It's a small number, but did anyone notice the 60 ventilators Germany gave to the UK yesterday? I hope I'm wrong, but I'm finding it hard to imagine, if things were the other way round, that the UK would be donating any ventilators to Germany.
I have no doubt if we had an excess of ventilators and Germany needed them they would get them
While we have left the EU there is no reason why we cannot have a good relationship with all EU states.
We do not want some idiotic cold war nonsense
If the UK was 100% sure that they had more than enough ventilators (which Germany cannot be sure of at this point), still not convinced Germany would get any. Johnson probably more likely to send them to Trump.
Given that he seems to despise Trump - openly mocked him in concert with other world leaders at a recent conference, why do you think that?
Johnson has a tendency to say whatever he thinks his audience wants to hear.
I have no doubt that Johnson feels closer to the US than to Europe (he was after all a US citizen until he decided he didn't want to pay taxes there), and regards the UK's relationship with the US as much more important than the relationship with Germany.
Well, it is worth pointing out that when Cameron was Prime Minister, Johnson was one of those Conservatives being criticised by the Opposition (along with Cameron) for being openly in favour of Obama's re-election. Not really very Trumpian.
The Johnson=Trump thing is a comfort blanket for some. It doesn't seem to be related to any actual facts.
The Supermarkets failure to adapt their Just In Time stock keeping in the face of increased home delivery has pushed us past breaking point with them
Put in and order for delivery 3 weeks in advance and they still fail to have items we ordered.
Not having stock on day of delivery was annoying but okay in the old world but now when I've given you 20 days notice to fulfill an order it is ridiculous.
It has pushed us towards ordering with wholesalers and smaller retailers who do radical things like "only list the stock they have" and setup recurring orders and such like.
We've been fortunate, out of 150 things we ordered from Sainbury's over the last two weeks we've had like 8 substitutions, although one of them was a shocker.
We ordered butter and got margarine, that's on a par with replacing my hot and spicy veggie pizza with a Hawaiian pizza.
“There’s been a warning in some quarters that half of independent schools will go bust by Christmas,” a consultant working in the sector told Tes.
“It’s probably best not to say half – because there could be even more than that. The North of England could become a desert when it comes to independent schools."
When asked by Tes whether the estimate was accurate, Peter Woodroffe, of the Independent Schools Association, which represents 540 schools, said: "I think it's an exaggeration. From our experience, whenever a small school is facing closure, parents will usually step in to help."
But he added: "I suspect we might see between 15 and 20 per cent closing, which is still a lot."
With around 2,300 independent schools across the country, that would mean more than 300 schools becoming extinct by Christmas.
ALSO
He added: “In June, schools could be hit with a full wage bill that they can’t claim back, and then it's closure time, so it’s almost a bit of tripwire in that sense.
“But if the furlough scheme could carry on for another three months after that – it would cover schools until September when things would be back to normal.”
So numbers of patients in hospital are now falling. Deaths likely to go up for a few more days given the heavily lagged reporting, but pretty soon lower ICU occupancy will feed through.
I will stress again, do not read too much into one day's worth of data.
I'm not. It's a trend.
I don't blame anyone at the press conference from playing a very straight bat to stop idiots going out on the piss this weekend, but the evidence is now very clear that cases peaked weeks ago and hospital numbers are now following. If you look at the detailed stats on what days reported deaths actually occured, as opposed to when they were reported, the same pattern is there.
I'm looking at the week on week increase being 34%.
Yes, that has been written on the slide to match up with the pre-agreed message that this is VERY SERIOUS, and it is TOO SOON TO SLACKEN OFF. It's a metric designed to try and stop people who shouldn't making their own decision on the end of lockdown.
I am sat at home and will remain so until they say I shouldn't, but I'm not going to pretend I can't see that diagnosis peaked 3 weeks ago, hospital usage has been largely flat for several days now and is beginning to fall in line with the expected lag, and death stats on an actual day as opposed to reported day basis are also showing significant flattening.
Why would anyone imagine that passing the peak of infections, or deaths, or hospital admissions, or anything would make it safe to raise the lockdown?
There has been a peak only because of the lockdown. If the lockdown was lifted we would go back to exponential growth, regardless of any past history.
I really wish I could understand the thinking.
I wish I could understand people who think the NHS can be paid for by a nation sat in permanent lockdown.
The answer of course is a balanced middle way. School closures, per the SAGE modelling release, make very little difference to the viral spread, but are enormously damaging to the ability of the country to pay for the NHS over a sustained period.
What I'm asking is why you think the passing of a peak has any relevance whatsoever to anything to do with loosening restrictions.
If you were discussing in good faith I really struggle to see how you could not see the answer to that.
It is 100% clear that the current lockdown can not continue forever. If you believe we're going to continue as per this and not seek to make any relaxation whatsoever until a mythical vaccine is found and several billion doses are produced, then you have a much more relaxed attitude than me about the capacity of the world to fulfill people's needs with so few people actually working.
Re-opening schools does not equal a total return to normal, and need not increase the average transmission rate above 1, but would have a massive impact on the productivity of parents and so leave us much better placed to fight that out for the long term.
I'm asking why the peak is relevant. You didn't even mention the peak in your latest.
Please just think about it. The point is that whatever level of active cases we are at when the lockdown is lifted, or loosened, or whatever, from that point the virus will again begin to spread exponentially at whatever rate is determned by the new conditions.
PAST HISTORY IS IRRELEVANT, EXCEPT INASMUCH AS IT DETERMINES THE NUMBER OF ACTIVE CASES AND THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WITH IMMUNITY. In particular, the fact that there has been a peak is irrelevant.
What you need to look at is the number of people with immunity and the number of active cases. That's the basis on which a decision will have to be made. Nothing to do with whether some kind of peak has been passed.
Chris stay with it. It must be so frustrating to keep hammering away at these numbskulls when it's all so obvious.
Plus the very fact that you are taking time off from your post as deputy Deputy CMO to post on PB should be, indeed is cause for immense gratitude on our part.
One of my predictions for this year is that we and many other countries will ban flights from the USA.
And I presume the Chinese won't be that keen to come to the West and test their luck at the plague lottery.
The tourist industry is in for a really rough time.
A friend works at top university, says their Chinese student numbers over the next few years are going to crater, hardly expecting next academic year.
They charge them 3 times what they charge UK students, which means a lot of universities are going to need a bailout.
This is a major issue and expect a number of higher education establishments to close by Christmas. The same goes for independent schools (an area that I am, obviously, invested in). With the lack of overseas students and their money and parents unable to pay fees the suggestion is that, apart from a few here and there, the whole private school industry outside the South East will collapse. The Chinese are, apparently, ready to pounce on any decent schools close to London that are in trouble, outside that area, not so much,
The warning sign for me is the number of private schools still charging and wanting fees paid for the summer term, and not even offering refunds.
We've offered parents a pretty good discount, so hopefully that will help. I expect that asking them to pay full fees next term, to pay for any return to school will be met with opposition, though, as many will have had their own finances affected at this time. Considering that rehiring, unfurloughing, electric/gas etc., would bump costs up again, they'd probably start to withdraw in greater numbers, leaving the school even shorter.
Further to that, via the TES, here's what RLB just asked about the situation -
"In a letter to education secretary Gavin Williamson published this afternoon, she writes: "It is reported that many private educational settings are likely to face an impending financial crisis as a result of the pandemic and the loss of international students in particular.
"What steps is your Department taking to support such settings, particularly, integrating them into the state sector?""
That's going to go down well......
Presumably many of those schools are educational charities and if they can't operate on a sustainable basis, the assets have to be used in some other educational way?
Mr. Eagles, that's a plausible timeline, though it's hard to say if/how a second wave will happen.
I'm expecting two further waves this year, one a minor one when the lockdown is eased and people ignore social distancing, and a second one in the normal flu season.
What are the mechanics of your second, minor wave? What is going to stop it?
Enforced lockdown of vulnerable groups.
Rest of the country works as normal, supporting the vulnerable groups, but plenty of social distancing.
I fully expect by the autumn the government will have nationalised the home delivery system.
Removing vulnerable groups would just take them out of the equation. There has to be something else to stop the second wave in the remainder of the population - to render it only "minor". It seems to be social distancing, from what you say. But if social distancing could render an outbreak minor, we wouldn't have needed a lockdown in the first place!
As my father's friend who is fairly senior in the front line of the NHS, 'there are no good outcomes, only bad ones, we can only hope we choose the least bad one.'
That's all very well, but why on earth do you think social distancing alone can keep the second wave "minor"???
It sounds as though what you are really envisaging is the original herd immunity strategy shifted a few months later, with better planning of the isolation of people with certain medical conditions and - perhaps - the over 70s. Frankly, I think it's pretty much as lunatic an idea as it ever was.
As I noted downthread I'm expecting a lot of changed behaviour some of it enforced, some of it voluntary.
I can see a world where visits to cinemas and gyms crater even after the lockdown is lifted.
It's a small number, but did anyone notice the 60 ventilators Germany gave to the UK yesterday? I hope I'm wrong, but I'm finding it hard to imagine, if things were the other way round, that the UK would be donating any ventilators to Germany.
I have no doubt if we had an excess of ventilators and Germany needed them they would get them
While we have left the EU there is no reason why we cannot have a good relationship with all EU states.
We do not want some idiotic cold war nonsense
If the UK was 100% sure that they had more than enough ventilators (which Germany cannot be sure of at this point), still not convinced Germany would get any. Johnson probably more likely to send them to Trump.
Given that he seems to despise Trump - openly mocked him in concert with other world leaders at a recent conference, why do you think that?
Johnson has a tendency to say whatever he thinks his audience wants to hear.
I have no doubt that Johnson feels closer to the US than to Europe (he was after all a US citizen until he decided he didn't want to pay taxes there), and regards the UK's relationship with the US as much more important than the relationship with Germany.
Well, it is worth pointing out that when Cameron was Prime Minister, Johnson was one of those Conservatives being criticised by the Opposition (along with Cameron) for being openly in favour of Obama's re-election. Not really very Trumpian.
The Johnson=Trump thing is a comfort blanket for some. It doesn't seem to be related to any actual facts.
Obama was US president at the time.
