on tv, hasn’t been on QT in two years. When he is on tv he generally gets talked over by the presenter
Yet there's no shortage of people willing to spread his garbage far and wide.
Would have thought he would have been right up your reactionary street, or is it because he isn't a purist advocate of the fairy tale called Brexit?
Arent we hoping for as high a proportion of asymptomatic people as possible? That would be good news not scary?
For us in lockdown, sure. But think of India, Brazil, Nigeria, anywhere with tons of people living on top of each other and poor healthcare - it's going to spread like wildfire and lockdowns won't stop it.
They are still better off having a high proportion of people get it without symptoms than get it with symptoms. It will be terrible but less terrible than if only 20% were asymptomatic.
"Taking the country into extraordinary measures, winning acceptance for them and mass participation in them has been the task up to now. But more difficult still will be the way out. And it will not be long before millions of businesses and most of the country will want to know what that is."
This is a not unreasonable point to ask about, given that different relative levels of the different antibody types (IgM and IgG specific to the virus) should be present during and after infection: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4574583/
It's a totally reasonable question. What's not reasonable is his refusal to shut up for long enough to listen to the answer he's being given, and his obvious preconceived notions that the answer's wrong because it doesn't help his agenda.
The car manufacturers must be in the absolute shit. I just got an email from PFS UK offering absolutely ridiculously cheap leases on 992s for 2021 delivery. Might weigh in Mrs DA's gold jewelry down and get a 7 speed manual base model with no options.
A 992 is ?
Actually explaining the endless acronyms and model numbers would remove the, er, 'mystique' of this unique form of communication...
I can see a major central London road from my window, it is normally at 5 mph and full throughout a working day and most of the evening.
Since the lockdown including today if I look I can normally but not always see at least one vehicle but the traffic is flowing very freely and Id say 90%+ down on normal.
And when I go for a run/walk I have noticed most buses have zero passengers, just the driver (admittedly those are timed to avoid whats left of rush hour).
TfL and other bus and train companies may need new subsidies before long because they are running services on almost no fare revenue.
Local govts generally will certainly need bailouts as well as businesses. Ive not been paying much attention on that front but it will need to be done if it hasnt already.
Or they massively increase council tax
Those have just been set and aiui are subject to caps on increases? Business rates are decimated, as is transport income. They will need bailouts from the centre.
Government could just end the caps this year, let councils take the flack for tax rises not just central government
No, it is not possible. The maths of this situation are that the costs are going to be paid back over the next 20-30 years. People in work would not be able to pay the council tax rise that would be needed, let alone those who have lost their jobs or were struggling before.
Fortunately the people at the Treasury are not so wedded to ideology as some, and will look at it pragmatically and mathematically.
So they can just pay the massive hike in income tax and VAT instead?
Income tax is clearly easier to pay than council tax, as it relies on having income.
But the point is central govt can repay over many years and borrow far cheaper than local govts. There will be tax rises but Id imagine they wont be massive, but instead last for a very long time.
The final WWII loans were only repaid this century - and even then only because it was cheaper to borrow a new loan at lower rates and repay the old one than to keep paying WWII era interest.
This is a once-in-a-century short term shock. The idea it will paid off next year in taxes is utterly insane. It will be added to the national debt and we will only ever repay interest - so long as its short term that is viable.
Added to that, the Bank of England is likely to be the largest buyer of that debt, so we won't even pay interest on it.
Of course the value of the currency is likely to take a considerable hit, over time (not so much its foreign exchange rate, as many other countries will pursue the same means of financing the enormous cost).
The car manufacturers must be in the absolute shit. I just got an email from PFS UK offering absolutely ridiculously cheap leases on 992s for 2021 delivery. Might weigh in Mrs DA's gold jewelry down and get a 7 speed manual base model with no options.
We are now 10 years into a Tory government, only 3 governments since WW2 have lasted more than 10 years and only 1 government, the Tories in 1992, won a general election after more than 10 years in power.
