politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » New COVID19 polling finds two thirds of Brits saying that the

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » New COVID19 polling finds two thirds of Brits saying that the government acted too late

Whenever this is all over, and who can predict that, it is clear that the events of the past three months and the actions of ministers are set to have a big impact on domestic politics. Pollster Ipsos-MORI has been asking tracker questions and we can see from the two charts above how things have moved.

Read the full story here

Ave_it

Top 5

eek

Worth posting this in case it's not been mentioned before

https://twitter.com/ProfKarolSikora/status/1255754983993159680

It seems once you've had Covid 19 you can't catch it again so a vaccine should work.

FrancisUrquhart

I was very heartened by listening to the talk by Prof Farzan last week. He calmly explained how CV has a number of weaknesses which can be attacked by a whole range of different approaches, many of which are already well understood tools in the toolbox.

He has spent something like 20 years working HIV / AIDs and said CV is nowhere near as difficult a problem.

And I presume this is why a number of the people making vaccines are for scientists being a lot more optimistic than they would normally ever like to sound at this stage.

Ave_it

Sturgeon's negative approach is unhelpful and reflects the incompetent approach taken by the Scottish Executive in dealing with Covid-19

Hopefully Boris can ignore these regional authorities and articulate a clear national route out of lockdown, I don't expect that today but we need a plan by 7 May

Philip_Thompson

FPT

justin124 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

squareroot2 said:

Jonathan said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Stocky said:

Jonathan said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Alistair said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

A spitfire and hurricane doing a triple pass over Colonel Tom evokes so many memories for me

He and they are an utter inspiration

To think, we could have charged the Duke of Westminster a 0.3% wealth tax and raised just as much for the NHS.

There can be no doubt that the wealthy are going to have to pay much more tax

Define wealthy.

Pensioners currently living mortgage free?
Families with salaries over 80k?
People with more than one property?

All of the above?

Yes, that`s the problem isn`t it. I suspect that BigG meant much more wealthy than the three examples that you cite.

To answer your question

Many mortgage free pensioners are living on their pension and not wealthy

Any family with £100,000 plus are doing very well but may not be wealthy

Anyone owning two homes may well be wealty

But my target are celebrities, footballers and highly paid CEO and others

Trouble is there aren't quite enough celebs, CEOs and footballers to dent the national finances.

If you are serious about this black hole, you will probably need to tax both the comfortable income and the mortgage free pensioner.

I am a mortgage free pensioner, I am paying huge sums to the Govt thro petrol, fuel oil, electricity, council tax and other invented charges by the council for other spurious services (bin collections car park pass etc) then you get stiffed in car parks where the pass does not work (Horsham is hugely expensive) then there's the tax on my pension and my state pension. If I take anything from mySIPP I get taxed too. Then they tax my small dividends , and its only because interest rates are zero that they don't tax my savings.
I then pay inordinate amounts of VAT on things I buy. I am drowning in taxes.

What do they give me? Bins emptied and my lane resurfaced every 25yrs.

I think VAT will go up to 25% That's my guess when we start paying off our borrowings for Covid 19

There is an underlying assumption many aremaking that we will pay off our borrowings for Covid 19. Why would we?

There is a difference between an ongoing structural deficit and one-off borrowing. Our borrowing this year will never be repaid. Never. Not next year, not ten years from now, never ever.

We need to get the economy moving again and seek to eliminate/minimise the deficit but we need to do that on a cyclical manner, you don't eliminate the deficit during a recession you do it afterwards.

If anything a tax cut would make more sense than a tax rise.

Don't tell lenders that we intend to never ever ever repay. They could get a bit spooked.

Actually I think investors are wise to the fact that the government will repay its bonds by issuing new bonds, not via taxation. If investors thought the government would stop issuing new bonds and would instead run hundreds of billion pounds surpluses instead I think that would spook them more.

Deficits need to be closed, there can't be massive deficits forever but government borrowing does not need to be repaid in real net terms - it needs interest paying on it in perpetuity. There is a difference between one-off borrowing during a crisis and ongoing structural deficit spending.

It cannot reasonably argued that any deficit arising from the Covid response is cyclical - rather than strucural. I rather agree that - just like World War 2 - it should be treated as 'one-off' - but would extend that to the effect of the GFC back in 2008/2009 too. Osborne's austerity was ,therefore, a political choice rather than an economic necessity..

