The least that can be done at the end of all this is the abandonment of the triple lock and a mechanism for extracting some of the wealth locked up in well-to-do oldies' homes to pay for their social care.
The problem with that is Conservatives are desperate to protect if not enhance the notion of inheritance which is the one way of ensuring the pauperised healthy young get something from their frightened diseased-ridden older relatives.
The residential care home sector is going to be in a desperate position after this and once even more comes out about the numbers who have perished in the homes. Who would want their elderly relative to end up there?
The remaining private care homes will have to be nationalised as the providers go out of business and we will have a de facto national residential care service which will need to be funded and the costs will be far beyond current local council provision.
Alternatively fees paid by Councils could rise to realistic levels, rather than being cross-subsidised as at present.
Do you know how the quality of service compares between Council / Independent? I do not off the top of my head.
So, a question for those considering an early lifting of the lockdown. Which is the worse outcome? I mean for the country and the population rather than politically for the Government.
1. The lockdown is maintained for another 3 or 4 months in its current form. 2. The lockdown is lifted, either slowly or rapidly and then people start to die again so it has to be re-imposed.
I am thinking of consequences: For the economy For people who, in the second case, catch the disease because the lockdown has been lifted For people who, in the first case, die because they miss treatment, commit suicide or are victims of domestic abuse For the long term moral of the people and business confidence if there is a short lifting followed by re-imposition.
Also what happens if the Government start to lift the lockdown and the majority of people decide it is not safe and stay away? I assume that could actually be worse for businesses than if the lockdown had stayed in place.
All this assumes the Government remains in control of events. The issue with your point 1., indeed your point 2.to an extent, is the risk that the lockdown cannot be maintained for another 3 or 4 months in its current form, and any reimposition is disregarded. At the moment we are seeing pretty high levels of voluntary compliance, people are on he whole behaving, but what if, contrary to the implication of your final paragraph, people (I would imagine mostly younger people) decide they have simply had enough.
It’s not the people out and about - which is easy to police. This will start to crack in more subtle ways. In any economy there is a black market. The greater the restrictions on an economy the larger that black market becomes. When do we see “underground” hairdressers, speakeasies, secret drinks parties, clandestine games, other small forms of economic and social civil disobedience beginning to occur? Maybe never. Maybe next week. I’m pretty sure you are not going to stop teens and 20-somethings shagging for that long. Hormones will override anything Chris Whitty advises. Four years ago the British public decided, relatively late on in the process if polls are believed, not to act in accordance with Government recommendations. Things could turn - and quite fast too.
The problem with that is Conservatives are desperate to protect if not enhance the notion of inheritance which is the one way of ensuring the pauperised healthy young get something from their frightened diseased-ridden older relatives.
Fine, up to a point, if you have wealthy olds to inherit from (although you'll probably be most of the way to the grave yourself before you get your hands on the money.) Beyond useless if you don't.
The best ways to get money into the pockets of the young are to build houses all over the place until they become more affordable, and to tax the young as little as we can get away with. And the tax burden can be kept heavy rather than made eyewatering by making the well-to-do aged cough up more the of the cost of having their arses wiped when they can no longer manage it for themselves.
how about an evacuee scheme. we send all the olds to live with other olds in the South West? Then the rest of us get on with making the money we need to keep them alive?
So, if we released the lockdown tomorrow (as many want), what happens?
Well, let’s suppose everyone goes back to how they were before. We would have three to four weeks of death rates gently sliding down, still (from infections prior to lockdown release). Following the current trajectory, that gets down to maybe 300 deaths per day. Then the effects of lockdown release kick in. We go back to deaths doubling every 3-4 days. If we locked down again after 1 week unlocked, they’d lift to 1200 per day (higher than the last peak) before starting to trend down again. Although there would be uproar if we’d relocked down after only a week unlocked (as the latency period would mean that we’d still be in a gently reducing death-rate period). The Haimes and Youngs of the world would be going apeshit.
Say, then, we stay unlocked for 3 weeks, and relock down just as the death-rate trend starts picking up again. The death rate rises for 3 to 4 weeks afterwards, peaking at nearly 5000 per day, before trending down. At this point, odds are we’d be overloading the NHS, anyway.
Of course, we could move to a Swedish system, but the practicalities of dispersing the population into the countryside to a comparable degree would seem overwhelmingly difficult and probably hugely more economically damaging, anyway.
how about an evacuee scheme. we send all the olds to live with other olds in the South West? Then the rest of us get on with making the money we need to keep them alive?
Border at the tamar bridge. No second home owning rich celebs allowed in.
I don't know many people who are desperate to buy a second hand book right now, especially when you can get books on amazon.com, but my friends are already texting me with ideas about where and how we could all meet up for an illicit pint. The pubs will be roaring the second this ends. It'll be like VE day.
Ditto dentists, hairdressers and opticians. Look at the long lines already forming outside such places in countries that have eased their lockdowns.
I'm not saying business will be booming. But best estimates I have seen suggest anywhere between 50% - 70% of customers will return.
Yes and once everyone's had their pint and their haircut and their eyes tested, what then?
Can business survive on 50-70% of normal? Some numpty claimed there would be 20% unemployment so that's 6 million people with less money to spend on beer, haircuts and specs. Will that help business survive?
Even in the countries which are partially re-opening there are strict rules on social distancing and mask wearing. It isn't a "return to normal" but an easing of restrictions.
A restaurant with 70 covers might have just 30 available - will they be viable?
What if the pessimists are right and all this does is kick the virus off again - lock down mark 2? I'd prefer to walk down this road only once.
Some of them will be viable.
Demand may fall and prices may rise, but some restaurants with 30 covers will still be viable, albeit at a higher price.
So let's imagine 50% of restaurants go out of business and the other 50% double their prices, servicing the reduced demand at the higher price. That's the market.
It is not perfect. But it is better than the situation we have now, where all are suffering, and none are free.
how about an evacuee scheme. we send all the olds to live with other olds in the South West? Then the rest of us get on with making the money we need to keep them alive?
Border at the tamar bridge. No second home owning rich celebs allowed in.
I can see a rich genre of geriatric romance novels in 10 years time. How Bert found true love with Beryl in St Erth during the long hot summer of 2020.
I genuinely don't know how i feel about things. I dont find living in lockdown very hard and the thought of going out at the moment is very scary (not helped by the one time i left, i was exposed to somebody with CV symptoms)...but it isn't much of a life if you are telling me this is it for another 6-12 months.
More importantly, I just don’t think young people will obey severe social distancing rules for a year. I know I would not have done, in my 20s.
Their job is to go out, have fun, fall in love, have sex. Make babies. That’s how humanity continues, and their hormones will not listen to Chris Whitty
So it’s just not going to work
I've heard anecdotes about younger people being confronted by angry elderly people for doing their daily walk saying, "You're the reason we have to stay cooped up!" Things could get bitter if there's a differential lockdown based on age.
Probably. But it may be the only solution to this that's workable.
We're told that the whole aim of staying at home is to protect the NHS and save lives, right? Well, you can't run the NHS if the state has no money left because the economy has been destroyed, and there's no point in saving people from Covid-19 if they freeze or starve to death next Winter because they've no fuel and nothing to eat.
So, if the inexorable logic of the position demands that we find a way both to keep the economy running and to prevent Covid cases from swamping the NHS at the same time, then only an age-based system of lockdown will work. You ease most of the social distancing restrictions on people under 60, the vast majority of whom will not be in danger of perishing from this virus and who also constitute the productive portion of the population, and you incarcerate all of the over 60s, who constitute nearly all of the casualties of the epidemic and who are reliant on the pension payments (for we would need to drop the state retirement age to 60 to cover them) and health and social care services paid for by the taxes of the young.
It's bloody horrible, but has anyone any alternative suggestions besides "let the Plague run rampant" or "let the economy die?" The adherents of the former position seem resigned to the mass casualties; those of the latter appear convinced that even the most trivial moves towards ending the lockdown will result in the Pale Horseman riding roughshod over the land. If we try to split the population insofar as possible into two completely separate populations then maybe we can avoid both of these extremes in the process?
There is also pretty strong evidence that men are at significantly greater risk - in terms of fatalities - to this virus than women. Would it,therefore, be logical to focus efforts on the incarceration of older men?
If the fatalities were as skewed towards men as they are towards the old then, frankly, you would have a point. As it is, a substantial proportion of the victims are old ladies, so drawing the distinction would have little value.
I'm not sure that overlooking the bloody clamp down on political freedom is a price worth paying.