Yes - hence he was seeking re-election. The fact that the Conservative government was so close to Obama caused some to comment.
There has not been a similar closeness under either May or Johnson - more keeping the clown at arms length, if anything. Or trying to.
One of my predictions for this year is that we and many other countries will ban flights from the USA.
And I presume the Chinese won't be that keen to come to the West and test their luck at the plague lottery.
The tourist industry is in for a really rough time.
A friend works at top university, says their Chinese student numbers over the next few years are going to crater, hardly expecting next academic year.
They charge them 3 times what they charge UK students, which means a lot of universities are going to need a bailout.
This is a major issue and expect a number of higher education establishments to close by Christmas. The same goes for independent schools (an area that I am, obviously, invested in). With the lack of overseas students and their money and parents unable to pay fees the suggestion is that, apart from a few here and there, the whole private school industry outside the South East will collapse. The Chinese are, apparently, ready to pounce on any decent schools close to London that are in trouble, outside that area, not so much,
The warning sign for me is the number of private schools still charging and wanting fees paid for the summer term, and not even offering refunds.
We've offered parents a pretty good discount, so hopefully that will help. I expect that asking them to pay full fees next term, to pay for any return to school will be met with opposition, though, as many will have had their own finances affected at this time. Considering that rehiring, unfurloughing, electric/gas etc., would bump costs up again, they'd probably start to withdraw in greater numbers, leaving the school even shorter.
Further to that, via the TES, here's what RLB just asked about the situation -
"In a letter to education secretary Gavin Williamson published this afternoon, she writes: "It is reported that many private educational settings are likely to face an impending financial crisis as a result of the pandemic and the loss of international students in particular.
"What steps is your Department taking to support such settings, particularly, integrating them into the state sector?""
That's going to go down well......
I'll homeschool my kids than send them into the state sector.
According to Fraser Nelson, the populace has been more obedient than expected:
"At each daily press conference, medical and scientific advisers talk about the plunge in use of transport and how well rules are being observed. What they don’t say is that this was not quite in their original plan. Government modellers didn’t expect such obedience: they expected workers to carry on and at least a million pupils to be left in school by parents."
Mr. Eagles, that's a plausible timeline, though it's hard to say if/how a second wave will happen.
I'm expecting two further waves this year, one a minor one when the lockdown is eased and people ignore social distancing, and a second one in the normal flu season.
What are the mechanics of your second, minor wave? What is going to stop it?
Enforced lockdown of vulnerable groups.
Rest of the country works as normal, supporting the vulnerable groups, but plenty of social distancing.
I fully expect by the autumn the government will have nationalised the home delivery system.
Removing vulnerable groups would just take them out of the equation. There has to be something else to stop the second wave in the remainder of the population - to render it only "minor". It seems to be social distancing, from what you say. But if social distancing could render an outbreak minor, we wouldn't have needed a lockdown in the first place!
As my father's friend who is fairly senior in the front line of the NHS, 'there are no good outcomes, only bad ones, we can only hope we choose the least bad one.'
That's all very well, but why on earth do you think social distancing alone can keep the second wave "minor"???
It sounds as though what you are really envisaging is the original herd immunity strategy shifted a few months later, with better planning of the isolation of people with certain medical conditions and - perhaps - the over 70s. Frankly, I think it's pretty much as lunatic an idea as it ever was.
As I noted downthread I'm expecting a lot of changed behaviour some of it enforced, some of it voluntary.
I can see a world where visits to cinemas and gyms crater even after the lockdown is lifted.
This is a funny virus in that lets say its CFR is 2%.
That is hardly Survivors territory plus there is a perception that it affects those who are old or ill. People who go out to gyms are generally young and well. And arrogant. I think they will pack out the gyms when allowed to.
Mr. Eagles, that's a plausible timeline, though it's hard to say if/how a second wave will happen.
I'm expecting two further waves this year, one a minor one when the lockdown is eased and people ignore social distancing, and a second one in the normal flu season.
What are the mechanics of your second, minor wave? What is going to stop it?
Enforced lockdown of vulnerable groups.
Rest of the country works as normal, supporting the vulnerable groups, but plenty of social distancing.
I fully expect by the autumn the government will have nationalised the home delivery system.
Removing vulnerable groups would just take them out of the equation. There has to be something else to stop the second wave in the remainder of the population - to render it only "minor". It seems to be social distancing, from what you say. But if social distancing could render an outbreak minor, we wouldn't have needed a lockdown in the first place!
As my father's friend who is fairly senior in the front line of the NHS, 'there are no good outcomes, only bad ones, we can only hope we choose the least bad one.'
That's all very well, but why on earth do you think social distancing alone can keep the second wave "minor"???
It sounds as though what you are really envisaging is the original herd immunity strategy shifted a few months later, with better planning of the isolation of people with certain medical conditions and - perhaps - the over 70s. Frankly, I think it's pretty much as lunatic an idea as it ever was.
Even if the government said that every restriction was lifted, I think some behavioural changes would persist. Perhaps that would help reduce somewhat a second wave?
It might reduce it somewhat, but surely it wouldn't be minor - it would be bigger than the one we're now experiencing. How would the NHS cope with that?
Yes - hence he was seeking re-election. The fact that the Conservative government was so close to Obama caused some to comment.
There has not been a similar closeness under either May or Johnson - more keeping the clown at arms length, if anything. Or trying to.
One of the things I can guarantee because of Covid-19, especially if Trump wins re-election, there will be no trade deal that will open the NHS to the US.
When can we begin - in a responsible way - to relax the lockdown?
There are 3 crucial factors:
1) The overall infection needs to subside. We need to be confident that a capable, representative testing regime shows a substantial decline in new infections. Bringing it down to zero would require maintaining an even tighter lockdown until Christmas. That's not practically feasible. We need to accept that some infectious carriers will still be around, that new community transmission will occur, new clusters forming. There are several lags, both statistically and in real terms. Fatalities lag infections, but the release of hospital patients lags even more. Some people need more than a month to recover, even the "fat blond Jesus" has been lingering for a couple of weeks already. That's why point 2 is important.
2) There are currently some health care capacities in abundance where the virus hasn't yet shown up, but we need to mind the weakest link of the chain. Even current hotspots will see new infections. We must be sure that all health care facilities are back to a sufficient level of free capacity, stocks of PPE, etc. are replenished.
3) We need to have an extensive and efficient testing regime in place that can deal with the expected multitude of newly forming infection clusters. That means not only test kits, reagents, lab capacity and staff, but beyond that - maybe even more importantly - we need intelligence, we need to know whom to test. A major weakness of the British response seems to have been an early breakdown of contact tracing. The legwork, interviewing the infected and tracking down the contacts, is immensely personnel-intensive. The competent authorities in the UK had been overwhelmed quickly. Ramping up the numbers of staff and instructing them is essential but presumably not sufficient. They need to be assisted by data collecting and processing. The wider population needs to be introduced to the fact that anonymised and secure apps are being developed for that and that the participation of everyone is absolutely crucial for the whole scheme to work. People need to be explained that the relatively minor infringement of their data protection is worth the saving of so many lives.
The relaxing of the lockdown will be sequential, incremental, possibly with regional or local variations. It will also probably not be linear but oscillating between loosening and tightening again. But until we have a vaccine available the strategy depicted above is without any realistic, responsible alternative.
Mr. Eagles, that's a plausible timeline, though it's hard to say if/how a second wave will happen.
I'm expecting two further waves this year, one a minor one when the lockdown is eased and people ignore social distancing, and a second one in the normal flu season.
What are the mechanics of your second, minor wave? What is going to stop it?
Enforced lockdown of vulnerable groups.
Rest of the country works as normal, supporting the vulnerable groups, but plenty of social distancing.
I fully expect by the autumn the government will have nationalised the home delivery system.
Removing vulnerable groups would just take them out of the equation. There has to be something else to stop the second wave in the remainder of the population - to render it only "minor". It seems to be social distancing, from what you say. But if social distancing could render an outbreak minor, we wouldn't have needed a lockdown in the first place!
As my father's friend who is fairly senior in the front line of the NHS, 'there are no good outcomes, only bad ones, we can only hope we choose the least bad one.'
That's all very well, but why on earth do you think social distancing alone can keep the second wave "minor"???
It sounds as though what you are really envisaging is the original herd immunity strategy shifted a few months later, with better planning of the isolation of people with certain medical conditions and - perhaps - the over 70s. Frankly, I think it's pretty much as lunatic an idea as it ever was.
As I noted downthread I'm expecting a lot of changed behaviour some of it enforced, some of it voluntary.
I can see a world where visits to cinemas and gyms crater even after the lockdown is lifted.
I hope not and that cinemas etc are full again soon. Life cannot just be measured by how long it is or how likely you are to die (not that covid-19 is that deadly anyway with a real mortality rate under 1% ) it has to be how to enjoy it and socially interact.-especially for the young. Its not fair to lock up young for the sake of the old.
One of my predictions for this year is that we and many other countries will ban flights from the USA.
And I presume the Chinese won't be that keen to come to the West and test their luck at the plague lottery.
The tourist industry is in for a really rough time.
A friend works at top university, says their Chinese student numbers over the next few years are going to crater, hardly expecting next academic year.
They charge them 3 times what they charge UK students, which means a lot of universities are going to need a bailout.
And they won’t get it.
What makes you say that?
Because a lot of businesses are going to be in need of a bailout. There is no way the government will bail out large institutions whilst at the same time letting smaller firms go under.
No one has talked about the civil service yet. That's going to be facing huge cuts over the next year or so.
One of my predictions for this year is that we and many other countries will ban flights from the USA.
And I presume the Chinese won't be that keen to come to the West and test their luck at the plague lottery.
The tourist industry is in for a really rough time.
A friend works at top university, says their Chinese student numbers over the next few years are going to crater, hardly expecting next academic year.
They charge them 3 times what they charge UK students, which means a lot of universities are going to need a bailout.
This is a major issue and expect a number of higher education establishments to close by Christmas. The same goes for independent schools (an area that I am, obviously, invested in). With the lack of overseas students and their money and parents unable to pay fees the suggestion is that, apart from a few here and there, the whole private school industry outside the South East will collapse. The Chinese are, apparently, ready to pounce on any decent schools close to London that are in trouble, outside that area, not so much,
The warning sign for me is the number of private schools still charging and wanting fees paid for the summer term, and not even offering refunds.