You misunderstood me.

I said the deficit would need addressing (but from a couple of years afterwards) but the DEBT would never be repaid. That is exactly what Osborne did.

Osborne never repaid the debt from the GFC and never even closed the deficit completely.

Any idea we will repay the debt is preposterous. We will however need to close the deficit and sort out interest payments.

Malmesbury

We were talking about the delays in reporting in the NHS England data the other day.

The above shows the curve of how each days deaths are reported - about 20% on the first report (day after) and somewhere in the region of 40-50% on the second day.

MaxPB

Good thing big Dom was in the room to force the scientists to recommend a lock down then, eh?

Richard_Nabavi

On Mike's last paragraph: Sir Keir is simultaneously complaining that the government acted too late (conveniently omitting to mention that Labour didn't call for earlier action), and saying we should be beginning to relax the lockdown. Whilst this might be good if cynical politics, the combination of the two positions cannot make sense.

On the polling, the media's wall-to-wall whinging is no doubt having some effect - again, whinging informed hugely by hindsight. Still, any fool can say 'we should have acted earlier'. There is always something you could have done earlier. For example, in 2009, the government could have included PPE stockpiling in its pandemic planning, as was recommended at the time. Isn't hindsight wonderful?

AlastairMeeks

I don't agree with him often but Tim Montgomerie hit the nail on the head with this tweet:

https://twitter.com/montie/status/1255756504122220549?s=20

Pulpstar

eek said:

Worth posting this in case it's not been mentioned before

https://twitter.com/ProfKarolSikora/status/1255754983993159680

It seems once you've had Covid 19 you can't catch it again so a vaccine should work.

A friend of mine who has almost certainly had it has just done 3 days work in Leeds General A&E (He works for an NHS supplier) so he's certainly hoping you can't catch it twice !

eristdoof

Andy_JS said:

"May Day demonstrations planned for German cities on Friday pose a dilemma for police as officers face conflicting advice on whether they should ask protesters to put on face masks or pull them off.

Wearing masks in shops and on public transport was made mandatory in most German states this week, as the country relaxed some of the lockdown measures introduced to curb the spread of Covid-19.

German law makes it illegal to cover your face while participating in a public gathering, such as a strike or a political demonstration, so as to prevent identification by the police."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/29/mask-dilemma-for-police-in-germany-as-may-day-activists-cover-up

First of all the demos are not in a shop and not on public transport.
Secondly the Masks in question are different for the demonstrators compared to the anti-virus masks.

I've walked past a Tag der Arbeiter (may the first) demo and seeing so many of the demonstrators wearing the featureless face masks is surprisingly intimidating.

The may day demos are important for the left in Berlin as the "Bloody May" riots in 1929 are considered as an important milestone in the rise of the NSDAP in Germany.

Richard_Nabavi

Looking forward in a constructive sense, what we need more than anything else is better information on exactly what the transmission modes for this virus are. For example, if it is the case (as seems likely) that transmission outdoors, and transmission via virus residues on surfaces, are not very significant, and that children are very little involved in spreading the disease, that would mean some aspects of the lockdown could be selectively relaxed with little risk. More research is urgently needed on this.

FeersumEnjineeya

MaxPB said:

Good thing big Dom was in the room to force the scientists to recommend a lock down then, eh?

That doesn't make sense. Why would he have to force them to recommend anything, given that the government was free to ignore or implement their recommendations as it saw fit?

Edit: Or were you just being facetious?

MaxPB

FeersumEnjineeya said:

MaxPB said:

Good thing big Dom was in the room to force the scientists to recommend a lock down then, eh?

That doesn't make sense. Why would he have to force them to recommend anything, given that the government was free to ignore or implement their recommendations as it saw fit?

"Ignored scientific advice and caused a huge recession"

Theuniondivvie

Ave_it said:

Sturgeon's negative approach is unhelpful and reflects the incompetent approach taken by the Scottish Executive in dealing with Covid-19

Hopefully Boris can ignore these regional authorities and articulate a clear national route out of lockdown, I don't expect that today but we need a plan by 7 May

how dare those regional authorities have a plan? They shouldn't have a plan like wot we haven't.