It is very arguable whether Lenin made market socialism ‘work.’ Leaving aside the fact it was a compromise forced on him by the failure of an attempt at founding a Communist economy (admittedly the Civil War didn’t help, but as he had caused that it is hard to have sympathy) by 1928 the NEP itself was conspicuously failing, particularly in the all-important grain supply. One of the reasons Stalin u-turned on economic policy was that an insufficiency of grain meant he had to resort to forced seizures to keep the cities supplied.
Fuck me, where do they get these idiots from? Lenin was a firm believer in violence and terrorism. A case could be made that he is the fourth worst mass murderer of all time. He launched a war that caused around 13 million deaths, and McCauley described him as ‘bloodthirsty as a vampire.’
He just happened to oppose the war between the Russian and German Empires.
Which war did he launch that caused 13 million deaths?
Alternatively fees paid by Councils could rise to realistic levels, rather than being cross-subsidised as at present.
Do you know how the quality of service compares between Council / Independent? I do not off the top of my head.
As I understand it, unless you decide to completely self-fund care or are helped out by a charity, the route is via an assessment carried out by the local council. As one of the main "customers" of care homes, they are able to achieve preferential rates but it's also a realistic assessment of what the individual can afford based on the value of their assets.
Many authorities contracted out the operation of the care homes to specialist providers (who only wanted to deal with ordinary residential care so dementia care and care for those with physical and mental issues often remains in the public sector).
Once the assessment takes place, the level (not necessarily the quality) of care is determined by how much someone is willing to pay but the average residential care home in outer London will be charging £1000-£1200 per week. Basically, that's £50-£60k per year which if you own a £1m property buys you a lot of care but if you own a property worth £300k not so much so eventually the local council ends up paying once the individual's assets (bar £23,500) are gone. The Council will take a charge on any house and sell it down the line which then goes to the care home.
Sir Richard Branson's co-investor in Virgin Atlantic has ruled out injecting cash into the struggling airline - and indicated he expects it to go into administration.
Ed Bastian, chief executive of Delta Air Lines, said his focus was currently on protecting his own business as the aviation industry grapples with the worst trading environment in living memory.
Delta owns 49% of Virgin Atlantic while Sir Richard's Virgin Group owns the other 51%.
Hard cases make bad law but this is a warning against letting foreign companies buy British ones. When the chips are down and the balloon goes up, it is usually the owning company that survives.
Fuck me, where do they get these idiots from? Lenin was a firm believer in violence and terrorism. A case could be made that he is the fourth worst mass murderer of all time. He launched a war that caused around 13 million deaths, and McCauley described him as ‘bloodthirsty as a vampire.’
He just happened to oppose the war between the Russian and German Empires.
Which war did he launch that caused 13 million deaths?
The Russian Civil War. I was including the probable dead of the 1921 famine, which was a direct result of it.
I don't know many people who are desperate to buy a second hand book right now, especially when you can get books on amazon.com, but my friends are already texting me with ideas about where and how we could all meet up for an illicit pint. The pubs will be roaring the second this ends. It'll be like VE day.
Ditto dentists, hairdressers and opticians. Look at the long lines already forming outside such places in countries that have eased their lockdowns.
I'm not saying business will be booming. But best estimates I have seen suggest anywhere between 50% - 70% of customers will return.
Yes and once everyone's had their pint and their haircut and their eyes tested, what then?
Can business survive on 50-70% of normal? Some numpty claimed there would be 20% unemployment so that's 6 million people with less money to spend on beer, haircuts and specs. Will that help business survive?
Even in the countries which are partially re-opening there are strict rules on social distancing and mask wearing. It isn't a "return to normal" but an easing of restrictions.
A restaurant with 70 covers might have just 30 available - will they be viable?
What if the pessimists are right and all this does is kick the virus off again - lock down mark 2? I'd prefer to walk down this road only once.
Some of them will be viable.
Demand may fall and prices may rise, but some restaurants with 30 covers will still be viable, albeit at a higher price.
So let's imagine 50% of restaurants go out of business and the other 50% double their prices, servicing the reduced demand at the higher price. That's the market.
It is not perfect. But it is better than the situation we have now, where all are suffering, and none are free.
Yes, a restaurant will become a once-a-month event, rather than the once-a-week event it was for many a few months ago. The mid-market brands, already under pressure, are most likely to go to the wall, leaving McDonalds and the high-end gastropubs. The mid-market restaurants will most likely be replaced by delivery services operating from shared commercial kitchens - accelerating an existing trend.
I'm not sure that overlooking the bloody clamp down on political freedom is a price worth paying.
Indeed. It's all rather "at least he made the trains run on time!" or "at least he got people back to work building those marvellous Autobahnen!" ain't it?
Of course, we could move to a Swedish system, but the practicalities of dispersing the population into the countryside to a comparable degree would seem overwhelmingly difficult and probably hugely more economically damaging, anyway.
To achieve the same population density as Sweden, the UK Government would have to forcibly deport or execute 91% of the population. This might be considered somewhat radical.
Very poor from the red team but if as SKS said it includes firms who are currently exporting PPE then perhaps Guido is being selective in his outrage. Naughty man.
I don't know many people who are desperate to buy a second hand book right now, especially when you can get books on amazon.com, but my friends are already texting me with ideas about where and how we could all meet up for an illicit pint. The pubs will be roaring the second this ends. It'll be like VE day.
Ditto dentists, hairdressers and opticians. Look at the long lines already forming outside such places in countries that have eased their lockdowns.
I'm not saying business will be booming. But best estimates I have seen suggest anywhere between 50% - 70% of customers will return.
Yes and once everyone's had their pint and their haircut and their eyes tested, what then?
Can business survive on 50-70% of normal? Some numpty claimed there would be 20% unemployment so that's 6 million people with less money to spend on beer, haircuts and specs. Will that help business survive?
Even in the countries which are partially re-opening there are strict rules on social distancing and mask wearing. It isn't a "return to normal" but an easing of restrictions.
A restaurant with 70 covers might have just 30 available - will they be viable?
What if the pessimists are right and all this does is kick the virus off again - lock down mark 2? I'd prefer to walk down this road only once.
Some of them will be viable.
Demand may fall and prices may rise, but some restaurants with 30 covers will still be viable, albeit at a higher price.
So let's imagine 50% of restaurants go out of business and the other 50% double their prices, servicing the reduced demand at the higher price. That's the market.
It is not perfect. But it is better than the situation we have now, where all are suffering, and none are free.
I'm sure some restaurants will survive but I'm not sure that the large and sustained drop in demand will end up in anywhere which survives doubling its prices.
Very poor from the red team but if as SKS said it includes firms who are currently exporting PPE then perhaps Guido is being selective in his outrage. Naughty man.
If there's any physical PPE being exported from the UK in quantities of more than a pallet or two, I'd be amazed.
More likely is the middlemen trying to con the government are saying that some other country has bought from them too, or are running overseas 'orders' through their books in an attempt to try and run a version of the old carousel VAT scheme while people are distracted.
Given that we have no treatments or vaccines the only thing keeping COVID-19 in check is social distancing. So she's volunteering the city to see what happens when nothing mitigates the spread. Good luck with that.
It's a bit like the captain of the sinking ship saying "we offer to be a control group" to see how many people die without life vests or lifeboats. There isn't anything else, so you are going to maxmise the death toll.
The Japanese government will include companies that operate in the fields of vaccines, medicine and advanced medical equipment like ventilators on its list of sectors deemed critical to national security....
The Japanese government will include companies that operate in the fields of vaccines, medicine and advanced medical equipment like ventilators on its list of sectors deemed critical to national security....
The Japanese government will include companies that operate in the fields of vaccines, medicine and advanced medical equipment like ventilators on its list of sectors deemed critical to national security....
Given that we have no treatments or vaccines the only thing keeping COVID-19 in check is social distancing. So she's volunteering the city to see what happens when nothing mitigates the spread. Good luck with that.
Perhaps. But I’m reminded again of the scene in the bierkeller in Where Eagles Dare, where Clint tells Burton “we’ll stand more of a chance out there than we will in here”.
Very poor from the red team but if as SKS said it includes firms who are currently exporting PPE then perhaps Guido is being selective in his outrage. Naughty man.
It's spooky how many of the folk who endlessly excoriate lefty, Corbynite media also love a bit of Guido.
Reality check for all those who bang on about Starmer's competence and attention to detail. No doubt the MSM will ignore this as it does not fit with their prevailing narratives about how hopeless the government is and how wonderful it is to have a competent opposition.
Given that we have no treatments or vaccines the only thing keeping COVID-19 in check is social distancing. So she's volunteering the city to see what happens when nothing mitigates the spread. Good luck with that.