We've offered parents a pretty good discount, so hopefully that will help. I expect that asking them to pay full fees next term, to pay for any return to school will be met with opposition, though, as many will have had their own finances affected at this time. Considering that rehiring, unfurloughing, electric/gas etc., would bump costs up again, they'd probably start to withdraw in greater numbers, leaving the school even shorter.
Further to that, via the TES, here's what RLB just asked about the situation -
"In a letter to education secretary Gavin Williamson published this afternoon, she writes: "It is reported that many private educational settings are likely to face an impending financial crisis as a result of the pandemic and the loss of international students in particular.
"What steps is your Department taking to support such settings, particularly, integrating them into the state sector?""
That's going to go down well......
Presumably many of those schools are educational charities and if they can't operate on a sustainable basis, the assets have to be used in some other educational way?
Oh and Eton is making its courses available to the state sector.
One of my predictions for this year is that we and many other countries will ban flights from the USA.
And I presume the Chinese won't be that keen to come to the West and test their luck at the plague lottery.
The tourist industry is in for a really rough time.
A friend works at a top university, says their Chinese student numbers over the next few years are going to crater, hardly expecting next academic year.
They charge them 3 times what they charge UK students, which means a lot of universities are going to need a bailout.
They chose that path - tough luck.
Lots of Uni staff on defined benefit pensions - no way the govt should be bailing that out.
It's not all the unis fault though, the government has for over 20 years now heavily encouraged the UK universities to take so many Chinese students.
And the Unis have caved in to their staff every time they have pointed out that their pensions are unaffordable.
According to Fraser Nelson, the populace has been more obedient than expected:
"At each daily press conference, medical and scientific advisers talk about the plunge in use of transport and how well rules are being observed. What they don’t say is that this was not quite in their original plan. Government modellers didn’t expect such obedience: they expected workers to carry on and at least a million pupils to be left in school by parents."
Given the public were cancelling large events and shifting to home working etc even before the lockdown I do find this modelling bemusing. Public appetite seemed very strong from where I was standing.
Yes, and they had on a Professor who is an expert in this field and currently working on a vaccine, told her in very clear terms that in his opinion the government's response has been appropriate and proportional.
What he said was basically everybody being allowed to leave China have already been deemed low risk and will be screened before they even get on a plane, so the very little danger thus being allowed to make their own way home and the self quarantining is just super extra precaution.
One of my predictions for this year is that we and many other countries will ban flights from the USA.
And I presume the Chinese won't be that keen to come to the West and test their luck at the plague lottery.
The tourist industry is in for a really rough time.
A friend works at top university, says their Chinese student numbers over the next few years are going to crater, hardly expecting next academic year.
They charge them 3 times what they charge UK students, which means a lot of universities are going to need a bailout.
And they won’t get it.
What makes you say that?
Because a lot of businesses are going to be in need of a bailout. There is no way the government will bail out large institutions whilst at the same time letting smaller firms go under.
No one has talked about the civil service yet. That's going to be facing huge cuts over the next year or so.
Having worked in the civil service for a bit thats probably not a bad thing.
Mr. Eagles, that's a plausible timeline, though it's hard to say if/how a second wave will happen.
I'm expecting two further waves this year, one a minor one when the lockdown is eased and people ignore social distancing, and a second one in the normal flu season.
What are the mechanics of your second, minor wave? What is going to stop it?
Enforced lockdown of vulnerable groups.
Rest of the country works as normal, supporting the vulnerable groups, but plenty of social distancing.
I fully expect by the autumn the government will have nationalised the home delivery system.
Removing vulnerable groups would just take them out of the equation. There has to be something else to stop the second wave in the remainder of the population - to render it only "minor". It seems to be social distancing, from what you say. But if social distancing could render an outbreak minor, we wouldn't have needed a lockdown in the first place!
As my father's friend who is fairly senior in the front line of the NHS, 'there are no good outcomes, only bad ones, we can only hope we choose the least bad one.'
That's all very well, but why on earth do you think social distancing alone can keep the second wave "minor"???
It sounds as though what you are really envisaging is the original herd immunity strategy shifted a few months later, with better planning of the isolation of people with certain medical conditions and - perhaps - the over 70s. Frankly, I think it's pretty much as lunatic an idea as it ever was.
As I noted downthread I'm expecting a lot of changed behaviour some of it enforced, some of it voluntary.
I can see a world where visits to cinemas and gyms crater even after the lockdown is lifted.
I hope not and that cinemas etc are full again soon. Life cannot just be measured by how long it is or how likely you are to die (not that covid-19 is that deadly anyway with a real mortality rate under 1% ) it has to be how to enjoy it and socially interact.-especially for the young. Its not fair to lock up young for the sake of the old.
I'm a huge cinemagoer, I have a Cineworld card, but according to Empire and others there's been a huge uptake on people buying/renting films that have just been in the cinema or were scheduled to be released at the cinema.
I think in future we're going to see simultaneous releases of films at the cinema and to buy/rent at home.
One of my predictions for this year is that we and many other countries will ban flights from the USA.
And I presume the Chinese won't be that keen to come to the West and test their luck at the plague lottery.
The tourist industry is in for a really rough time.
A friend works at a top university, says their Chinese student numbers over the next few years are going to crater, hardly expecting next academic year.
They charge them 3 times what they charge UK students, which means a lot of universities are going to need a bailout.
One of my predictions for this year is that we and many other countries will ban flights from the USA.
And I presume the Chinese won't be that keen to come to the West and test their luck at the plague lottery.
The tourist industry is in for a really rough time.
A friend works at top university, says their Chinese student numbers over the next few years are going to crater, hardly expecting next academic year.
They charge them 3 times what they charge UK students, which means a lot of universities are going to need a bailout.
And they won’t get it.
What makes you say that?
Because a lot of businesses are going to be in need of a bailout. There is no way the government will bail out large institutions whilst at the same time letting smaller firms go under.
No one has talked about the civil service yet. That's going to be facing huge cuts over the next year or so.
Mr. Eagles, that's a plausible timeline, though it's hard to say if/how a second wave will happen.
I'm expecting two further waves this year, one a minor one when the lockdown is eased and people ignore social distancing, and a second one in the normal flu season.
What are the mechanics of your second, minor wave? What is going to stop it?
Enforced lockdown of vulnerable groups.
Rest of the country works as normal, supporting the vulnerable groups, but plenty of social distancing.
I fully expect by the autumn the government will have nationalised the home delivery system.
Removing vulnerable groups would just take them out of the equation. There has to be something else to stop the second wave in the remainder of the population - to render it only "minor". It seems to be social distancing, from what you say. But if social distancing could render an outbreak minor, we wouldn't have needed a lockdown in the first place!
As my father's friend who is fairly senior in the front line of the NHS, 'there are no good outcomes, only bad ones, we can only hope we choose the least bad one.'
That's all very well, but why on earth do you think social distancing alone can keep the second wave "minor"???
It sounds as though what you are really envisaging is the original herd immunity strategy shifted a few months later, with better planning of the isolation of people with certain medical conditions and - perhaps - the over 70s. Frankly, I think it's pretty much as lunatic an idea as it ever was.
As I noted downthread I'm expecting a lot of changed behaviour some of it enforced, some of it voluntary.
I can see a world where visits to cinemas and gyms crater even after the lockdown is lifted.
Maybe so, but even with changed behaviour I can't see how you're going to get herd immunity far short of 50% of the (non-isolated) population being infected.
It seems far likelier that we'll have to have a series of lockdowns - one for every wave - with some periods of respite between them.
Yes - hence he was seeking re-election. The fact that the Conservative government was so close to Obama caused some to comment.
There has not been a similar closeness under either May or Johnson - more keeping the clown at arms length, if anything. Or trying to.
One of the things I can guarantee because of Covid-19, especially if Trump wins re-election, there will be no trade deal that will open the NHS to the US.
I would have guaranteed that before. If nothing else - why guarantee to lose the next election?
Yes, and they had on a Professor who is an expert in this field and currently working on a vaccine, told her in very clear terms that in his opinion the government's response has been appropriate and proportional.
What he said was basically everybody being allowed to leave China have already been deemed low risk and will be screened before they even get on a plane, so the very little danger thus being allowed to make their own way home and the self quarantining is just super extra precaution.
A Chinese writer who published a diary during her time under lockdown in Wuhan has been subjected to widespread online criticism for publishing her book in English and German.
Fang Fang has been accused of contributing to a negative international narrative on China’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic.
The popular Wuhan writer began chronicling the lockdown in late January, including criticism of the official response.
“How many people have died in Wuhan and their families destroyed?” she wrote on 31 January. “But so far not a single person has said sorry or taken responsibility. I’ve even seen a writer use the phrase ‘complete victory’. What are they talking about?”
Her posts were shared widely on social media even as each was quickly deleted by censors, according to the Diplomat magazine.
Her Weibo account, which had more than 3.8 million followers, was shut down in February. It has since been reinstated.
But her writing was picked up and turned into a book, due to be published by Harper Collins in June, translated and published in English and German.
For publishing in the western languages, Fang Fang has been accused of helping foreign countries attack China, giving them “a giant sword”.
I've been working from home, and my study looks out the front of our house. It's been interesting seeing what's happening outside, and it has been fairly well as I predicted.
There are a few families on our road that are all friends. A couple of weeks ago, you saw them standing across the road from each other talking. After a few days, they were crossing the road and talking over the hedge.
I predicted at the time that it would be about three weeks before they were in each others houses. Gradually, they have got closer and this week, the kids have been playing on the street together.
Today, a few days earlier than I predicted, they are all in one of the gardens together.
It's the gradual drift that causes the problems. You could see it happening here, and I'm sure it is happening all over the place.
It seems far likelier that we'll have to have a series of lockdowns - one for every wave - with some periods of respite between them.
If we're manipulating the waves by widespread behavioural interventions, then we might not get any meaningful respite at all. Lifting restrictions would just immediately seed the virus again.
It seems far likelier that we'll have to have a series of lockdowns - one for every wave - with some periods of respite between them.