FeersumEnjineeya

Richard_Nabavi said:

Looking forward in a constructive sense, what we need more than anything else is better information on exactly what the transmission modes for this virus are. For example, if it is the case (as seems likely) that transmission outdoors, and transmission via virus residues on surfaces, are not very significant, and that children are very little involved in spreading the disease, that would mean some aspects of the lockdown could be selectively relaxed with little risk. More research is urgently needed on this.

Yes, obviously, and has already been mentioned here many times.

felix

Richard_Nabavi said:

Looking forward in a constructive sense, what we need more than anything else is better information on exactly what the transmission modes for this virus are. For example, if it is the case (as seems likely) that transmission outdoors, and transmission via virus residues on surfaces, are not very significant, and that children are very little involved in spreading the disease, that would mean some aspects of the lockdown could be selectively relaxed with little risk. More research is urgently needed on this.

The schools could probably re-open with minimal risk. Here in Spain they're off till September now which seems stupid in the circumstances.

Ave_it

Theuniondivvie said:

Ave_it said:

Sturgeon's negative approach is unhelpful and reflects the incompetent approach taken by the Scottish Executive in dealing with Covid-19

Hopefully Boris can ignore these regional authorities and articulate a clear national route out of lockdown, I don't expect that today but we need a plan by 7 May

how dare those regional authorities have a plan? They shouldn't have a plan like wot we haven't.

Seems that the plan in Scotland is just to be a shambles!

mike9978h

Always complaining. Our death rate is comparable to the Netherlands, better than in France, Italy or Spain. So not that bad.

Pulpstar

felix said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Looking forward in a constructive sense, what we need more than anything else is better information on exactly what the transmission modes for this virus are. For example, if it is the case (as seems likely) that transmission outdoors, and transmission via virus residues on surfaces, are not very significant, and that children are very little involved in spreading the disease, that would mean some aspects of the lockdown could be selectively relaxed with little risk. More research is urgently needed on this.

The schools could probably re-open with minimal risk. Here in Spain they're off till September now which seems stupid in the circumstances.

Primary schools, not secondary methinks. All the "very low transmission" stuff is on kids under 10.

eristdoof

Richard_Nabavi said:

Looking forward in a constructive sense, what we need more than anything else is better information on exactly what the transmission modes for this virus are. For example, of it is the case (as seems likely) that transmission outdoors, and transmission via virus residues on surfaces, are not very significant, and that children are very little involved in spreading the disease, that would mean some aspects of the lockdown could be selectively relaxed with little risk. More research is urgently needed on this.

I'm sure research is being done, but even the fastest research takes time.

A key problem witht the estimation of transmission risk, goes back to the difference between personal risk and collective risk. Two people not known to be corona positive passing by each other 1m apart in a supermarket within two seconds is a very small personal risk. Allowing unrestricted access to a supermarket without distancing, probably does though have a real risk in terms of the national infection rates.

mike9978h

Richard_Nabavi said:

On Mike's last paragraph: Sir Keir is simultaneously complaining that the government acted too late (conveniently omitting to mention that Labour didn't call for earlier action), and saying we should be beginning to relax the lockdown. Whilst this might be good if cynical politics, the combination of the two positions cannot make sense.

On the polling, the media's wall-to-wall whinging is no doubt having some effect - again, whinging informed hugely by hindsight. Still, any fool can say 'we should have acted earlier'. There is always something you could have done earlier. For example, in 2009, the government could have included PPE stockpiling in its pandemic planning, as was recommended at the time. Isn't hindsight wonderful?

I would also add we could not have gone into lockdown before any reported deaths. Those occured in mid March and we went into lockdown in Miid March. So the Government acted in a responsible way.

Richard_Nabavi

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Looking forward in a constructive sense, what we need more than anything else is better information on exactly what the transmission modes for this virus are. For example, if it is the case (as seems likely) that transmission outdoors, and transmission via virus residues on surfaces, are not very significant, and that children are very little involved in spreading the disease, that would mean some aspects of the lockdown could be selectively relaxed with little risk. More research is urgently needed on this.

Yes, obviously, and has already been mentioned here many times.

It may have been mentioned on here, and it is certainly obvious, but it doesn't seem to be obvious to journalists, the BBC, or opposition MPs, who whinge on about a plan for relaxing the lockdown without any apparent understanding that the research is needed to inform such a plan.

felix

Pulpstar said:

felix said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Looking forward in a constructive sense, what we need more than anything else is better information on exactly what the transmission modes for this virus are. For example, if it is the case (as seems likely) that transmission outdoors, and transmission via virus residues on surfaces, are not very significant, and that children are very little involved in spreading the disease, that would mean some aspects of the lockdown could be selectively relaxed with little risk. More research is urgently needed on this.