So the Government should have expected things to get much tougher even without Covid 19 and a likely new and more centrist and media savvy Labour leader
At risk of being pedantic, only two governments have lasted more than ten years since World War Two. A government in our system is identified by who leads it, not which party forms it.
Except in the case of a national government a government in our system is actually defined by the party which forms it, we have not had a national government since WW2 but single party government bar 2010 to 2015 which was still a Tory led Government
That is simply not correct in law. It is in practice, of course, but constitutionally parties have no actual role in the system. A government is defined by the person who leads it, which under usual circumstances is whoever commands a majority in the Commons.
We have no written constitution, the Ministers of the Crown have all come from one party in any one government since WW2 bar 2010 to 2015 when most of them were still Tory
Even that isn’t correct, as in the 1950s the Liberal Nationals were still a separate party.
John Maclay was backed by the Tories in a straight fight against Labour in West Renfrewshire, he was only a National Liberal in name in reality a Tory and ultimately it became the National Liberal and Conservative party before merging into the Tories too
Leaving aside the trifling detail that you don’t seem to understand what they were or how they operated, it occurs to me that Gwilym Lloyd George was still officially a Liberal while Home Secretary in the mid-1950s, although he had lost the Liberal whip in 1946. So you would still be wrong.
Let it go. Trying to defend an indefensible position just makes you look silly, although I know you’re used to that.
Gwilym Lloyd George stood as a National Liberal and Conservative in 1945 and 1950 and in 1951 Churchill endorsed his candidacy
No, he did not. I think you’ve taken that off Wikipedia, and it is wrong. He stood ‘as a Liberal, supportive of the National Government.’ (Richard Toye, Lloyd George and Churchill: Rivals for Greatness, p. 393.) In 1951 he actually faced a Conservative candidate at Newcastle although Churchill had asked that he be given a clear run at Labour.
Now if you wish to tell me you know his political allegiance better than he did, based on reading a Wikipedia article, be my guest. Forgive me if I go with his statements and therefore to come back to the point:
1) Parties do not form governments, Prime Ministers do;
2) There have been multiparty governments in Britain since 1945;
3) This is because parties have no technical role in the House of Commons, MPs being elected as individuals.
If you don’t like those trifling facts, that is your problem. Can you stop bothering the rest of us with them though so we can get on with important subjects, including awesome punning and why pineapple should never be added to pizza?
Any evidence he did not stand on the ballot paper as a Liberal and National Conservative? No. So I will stick with my point. In 1951 he faced an Independent, Churchill backed him as the Tory supported candidate as Tory leader.
1) There is no written constitution, ministers serve the Queen not the Prime minister constitutionally 2). Only the 2010 to 2015 government contained parties which stood against each other and most of those were Tory. 3) Rubbish, every MP is elected for the party next to their name, barely any solely on personal vote. If you wish to make minor points irrelevant to my original statement I will take issue with them
This is a not unreasonable point to ask about, given that different relative levels of the different antibody types (IgM and IgG specific to the virus) should be present during and after infection: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4574583/
It's a totally reasonable question. What's not reasonable is his refusal to shut up for long enough to listen to the answer he's being given, and his obvious preconceived notions that the answer's wrong because it doesn't help his agenda.
I'm not a fan of Peston, but the add hominems do little to excuse the government's extremely poor communication of late.
The media might not be doing their job very well, either - but expecting them to stop doing it is a ridiculous response. (That comment is not directed at you personally.)
I can see a major central London road from my window, it is normally at 5 mph and full throughout a working day and most of the evening.
Since the lockdown including today if I look I can normally but not always see at least one vehicle but the traffic is flowing very freely and Id say 90%+ down on normal.
And when I go for a run/walk I have noticed most buses have zero passengers, just the driver (admittedly those are timed to avoid whats left of rush hour).
I have noticed little difference in traffic at home - but that is because there is zero drop in tractor movement and apart from them, we have bugger all traffic anyway...
The usually busy A road that passes my house has started to get dirty through underuse.
Keep us updated. If grass starts growing in the centre, we need to know....