If we're manipulating the waves by widespread behavioural interventions, then we might not get any meaningful respite at all. Lifting restrictions would just immediately seed the virus again.
According to Fraser Nelson, the populace has been more obedient than expected:
"At each daily press conference, medical and scientific advisers talk about the plunge in use of transport and how well rules are being observed. What they don’t say is that this was not quite in their original plan. Government modellers didn’t expect such obedience: they expected workers to carry on and at least a million pupils to be left in school by parents."
Given the public were cancelling large events and shifting to home working etc even before the lockdown I do find this modelling bemusing. Public appetite seemed very strong from where I was standing.
Maybe they didn't trust the public to do the right thing.
Mr. Eagles, that's a plausible timeline, though it's hard to say if/how a second wave will happen.
I'm expecting two further waves this year, one a minor one when the lockdown is eased and people ignore social distancing, and a second one in the normal flu season.
What are the mechanics of your second, minor wave? What is going to stop it?
Enforced lockdown of vulnerable groups.
Rest of the country works as normal, supporting the vulnerable groups, but plenty of social distancing.
I fully expect by the autumn the government will have nationalised the home delivery system.
Removing vulnerable groups would just take them out of the equation. There has to be something else to stop the second wave in the remainder of the population - to render it only "minor". It seems to be social distancing, from what you say. But if social distancing could render an outbreak minor, we wouldn't have needed a lockdown in the first place!
As my father's friend who is fairly senior in the front line of the NHS, 'there are no good outcomes, only bad ones, we can only hope we choose the least bad one.'
That's all very well, but why on earth do you think social distancing alone can keep the second wave "minor"???
It sounds as though what you are really envisaging is the original herd immunity strategy shifted a few months later, with better planning of the isolation of people with certain medical conditions and - perhaps - the over 70s. Frankly, I think it's pretty much as lunatic an idea as it ever was.
As I noted downthread I'm expecting a lot of changed behaviour some of it enforced, some of it voluntary.
I can see a world where visits to cinemas and gyms crater even after the lockdown is lifted.
I hope not and that cinemas etc are full again soon. Life cannot just be measured by how long it is or how likely you are to die (not that covid-19 is that deadly anyway with a real mortality rate under 1% ) it has to be how to enjoy it and socially interact.-especially for the young. Its not fair to lock up young for the sake of the old.
And the NHS staff who will have to risk their own lives just because some snowflakes can't cope without partying with their mates?
I've been working from home, and my study looks out the front of our house. It's been interesting seeing what's happening outside, and it has been fairly well as I predicted.
There are a few families on our road that are all friends. A couple of weeks ago, you saw them standing across the road from each other talking. After a few days, they were crossing the road and talking over the hedge.
I predicted at the time that it would be about three weeks before they were in each others houses. Gradually, they have got closer and this week, the kids have been playing on the street together.
Today, a few days earlier than I predicted, they are all in one of the gardens together.
It's the gradual drift that causes the problems. You could see it happening here, and I'm sure it is happening all over the place.
It makes sense. If (big if) they have all been observing the lockdown then to expand the group as they are doing is sensible, is not increasing the risk to anyone inside or outside the group, and should be the government model for lifting it. Street by street, area by area.
One of my predictions for this year is that we and many other countries will ban flights from the USA.
And I presume the Chinese won't be that keen to come to the West and test their luck at the plague lottery.
The tourist industry is in for a really rough time.
A friend works at top university, says their Chinese student numbers over the next few years are going to crater, hardly expecting next academic year.
They charge them 3 times what they charge UK students, which means a lot of universities are going to need a bailout.
And they won’t get it.
What makes you say that?
Because a lot of businesses are going to be in need of a bailout. There is no way the government will bail out large institutions whilst at the same time letting smaller firms go under.
No one has talked about the civil service yet. That's going to be facing huge cuts over the next year or so.
Thanks.
If there was a betting market on this I wouldn't be putting my money where my mouth is!
It just seems to me that the economic consequences will be deep and long-lasting. It might be harsh on some institutions like universities, but I suspect that governments won't want to be doing mass bailouts because of what happened in 2008.
Mr. Eagles, that's a plausible timeline, though it's hard to say if/how a second wave will happen.
I'm expecting two further waves this year, one a minor one when the lockdown is eased and people ignore social distancing, and a second one in the normal flu season.
What are the mechanics of your second, minor wave? What is going to stop it?
Enforced lockdown of vulnerable groups.
Rest of the country works as normal, supporting the vulnerable groups, but plenty of social distancing.
I fully expect by the autumn the government will have nationalised the home delivery system.
Removing vulnerable groups would just take them out of the equation. There has to be something else to stop the second wave in the remainder of the population - to render it only "minor". It seems to be social distancing, from what you say. But if social distancing could render an outbreak minor, we wouldn't have needed a lockdown in the first place!
As my father's friend who is fairly senior in the front line of the NHS, 'there are no good outcomes, only bad ones, we can only hope we choose the least bad one.'
That's all very well, but why on earth do you think social distancing alone can keep the second wave "minor"???
It sounds as though what you are really envisaging is the original herd immunity strategy shifted a few months later, with better planning of the isolation of people with certain medical conditions and - perhaps - the over 70s. Frankly, I think it's pretty much as lunatic an idea as it ever was.
As I noted downthread I'm expecting a lot of changed behaviour some of it enforced, some of it voluntary.
I can see a world where visits to cinemas and gyms crater even after the lockdown is lifted.
This is a funny virus in that lets say its CFR is 2%.
That is hardly Survivors territory plus there is a perception that it affects those who are old or ill. People who go out to gyms are generally young and well. And arrogant. I think they will pack out the gyms when allowed to.
As long as they sign wavers stating that they don't require medical assistance if they catch the virus.
According to Fraser Nelson, the populace has been more obedient than expected:
"At each daily press conference, medical and scientific advisers talk about the plunge in use of transport and how well rules are being observed. What they don’t say is that this was not quite in their original plan. Government modellers didn’t expect such obedience: they expected workers to carry on and at least a million pupils to be left in school by parents."
Given the public were cancelling large events and shifting to home working etc even before the lockdown I do find this modelling bemusing. Public appetite seemed very strong from where I was standing.
Maybe they didn't trust the public to do the right thing.
Not maybe, clearly they didn't. But my point is I don't see why they didn't trust the public when the public was making big moves of social distancing before they'd even put rules into place.
It seems far likelier that we'll have to have a series of lockdowns - one for every wave - with some periods of respite between them.
If we're manipulating the waves by widespread behavioural interventions, then we might not get any meaningful respite at all. Lifting restrictions would just immediately seed the virus again.
It inevitably will. That's the point I'm making about the people who are saying the restrictions should be relaxed as soon as we're past the peak.
What's needed for a period of respite is to get the number of active cases down to a small enough number that we won't immediately be back into the same boat.
Mr. Eagles, that's a plausible timeline, though it's hard to say if/how a second wave will happen.
I'm expecting two further waves this year, one a minor one when the lockdown is eased and people ignore social distancing, and a second one in the normal flu season.
What are the mechanics of your second, minor wave? What is going to stop it?
Enforced lockdown of vulnerable groups.
Rest of the country works as normal, supporting the vulnerable groups, but plenty of social distancing.
I fully expect by the autumn the government will have nationalised the home delivery system.
Removing vulnerable groups would just take them out of the equation. There has to be something else to stop the second wave in the remainder of the population - to render it only "minor". It seems to be social distancing, from what you say. But if social distancing could render an outbreak minor, we wouldn't have needed a lockdown in the first place!
As my father's friend who is fairly senior in the front line of the NHS, 'there are no good outcomes, only bad ones, we can only hope we choose the least bad one.'
That's all very well, but why on earth do you think social distancing alone can keep the second wave "minor"???
It sounds as though what you are really envisaging is the original herd immunity strategy shifted a few months later, with better planning of the isolation of people with certain medical conditions and - perhaps - the over 70s. Frankly, I think it's pretty much as lunatic an idea as it ever was.
As I noted downthread I'm expecting a lot of changed behaviour some of it enforced, some of it voluntary.
I can see a world where visits to cinemas and gyms crater even after the lockdown is lifted.
This is a funny virus in that lets say its CFR is 2%.
That is hardly Survivors territory plus there is a perception that it affects those who are old or ill. People who go out to gyms are generally young and well. And arrogant. I think they will pack out the gyms when allowed to.
As long as they sign wavers stating that they don't require medical assistance if they catch the virus.
Oh. We're denying treatment to people who do things which are risky are we?
Mr. Eagles, that's a plausible timeline, though it's hard to say if/how a second wave will happen.
I'm expecting two further waves this year, one a minor one when the lockdown is eased and people ignore social distancing, and a second one in the normal flu season.
What are the mechanics of your second, minor wave? What is going to stop it?
Enforced lockdown of vulnerable groups.
Rest of the country works as normal, supporting the vulnerable groups, but plenty of social distancing.
I fully expect by the autumn the government will have nationalised the home delivery system.
Removing vulnerable groups would just take them out of the equation. There has to be something else to stop the second wave in the remainder of the population - to render it only "minor". It seems to be social distancing, from what you say. But if social distancing could render an outbreak minor, we wouldn't have needed a lockdown in the first place!
As my father's friend who is fairly senior in the front line of the NHS, 'there are no good outcomes, only bad ones, we can only hope we choose the least bad one.'
That's all very well, but why on earth do you think social distancing alone can keep the second wave "minor"???
It sounds as though what you are really envisaging is the original herd immunity strategy shifted a few months later, with better planning of the isolation of people with certain medical conditions and - perhaps - the over 70s. Frankly, I think it's pretty much as lunatic an idea as it ever was.
As I noted downthread I'm expecting a lot of changed behaviour some of it enforced, some of it voluntary.
I can see a world where visits to cinemas and gyms crater even after the lockdown is lifted.
This is a funny virus in that lets say its CFR is 2%.
That is hardly Survivors territory plus there is a perception that it affects those who are old or ill. People who go out to gyms are generally young and well. And arrogant. I think they will pack out the gyms when allowed to.
As long as they sign wavers stating that they don't require medical assistance if they catch the virus.
Mr. Eagles, that's a plausible timeline, though it's hard to say if/how a second wave will happen.