The schools could probably re-open with minimal risk. Here in Spain they're off till September now which seems stupid in the circumstances.

Primary schools, not secondary methinks. All the "very low transmission" stuff is on kids under 10.

Agree.

Theuniondivvie

Ave_it said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Ave_it said:

Sturgeon's negative approach is unhelpful and reflects the incompetent approach taken by the Scottish Executive in dealing with Covid-19

Hopefully Boris can ignore these regional authorities and articulate a clear national route out of lockdown, I don't expect that today but we need a plan by 7 May

how dare those regional authorities have a plan? They shouldn't have a plan like wot we haven't.

Seems that the plan in Scotland is just to be a shambles!

So presumably you must approve of the the replication of HMG and BJ's response then? One shambolic nation marching in step to the future.

DecrepiterJohnL

Richard_Nabavi said:

On Mike's last paragraph: Sir Keir is simultaneously complaining that the government acted too late (conveniently omitting to mention that Labour didn't call for earlier action), and saying we should be beginning to relax the lockdown. Whilst this might be good if cynical politics, the combination of the two positions cannot make sense.

On the polling, the media's wall-to-wall whinging is no doubt having some effect - again, whinging informed hugely by hindsight. Still, any fool can say 'we should have acted earlier'. There is always something you could have done earlier. For example, in 2009, the government could have included PPE stockpiling in its pandemic planning, as was recommended at the time. Isn't hindsight wonderful?

There is no real conflict in wanting an earlier start and end to lockdown (whether or not it was effective) but in any case, it does not really matter. Both parties will be watching how these attack lines play out in America this autumn.

felix

I see today also in Spain some hairdressers and bars say they won't reopen under the 'relaxation' rules to come in May because they need full bars and salons to make money. Obviously their choice but presumably they will no longer qualify for the same handouts on offer currently.

FeersumEnjineeya

MaxPB said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

MaxPB said:

Good thing big Dom was in the room to force the scientists to recommend a lock down then, eh?

That doesn't make sense. Why would he have to force them to recommend anything, given that the government was free to ignore or implement their recommendations as it saw fit?

"Ignored scientific advice and caused a huge recession"

We've no real idea what went on in those discussions. All we know is that the government, for whatever reason, very likely acted too slowly in ordering a lockdown. I expect we'll find out in due course if this was down to bad advice, misunderstandings, political reasons or poor communication.

Ave_it

Theuniondivvie said:

Ave_it said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Ave_it said:

Sturgeon's negative approach is unhelpful and reflects the incompetent approach taken by the Scottish Executive in dealing with Covid-19

Hopefully Boris can ignore these regional authorities and articulate a clear national route out of lockdown, I don't expect that today but we need a plan by 7 May

how dare those regional authorities have a plan? They shouldn't have a plan like wot we haven't.

Seems that the plan in Scotland is just to be a shambles!

So presumably you must approve of the the reproduction of HMG and BJ's response then?

Scotland seem to want to go its own way on this eg masks - not supported by the evidence - and virtually no testing.

I would like to see a proper national response set out by Boris by no later than 7 May

eristdoof

Malmesbury said:

We were talking about the delays in reporting in the NHS England data the other day.

The above shows the curve of how each days deaths are reported - about 20% on the first report (day after) and somewhere in the region of 40-50% on the second day.

Having one curve for each date is obscuring rather than helping in this diagramm. The plot would be clearer if the average curve was plotted in black and then the individual day curves in light grey to give a feeling of the variability.

Ave_it

felix said:

Pulpstar said:

felix said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Looking forward in a constructive sense, what we need more than anything else is better information on exactly what the transmission modes for this virus are. For example, if it is the case (as seems likely) that transmission outdoors, and transmission via virus residues on surfaces, are not very significant, and that children are very little involved in spreading the disease, that would mean some aspects of the lockdown could be selectively relaxed with little risk. More research is urgently needed on this.

The schools could probably re-open with minimal risk. Here in Spain they're off till September now which seems stupid in the circumstances.

Primary schools, not secondary methinks. All the "very low transmission" stuff is on kids under 10.