I can see a major central London road from my window, it is normally at 5 mph and full throughout a working day and most of the evening.
Since the lockdown including today if I look I can normally but not always see at least one vehicle but the traffic is flowing very freely and Id say 90%+ down on normal.
And when I go for a run/walk I have noticed most buses have zero passengers, just the driver (admittedly those are timed to avoid whats left of rush hour).
TfL and other bus and train companies may need new subsidies before long because they are running services on almost no fare revenue.
Local govts generally will certainly need bailouts as well as businesses. Ive not been paying much attention on that front but it will need to be done if it hasnt already.
Or they massively increase council tax
Those have just been set and aiui are subject to caps on increases? Business rates are decimated, as is transport income. They will need bailouts from the centre.
Government could just end the caps this year, let councils take the flack for tax rises not just central government
No, it is not possible. The maths of this situation are that the costs are going to be paid back over the next 20-30 years. People in work would not be able to pay the council tax rise that would be needed, let alone those who have lost their jobs or were struggling before.
Fortunately the people at the Treasury are not so wedded to ideology as some, and will look at it pragmatically and mathematically.
So they can just pay the massive hike in income tax and VAT instead?
You don't understand either politics or economics at all.
There won't be a massive hike in tax.
No need to be patronising or rude, I have A grade A levels in both politics and economics. If central government had to bail out out all local councils then income tax and VAT would have to rise whether sharply in the short term or stretched out longer term
There's no if about it, central government will have to and it will be stretched out long term - but there won't be massive tax rises to pay for it.
If they have to bail out every council there will be tax rises
We still are getting visits, this morning, from Carers who have zero PPE. Even the aprons they have had up to now have run out. One of them was told by her manager that masks will not arrive for 7 weeks.
I can see a major central London road from my window, it is normally at 5 mph and full throughout a working day and most of the evening.
Since the lockdown including today if I look I can normally but not always see at least one vehicle but the traffic is flowing very freely and Id say 90%+ down on normal.
And when I go for a run/walk I have noticed most buses have zero passengers, just the driver (admittedly those are timed to avoid whats left of rush hour).
TfL and other bus and train companies may need new subsidies before long because they are running services on almost no fare revenue.
Local govts generally will certainly need bailouts as well as businesses. Ive not been paying much attention on that front but it will need to be done if it hasnt already.
Or they massively increase council tax
Those have just been set and aiui are subject to caps on increases? Business rates are decimated, as is transport income. They will need bailouts from the centre.
Government could just end the caps this year, let councils take the flack for tax rises not just central government
No, it is not possible. The maths of this situation are that the costs are going to be paid back over the next 20-30 years. People in work would not be able to pay the council tax rise that would be needed, let alone those who have lost their jobs or were struggling before.
Fortunately the people at the Treasury are not so wedded to ideology as some, and will look at it pragmatically and mathematically.
So they can just pay the massive hike in income tax and VAT instead?
You don't understand either politics or economics at all.
There won't be a massive hike in tax.
No need to be patronising or rude, I have A grade A levels in both politics and economics. If central government had to bail out out all local councils then income tax and VAT would have to rise whether sharply in the short term or stretched out longer term
There's no if about it, central government will have to and it will be stretched out long term - but there won't be massive tax rises to pay for it.
If they have to bail out every council there will be tax rises
Spain is not quite as bleak as the media are trying to paint it, on a three day average new cases are flatlining at 8,200 approx and whilst deaths are still going up that is to be expected for a few days yet. Valencia day on day increase in new cases is 5% the lowest for a while. I see no sign of any large scale desire to break the lockdown, there are a declining number of fines etc being issued. Locally it’s becoming a highlight when the bin Larry comes round each night and the traffic has dropped by 95% on the road near me.
Just over 6k new cases today is not good. Spain seems out of the exponential growth period but it has not yet reached a peak.
I can see a major central London road from my window, it is normally at 5 mph and full throughout a working day and most of the evening.
Since the lockdown including today if I look I can normally but not always see at least one vehicle but the traffic is flowing very freely and Id say 90%+ down on normal.