I'm expecting two further waves this year, one a minor one when the lockdown is eased and people ignore social distancing, and a second one in the normal flu season.
What are the mechanics of your second, minor wave? What is going to stop it?
Enforced lockdown of vulnerable groups.
Rest of the country works as normal, supporting the vulnerable groups, but plenty of social distancing.
I fully expect by the autumn the government will have nationalised the home delivery system.
Removing vulnerable groups would just take them out of the equation. There has to be something else to stop the second wave in the remainder of the population - to render it only "minor". It seems to be social distancing, from what you say. But if social distancing could render an outbreak minor, we wouldn't have needed a lockdown in the first place!
As my father's friend who is fairly senior in the front line of the NHS, 'there are no good outcomes, only bad ones, we can only hope we choose the least bad one.'
That's all very well, but why on earth do you think social distancing alone can keep the second wave "minor"???
It sounds as though what you are really envisaging is the original herd immunity strategy shifted a few months later, with better planning of the isolation of people with certain medical conditions and - perhaps - the over 70s. Frankly, I think it's pretty much as lunatic an idea as it ever was.
As I noted downthread I'm expecting a lot of changed behaviour some of it enforced, some of it voluntary.
I can see a world where visits to cinemas and gyms crater even after the lockdown is lifted.
I hope not and that cinemas etc are full again soon. Life cannot just be measured by how long it is or how likely you are to die (not that covid-19 is that deadly anyway with a real mortality rate under 1% ) it has to be how to enjoy it and socially interact.-especially for the young. Its not fair to lock up young for the sake of the old.
And the NHS staff who will have to risk their own lives just because some snowflakes can't cope without partying with their mates?
I have always admired medical staff and even more so now but we are all going to have to take a necessary small risk in getting over this and it might as well be sooner than later .
One of my predictions for this year is that we and many other countries will ban flights from the USA.
And I presume the Chinese won't be that keen to come to the West and test their luck at the plague lottery.
The tourist industry is in for a really rough time.
A friend works at top university, says their Chinese student numbers over the next few years are going to crater, hardly expecting next academic year.
They charge them 3 times what they charge UK students, which means a lot of universities are going to need a bailout.
And they won’t get it.
What makes you say that?
Because a lot of businesses are going to be in need of a bailout. There is no way the government will bail out large institutions whilst at the same time letting smaller firms go under.
No one has talked about the civil service yet. That's going to be facing huge cuts over the next year or so.
Thanks.
If there was a betting market on this I wouldn't be putting my money where my mouth is!
It just seems to me that the economic consequences will be deep and long-lasting. It might be harsh on some institutions like universities, but I suspect that governments won't want to be doing mass bailouts because of what happened in 2008.
I think the difference between 2008 and now is that the government won't be forced to take equity stakes, but can offer loans which can be secured against assets in a lot of scenarios.
It's a small number, but did anyone notice the 60 ventilators Germany gave to the UK yesterday? I hope I'm wrong, but I'm finding it hard to imagine, if things were the other way round, that the UK would be donating any ventilators to Germany.
I have no doubt if we had an excess of ventilators and Germany needed them they would get them
While we have left the EU there is no reason why we cannot have a good relationship with all EU states.
We do not want some idiotic cold war nonsense
If the UK was 100% sure that they had more than enough ventilators (which Germany cannot be sure of at this point), still not convinced Germany would get any. Johnson probably more likely to send them to Trump.
That is based on nothing more than your own prejudice.
Mr. Eagles, that's a plausible timeline, though it's hard to say if/how a second wave will happen.
I'm expecting two further waves this year, one a minor one when the lockdown is eased and people ignore social distancing, and a second one in the normal flu season.
What are the mechanics of your second, minor wave? What is going to stop it?
Enforced lockdown of vulnerable groups.
Rest of the country works as normal, supporting the vulnerable groups, but plenty of social distancing.
I fully expect by the autumn the government will have nationalised the home delivery system.
Removing vulnerable groups would just take them out of the equation. There has to be something else to stop the second wave in the remainder of the population - to render it only "minor". It seems to be social distancing, from what you say. But if social distancing could render an outbreak minor, we wouldn't have needed a lockdown in the first place!
As my father's friend who is fairly senior in the front line of the NHS, 'there are no good outcomes, only bad ones, we can only hope we choose the least bad one.'
That's all very well, but why on earth do you think social distancing alone can keep the second wave "minor"???
It sounds as though what you are really envisaging is the original herd immunity strategy shifted a few months later, with better planning of the isolation of people with certain medical conditions and - perhaps - the over 70s. Frankly, I think it's pretty much as lunatic an idea as it ever was.
As I noted downthread I'm expecting a lot of changed behaviour some of it enforced, some of it voluntary.
I can see a world where visits to cinemas and gyms crater even after the lockdown is lifted.
I hope not and that cinemas etc are full again soon. Life cannot just be measured by how long it is or how likely you are to die (not that covid-19 is that deadly anyway with a real mortality rate under 1% ) it has to be how to enjoy it and socially interact.-especially for the young. Its not fair to lock up young for the sake of the old.
And the NHS staff who will have to risk their own lives just because some snowflakes can't cope without partying with their mates?
I have always admired medical staff and even more so now but we are all going to have to take a necessary small risk in getting over this and it might as well be sooner than later .
great idea - lets overwhelm the NHS so that even more die
Mr. Eagles, that's a plausible timeline, though it's hard to say if/how a second wave will happen.
I'm expecting two further waves this year, one a minor one when the lockdown is eased and people ignore social distancing, and a second one in the normal flu season.
What are the mechanics of your second, minor wave? What is going to stop it?
Enforced lockdown of vulnerable groups.
Rest of the country works as normal, supporting the vulnerable groups, but plenty of social distancing.
I fully expect by the autumn the government will have nationalised the home delivery system.
Removing vulnerable groups would just take them out of the equation. There has to be something else to stop the second wave in the remainder of the population - to render it only "minor". It seems to be social distancing, from what you say. But if social distancing could render an outbreak minor, we wouldn't have needed a lockdown in the first place!
As my father's friend who is fairly senior in the front line of the NHS, 'there are no good outcomes, only bad ones, we can only hope we choose the least bad one.'
That's all very well, but why on earth do you think social distancing alone can keep the second wave "minor"???
It sounds as though what you are really envisaging is the original herd immunity strategy shifted a few months later, with better planning of the isolation of people with certain medical conditions and - perhaps - the over 70s. Frankly, I think it's pretty much as lunatic an idea as it ever was.
As I noted downthread I'm expecting a lot of changed behaviour some of it enforced, some of it voluntary.
I can see a world where visits to cinemas and gyms crater even after the lockdown is lifted.
I hope not and that cinemas etc are full again soon. Life cannot just be measured by how long it is or how likely you are to die (not that covid-19 is that deadly anyway with a real mortality rate under 1% ) it has to be how to enjoy it and socially interact.-especially for the young. Its not fair to lock up young for the sake of the old.
And the NHS staff who will have to risk their own lives just because some snowflakes can't cope without partying with their mates?
I have always admired medical staff and even more so now but we are all going to have to take a necessary small risk in getting over this and it might as well be sooner than later .
great idea - lets overwhelm the NHS so that even more die
And we always have to remember that we don't know how long any acquired immunity to this virus would last.
One of my predictions for this year is that we and many other countries will ban flights from the USA.
And I presume the Chinese won't be that keen to come to the West and test their luck at the plague lottery.
The tourist industry is in for a really rough time.
A friend works at top university, says their Chinese student numbers over the next few years are going to crater, hardly expecting next academic year.
They charge them 3 times what they charge UK students, which means a lot of universities are going to need a bailout.
And they won’t get it.
What makes you say that?
Because a lot of businesses are going to be in need of a bailout. There is no way the government will bail out large institutions whilst at the same time letting smaller firms go under.
No one has talked about the civil service yet. That's going to be facing huge cuts over the next year or so.
Thanks.
If there was a betting market on this I wouldn't be putting my money where my mouth is!
It just seems to me that the economic consequences will be deep and long-lasting. It might be harsh on some institutions like universities, but I suspect that governments won't want to be doing mass bailouts because of what happened in 2008.
I think the difference between 2008 and now is that the government won't be forced to take equity stakes, but can offer loans which can be secured against assets in a lot of scenarios.
How much will those assets be worth if the business fails? Perhaps that's a bigger concern for airlines compared with universities.
Got to go for the evening but governments (even democracies) do not usually put so much effort in shutting down everything to save perhaps 20000 lives (manly people near the end of their lives anyway) . It was only 75 years ago the UK government deliberately raised Dresden to the ground actually wanting to kill more than 20000. Governments are full of people who like to control others (its self fulfilling sadly) - The instinct should be to resist in a reasoned way - Sweden is about the only county that seems to have not become a control freak place in this
I am not surprised at all. Once you get outside of the urban centres, population density gets real thin really quickly and with that far fewer facilities.
Go to places like Idaho or Montana and there there are literally one or two cities in the whole state of any size. I know they are low populous states, but I could go on and on with examples from other states and it soon adds up in terms of total numbers.
And even say NY state, its gets really rural upstate an hour out of NYC.
Mr. Eagles, that's a plausible timeline, though it's hard to say if/how a second wave will happen.
I'm expecting two further waves this year, one a minor one when the lockdown is eased and people ignore social distancing, and a second one in the normal flu season.
What are the mechanics of your second, minor wave? What is going to stop it?
Enforced lockdown of vulnerable groups.
Rest of the country works as normal, supporting the vulnerable groups, but plenty of social distancing.
I fully expect by the autumn the government will have nationalised the home delivery system.
Removing vulnerable groups would just take them out of the equation. There has to be something else to stop the second wave in the remainder of the population - to render it only "minor". It seems to be social distancing, from what you say. But if social distancing could render an outbreak minor, we wouldn't have needed a lockdown in the first place!
As my father's friend who is fairly senior in the front line of the NHS, 'there are no good outcomes, only bad ones, we can only hope we choose the least bad one.'
That's all very well, but why on earth do you think social distancing alone can keep the second wave "minor"???
It sounds as though what you are really envisaging is the original herd immunity strategy shifted a few months later, with better planning of the isolation of people with certain medical conditions and - perhaps - the over 70s. Frankly, I think it's pretty much as lunatic an idea as it ever was.