Agree.

Yes I think schools should open from Monday 1 June - that provides a meaningful 7 week period of education until end of the school year.

Philip_Thompson

felix said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Looking forward in a constructive sense, what we need more than anything else is better information on exactly what the transmission modes for this virus are. For example, if it is the case (as seems likely) that transmission outdoors, and transmission via virus residues on surfaces, are not very significant, and that children are very little involved in spreading the disease, that would mean some aspects of the lockdown could be selectively relaxed with little risk. More research is urgently needed on this.

The schools could probably re-open with minimal risk. Here in Spain they're off till September now which seems stupid in the circumstances.

So when grandparents and parents crowd together to pick up the rugrats after school they're not going to transmit the virus to each other how exactly?

Philip_Thompson

Pulpstar said:

felix said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Looking forward in a constructive sense, what we need more than anything else is better information on exactly what the transmission modes for this virus are. For example, if it is the case (as seems likely) that transmission outdoors, and transmission via virus residues on surfaces, are not very significant, and that children are very little involved in spreading the disease, that would mean some aspects of the lockdown could be selectively relaxed with little risk. More research is urgently needed on this.

The schools could probably re-open with minimal risk. Here in Spain they're off till September now which seems stupid in the circumstances.

Primary schools, not secondary methinks. All the "very low transmission" stuff is on kids under 10.

Problem is secondary school kids can be trusted to make their own way to and from school. Primary school kids can't and need to be taken to or from school by parents or grandparents who aren't immune to the virus (or spreading it) while crowding together at the school gates.

DavidL

I was on here bemoaning the lack of government action in late February/early March when it seemed inevitable that all of western Europe was going to get this bad. There is no doubt that Boris's early messaging, especially shaking hands with people, caused confusion and unnecessary spread.

The result of this ineptitude was that phase 1, the trace, treat and isolate phase, collapsed within days. It was just too late and we were not geared up to do it adequately either in terms of testing or isolation facilities.

This is where we are currently trying to get back to. If we can build up our testing, get the number of cases down to a manageable level and have the resources in place to carry out tracing and isolation then we can go back to a very limited lockdown basically consisting of improved hygiene and some social distancing. Raab had 5 tests yesterday but the capacity to trace and isolate the infected is really the only one that matters. The others are an insurance policy if we fail in that objective. We are waiting, not particularly patiently, for that capacity to be built.

So, if I was asked if the government acted too slowly my answer would be yes, but not in the lockdown. They were simply not geared up enough to cope with a pandemic and found themselves unable to respond adequately. Well, outside SK and possibly China, who was?

Theuniondivvie

Ave_it said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Ave_it said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Ave_it said:

Sturgeon's negative approach is unhelpful and reflects the incompetent approach taken by the Scottish Executive in dealing with Covid-19

Hopefully Boris can ignore these regional authorities and articulate a clear national route out of lockdown, I don't expect that today but we need a plan by 7 May

how dare those regional authorities have a plan? They shouldn't have a plan like wot we haven't.

Seems that the plan in Scotland is just to be a shambles!

So presumably you must approve of the the reproduction of HMG and BJ's response then?

Scotland seem to want to go its own way on this eg masks - not supported by the evidence - and virtually no testing.

I would like to see a proper national response set out by Boris by no later than 7 May

Too tedious to try and work out at which stage of squirrely contortions the BJ boosters are with SAGE.

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1255106683560513536?s=20

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1255114004676165632?s=20

kinabalu

Philip_Thompson said:

Well precisely. And once you've squashed the deficit then you can manage the debt via growth and interest payments and paying a keen eye on the deficit in future.

But there is a difficult reality. We went into the 08 crash with debt at 40% of GDP and a deficit of 3%. We go into this crisis with debt at 85% of GDP and a deficit of 1.2%. Meaning we are less well placed. An extra 45% on debt is a bigger drag than the 1.8% mitigating extra headroom on deficit.

Last time spending cuts took the strain - with almost everything bar the NHS squeezed until the pips squeaked. This was morally wrong because it hit the least well off very badly. It also means that in practice it cannot be done again. There's no scope. Our public realm is denuded.

What was missing in our response to 08 was tax hikes on the better off - by which I mean everyone who is doing more than "just about managing" or not managing at all. The need is for a contribution via taxation (focused more on wealth than income - but on both) which becomes sharply higher as you go up the scale of affluence. It should have happened long before now. I hope this abdication of political leadership and moral obligation is not continued.