Of all the places to run an experiment in a large city or State, LV or NV are not bad candidates. The local economy must be down 99% at the moment, with the casinos and brothels shut.
If that is the case what on earth is going to happen when the furlough scheme ends at the end of June? Mass unemployment, businesses closed for good, fall in tax revenue.....?
That’s going to be the difficult bit. There’s eventually going to be a limit to how much government can keep the exceptional support flowing, and when it ends there’s going to be a lot of people moving onto the much-less-generous standard unemployment benefit and universal credit systems.
As was made clear at the press conference today by Dr Whitty, while the initial lockdown strategy was very much science-driven, the next phases become much more political in terms of the timing and decisions made.
Or the furlough scheme will be extended.
If it’s costing £50bn a month, as speculated, there’s going to be a hard limit to how long they can extend it.
Basic maths tells us the furlough scheme is not costing anywhere near £50bn per month.
That would imply 20 million people to be on furlough and all being paid the maximum £2,500 per month (ie they would all have to be on annual salaries of over £37,500).
I think the actual estimate was it MIGHT cost up to £40bn in total for the original 3 months.
Very poor from the red team but if as SKS said it includes firms who are currently exporting PPE then perhaps Guido is being selective in his outrage. Naughty man.
It's spooky how many of the folk who endlessly excoriate lefty, Corbynite media also love a bit of Guido.
Why not address the piece rather than shoot the messenger
Are the names on Reeves letter identified in Fawkes investigation and can you rebut the accusations
The government won't need to choose to end the lockdown - people are already ending it. Its quite visible to see more cars driving about and more people in groups going around. As we don't have the police to enforce it the lockdown will be loosened whether its intended or not.
The real and genuine challenge for us all is this: how do we chose to value a Human life. The ONS are now measuring "excess deaths", where all of the deaths above the mean they are attributing to Covid-19 no matter what steps the government have taken to not count deaths as being from it.
We can choose to protect people who don't what protection by keeping schools, pubs, cinemas etc etc closed until September, with the added ravaging of the UK tourism sector through the summer as people are largely told to stay at home. Doing so will save x people from "excess deaths".
Or we can choose not to protect these people. Provide strenuous advice an guidance but essentially leave it up to people to make their own decisions. Some of these businesses will not be able to cope with the lower demand and will fold anyway but many won't. Doing so will condemn y people to excess deaths from the effects of stress, mental health, crushing poverty in some cases etc etc.
Personally my instinct is to the latter. Clearly some people have decided "fuck this" and are already making steps in that direction. Do we want the nanny state or not...?
Given that we have no treatments or vaccines the only thing keeping COVID-19 in check is social distancing. So she's volunteering the city to see what happens when nothing mitigates the spread. Good luck with that.
Perhaps. But I’m reminded again of the scene in the bierkeller in Where Eagles Dare, where Clint tells Burton “we’ll stand more of a chance out there than we will in here”.
I'm not sure that surrendering to the Nazis will help on this one.
Reality check for all those who bang on about Starmer's competence and attention to detail. No doubt the MSM will ignore this as it does not fit with their prevailing narratives about how hopeless the government is and how wonderful it is to have a competent opposition.
So this is what 'forensic opposition' means, apparently - throw a lot of shit at the wall and see what sticks.
Which sounds oddly like the old, chaotic opposition...
From the BBC: 'Thousands missing out on cancer diagnosis'
Delays in diagnosing and treating people with cancer could lead to more years of lost life than with Covid-19, according to a leading cancer expert.
A drop-off in screening and referrals means roughly 2,700 fewer people are being diagnosed every week, Cancer Research UK says.
Cancer screening has paused in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, with few invitations sent out in England.
People are still advised to contact their GP with worrying symptoms.
But Richard Sullivan, professor of cancer and global health at King's College London, said there was more fear of Covid-19 than of having cancer at the moment. With GPs more difficult to contact than normal, this was resulting in a "dramatic drop-off" in referrals to specialists, he said.
"Most modellers in the UK estimate excess of deaths is going to be way greater than we are going to see with Covid-19," he said.
With cancer patients generally much younger, Prof Sullivan predicted "years of lost life will be quite dramatic" on top of "a huge amount of avoidable mortality".
And this article pertains only to increased mortality due to cancer, never mind all other non-Covid causes.
If the aim of lockdown is to preserve life then it may already have failed on its own terms, and it almost certainly will fail if it continues for too long in its present form.
Given that we have no treatments or vaccines the only thing keeping COVID-19 in check is social distancing. So she's volunteering the city to see what happens when nothing mitigates the spread. Good luck with that.
Of all the places to run an experiment in a large city or State, LV or NV are not bad candidates. The local economy must be down 99% at the moment, with the casinos and brothels shut.
Of course it's also the case that packed hotels and casinos are not bad candidates if you wanted to see just how bad COVID-19 would be without mitigation. I pity the people who live and work in Las Vegas who might not want to take part in such an experiment.
So, a question for those considering an early lifting of the lockdown. Which is the worse outcome? I mean for the country and the population rather than politically for the Government.
1. The lockdown is maintained for another 3 or 4 months in its current form. 2. The lockdown is lifted, either slowly or rapidly and then people start to die again so it has to be re-imposed.
I am thinking of consequences: For the economy For people who, in the second case, catch the disease because the lockdown has been lifted For people who, in the first case, die because they miss treatment, commit suicide or are victims of domestic abuse For the long term moral of the people and business confidence if there is a short lifting followed by re-imposition.
Also what happens if the Government start to lift the lockdown and the majority of people decide it is not safe and stay away? I assume that could actually be worse for businesses than if the lockdown had stayed in place.
Your latter point is what I expect to happen, backed up with polling, so the government lifts the lockdown, removes the business support, and people still act as if there is a lockdown as they don't want to risk their health, and the health of their families.
100% that. Why would I risk catching a potentially fatal virus for the sake of going to a restaurant or the cinema?
If the virus is nearly eradicated and I'm confident the government is tracking and tracing remaining infections then I'd feel more confident about coming out.
How old are you?
In essence, if you're not over 60 (or suffering from one of a range of serious underlying health conditions) then you've probably got more chance, under normal conditions, of being wiped out in a road traffic accident than dying of Covid-induced pneumonia. Does this mean that you will never dare get into a car again?
We will all tailor our approach to this illness according to our circumstances. If the lockdown were eased and I were still single, then I'd probably still be wary about visiting my parents but apart from that I'd be willing to take my chances. As it is my husband is vulnerable so I'd be more inclined to keep steering clear of the gym and other jollies and stick to going to work, grocery shopping and going running (although the odd visit to a restaurant might also end up happening, simply because he is finding being cooped up at home very difficult to bear and might not be dissuaded from going out.)
But, frankly, why shouldn't your typical thirtysomething couple and their kids go out and about and enjoy their lives if they want to? Covid is theoretically lethal to them too, but then again so is being run over by a bus, having an anaphylactic reaction to a wasp sting, being knifed to death by someone high on drugs or having a psychotic episode, getting struck by lightning, simply dropping down dead of a brain haemorrhage, or any number of other things. If we worried about all the things that might kill us every day of our lives then we'd be constantly paralyzed by fear.
More and more evidence emerging of dire effects even for young and not hugely symptomatic victims, e.g.
Very poor from the red team but if as SKS said it includes firms who are currently exporting PPE then perhaps Guido is being selective in his outrage. Naughty man.
It's spooky how many of the folk who endlessly excoriate lefty, Corbynite media also love a bit of Guido.
That's because Guido is - at least from time to time - not a complete fucking liar.
The government won't need to choose to end the lockdown - people are already ending it. Its quite visible to see more cars driving about and more people in groups going around. As we don't have the police to enforce it the lockdown will be loosened whether its intended or not.
The real and genuine challenge for us all is this: how do we chose to value a Human life. The ONS are now measuring "excess deaths", where all of the deaths above the mean they are attributing to Covid-19 no matter what steps the government have taken to not count deaths as being from it.
We can choose to protect people who don't what protection by keeping schools, pubs, cinemas etc etc closed until September, with the added ravaging of the UK tourism sector through the summer as people are largely told to stay at home. Doing so will save x people from "excess deaths".
Or we can choose not to protect these people. Provide strenuous advice an guidance but essentially leave it up to people to make their own decisions. Some of these businesses will not be able to cope with the lower demand and will fold anyway but many won't. Doing so will condemn y people to excess deaths from the effects of stress, mental health, crushing poverty in some cases etc etc.