As I noted downthread I'm expecting a lot of changed behaviour some of it enforced, some of it voluntary.
I can see a world where visits to cinemas and gyms crater even after the lockdown is lifted.
Maybe so, but even with changed behaviour I can't see how you're going to get herd immunity far short of 50% of the (non-isolated) population being infected.
It seems far likelier that we'll have to have a series of lockdowns - one for every wave - with some periods of respite between them.
It depends whether test, trace and confine can be made to work, and quick enough to stem onward infection as far as possible.
The death numbers don't really surprise me. In comparisons with other national systems, the NHS has always been found to be a relatively efficient way of doling out health care, but less hot on actual outcomes.
Got to go for the evening but governments (even democracies) do not usually put so much effort in shutting down everything to save perhaps 20000 lives (manly people near the end of their lives anyway) .
That figure is probably too low by a factor of 10, though.
And as for people near the end of their lives, do we have any assurance that Boris Johnson would still be with us if no medical treatment had been available? He was on oxygen for 4 days. If we follow the "herd immunity in a single wave" strategy, many people will have to cope without intensive care.
You can see the worst case scenario shaping up nicely can;t you?
Two weeks down the track, the virus numbers going nowhere, mumbling experts pleading for more time, the lockdown fraying, a restive public, exploding unemployment, the economy falling down a mineshaft.
The BBC yesterday reckoned that the economy will shrink an incredible 14% in the second quarter. And that's a median forecast. Some economists think it might be 25.
Ministers are lucky the mainstream press seem completely oblivious to the economic carnage government choices are causing.
That won't last long. And neither will the calm before the economic tsunami crashes through the UK's businesses.
Got to go for the evening but governments (even democracies) do not usually put so much effort in shutting down everything to save perhaps 20000 lives (manly people near the end of their lives anyway) . It was only 75 years ago the UK government deliberately raised Dresden to the ground actually wanting to kill more than 20000. Governments are full of people who like to control others (its self fulfilling sadly) - The instinct should be to resist in a reasoned way - Sweden is about the only county that seems to have not become a control freak place in this
It was subterranean till then, was it?
Just for you, here's a link to explain that in the unanimous opinion of the usa's most kickass economists the lockdown protects the economy every bit as much as it protects those few elderly lives
"Abandoning severe lockdowns at a time when the likelihood of a resurgence in infections remains high will lead to greater total economic damage than sustaining the lockdowns to eliminate the resurgence risk."
Indeed the rules made sense in the past. They belong to the past, which is what I said originally but for some reason Luckyguy1983 objected to that.
The Ten Commandments still stand up pretty well in the modern world, can’t imagine many people disagree with any of them.
*Raised Hand*
I do. I dislike the 10 Commandments.
People tend to interpret the 10 Commandments in a way that suits them. Or associate it with just the later ones which should be bloody obvious and part of any other moral code too.
I disagree with the First, Second, Third, Fourth and Tenth Commandments. That's half of them.
I consider the Fifth to Ninth to be basic common decency.
They are only 'common decency' because of the 10 Commandments.
Don't be absurd. Societies across the entire world whether they had heard of the Commandments or not have heard have the same basic common decency. The fact that you think it's got anything to do with the Commandments shows an absurd bias and ignorance of other cultures.
Do you think the Aborigines or Native Americans or others had no respect for parents and were thieving murderers until Christians civilised them?
I've been working from home, and my study looks out the front of our house. It's been interesting seeing what's happening outside, and it has been fairly well as I predicted.
There are a few families on our road that are all friends. A couple of weeks ago, you saw them standing across the road from each other talking. After a few days, they were crossing the road and talking over the hedge.
I predicted at the time that it would be about three weeks before they were in each others houses. Gradually, they have got closer and this week, the kids have been playing on the street together.
Today, a few days earlier than I predicted, they are all in one of the gardens together.
It's the gradual drift that causes the problems. You could see it happening here, and I'm sure it is happening all over the place.
Call Crimestoppers. Those daft sods need teaching a lesson.
Mr. Eagles, that's a plausible timeline, though it's hard to say if/how a second wave will happen.
I'm expecting two further waves this year, one a minor one when the lockdown is eased and people ignore social distancing, and a second one in the normal flu season.
What are the mechanics of your second, minor wave? What is going to stop it?
Enforced lockdown of vulnerable groups.
Rest of the country works as normal, supporting the vulnerable groups, but plenty of social distancing.
I fully expect by the autumn the government will have nationalised the home delivery system.
Removing vulnerable groups would just take them out of the equation. There has to be something else to stop the second wave in the remainder of the population - to render it only "minor". It seems to be social distancing, from what you say. But if social distancing could render an outbreak minor, we wouldn't have needed a lockdown in the first place!
As my father's friend who is fairly senior in the front line of the NHS, 'there are no good outcomes, only bad ones, we can only hope we choose the least bad one.'
That's all very well, but why on earth do you think social distancing alone can keep the second wave "minor"???
It sounds as though what you are really envisaging is the original herd immunity strategy shifted a few months later, with better planning of the isolation of people with certain medical conditions and - perhaps - the over 70s. Frankly, I think it's pretty much as lunatic an idea as it ever was.
As I noted downthread I'm expecting a lot of changed behaviour some of it enforced, some of it voluntary.
I can see a world where visits to cinemas and gyms crater even after the lockdown is lifted.
Maybe so, but even with changed behaviour I can't see how you're going to get herd immunity far short of 50% of the (non-isolated) population being infected.
It seems far likelier that we'll have to have a series of lockdowns - one for every wave - with some periods of respite between them.
It depends whether test, trace and confine can be made to work, and quick enough to stem onward infection as far as possible.
Yes - that might be another alternative path to the one TSE put forward. But in that case, again, it would be vital to get the number of active cases down to a very low level before lifting restrictions. It would be completely infeasible any time soon.
"Coronavirus: Black and hispanic people 'twice as likely to die' in US from COVID-19 It is feared that pre-existing health disparities are making people from minority communities more likely to lose their lives."
Mr. Eagles, that's a plausible timeline, though it's hard to say if/how a second wave will happen.
I'm expecting two further waves this year, one a minor one when the lockdown is eased and people ignore social distancing, and a second one in the normal flu season.
What are the mechanics of your second, minor wave? What is going to stop it?
Enforced lockdown of vulnerable groups.
Rest of the country works as normal, supporting the vulnerable groups, but plenty of social distancing.
I fully expect by the autumn the government will have nationalised the home delivery system.
Removing vulnerable groups would just take them out of the equation. There has to be something else to stop the second wave in the remainder of the population - to render it only "minor". It seems to be social distancing, from what you say. But if social distancing could render an outbreak minor, we wouldn't have needed a lockdown in the first place!
As my father's friend who is fairly senior in the front line of the NHS, 'there are no good outcomes, only bad ones, we can only hope we choose the least bad one.'
That's all very well, but why on earth do you think social distancing alone can keep the second wave "minor"???
It sounds as though what you are really envisaging is the original herd immunity strategy shifted a few months later, with better planning of the isolation of people with certain medical conditions and - perhaps - the over 70s. Frankly, I think it's pretty much as lunatic an idea as it ever was.
As I noted downthread I'm expecting a lot of changed behaviour some of it enforced, some of it voluntary.
I can see a world where visits to cinemas and gyms crater even after the lockdown is lifted.
This is a funny virus in that lets say its CFR is 2%.
That is hardly Survivors territory plus there is a perception that it affects those who are old or ill. People who go out to gyms are generally young and well. And arrogant. I think they will pack out the gyms when allowed to.
As long as they sign wavers stating that they don't require medical assistance if they catch the virus.
One of my predictions for this year is that we and many other countries will ban flights from the USA.
And I presume the Chinese won't be that keen to come to the West and test their luck at the plague lottery.
The tourist industry is in for a really rough time.
A friend works at top university, says their Chinese student numbers over the next few years are going to crater, hardly expecting next academic year.
They charge them 3 times what they charge UK students, which means a lot of universities are going to need a bailout.
And they won’t get it.
What makes you say that?
Because a lot of businesses are going to be in need of a bailout. There is no way the government will bail out large institutions whilst at the same time letting smaller firms go under.
No one has talked about the civil service yet. That's going to be facing huge cuts over the next year or so.
Thanks.
If there was a betting market on this I wouldn't be putting my money where my mouth is!
It just seems to me that the economic consequences will be deep and long-lasting. It might be harsh on some institutions like universities, but I suspect that governments won't want to be doing mass bailouts because of what happened in 2008.
I think the difference between 2008 and now is that the government won't be forced to take equity stakes, but can offer loans which can be secured against assets in a lot of scenarios.
what assets? many many businesses have actively removed assets with opco/propco moves, shift to leaseholds and other finacial engineering. a scary number of very large businesses have no assets to speak of.
US Fearless Leader is a meaner, dumber Hoover. Without the medicine ball, but with the same basic playbook: over-promise, under-deliver, personalize everything, blame others & refuse all blame.
Big difference is, Hoover had several years after the October 1929 stock market crash to shred his reputation before he had to face the voters in November 1932.
For Trump, the interval between the outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic and 2020 election is much shorter, months instead of years.
On the other hand, in 1928 Hoover won by a landslide, which was of course NOT the case for The Donald in 2016.
On the overseas students issue, here's a link to the government's strategy. The figures are as of the time of the document in 2013. The impetus for expanding overseas student numbers comes from this strategy.
"Overseas students who come to Britain to study make a huge contribution to our economy. Each student in higher education on average pays fees of about £10,000 a year and spends more than this again while they are here. In 2011/12 we estimate that overseas students studying in higher education in the UK paid £10.2bn in tuition fees and living expenses. They boost the local economy where they study – as well as enhancing our cultural life, and broadening the educational experience of the UK students they study alongside. It is because we value this massive contribution that there is no cap on the number of legitimate students coming to Britain, nor do we plan to impose one."
"We believe it is realistic for numbers of international students in higher education to grow by 15-20% over the next five years. For this to happen we must show that the UK values international students, will provide a warm welcome and support while they are here and will keep in touch after they go home."