Ave_it

Theuniondivvie said:

Ave_it said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Ave_it said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Ave_it said:

Sturgeon's negative approach is unhelpful and reflects the incompetent approach taken by the Scottish Executive in dealing with Covid-19

Hopefully Boris can ignore these regional authorities and articulate a clear national route out of lockdown, I don't expect that today but we need a plan by 7 May

how dare those regional authorities have a plan? They shouldn't have a plan like wot we haven't.

Seems that the plan in Scotland is just to be a shambles!

So presumably you must approve of the the reproduction of HMG and BJ's response then?

Scotland seem to want to go its own way on this eg masks - not supported by the evidence - and virtually no testing.

I would like to see a proper national response set out by Boris by no later than 7 May

Too tedious to try and work out at which stage of squirrely contortions the BJ boosters are with SAGE.

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1255106683560513536?s=20

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1255114004676165632?s=20

Yes the UK government need to get on with publishing the plan as I mentioned earlier - the electorate broadly support the lockdown but we need to see a plan!

FF43

The government implies their failure in this piece, comparing its CV19 response (inevitable War metaphor) with the Fall of Singapore. Interesting piece on their thinking, worth a read

https://twitter.com/JGForsyth/status/1255730609005133826.

Ineffective and late response to Covid-19 is probably won't be a big issue in itself in a 2024 election. A narrative of incompetence which that response feeds into, might be. Starmer is clearly pushing this narrative of incompetence. Administrative competence isn't a Johnson USP. Leaving aside the Corbyn alternative, Johnson won in 2019 because competence didn't rate highly in voters' minds. Whether it will in four or so years time remains to be seen.

FeersumEnjineeya

Richard_Nabavi said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Looking forward in a constructive sense, what we need more than anything else is better information on exactly what the transmission modes for this virus are. For example, if it is the case (as seems likely) that transmission outdoors, and transmission via virus residues on surfaces, are not very significant, and that children are very little involved in spreading the disease, that would mean some aspects of the lockdown could be selectively relaxed with little risk. More research is urgently needed on this.

Yes, obviously, and has already been mentioned here many times.

It may have been mentioned on here, and it is certainly obvious, but it doesn't seem to be obvious to journalists, the BBC, or opposition MPs, who whinge on about a plan for relaxing the lockdown without any apparent understanding that the research is needed to inform such a plan.

Well perhaps that's what the government should be explaining, rather than drawing stupid and confusing analogies about muggers. It is the job of journalists to ask questions, and the government should be trying a little harder to answer them. Of course this doesn't mean giving dates etc. for ending lockdown, but it does mean giving some idea of the areas in which research is being done and the criteria that will be used in determining how the lockdown will be eased.

Frankly, this blaming of the journalists for asking the wrong type of questions is getting pretty tedious. If the questions are silly, a government spokesperson should explain why they are silly; otherwise they should try to answer them to the best of their ability.

Andy_JS

O/T

Interesting to compare the four biggest Anglosphere countries using Geert Hofstede's cultural dimensions. They're all pretty much the same on "Power Distance", "Individualism", and "Indulgence". Canada is slightly less "Masculine" than the others. The UK has a lower score on "Uncertainty Avoidance" than the others. The biggest differences are with the "Long Term Orientation" dimension: UK much higher and Australia and the USA much lower.

https://www.hofstede-insights.com/country-comparison/australia,canada,the-uk,the-usa/

Theuniondivvie

Ave_it said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Ave_it said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Ave_it said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Ave_it said:

Sturgeon's negative approach is unhelpful and reflects the incompetent approach taken by the Scottish Executive in dealing with Covid-19

Hopefully Boris can ignore these regional authorities and articulate a clear national route out of lockdown, I don't expect that today but we need a plan by 7 May

how dare those regional authorities have a plan? They shouldn't have a plan like wot we haven't.

Seems that the plan in Scotland is just to be a shambles!

So presumably you must approve of the the reproduction of HMG and BJ's response then?

Scotland seem to want to go its own way on this eg masks - not supported by the evidence - and virtually no testing.

I would like to see a proper national response set out by Boris by no later than 7 May

Too tedious to try and work out at which stage of squirrely contortions the BJ boosters are with SAGE.