And when I go for a run/walk I have noticed most buses have zero passengers, just the driver (admittedly those are timed to avoid whats left of rush hour).
TfL and other bus and train companies may need new subsidies before long because they are running services on almost no fare revenue.
Local govts generally will certainly need bailouts as well as businesses. Ive not been paying much attention on that front but it will need to be done if it hasnt already.
Or they massively increase council tax
Those have just been set and aiui are subject to caps on increases? Business rates are decimated, as is transport income. They will need bailouts from the centre.
Government could just end the caps this year, let councils take the flack for tax rises not just central government
No, it is not possible. The maths of this situation are that the costs are going to be paid back over the next 20-30 years. People in work would not be able to pay the council tax rise that would be needed, let alone those who have lost their jobs or were struggling before.
Fortunately the people at the Treasury are not so wedded to ideology as some, and will look at it pragmatically and mathematically.
So they can just pay the massive hike in income tax and VAT instead?
You don't understand either politics or economics at all.
There won't be a massive hike in tax.
No need to be patronising or rude, I have A grade A levels in both politics and economics. If central government had to bail out out all local councils then income tax and VAT would have to rise whether sharply in the short term or stretched out longer term
There's no if about it, central government will have to and it will be stretched out long term - but there won't be massive tax rises to pay for it.
If they have to bail out every council there will be tax rises
Unlikely though I note the subtle drop of the word "massive". We will be trying to get the economy off the floor - you don't do that with tax rises.
Spain is not quite as bleak as the media are trying to paint it, on a three day average new cases are flatlining at 8,200 approx and whilst deaths are still going up that is to be expected for a few days yet. Valencia day on day increase in new cases is 5% the lowest for a while. I see no sign of any large scale desire to break the lockdown, there are a declining number of fines etc being issued. Locally it’s becoming a highlight when the bin Larry comes round each night and the traffic has dropped by 95% on the road near me.
Good to hear. The numbers do certainly seem to have stabilised in terms of new cases. It's not good, but the situation will start to improve in a week. I was reading that in northern Italy that the ICUs are under much less strain this week and, indeed, in some of the previously worst affected areas have capacity again. However, lockdowns take time to have an effect...
One slight positive, given the fairly high asymptomatic case numbers that are anticipated, it is possible that a really quite large fraction of the population in Spain will have been infected. For example, say the final tally is 200,000 cases, most of which will have been diagnosed in hospital in people with fairly serious pathologies. If this represents 20% of cases with any symptoms (this was the number reported from China, who did not count asymptomatic positives), then 1,000,000 people will have had symptomatic (mild + severe) cases of Covid-19.
However, if the research from South Korea linked to below is correct (and other countries, including Iceland and the Veneto are consistent, so it's reasonable to think this is not crazy) and 80-90% are completely asymptomatic, then 5-10 million people across Spain might already have been infected (so say 20% of the entire population). If this turns out to be the case (serology will be critical to validate) then a lot of people should have a degree of immunity for the next round, which will partially limit the ability of the virus to spread.
And this is independent of improvements in testing / contract tracing / and hopefully anti-virals, which should further slow down the spread next time
That actually sounds like the best news we've had on this since January?
On Pesto - I've encountered the phenomenon that some journalists think that they should never be talked back to before. Even by actual experts. It seems to be shared by some lawyers - particularly those who go into management and seem to believe that since the World is Law, and they are priests of the Law, then their word is the Word. And then go on to talk bollocks.
This is a not unreasonable point to ask about, given that different relative levels of the different antibody types (IgM and IgG specific to the virus) should be present during and after infection: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4574583/
I think IgM antibodies are detectable after a week, and IgG in 3 weeks. IgM is short lived so indicates recent infection, indeed because of the duration of viral shedding, probable continuing infection. Viral PCR swabs can be positive sooner, but have a lot of false negatives.
Thanks very much. Although I was hoping that somebody would tell me it isn't.