Personally my instinct is to the latter. Clearly some people have decided "fuck this" and are already making steps in that direction. Do we want the nanny state or not...?
Not nanny state but to protect life, all life is fundamental to any society
Moth du Jour: Micropterix calthella - a true micromoth, it is only a few mm long. You can often see several of them together in the centre of a buttercup on sunny afternoons, from now on through May.
I don't know many people who are desperate to buy a second hand book right now, especially when you can get books on amazon.com, but my friends are already texting me with ideas about where and how we could all meet up for an illicit pint. The pubs will be roaring the second this ends. It'll be like VE day.
Ditto dentists, hairdressers and opticians. Look at the long lines already forming outside such places in countries that have eased their lockdowns.
I'm not saying business will be booming. But best estimates I have seen suggest anywhere between 50% - 70% of customers will return.
Yes and once everyone's had their pint and their haircut and their eyes tested, what then?
Can business survive on 50-70% of normal? Some numpty claimed there would be 20% unemployment so that's 6 million people with less money to spend on beer, haircuts and specs. Will that help business survive?
Even in the countries which are partially re-opening there are strict rules on social distancing and mask wearing. It isn't a "return to normal" but an easing of restrictions.
A restaurant with 70 covers might have just 30 available - will they be viable?
What if the pessimists are right and all this does is kick the virus off again - lock down mark 2? I'd prefer to walk down this road only once.
Some of them will be viable.
Demand may fall and prices may rise, but some restaurants with 30 covers will still be viable, albeit at a higher price.
So let's imagine 50% of restaurants go out of business and the other 50% double their prices, servicing the reduced demand at the higher price. That's the market.
It is not perfect. But it is better than the situation we have now, where all are suffering, and none are free.
I'm sure some restaurants will survive but I'm not sure that the large and sustained drop in demand will end up in anywhere which survives doubling its prices.
Possibly true. But right now I'd be willing to pay my local £100 for a burger, chips and a couple of pints with my mates. Usual price £20 a head.
Meanwhile I've already decided to slash about 10-15k off the discretionary purchases I was planning to make this year on big ticket items.
Both supply and demand are going to get screwy for a while as the economy rebalances.
If it gets a chance, before the government completely chokes it to death.
The government won't need to choose to end the lockdown - people are already ending it. Its quite visible to see more cars driving about and more people in groups going around. As we don't have the police to enforce it the lockdown will be loosened whether its intended or not.
The real and genuine challenge for us all is this: how do we chose to value a Human life. The ONS are now measuring "excess deaths", where all of the deaths above the mean they are attributing to Covid-19 no matter what steps the government have taken to not count deaths as being from it.
We can choose to protect people who don't what protection by keeping schools, pubs, cinemas etc etc closed until September, with the added ravaging of the UK tourism sector through the summer as people are largely told to stay at home. Doing so will save x people from "excess deaths".
Or we can choose not to protect these people. Provide strenuous advice an guidance but essentially leave it up to people to make their own decisions. Some of these businesses will not be able to cope with the lower demand and will fold anyway but many won't. Doing so will condemn y people to excess deaths from the effects of stress, mental health, crushing poverty in some cases etc etc.
Personally my instinct is to the latter. Clearly some people have decided "fuck this" and are already making steps in that direction. Do we want the nanny state or not...?
If the 'fuck this' crowd were only impacting themselves then I wouldn't give a toss about them. But they aren't. They are spreading the virus to the rest of the population and you can be damn sure that if they get seriously ill they'll expect the NHS to be there for them.
These selfish fuckwits need to wake up and see the consequences of their actions. Either that or the rozzers should Taser them.
I genuinely don't know how i feel about things. I dont find living in lockdown very hard and the thought of going out at the moment is very scary (not helped by the one time i left, i was exposed to somebody with CV symptoms)...but it isn't much of a life if you are telling me this is it for another 6-12 months.
More importantly, I just don’t think young people will obey severe social distancing rules for a year. I know I would not have done, in my 20s.
Their job is to go out, have fun, fall in love, have sex. Make babies. That’s how humanity continues, and their hormones will not listen to Chris Whitty
So it’s just not going to work
I've heard anecdotes about younger people being confronted by angry elderly people for doing their daily walk saying, "You're the reason we have to stay cooped up!" Things could get bitter if there's a differential lockdown based on age.
Probably. But it may be the only solution to this that's workable.
We're told that the whole aim of staying at home is to protect the NHS and save lives, right? Well, you can't run the NHS if the state has no money left because the economy has been destroyed, and there's no point in saving people from Covid-19 if they freeze or starve to death next Winter because they've no fuel and nothing to eat.
So, if the inexorable logic of the position demands that we find a way both to keep the economy running and to prevent Covid cases from swamping the NHS at the same time, then only an age-based system of lockdown will work. You ease most of the social distancing restrictions on people under 60, the vast majority of whom will not be in danger of perishing from this virus and who also constitute the productive portion of the population, and you incarcerate all of the over 60s, who constitute nearly all of the casualties of the epidemic and who are reliant on the pension payments (for we would need to drop the state retirement age to 60 to cover them) and health and social care services paid for by the taxes of the young.
It's bloody horrible, but has anyone any alternative suggestions besides "let the Plague run rampant" or "let the economy die?" The adherents of the former position seem resigned to the mass casualties; those of the latter appear convinced that even the most trivial moves towards ending the lockdown will result in the Pale Horseman riding roughshod over the land. If we try to split the population insofar as possible into two completely separate populations then maybe we can avoid both of these extremes in the process?
There is also pretty strong evidence that men are at significantly greater risk - in terms of fatalities - to this virus than women. Would it,therefore, be logical to focus efforts on the incarceration of older men?
If the fatalities were as skewed towards men as they are towards the old then, frankly, you would have a point. As it is, a substantial proportion of the victims are old ladies, so drawing the distinction would have little value.
Indeed - but that is largely because those who live to ripe old ages beyond the nid-80s are disproportionately ladies anyway. Given that 60 plus year olds have a more limited residual life expectancy, it strikes me that such people should be free to make their own decisions - having been advised that they belong to a vulnerable group to which limited resources can be allocated. I am 65 , and would certainly ignore such a rule were it to be introduced. I probably look younger and would likely to pass for late 50s - so would probably not encounter too much difficulty. On principle,though, I believe this should be a decision for the individual - were the issue to arise at all.
If that is the case what on earth is going to happen when the furlough scheme ends at the end of June? Mass unemployment, businesses closed for good, fall in tax revenue.....?
That’s going to be the difficult bit. There’s eventually going to be a limit to how much government can keep the exceptional support flowing, and when it ends there’s going to be a lot of people moving onto the much-less-generous standard unemployment benefit and universal credit systems.
As was made clear at the press conference today by Dr Whitty, while the initial lockdown strategy was very much science-driven, the next phases become much more political in terms of the timing and decisions made.
Or the furlough scheme will be extended.
If it’s costing £50bn a month, as speculated, there’s going to be a hard limit to how long they can extend it.
Basic maths tells us the furlough scheme is not costing anywhere near £50bn per month.
That would imply 20 million people to be on furlough and all being paid the maximum £2,500 per month (ie they would all have to be on annual salaries of over £37,500).
I think the actual estimate was it MIGHT cost up to £40bn in total for the original 3 months.
Fair point. Perhaps the £50bn per month figure was a net figure, also taking into account reduced tax revenues?
If that is the case what on earth is going to happen when the furlough scheme ends at the end of June? Mass unemployment, businesses closed for good, fall in tax revenue.....?
That’s going to be the difficult bit. There’s eventually going to be a limit to how much government can keep the exceptional support flowing, and when it ends there’s going to be a lot of people moving onto the much-less-generous standard unemployment benefit and universal credit systems.
As was made clear at the press conference today by Dr Whitty, while the initial lockdown strategy was very much science-driven, the next phases become much more political in terms of the timing and decisions made.
Or the furlough scheme will be extended.
If it’s costing £50bn a month, as speculated, there’s going to be a hard limit to how long they can extend it.
Basic maths tells us the furlough scheme is not costing anywhere near £50bn per month.
That would imply 20 million people to be on furlough and all being paid the maximum £2,500 per month (ie they would all have to be on annual salaries of over £37,500).
I think the actual estimate was it MIGHT cost up to £40bn in total for the original 3 months.
Fair point. Perhaps the £50bn per month figure was a net figure, also taking into account reduced tax revenues?
I always though it was a three month figure to be honest but I could be wrong
The government won't need to choose to end the lockdown - people are already ending it. Its quite visible to see more cars driving about and more people in groups going around. As we don't have the police to enforce it the lockdown will be loosened whether its intended or not.