"Under the central scenario, tuition fee income would increase from £3.9bn in 2011/12 to £4.4bn in 2020 (in 2011 prices, assuming constant fee levels in real terms) and living expenditure would increase from £6.3bn in 2011/12 to £7.7bn in 2020 (in 2011 prices). Our aim is to support the sector to achieve this growth."
And on it goes...
It's possible to expand on the export of education to other countries, providing a physical presence there but that's been very much a long term possibility. Schools and Universities have been doing just what the government has asked of them.
Got to go for the evening but governments (even democracies) do not usually put so much effort in shutting down everything to save perhaps 20000 lives (manly people near the end of their lives anyway) . It was only 75 years ago the UK government deliberately raised Dresden to the ground actually wanting to kill more than 20000. Governments are full of people who like to control others (its self fulfilling sadly) - The instinct should be to resist in a reasoned way - Sweden is about the only county that seems to have not become a control freak place in this
Er, we are saving half a million lives. The 20,000 are those we are sadly unable to save.
Now, please tell us the price you put on a human life, multiply by half a million and that is what we can justify spending on preventative measures.
He won't run, but I think if he ran as an independent he'd have a real chance. He's got credibility with both sides, a businessman billionaire who has spent a decade or more on social enterprise which isn't politically controversial to either side.
How did they get air traffic control clearance for their flight at a time when the police are telling people off for sunbathing? One rule for the urban poor and another for the global rich.
While we are comparing death rates in different nations, I note that Sweden where down to 20 dead yesterday, form a peak of 74 at the start of the week, with the number entering ICU also down.
Is the badly named 'Herd Immunity' strategy relay looking so bad now?
Let it spread amounts the strong and young, to protect the weak old and venerable.
Where does that number (20) come from? World-o-meter shows 106 for yesterday and 77 (so far) for today.
Its almost as if the facts need to be altered to fit the conclusion...
980 is horrible again. A lot depends on which days that they are allocated to, I suppose.
We have a long road ahead for sure
Sending you and your good lady my best wishes and hope the better weather aids her recovery
For those interested (probably only me) I think the reason the UK and national figures don't align is that the Scottish figures that the First Minister reports are from 9am of the current day. The UK national figures are based on the deaths notified on the previous day - hence, they are using the Scottish figures from 9am on the previous day. If this is right, there should be a figure of 48 from Scotland tomorrow in the UK-wide figure.
PS Today's number from Scotland in the UK-wide figures includes cases from a few days previously since the recording has been changed - hence the overall number is inflated by around 50.
"Work is being done to add it all up and produce a figure for “avoidable deaths” that could, in the long-term, be caused by lockdown. I’m told the early attempts have produced a figure of 150,000, far greater than those expected to die of Covid."
"Work is being done to add it all up and produce a figure for “avoidable deaths” that could, in the long-term, be caused by lockdown. I’m told the early attempts have produced a figure of 150,000, far greater than those expected to die of Covid."
He won't run, but I think if he ran as an independent he'd have a real chance. He's got credibility with both sides, a businessman billionaire who has spent a decade or more on social enterprise which isn't politically controversial to either side.
He's too good for politics and he does more good with his own endeavours than he likely would as President.
The Supermarkets failure to adapt their Just In Time stock keeping in the face of increased home delivery has pushed us past breaking point with them
Put in and order for delivery 3 weeks in advance and they still fail to have items we ordered.
Not having stock on day of delivery was annoying but okay in the old world but now when I've given you 20 days notice to fulfill an order it is ridiculous.
It has pushed us towards ordering with wholesalers and smaller retailers who do radical things like "only list the stock they have" and setup recurring orders and such like.
"Work is being done to add it all up and produce a figure for “avoidable deaths” that could, in the long-term, be caused by lockdown. I’m told the early attempts have produced a figure of 150,000, far greater than those expected to die of Covid."
"Work is being done to add it all up and produce a figure for “avoidable deaths” that could, in the long-term, be caused by lockdown. I’m told the early attempts have produced a figure of 150,000, far greater than those expected to die of Covid."
Seems odd to compare it to the Covid deaths, when the whole point of the lockdown is to reduce that number. The relevant comparison is to the anticipated Covid deaths if there was no lockdown, surely?
Let's imagine the lockdown reduced Covid deaths to literally 1 person, and the lockdown caused 2 deaths. That wouldn't be a mark against it!
"Work is being done to add it all up and produce a figure for “avoidable deaths” that could, in the long-term, be caused by lockdown. I’m told the early attempts have produced a figure of 150,000, far greater than those expected to die of Covid."
OKC, out of beer , and too early for anything else. Whisky is not for drinking in the sun.
How's Mrs G?
TSE , She is not too bad but not great, obviously cannot get to see Doctor's at present , her lungs still not great and the heart flutter caused by illness treatment delayed. Doing not too bad but the steroids and other treatments have lots of side affects , but all in all gievn the situation I think she is doing well though she might not agree. Looks like it will be a long slog to get back to being healthy, doctors did say a year was likely. Thank you for asking.
Thanks, make sure you look after yourself as well, I know how much of a toll it can be looking after a loved one.
RE: Chinese students abandoning UK Universities and leave a massive financial hole.
I think another risk is potential students realise that they are better off doing some sort of online further education, rather than racking up crazy debts moving away from home and starting a course that doesn't almost guarantee a financial pay off.
Could be tough times in the further education sector, how many people are teaching not very valuable courses at lower end universities, that could simply be replaced by a £9.99 Udemy course?
The Supermarkets failure to adapt their Just In Time stock keeping in the face of increased home delivery has pushed us past breaking point with them
Put in and order for delivery 3 weeks in advance and they still fail to have items we ordered.
Not having stock on day of delivery was annoying but okay in the old world but now when I've given you 20 days notice to fulfill an order it is ridiculous.
It has pushed us towards ordering with wholesalers and smaller retailers who do radical things like "only list the stock they have" and setup recurring orders and such like.
My other half is braving it physically for now. But that's not a sensible option if you've got mandatory contact with a vulnerable person (Or are yourself) in your household.
US Fearless Leader is a meaner, dumber Hoover. Without the medicine ball, but with the same basic playbook: over-promise, under-deliver, personalize everything, blame others & refuse all blame.
Big difference is, Hoover had several years after the October 1929 stock market crash to shred his reputation before he had to face the voters in November 1932.
For Trump, the interval between the outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic and 2020 election is much shorter, months instead of years.
On the other hand, in 1928 Hoover won by a landslide, which was of course NOT the case for The Donald in 2016.
I hold a minority view that Trump will lose and it will not even be close.
"Concerns have been raised by a senior official in the NHS that children with illnesses unrelated to Covid-19 are going to hospital too late and coming to harm as a result, a leaked email seen by BBC Newsnight says.
The possible reasons for the late presentation include general advice given about Covid-19; patient access to NHS 111, and parental concern about bringing children to hospital during the coronavirus pandemic.
The comments by the National Clinical Director for Children and Young People in NHS England emerged on the same day as figures showed A&E attendance numbers in England were down 29% from the same time last year."
"Work is being done to add it all up and produce a figure for “avoidable deaths” that could, in the long-term, be caused by lockdown. I’m told the early attempts have produced a figure of 150,000, far greater than those expected to die of Covid."
"Work is being done to add it all up and produce a figure for “avoidable deaths” that could, in the long-term, be caused by lockdown. I’m told the early attempts have produced a figure of 150,000, far greater than those expected to die of Covid."
Mr. Eagles, that's a plausible timeline, though it's hard to say if/how a second wave will happen.
I'm expecting two further waves this year, one a minor one when the lockdown is eased and people ignore social distancing, and a second one in the normal flu season.
"Work is being done to add it all up and produce a figure for “avoidable deaths” that could, in the long-term, be caused by lockdown. I’m told the early attempts have produced a figure of 150,000, far greater than those expected to die of Covid."
1 in 400 of the population is going to commit suicide or be killed as a result of domestic violence, because of the lockdown?
I think that kind of claim would need to be backed up by strong evidence.
I assume they are talking about the long-term effects on NHS funding, for example (if the study/analysis ever actually took place, that is).
Why do you assume that?
This is the claim as reported by the Mail: "A tentative estimate circulating in Whitehall suggests a six-figure death toll from a long-term lockdown, caused by a spike in suicides and domestic violence. "
"at the same predicted peak date for daily COVID-19 deaths, the prediction is now 1,674 deaths (estimate range of 651 to 4,143) on the peak day and 37,494 cumulative deaths (estimate range of 26,149 to 62,519) through the first wave."
So apparently 4 days of extra data and they have quietly reduced their prediction by 44%. They don't appear to have updated their predictions on their front page.....
meanwhile they;ve trebled the netherlands death prediction
not great work from the people the guardian were eager to tell us were "World-leading disease data analysts"
Comments
We ordered butter and got margarine, that's on a par with replacing my hot and spicy veggie pizza with a Hawaiian pizza.
“There’s been a warning in some quarters that half of independent schools will go bust by Christmas,” a consultant working in the sector told Tes.
“It’s probably best not to say half – because there could be even more than that. The North of England could become a desert when it comes to independent schools."
When asked by Tes whether the estimate was accurate, Peter Woodroffe, of the Independent Schools Association, which represents 540 schools, said: "I think it's an exaggeration. From our experience, whenever a small school is facing closure, parents will usually step in to help."
But he added: "I suspect we might see between 15 and 20 per cent closing, which is still a lot."
With around 2,300 independent schools across the country, that would mean more than 300 schools becoming extinct by Christmas.
ALSO
He added: “In June, schools could be hit with a full wage bill that they can’t claim back, and then it's closure time, so it’s almost a bit of tripwire in that sense.
“But if the furlough scheme could carry on for another three months after that – it would cover schools until September when things would be back to normal.”
Plus the very fact that you are taking time off from your post as deputy Deputy CMO to post on PB should be, indeed is cause for immense gratitude on our part.
I can see a world where visits to cinemas and gyms crater even after the lockdown is lifted.
There has not been a similar closeness under either May or Johnson - more keeping the clown at arms length, if anything. Or trying to.