The only way I can see that is more positive is if the lockdown allows the NHS to cope with the peak of this outbreak, then afterwards we implement a very rigorous and effective Korean style "test and trace" regime which allows us to, other than this, return to normal life.
But I can't see us being up to that task. I think it's beyond our capability. Or let's just say that the evidence that we CAN do it is somewhat lacking.
Potentially good rather than scary, if it indicates more people have already got/had it and are immune.
Not so good if you are going the SK route of rigorously testing and tracing the contacts of those with symptoms. Such a method is doomed to ultimate failure in such a scenario although the curve may be spread very long and shallow.
Only so if you assume no treatments become available. That seems unlikely.
I must admit to not understanding the logic of this, I must be missing something.
As I see it the lockdown will eventually get the numbers down low enough that tracking and tracing those with the virus will be possible in the way South Korea are doing it.
Waiting until more are infected before the lockdown just means more deaths before that point is reached. The fact that say 0.5% rather than 0.2% of the population have had the virus after makes no real difference in terms of a herd immunity strategy.
So what is the advantage of having a lockdown later?
I think that's a fair point - I think the government is still pursuing a herd immunity strategy, they just aren't talking about it.
Worth noting that football is still suspended in the Far East.
So if for example 0.5% of the population have had the virus after the lockdown is completed, we just need to do the same thing again around 150 times and we've got herd immunity.
If the government are still pursuing a herd immunity strategy then they can approach a second wave with more ventilators, more treatment options, better testing and data on what happened in the first wave, so there would be an option of allowing the second wave to be larger to build herd immunity more quickly.
A herd immunity strategy is what everyone on the planet will end up with.
A series of lock downs and relaxations to prevent modern civilisation stopping - and keeping the medical system from breaking.
This will either end with herd immunity from either everyone getting the disease, or a vaccine.
Comments
(I have no idea if the NHS is the best at regular procurement or not but its centralised purchasing power probably puts it high up the list).
Perhaps effort should have been focussed on allowing business to continue with improved social distancing measures.
Against that there is the (perhaps reasonable) argument that it would not have been followed so well without people witnessing a significant number of deaths.
I have my doubts about that one.
There's also the fact that we might not have had sufficient testing capacity to return to effective (as opposed to ineffective) track and trace after an earlier lockdown. (Possible/probable.)
And the silly argument put forward by statisticians at the time that we 'wouldn't have been able to see the effects' of an earlier lockdown. (I think the Imperial guy said this.)
Lockdowns need enforcing and the public onside. A lockdown is useless if unenforced and broadly ignored by a significant proportion of the public. The public themselves swayed opinion in favour of one in that shambles weekend just after the pubs closed.
There's also a related argument that you can only lockdown once. If you relieve the measures, it will be much harder to put them back on.
Once you have locked down, in effect, a countdown starts before increasing public disobedience of the lockdown renders it useless or requires you to increase the measures further. Or send in the troops.
ETA which come to think of it was a subplot of Doctor in the House.
If it was to buy time to get systems in place that means we can either eliminate it through track and tracing or let it rip and deal with all the ill people then it makes some sense. But are either of those the plan?
Same applies to Cadwaldr, Peston and Piers Morgan.
Fortunately the people at the Treasury are not so wedded to ideology as some, and will look at it pragmatically and mathematically.
He is having a terrible Covid-19. Without even getting it.
EASY
And anyone waxing on about how great the government is for following expert medical advice needs to account for why they spent months ignoring the WHO.
Differing opinions are welcomed by the vast majority, ill informed ranting less so.
But it only works if we know that having the virus grants long term immunity from catching it again. Do we know that this is the case?
Each to their own. I find him a thoughtful and independent minded writer. One of the few people around today who are prepared to resist jumping on bandwagons for ‘likes’
Now if you wish to tell me you know his political allegiance better than he did, based on reading a Wikipedia article, be my guest. Forgive me if I go with his statements and therefore to come back to the point:
1) Parties do not form governments, Prime Ministers do;
2) There have been multiparty governments in Britain since 1945;
3) This is because parties have no technical role in the House of Commons, MPs being elected as individuals.