The real and genuine challenge for us all is this: how do we chose to value a Human life. The ONS are now measuring "excess deaths", where all of the deaths above the mean they are attributing to Covid-19 no matter what steps the government have taken to not count deaths as being from it.
We can choose to protect people who don't what protection by keeping schools, pubs, cinemas etc etc closed until September, with the added ravaging of the UK tourism sector through the summer as people are largely told to stay at home. Doing so will save x people from "excess deaths".
Or we can choose not to protect these people. Provide strenuous advice an guidance but essentially leave it up to people to make their own decisions. Some of these businesses will not be able to cope with the lower demand and will fold anyway but many won't. Doing so will condemn y people to excess deaths from the effects of stress, mental health, crushing poverty in some cases etc etc.
Personally my instinct is to the latter. Clearly some people have decided "fuck this" and are already making steps in that direction. Do we want the nanny state or not...?
Not nanny state but to protect life, all life is fundamental to any society
The government won't need to choose to end the lockdown - people are already ending it. Its quite visible to see more cars driving about and more people in groups going around. As we don't have the police to enforce it the lockdown will be loosened whether its intended or not.
The real and genuine challenge for us all is this: how do we chose to value a Human life. The ONS are now measuring "excess deaths", where all of the deaths above the mean they are attributing to Covid-19 no matter what steps the government have taken to not count deaths as being from it.
We can choose to protect people who don't what protection by keeping schools, pubs, cinemas etc etc closed until September, with the added ravaging of the UK tourism sector through the summer as people are largely told to stay at home. Doing so will save x people from "excess deaths".
Or we can choose not to protect these people. Provide strenuous advice an guidance but essentially leave it up to people to make their own decisions. Some of these businesses will not be able to cope with the lower demand and will fold anyway but many won't. Doing so will condemn y people to excess deaths from the effects of stress, mental health, crushing poverty in some cases etc etc.
Personally my instinct is to the latter. Clearly some people have decided "fuck this" and are already making steps in that direction. Do we want the nanny state or not...?
Not nanny state but to protect life, all life is fundamental to any society
Why haven't we banned e.g. driving yet then?
Because driving deaths will not increase exponentially perhaps?
The government won't need to choose to end the lockdown - people are already ending it. Its quite visible to see more cars driving about and more people in groups going around. As we don't have the police to enforce it the lockdown will be loosened whether its intended or not.
The real and genuine challenge for us all is this: how do we chose to value a Human life. The ONS are now measuring "excess deaths", where all of the deaths above the mean they are attributing to Covid-19 no matter what steps the government have taken to not count deaths as being from it.
We can choose to protect people who don't what protection by keeping schools, pubs, cinemas etc etc closed until September, with the added ravaging of the UK tourism sector through the summer as people are largely told to stay at home. Doing so will save x people from "excess deaths".
Or we can choose not to protect these people. Provide strenuous advice an guidance but essentially leave it up to people to make their own decisions. Some of these businesses will not be able to cope with the lower demand and will fold anyway but many won't. Doing so will condemn y people to excess deaths from the effects of stress, mental health, crushing poverty in some cases etc etc.
Personally my instinct is to the latter. Clearly some people have decided "fuck this" and are already making steps in that direction. Do we want the nanny state or not...?
If the 'fuck this' crowd were only impacting themselves then I wouldn't give a toss about them. But they aren't. They are spreading the virus to the rest of the population and you can be damn sure that if they get seriously ill they'll expect the NHS to be there for them.
These selfish fuckwits need to wake up and see the consequences of their actions. Either that or the rozzers should Taser them.
Good to see left leaning types embracing robust policing. If we get some Paris style enforcement will you complain about right wing government, heavy handed policing and conjure up images of the miners strike?
The government won't need to choose to end the lockdown - people are already ending it. Its quite visible to see more cars driving about and more people in groups going around. As we don't have the police to enforce it the lockdown will be loosened whether its intended or not.
The real and genuine challenge for us all is this: how do we chose to value a Human life. The ONS are now measuring "excess deaths", where all of the deaths above the mean they are attributing to Covid-19 no matter what steps the government have taken to not count deaths as being from it.
We can choose to protect people who don't what protection by keeping schools, pubs, cinemas etc etc closed until September, with the added ravaging of the UK tourism sector through the summer as people are largely told to stay at home. Doing so will save x people from "excess deaths".
Or we can choose not to protect these people. Provide strenuous advice an guidance but essentially leave it up to people to make their own decisions. Some of these businesses will not be able to cope with the lower demand and will fold anyway but many won't. Doing so will condemn y people to excess deaths from the effects of stress, mental health, crushing poverty in some cases etc etc.
Personally my instinct is to the latter. Clearly some people have decided "fuck this" and are already making steps in that direction. Do we want the nanny state or not...?
If the 'fuck this' crowd were only impacting themselves then I wouldn't give a toss about them. But they aren't. They are spreading the virus to the rest of the population and you can be damn sure that if they get seriously ill they'll expect the NHS to be there for them.
These selfish fuckwits need to wake up and see the consequences of their actions. Either that or the rozzers should Taser them.
Reality check for all those who bang on about Starmer's competence and attention to detail. No doubt the MSM will ignore this as it does not fit with their prevailing narratives about how hopeless the government is and how wonderful it is to have a competent opposition.
UK Covid deaths per million inhabitants = 267 Trump's USA Covid deaths per million inhabitants = 140
If that is the case what on earth is going to happen when the furlough scheme ends at the end of June? Mass unemployment, businesses closed for good, fall in tax revenue.....?
That’s going to be the difficult bit. There’s eventually going to be a limit to how much government can keep the exceptional support flowing, and when it ends there’s going to be a lot of people moving onto the much-less-generous standard unemployment benefit and universal credit systems.
As was made clear at the press conference today by Dr Whitty, while the initial lockdown strategy was very much science-driven, the next phases become much more political in terms of the timing and decisions made.
Or the furlough scheme will be extended.
If it’s costing £50bn a month, as speculated, there’s going to be a hard limit to how long they can extend it.
Basic maths tells us the furlough scheme is not costing anywhere near £50bn per month.
That would imply 20 million people to be on furlough and all being paid the maximum £2,500 per month (ie they would all have to be on annual salaries of over £37,500).
I think the actual estimate was it MIGHT cost up to £40bn in total for the original 3 months.
Fair point. Perhaps the £50bn per month figure was a net figure, also taking into account reduced tax revenues?
Yes, a net amount is about £35bn per month I think.
I genuinely don't know how i feel about things. I dont find living in lockdown very hard and the thought of going out at the moment is very scary (not helped by the one time i left, i was exposed to somebody with CV symptoms)...but it isn't much of a life if you are telling me this is it for another 6-12 months.
More importantly, I just don’t think young people will obey severe social distancing rules for a year. I know I would not have done, in my 20s.
Their job is to go out, have fun, fall in love, have sex. Make babies. That’s how humanity continues, and their hormones will not listen to Chris Whitty
So it’s just not going to work
Coronavirus is less serious for them than seasonal flu AFAIK.
In which case they, and the rest of us, will be back under lockdown.
Very poor from the red team but if as SKS said it includes firms who are currently exporting PPE then perhaps Guido is being selective in his outrage. Naughty man.
It's spooky how many of the folk who endlessly excoriate lefty, Corbynite media also love a bit of Guido.
Why not address the piece rather than shoot the messenger
Are the names on Reeves letter identified in Fawkes investigation and can you rebut the accusations
Why not stop stomping sanctimoniously around demanding people 'do' stuff.
The government won't need to choose to end the lockdown - people are already ending it. Its quite visible to see more cars driving about and more people in groups going around. As we don't have the police to enforce it the lockdown will be loosened whether its intended or not.
The real and genuine challenge for us all is this: how do we chose to value a Human life. The ONS are now measuring "excess deaths", where all of the deaths above the mean they are attributing to Covid-19 no matter what steps the government have taken to not count deaths as being from it.
We can choose to protect people who don't what protection by keeping schools, pubs, cinemas etc etc closed until September, with the added ravaging of the UK tourism sector through the summer as people are largely told to stay at home. Doing so will save x people from "excess deaths".
Or we can choose not to protect these people. Provide strenuous advice an guidance but essentially leave it up to people to make their own decisions. Some of these businesses will not be able to cope with the lower demand and will fold anyway but many won't. Doing so will condemn y people to excess deaths from the effects of stress, mental health, crushing poverty in some cases etc etc.