"At each daily press conference, medical and scientific advisers talk about the plunge in use of transport and how well rules are being observed. What they don’t say is that this was not quite in their original plan. Government modellers didn’t expect such obedience: they expected workers to carry on and at least a million pupils to be left in school by parents."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/04/09/boris-worried-lockdown-has-gone-far-can-end/
That is hardly Survivors territory plus there is a perception that it affects those who are old or ill. People who go out to gyms are generally young and well. And arrogant. I think they will pack out the gyms when allowed to.
There are 3 crucial factors:
1) The overall infection needs to subside. We need to be confident that a capable, representative testing regime shows a substantial decline in new infections.
Bringing it down to zero would require maintaining an even tighter lockdown until Christmas. That's not practically feasible. We need to accept that some infectious carriers will still be around, that new community transmission will occur, new clusters forming.
There are several lags, both statistically and in real terms. Fatalities lag infections, but the release of hospital patients lags even more. Some people need more than a month to recover, even the "fat blond Jesus" has been lingering for a couple of weeks already. That's why point 2 is important.
2) There are currently some health care capacities in abundance where the virus hasn't yet shown up, but we need to mind the weakest link of the chain. Even current hotspots will see new infections. We must be sure that all health care facilities are back to a sufficient level of free capacity, stocks of PPE, etc. are replenished.
3) We need to have an extensive and efficient testing regime in place that can deal with the expected multitude of newly forming infection clusters. That means not only test kits, reagents, lab capacity and staff, but beyond that - maybe even more importantly - we need intelligence, we need to know whom to test.
A major weakness of the British response seems to have been an early breakdown of contact tracing. The legwork, interviewing the infected and tracking down the contacts, is immensely personnel-intensive. The competent authorities in the UK had been overwhelmed quickly. Ramping up the numbers of staff and instructing them is essential but presumably not sufficient. They need to be assisted by data collecting and processing. The wider population needs to be introduced to the fact that anonymised and secure apps are being developed for that and that the participation of everyone is absolutely crucial for the whole scheme to work. People need to be explained that the relatively minor infringement of their data protection is worth the saving of so many lives.
The relaxing of the lockdown will be sequential, incremental, possibly with regional or local variations. It will also probably not be linear but oscillating between loosening and tightening again. But until we have a vaccine available the strategy depicted above is without any realistic, responsible alternative.
No one has talked about the civil service yet. That's going to be facing huge cuts over the next year or so.
Yes, and they had on a Professor who is an expert in this field and currently working on a vaccine, told her in very clear terms that in his opinion the government's response has been appropriate and proportional.
What he said was basically everybody being allowed to leave China have already been deemed low risk and will be screened before they even get on a plane, so the very little danger thus being allowed to make their own way home and the self quarantining is just super extra precaution.
I think in future we're going to see simultaneous releases of films at the cinema and to buy/rent at home.
It seems far likelier that we'll have to have a series of lockdowns - one for every wave - with some periods of respite between them.
If it is accurate, it is the estimate from an Engineer.
If it is bollocks, it is the estimate of a PPE numpty.
Fang Fang has been accused of contributing to a negative international narrative on China’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic.
The popular Wuhan writer began chronicling the lockdown in late January, including criticism of the official response.
“How many people have died in Wuhan and their families destroyed?” she wrote on 31 January. “But so far not a single person has said sorry or taken responsibility. I’ve even seen a writer use the phrase ‘complete victory’. What are they talking about?”
Her posts were shared widely on social media even as each was quickly deleted by censors, according to the Diplomat magazine.
Her Weibo account, which had more than 3.8 million followers, was shut down in February. It has since been reinstated.
But her writing was picked up and turned into a book, due to be published by Harper Collins in June, translated and published in English and German.
For publishing in the western languages, Fang Fang has been accused of helping foreign countries attack China, giving them “a giant sword”.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/10/chinese-writer-fang-fang-faces-online-backlash-wuhan-lockdown-diary?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
There are a few families on our road that are all friends. A couple of weeks ago, you saw them standing across the road from each other talking. After a few days, they were crossing the road and talking over the hedge.
I predicted at the time that it would be about three weeks before they were in each others houses. Gradually, they have got closer and this week, the kids have been playing on the street together.
Today, a few days earlier than I predicted, they are all in one of the gardens together.
It's the gradual drift that causes the problems. You could see it happening here, and I'm sure it is happening all over the place.
Gyms will make a comeback eventually - esp in the winter.
It just seems to me that the economic consequences will be deep and long-lasting. It might be harsh on some institutions like universities, but I suspect that governments won't want to be doing mass bailouts because of what happened in 2008.
What's needed for a period of respite is to get the number of active cases down to a small enough number that we won't immediately be back into the same boat.
And probably around 0.5% - 35,000 - of those people will die.
And hoping we're past the peak of infections, and if the lockdown is maintained, we could guess another 3-4 million infections to come in this wave.
https://youtu.be/PKg40HX6oUo
https://twitter.com/prospect_clark/status/1248667166184026112
Good on the french for telling them to Fuck Off.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/10/french-police-turn-back-private-jet-of-holidaymakers-from-uk
Go to places like Idaho or Montana and there there are literally one or two cities in the whole state of any size. I know they are low populous states, but I could go on and on with examples from other states and it soon adds up in terms of total numbers.
And even say NY state, its gets really rural upstate an hour out of NYC.
And as for people near the end of their lives, do we have any assurance that Boris Johnson would still be with us if no medical treatment had been available? He was on oxygen for 4 days. If we follow the "herd immunity in a single wave" strategy, many people will have to cope without intensive care.
Two weeks down the track, the virus numbers going nowhere, mumbling experts pleading for more time, the lockdown fraying, a restive public, exploding unemployment, the economy falling down a mineshaft.
The BBC yesterday reckoned that the economy will shrink an incredible 14% in the second quarter. And that's a median forecast. Some economists think it might be 25.
Ministers are lucky the mainstream press seem completely oblivious to the economic carnage government choices are causing.
That won't last long. And neither will the calm before the economic tsunami crashes through the UK's businesses.
Just for you, here's a link to explain that in the unanimous opinion of the usa's most kickass economists the lockdown protects the economy every bit as much as it protects those few elderly lives
http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/policy-for-the-covid-19-crisis/
"Abandoning severe lockdowns at a time when the likelihood of a resurgence in infections remains high will lead to greater total economic damage than sustaining the lockdowns to eliminate the resurgence risk."
Do you think the Aborigines or Native Americans or others had no respect for parents and were thieving murderers until Christians civilised them?
"The men, aged 40-50, and women, aged 23-25....."
*raises eyebrow*
It is feared that pre-existing health disparities are making people from minority communities more likely to lose their lives."
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-black-and-hispanic-people-twice-as-likely-to-die-in-us-from-covid-19-11971690
US Fearless Leader is a meaner, dumber Hoover. Without the medicine ball, but with the same basic playbook: over-promise, under-deliver, personalize everything, blame others & refuse all blame.
Big difference is, Hoover had several years after the October 1929 stock market crash to shred his reputation before he had to face the voters in November 1932.
For Trump, the interval between the outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic and 2020 election is much shorter, months instead of years.
On the other hand, in 1928 Hoover won by a landslide, which was of course NOT the case for The Donald in 2016.
"Overseas students who come to Britain to study make a huge contribution to our economy. Each student in higher education on average pays fees of about £10,000 a year and spends more than this again while they are here. In 2011/12 we estimate that overseas students studying in higher education in the UK paid £10.2bn in tuition fees and living expenses. They boost the local economy where they study – as well as enhancing our cultural life, and broadening the educational experience of the UK students they study alongside. It is because we value this massive contribution that there is no cap on the number of legitimate students coming to Britain, nor do we plan to impose one."
"We believe it is realistic for numbers of international students in higher education to grow by 15-20% over the next five years. For this to happen we must show that the UK values international students, will provide a warm welcome and support while they are here and will keep in touch after they go home."
"Under the central scenario, tuition fee income would increase from £3.9bn in 2011/12 to £4.4bn in 2020 (in 2011 prices, assuming constant fee levels in real terms) and living expenditure would increase from £6.3bn in 2011/12 to £7.7bn in 2020 (in 2011 prices). Our aim is to support the sector to achieve this growth."
And on it goes...
It's possible to expand on the export of education to other countries, providing a physical presence there but that's been very much a long term possibility. Schools and Universities have been doing just what the government has asked of them.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/340600/bis-13-1081-international-education-global-growth-and-prosperity-revised.pdf
Now, please tell us the price you put on a human life, multiply by half a million and that is what we can justify spending on preventative measures.
What are you trying to say?
PS Today's number from Scotland in the UK-wide figures includes cases from a few days previously since the recording has been changed - hence the overall number is inflated by around 50.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/04/09/boris-worried-lockdown-has-gone-far-can-end/nn.com
Let's imagine the lockdown reduced Covid deaths to literally 1 person, and the lockdown caused 2 deaths. That wouldn't be a mark against it!
The phrase "Taking a stereotype as a life goal" comes to mind.
I think another risk is potential students realise that they are better off doing some sort of online further education, rather than racking up crazy debts moving away from home and starting a course that doesn't almost guarantee a financial pay off.
Could be tough times in the further education sector, how many people are teaching not very valuable courses at lower end universities, that could simply be replaced by a £9.99 Udemy course?
The possible reasons for the late presentation include general advice given about Covid-19; patient access to NHS 111, and parental concern about bringing children to hospital during the coronavirus pandemic.
The comments by the National Clinical Director for Children and Young People in NHS England emerged on the same day as figures showed A&E attendance numbers in England were down 29% from the same time last year."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52239183
I think that kind of claim would need to be backed up by strong evidence.
This is the claim as reported by the Mail:
"A tentative estimate circulating in Whitehall suggests a six-figure death toll from a long-term lockdown, caused by a spike in suicides and domestic violence. "
On one of their pages (http://www.healthdata.org/covid/updates) updated today they change their prediction on the UK.
"at the same predicted peak date for daily COVID-19 deaths, the prediction is now 1,674 deaths (estimate range of 651 to 4,143) on the peak day and 37,494 cumulative deaths (estimate range of 26,149 to 62,519) through the first wave."
So apparently 4 days of extra data and they have quietly reduced their prediction by 44%. They don't appear to have updated their predictions on their front page.....
meanwhile they;ve trebled the netherlands death prediction
not great work from the people the guardian were eager to tell us were "World-leading disease data analysts"