If you don’t like those trifling facts, that is your problem. Can you stop bothering the rest of us with them though so we can get on with important subjects, including awesome punning and why pineapple should never be added to pizza?
There won't be a massive hike in tax.
But the point is central govt can repay over many years and borrow far cheaper than local govts. There will be tax rises but Id imagine they wont be massive, but instead last for a very long time.
https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/shipid:371681/zoom:9
I guess they've got all the diesels running and have a very light hotel load. The Captains used to compete to see who could get her across the pond in 6 days without lighting the turbines - of course with 7 & 8 day crossings thats much easier.
For a start, I've also used the word. And more tellingly, the usage here is ugly, bordering on ungrammatical.
https://twitter.com/ArchConway/status/1245655027655405571
We're going to be in the same position after a lockdown regardless of whether it was earlier or later, only doing it later causes more deaths.
This is a once-in-a-century short term shock. The idea it will paid off next year in taxes is utterly insane. It will be added to the national debt and we will only ever repay interest - so long as its short term that is viable.
The nutters some of whom still claim that AIDS isn't caused by HIV are rightly ridiculed and ignored - hardly anybody complains (is it because they don't have a trillion dollar industry behind them that spends more on disinformation than any other?)
If central government had to bail out out all local councils then income tax and VAT would have to rise whether sharply in the short term or stretched out longer term
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1245637311334735872
This is a not unreasonable point to ask about, given that different relative levels of the different antibody types (IgM and IgG specific to the virus) should be present during and after infection:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4574583/
How much you listen to him after that point is up to you.
That actually sounds like the best news we've had on this since January?
"Taking the country into extraordinary measures, winning acceptance for them and mass participation in them has been the task up to now. But more difficult still will be the way out. And it will not be long before millions of businesses and most of the country will want to know what that is."
Of course the value of the currency is likely to take a considerable hit, over time (not so much its foreign exchange rate, as many other countries will pursue the same means of financing the enormous cost).
So I will stick with my point. In 1951 he faced an Independent, Churchill backed him as the Tory supported candidate as Tory leader.
1) There is no written constitution, ministers serve the Queen not the Prime minister constitutionally
2). Only the 2010 to 2015 government contained parties which stood against each other and most of those were Tory.
3) Rubbish, every MP is elected for the party next to their name, barely any solely on personal vote.
If you wish to make minor points irrelevant to my original statement I will take issue with them
The media might not be doing their job very well, either - but expecting them to stop doing it is a ridiculous response. (That comment is not directed at you personally.)
How do you constructively criticise that?
One slight positive, given the fairly high asymptomatic case numbers that are anticipated, it is possible that a really quite large fraction of the population in Spain will have been infected. For example, say the final tally is 200,000 cases, most of which will have been diagnosed in hospital in people with fairly serious pathologies. If this represents 20% of cases with any symptoms (this was the number reported from China, who did not count asymptomatic positives), then 1,000,000 people will have had symptomatic (mild + severe) cases of Covid-19.
However, if the research from South Korea linked to below is correct (and other countries, including Iceland and the Veneto are consistent, so it's reasonable to think this is not crazy) and 80-90% are completely asymptomatic, then 5-10 million people across Spain might already have been infected (so say 20% of the entire population). If this turns out to be the case (serology will be critical to validate) then a lot of people should have a degree of immunity for the next round, which will partially limit the ability of the virus to spread.
And this is independent of improvements in testing / contract tracing / and hopefully anti-virals, which should further slow down the spread next time
The only way I can see that is more positive is if the lockdown allows the NHS to cope with the peak of this outbreak, then afterwards we implement a very rigorous and effective Korean style "test and trace" regime which allows us to, other than this, return to normal life.
But I can't see us being up to that task. I think it's beyond our capability. Or let's just say that the evidence that we CAN do it is somewhat lacking.
That seems unlikely.
A series of lock downs and relaxations to prevent modern civilisation stopping - and keeping the medical system from breaking.
This will either end with herd immunity from either everyone getting the disease, or a vaccine.