Personally my instinct is to the latter. Clearly some people have decided "fuck this" and are already making steps in that direction. Do we want the nanny state or not...?
Not nanny state but to protect life, all life is fundamental to any society
Why haven't we banned e.g. driving yet then?
Because driving deaths will not increase exponentially perhaps?
In other words, not all life is fundamental then, is the point I'm making. Besides, even not exponentially, how many lives would have been saved if driving was banned e.g. 30 years ago?
Like everything there is a complicated trade-off and no blanket rule.
Fuck me, where do they get these idiots from? Lenin was a firm believer in violence and terrorism. A case could be made that he is the fourth worst mass murderer of all time. He launched a war that caused around 13 million deaths, and McCauley described him as ‘bloodthirsty as a vampire.’
He just happened to oppose the war between the Russian and German Empires.
Which war did he launch that caused 13 million deaths?
The Russian Civil War. I was including the probable dead of the 1921 famine, which was a direct result of it.
Didn't the White forces and the Allies start it by trying to crush the Reds before they controlled the whole of Russia? And let's not forget the Central Powers advancing deep into Russia in early 1918.
Given that we have no treatments or vaccines the only thing keeping COVID-19 in check is social distancing. So she's volunteering the city to see what happens when nothing mitigates the spread. Good luck with that.
It's a bit like the captain of the sinking ship saying "we offer to be a control group" to see how many people die without life vests or lifeboats. There isn't anything else, so you are going to maxmise the death toll.
We don't have 'no treatments', I understand you're using hyperbole for dramatic effect but that is plain innacurate. If we had no treatments there would be no need for hospitalisation.
Of course, we could move to a Swedish system, but the practicalities of dispersing the population into the countryside to a comparable degree would seem overwhelmingly difficult and probably hugely more economically damaging, anyway.
To achieve the same population density as Sweden, the UK Government would have to forcibly deport or execute 91% of the population. This might be considered somewhat radical.
The government won't need to choose to end the lockdown - people are already ending it. Its quite visible to see more cars driving about and more people in groups going around. As we don't have the police to enforce it the lockdown will be loosened whether its intended or not.
The real and genuine challenge for us all is this: how do we chose to value a Human life. The ONS are now measuring "excess deaths", where all of the deaths above the mean they are attributing to Covid-19 no matter what steps the government have taken to not count deaths as being from it.
We can choose to protect people who don't what protection by keeping schools, pubs, cinemas etc etc closed until September, with the added ravaging of the UK tourism sector through the summer as people are largely told to stay at home. Doing so will save x people from "excess deaths".
Or we can choose not to protect these people. Provide strenuous advice an guidance but essentially leave it up to people to make their own decisions. Some of these businesses will not be able to cope with the lower demand and will fold anyway but many won't. Doing so will condemn y people to excess deaths from the effects of stress, mental health, crushing poverty in some cases etc etc.
Personally my instinct is to the latter. Clearly some people have decided "fuck this" and are already making steps in that direction. Do we want the nanny state or not...?
Not nanny state but to protect life, all life is fundamental to any society
Why haven't we banned e.g. driving yet then?
Because driving deaths will not increase exponentially perhaps?
In other words, not all life is fundamental then, is the point I'm making. Besides, even not exponentially, how many lives would have been saved if driving was banned e.g. 30 years ago?
Like everything there is a complicated trade-off and no blanket rule.
Lives would have been lost if driving was banned 30 years ago. People not getting to hospitals, less funding for the NHS etc far outweigh reducing road traffic deaths.
Very poor from the red team but if as SKS said it includes firms who are currently exporting PPE then perhaps Guido is being selective in his outrage. Naughty man.
It's spooky how many of the folk who endlessly excoriate lefty, Corbynite media also love a bit of Guido.
Why not address the piece rather than shoot the messenger
Are the names on Reeves letter identified in Fawkes investigation and can you rebut the accusations
Why not stop stomping sanctimoniously around demanding people 'do' stuff.
Fuck me, where do they get these idiots from? Lenin was a firm believer in violence and terrorism. A case could be made that he is the fourth worst mass murderer of all time. He launched a war that caused around 13 million deaths, and McCauley described him as ‘bloodthirsty as a vampire.’
He just happened to oppose the war between the Russian and German Empires.
Which war did he launch that caused 13 million deaths?
The Russian Civil War. I was including the probable dead of the 1921 famine, which was a direct result of it.
Didn't the White forces and the Allies start it by trying to crush the Reds before they controlled the whole of Russia? And let's not forget the Central Powers advancing deep into Russia in early 1918.
No.
Lenin started it by (a) seizing power by force including an extremely bloody fight in Moscow (b) dissolving the legally and democratically elected constituent assembly and (c) banning all political parties other than his own.
He later claimed he had been attacked and it wasn’t his fault but that was a simple lie. He led a government backed by a very small minority of the population, and he used force to get there and keep himself there. Not surprisingly, he faced violent opposition.
Given that we have no treatments or vaccines the only thing keeping COVID-19 in check is social distancing. So she's volunteering the city to see what happens when nothing mitigates the spread. Good luck with that.
It's a bit like the captain of the sinking ship saying "we offer to be a control group" to see how many people die without life vests or lifeboats. There isn't anything else, so you are going to maxmise the death toll.
We don't have 'no treatments', I understand you're using hyperbole for dramatic effect but that is plain innacurate. If we had no treatments there would be no need for hospitalisation.
I think letting it rip and seeing hospitals fill up with people who need ventilators is a pretty thin level of treatment. The numbers are only manageable due to social distancing, and even then a lot of people who end up in hospital are dying. Taking away social distancing, as the Las Vegas Mayor seems to want to do, is likely to result in healthcare being overwhelmed by serious cases.
I genuinely don't know how i feel about things. I dont find living in lockdown very hard and the thought of going out at the moment is very scary (not helped by the one time i left, i was exposed to somebody with CV symptoms)...but it isn't much of a life if you are telling me this is it for another 6-12 months.
More importantly, I just don’t think young people will obey severe social distancing rules for a year. I know I would not have done, in my 20s.
Their job is to go out, have fun, fall in love, have sex. Make babies. That’s how humanity continues, and their hormones will not listen to Chris Whitty
So it’s just not going to work
Coronavirus is less serious for them than seasonal flu AFAIK.
In which case they, and the rest of us, will be back under lockdown.
Not necessarily. The lockdown relies for its efficacy upon public buy-in. I know that at least one other poster has suggested that support for it may be starting to fray, but I don't see any of that where I live - at least not yet. So long as nearly everyone approves of what the Government is doing and helps out by complying, the lockdown is safe.
As soon as any substantial minority gives up on it for any reason, however, it is over. The police haven't the numbers to counter mass disobedience, young people who have very little money anyway may elect to rip up their fines, and the Ministry of Justice is too busy trying to work out how many prisoners it can realistically get away with letting out early to find accommodation for thousands of new ones.
Whatever social measures are taken to counter this disease, they require the acquiescence of almost the whole population. People need to be brought along every step of the way, and simply saying "NHS" over and over again ad infinitum may not always be enough.
Very poor from the red team but if as SKS said it includes firms who are currently exporting PPE then perhaps Guido is being selective in his outrage. Naughty man.
It's spooky how many of the folk who endlessly excoriate lefty, Corbynite media also love a bit of Guido.
Why not address the piece rather than shoot the messenger
Are the names on Reeves letter identified in Fawkes investigation and can you rebut the accusations
Why not stop stomping sanctimoniously around demanding people 'do' stuff.
It doesnt mattter if its true or not. Its out there now
The government won't need to choose to end the lockdown - people are already ending it. Its quite visible to see more cars driving about and more people in groups going around. As we don't have the police to enforce it the lockdown will be loosened whether its intended or not.
The real and genuine challenge for us all is this: how do we chose to value a Human life. The ONS are now measuring "excess deaths", where all of the deaths above the mean they are attributing to Covid-19 no matter what steps the government have taken to not count deaths as being from it.
We can choose to protect people who don't what protection by keeping schools, pubs, cinemas etc etc closed until September, with the added ravaging of the UK tourism sector through the summer as people are largely told to stay at home. Doing so will save x people from "excess deaths".
Or we can choose not to protect these people. Provide strenuous advice an guidance but essentially leave it up to people to make their own decisions. Some of these businesses will not be able to cope with the lower demand and will fold anyway but many won't. Doing so will condemn y people to excess deaths from the effects of stress, mental health, crushing poverty in some cases etc etc.
Personally my instinct is to the latter. Clearly some people have decided "fuck this" and are already making steps in that direction. Do we want the nanny state or not...?
If the 'fuck this' crowd were only impacting themselves then I wouldn't give a toss about them. But they aren't. They are spreading the virus to the rest of the population and you can be damn sure that if they get seriously ill they'll expect the NHS to be there for them.
These selfish fuckwits need to wake up and see the consequences of their actions. Either that or the rozzers should Taser them.
What rozzers? People up here in smoggieland could start ignoring the regulations en masse and there's nothing the authorities can do about it. I do agree with the premise though. How about some more direct language from the government.
"We know that some of you have decided these rules don't apply to you. That you can ignore the lockdown and carry on as before. The police do have the power to stop you and will do so as much as possible. But in truth we can't stop you if enough of you choose to flout this.
Here's the thing. This virus is tearing through this country, killing the old, the sick and the vulnerable. If anyone you love is in one of those groups, you need to understand that if you ignore the rules you may personally be condemning them to death"
That kind of thing. People don't care. Until they kill their gran. Then they'll care.
The government won't need to choose to end the lockdown - people are already ending it. Its quite visible to see more cars driving about and more people in groups going around. As we don't have the police to enforce it the lockdown will be loosened whether its intended or not.
The real and genuine challenge for us all is this: how do we chose to value a Human life. The ONS are now measuring "excess deaths", where all of the deaths above the mean they are attributing to Covid-19 no matter what steps the government have taken to not count deaths as being from it.
We can choose to protect people who don't what protection by keeping schools, pubs, cinemas etc etc closed until September, with the added ravaging of the UK tourism sector through the summer as people are largely told to stay at home. Doing so will save x people from "excess deaths".
Or we can choose not to protect these people. Provide strenuous advice an guidance but essentially leave it up to people to make their own decisions. Some of these businesses will not be able to cope with the lower demand and will fold anyway but many won't. Doing so will condemn y people to excess deaths from the effects of stress, mental health, crushing poverty in some cases etc etc.
Personally my instinct is to the latter. Clearly some people have decided "fuck this" and are already making steps in that direction. Do we want the nanny state or not...?
In which case we can let those people who want to return to normal life carry a card which states they will not be treated by the NHS if they contract CV-19.
Given that we have no treatments or vaccines the only thing keeping COVID-19 in check is social distancing. So she's volunteering the city to see what happens when nothing mitigates the spread. Good luck with that.
It's a bit like the captain of the sinking ship saying "we offer to be a control group" to see how many people die without life vests or lifeboats. There isn't anything else, so you are going to maxmise the death toll.
There is a live telethon from Las Vegas featuring musicians to support actors on April 27th, 5pm - 11pm at https://mondaysdark.com/event/live-stream-telethon-event/. This is in aid of Las Vegas actors, dancers, musicians, crew members, whose shows have been cancelled amid the coronavirus epidemic. Some of the performers also have a YouTube presence such as Kristen Mosca. This event shows that a section of the Las Vegas community is very concerned about the impact of social distancing restrictions on that area. Should they have the right to decide to be different?
Fuck me, where do they get these idiots from? Lenin was a firm believer in violence and terrorism. A case could be made that he is the fourth worst mass murderer of all time. He launched a war that caused around 13 million deaths, and McCauley described him as ‘bloodthirsty as a vampire.’
He just happened to oppose the war between the Russian and German Empires.
Which war did he launch that caused 13 million deaths?
The Russian Civil War. I was including the probable dead of the 1921 famine, which was a direct result of it.
Didn't the White forces and the Allies start it by trying to crush the Reds before they controlled the whole of Russia? And let's not forget the Central Powers advancing deep into Russia in early 1918.
No.
Lenin started it by (a) seizing power by force including an extremely bloody fight in Moscow (b) dissolving the legally and democratically elected constituent assembly and (c) banning all political parties other than his own.
He later claimed he had been attacked and it wasn’t his fault but that was a simple lie. He led a government backed by a very small minority of the population, and he used force to get there and keep himself there. Not surprisingly, he faced violent opposition.
Speaking of famine, I suppose British Rule can be blamed for the following famines:
"Famines in India resulted in more than 60 million deaths over the course of the 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries. Famines in British India were severe enough to have a substantial impact on the long-term population growth of the country in the 19th and early 20th centuries."
I bet half the population of Las Vegas will not be thrilled to take part in his "control group" and huge numbers will tell him to stick it whee the sun don't shine and carry on practicing social distancing anyway.
The government won't need to choose to end the lockdown - people are already ending it. Its quite visible to see more cars driving about and more people in groups going around. As we don't have the police to enforce it the lockdown will be loosened whether its intended or not.
The real and genuine challenge for us all is this: how do we chose to value a Human life. The ONS are now measuring "excess deaths", where all of the deaths above the mean they are attributing to Covid-19 no matter what steps the government have taken to not count deaths as being from it.
We can choose to protect people who don't what protection by keeping schools, pubs, cinemas etc etc closed until September, with the added ravaging of the UK tourism sector through the summer as people are largely told to stay at home. Doing so will save x people from "excess deaths".
Or we can choose not to protect these people. Provide strenuous advice an guidance but essentially leave it up to people to make their own decisions. Some of these businesses will not be able to cope with the lower demand and will fold anyway but many won't. Doing so will condemn y people to excess deaths from the effects of stress, mental health, crushing poverty in some cases etc etc.
Personally my instinct is to the latter. Clearly some people have decided "fuck this" and are already making steps in that direction. Do we want the nanny state or not...?
Sooner or later it is going to have to come down to individuals taking whatever risk they are comfortable with. The sooner that happens the better as we do need to get the economy up and running again. Open things up gradually from the beginning of May and as long as the NHS can cope with any fallout let those that want to get back to normal do so and let those that don't stay in.
Personally we shall not be doing much different than now for a very long time as it's clear listening to some of the comments on PB that the first ones out and about partying etc will not be paying the slightest attention to any remaining restrictions because they don't feel much threatened by getting the virus.
Those of us who really don't want to get ill will have no choice but to stay well clear. No restaurants, pubs, sports grounds, cinemas etc because you know that significant numbers of people you will be with can't be trusted to have behaved responsibly. That is why I expect the economy will remain trashed for a very long time whatever action is taken
I bet half the population of Las Vegas will not be thrilled to take part in his "control group" and huge numbers will tell him to stick it whee the sun don't shine and carry on practicing social distancing anyway.
Making a massive tourist hotspot the petri dish is idiotic in the exteme.
Fuck me, where do they get these idiots from? Lenin was a firm believer in violence and terrorism. A case could be made that he is the fourth worst mass murderer of all time. He launched a war that caused around 13 million deaths, and McCauley described him as ‘bloodthirsty as a vampire.’
He just happened to oppose the war between the Russian and German Empires.
Which war did he launch that caused 13 million deaths?
The Russian Civil War. I was including the probable dead of the 1921 famine, which was a direct result of it.
Didn't the White forces and the Allies start it by trying to crush the Reds before they controlled the whole of Russia? And let's not forget the Central Powers advancing deep into Russia in early 1918.
No.
Lenin started it by (a) seizing power by force including an extremely bloody fight in Moscow (b) dissolving the legally and democratically elected constituent assembly and (c) banning all political parties other than his own.
He later claimed he had been attacked and it wasn’t his fault but that was a simple lie. He led a government backed by a very small minority of the population, and he used force to get there and keep himself there. Not surprisingly, he faced violent opposition.
Speaking of famine, I suppose British Rule can be blamed for the following famines:
"Famines in India resulted in more than 60 million deaths over the course of the 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries. Famines in British India were severe enough to have a substantial impact on the long-term population growth of the country in the 19th and early 20th centuries."
Not the first, as the EIC was a private company at the time. Certainly the second and third were exacerbated by, at the least, major failures on the part of the imperial administration.
That said, I am struggling to see either the relevance of this to Lenin, or your point.
In an out of character development, I am drinking red wine.
Under £5 from the Coop, bought the last time we had visitors but nobody wanted any.
It is actually quite pleasant.
Beer arrives on Friday.
If you enjoy it it might be worth investing a little more in your next bottle. So much of a wines costs are fixed - duty, distribution, profit, packaging, in a £5 bottle you're paying very little for the "wine" itself. You don't have to go wild, but if you get the chance try something a little pricier and you might be pleasantly surprised!
Comments
Do you know how the quality of service compares between Council / Independent? I do not off the top of my head.
It’s not the people out and about - which is easy to police. This will start to crack in more subtle ways. In any economy there is a black market. The greater the restrictions on an economy the larger that black market becomes. When do we see “underground” hairdressers, speakeasies, secret drinks parties, clandestine games, other small forms of economic and social civil disobedience beginning to occur? Maybe never. Maybe next week. I’m pretty sure you are not going to stop teens and 20-somethings shagging for that long. Hormones will override anything Chris Whitty advises. Four years ago the British public decided, relatively late on in the process if polls are believed, not to act in accordance with Government recommendations. Things could turn - and quite fast too.
The best ways to get money into the pockets of the young are to build houses all over the place until they become more affordable, and to tax the young as little as we can get away with. And the tax burden can be kept heavy rather than made eyewatering by making the well-to-do aged cough up more the of the cost of having their arses wiped when they can no longer manage it for themselves.
Well, let’s suppose everyone goes back to how they were before.
We would have three to four weeks of death rates gently sliding down, still (from infections prior to lockdown release). Following the current trajectory, that gets down to maybe 300 deaths per day.
Then the effects of lockdown release kick in. We go back to deaths doubling every 3-4 days. If we locked down again after 1 week unlocked, they’d lift to 1200 per day (higher than the last peak) before starting to trend down again. Although there would be uproar if we’d relocked down after only a week unlocked (as the latency period would mean that we’d still be in a gently reducing death-rate period). The Haimes and Youngs of the world would be going apeshit.
Say, then, we stay unlocked for 3 weeks, and relock down just as the death-rate trend starts picking up again. The death rate rises for 3 to 4 weeks afterwards, peaking at nearly 5000 per day, before trending down. At this point, odds are we’d be overloading the NHS, anyway.
But Lenin made market socialism work...
I'm not sure that overlooking the bloody clamp down on political freedom is a price worth paying.
I was speaking metaphorically given how many people the Cheka ‘chopped.’
Demand may fall and prices may rise, but some restaurants with 30 covers will still be viable, albeit at a higher price.
So let's imagine 50% of restaurants go out of business and the other 50% double their prices, servicing the reduced demand at the higher price. That's the market.
It is not perfect. But it is better than the situation we have now, where all are suffering, and none are free.
Many authorities contracted out the operation of the care homes to specialist providers (who only wanted to deal with ordinary residential care so dementia care and care for those with physical and mental issues often remains in the public sector).
Once the assessment takes place, the level (not necessarily the quality) of care is determined by how much someone is willing to pay but the average residential care home in outer London will be charging £1000-£1200 per week. Basically, that's £50-£60k per year which if you own a £1m property buys you a lot of care but if you own a property worth £300k not so much so eventually the local council ends up paying once the individual's assets (bar £23,500) are gone. The Council will take a charge on any house and sell it down the line which then goes to the care home.
https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/1253050946734575617?s=09
More likely is the middlemen trying to con the government are saying that some other country has bought from them too, or are running overseas 'orders' through their books in an attempt to try and run a version of the old carousel VAT scheme while people are distracted.
It's a bit like the captain of the sinking ship saying "we offer to be a control group" to see how many people die without life vests or lifeboats. There isn't anything else, so you are going to maxmise the death toll.
https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/Japan-to-block-foreign-investment-in-medicine-amid-coronavirus
... Japan plans to prevent foreign companies from acquiring domestic pharmaceutical and medical equipment makers, Nikkei has learned.
The Japanese government will include companies that operate in the fields of vaccines, medicine and advanced medical equipment like ventilators on its list of sectors deemed critical to national security....
That would imply 20 million people to be on furlough and all being paid the maximum £2,500 per month (ie they would all have to be on annual salaries of over £37,500).
I think the actual estimate was it MIGHT cost up to £40bn in total for the original 3 months.
Are the names on Reeves letter identified in Fawkes investigation and can you rebut the accusations
The real and genuine challenge for us all is this: how do we chose to value a Human life. The ONS are now measuring "excess deaths", where all of the deaths above the mean they are attributing to Covid-19 no matter what steps the government have taken to not count deaths as being from it.
We can choose to protect people who don't what protection by keeping schools, pubs, cinemas etc etc closed until September, with the added ravaging of the UK tourism sector through the summer as people are largely told to stay at home. Doing so will save x people from "excess deaths".
Or we can choose not to protect these people. Provide strenuous advice an guidance but essentially leave it up to people to make their own decisions. Some of these businesses will not be able to cope with the lower demand and will fold anyway but many won't. Doing so will condemn y people to excess deaths from the effects of stress, mental health, crushing poverty in some cases etc etc.
Personally my instinct is to the latter. Clearly some people have decided "fuck this" and are already making steps in that direction. Do we want the nanny state or not...?
Which sounds oddly like the old, chaotic opposition...
Delays in diagnosing and treating people with cancer could lead to more years of lost life than with Covid-19, according to a leading cancer expert.
A drop-off in screening and referrals means roughly 2,700 fewer people are being diagnosed every week, Cancer Research UK says.
Cancer screening has paused in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, with few invitations sent out in England.
People are still advised to contact their GP with worrying symptoms.
But Richard Sullivan, professor of cancer and global health at King's College London, said there was more fear of Covid-19 than of having cancer at the moment. With GPs more difficult to contact than normal, this was resulting in a "dramatic drop-off" in referrals to specialists, he said.
"Most modellers in the UK estimate excess of deaths is going to be way greater than we are going to see with Covid-19," he said.
With cancer patients generally much younger, Prof Sullivan predicted "years of lost life will be quite dramatic" on top of "a huge amount of avoidable mortality".
And this article pertains only to increased mortality due to cancer, never mind all other non-Covid causes.
If the aim of lockdown is to preserve life then it may already have failed on its own terms, and it almost certainly will fail if it continues for too long in its present form.
https://thehill.com/homenews/news/494140-doctors-warn-coronavirus-causing-sudden-strokes-in-younger-patients
https://www.bccourier.com/medic-sees-evidence-of-serious-long-term-lung-damage/
Meanwhile I've already decided to slash about 10-15k off the discretionary purchases I was planning to make this year on big ticket items.
Both supply and demand are going to get screwy for a while as the economy rebalances.
If it gets a chance, before the government completely chokes it to death.
The lockdown is creaking.
These selfish fuckwits need to wake up and see the consequences of their actions. Either that or the rozzers should Taser them.
Trump's USA Covid deaths per million inhabitants = 140
Like everything there is a complicated trade-off and no blanket rule.
https://twitter.com/thesun/status/1253061902235774976?s=21
Lenin started it by (a) seizing power by force including an extremely bloody fight in Moscow (b) dissolving the legally and democratically elected constituent assembly and (c) banning all political parties other than his own.
He later claimed he had been attacked and it wasn’t his fault but that was a simple lie. He led a government backed by a very small minority of the population, and he used force to get there and keep himself there. Not surprisingly, he faced violent opposition.
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1253063534927372289?s=21
https://twitter.com/BendyGardiner/status/1252993403413028864
As soon as any substantial minority gives up on it for any reason, however, it is over. The police haven't the numbers to counter mass disobedience, young people who have very little money anyway may elect to rip up their fines, and the Ministry of Justice is too busy trying to work out how many prisoners it can realistically get away with letting out early to find accommodation for thousands of new ones.
Whatever social measures are taken to counter this disease, they require the acquiescence of almost the whole population. People need to be brought along every step of the way, and simply saying "NHS" over and over again ad infinitum may not always be enough.
"We know that some of you have decided these rules don't apply to you. That you can ignore the lockdown and carry on as before. The police do have the power to stop you and will do so as much as possible. But in truth we can't stop you if enough of you choose to flout this.
Here's the thing. This virus is tearing through this country, killing the old, the sick and the vulnerable. If anyone you love is in one of those groups, you need to understand that if you ignore the rules you may personally be condemning them to death"
That kind of thing. People don't care. Until they kill their gran. Then they'll care.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Bengal_famine_of_1770
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_of_1876–1878
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943
To name but a few.
"Famines in India resulted in more than 60 million deaths over the course of the 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries. Famines in British India were severe enough to have a substantial impact on the long-term population growth of the country in the 19th and early 20th centuries."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine_in_India
Personally we shall not be doing much different than now for a very long time as it's clear listening to some of the comments on PB that the first ones out and about partying etc will not be paying the slightest attention to any remaining restrictions because they don't feel much threatened by getting the virus.
Those of us who really don't want to get ill will have no choice but to stay well clear. No restaurants, pubs, sports grounds, cinemas etc because you know that significant numbers of people you will be with can't be trusted to have behaved responsibly. That is why I expect the economy will remain trashed for a very long time whatever action is taken
They were never required to stop doing that in the first place
That said, I am struggling to see either the relevance of this to Lenin, or your point.