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1255106683560513536?s=20

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1255114004676165632?s=20

Yes the UK government need to get on with publishing the plan as I mentioned earlier - the electorate broadly support the lockdown but we need to see a plan!

Prevaricate, prevaricate, prevaricate until Dom tells us what to do.

I suppose it's a plan of sorts.

Philip_Thompson

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Well precisely. And once you've squashed the deficit then you can manage the debt via growth and interest payments and paying a keen eye on the deficit in future.

But there is a difficult reality. We went into the 08 crash with debt at 40% of GDP and a deficit of 3%. We go into this crisis with debt at 85% of GDP and a deficit of 1.2%. Meaning we are less well placed. An extra 45% on debt is a bigger drag than the 1.8% mitigating extra headroom on deficit.

Last time spending cuts took the strain - with almost everything bar the NHS squeezed until the pips squeaked. This was morally wrong because it hit the least well off very badly. It also means that in practice it cannot be done again. There's no scope. Our public realm is denuded.

What was missing in our response to 08 was tax hikes on the better off - by which I mean everyone who is doing more than "just about managing" or not managing at all. The need is for a contribution via taxation (focused more on wealth than income - but on both) which becomes sharply higher as you go up the scale of affluence. It should have happened long before now. I hope this abdication of political leadership and moral obligation is not continued.

No we are thankfully better placed now. That 1.8% difference in deficit is what matters massively more than the 45% on debt. Especially when much of that debt is owned by the Bank of England who would never call it in and don't demand interest on it either.

The deficit and interest payments are the two real elements which measure what we can afford not the debt.

Forget debt, we're never going to repay debt. We have to pay interest on debt - and the government bonds are frequently set to 30-50 year schedules so interest rate changes don't suddenly vary through to the budget.

We are going into this recession with interest being below 3% of government expenditure and the deficit being 1.2% of the government's budget. That's a lot healthier that we went into 2008 with.

dixiedean

Philip_Thompson said:

Pulpstar said:

felix said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Looking forward in a constructive sense, what we need more than anything else is better information on exactly what the transmission modes for this virus are. For example, if it is the case (as seems likely) that transmission outdoors, and transmission via virus residues on surfaces, are not very significant, and that children are very little involved in spreading the disease, that would mean some aspects of the lockdown could be selectively relaxed with little risk. More research is urgently needed on this.

The schools could probably re-open with minimal risk. Here in Spain they're off till September now which seems stupid in the circumstances.

Primary schools, not secondary methinks. All the "very low transmission" stuff is on kids under 10.

Problem is secondary school kids can be trusted to make their own way to and from school. Primary school kids can't and need to be taken to or from school by parents or grandparents who aren't immune to the virus (or spreading it) while crowding together at the school gates.

How about Secondary School kids who live many many miles from school and don't have any public transport or parenta available to drive them?
Here in rural Nortumberland there is an extensive and long standing network of extremely crowded school buses.
The list of difficulties with almost everything grows more complicated when it is looked at more closely.

felix

Philip_Thompson said:

felix said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Looking forward in a constructive sense, what we need more than anything else is better information on exactly what the transmission modes for this virus are. For example, if it is the case (as seems likely) that transmission outdoors, and transmission via virus residues on surfaces, are not very significant, and that children are very little involved in spreading the disease, that would mean some aspects of the lockdown could be selectively relaxed with little risk. More research is urgently needed on this.

The schools could probably re-open with minimal risk. Here in Spain they're off till September now which seems stupid in the circumstances.

So when grandparents and parents crowd together to pick up the rugrats after school they're not going to transmit the virus to each other how exactly?

By imposing sensible measures to ensure that doesn't happen ...is how.

Luckyguy1983

Theuniondivvie said:

Ave_it said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Ave_it said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Ave_it said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Ave_it said:

Sturgeon's negative approach is unhelpful and reflects the incompetent approach taken by the Scottish Executive in dealing with Covid-19

Hopefully Boris can ignore these regional authorities and articulate a clear national route out of lockdown, I don't expect that today but we need a plan by 7 May

how dare those regional authorities have a plan? They shouldn't have a plan like wot we haven't.

Seems that the plan in Scotland is just to be a shambles!

So presumably you must approve of the the reproduction of HMG and BJ's response then?

Scotland seem to want to go its own way on this eg masks - not supported by the evidence - and virtually no testing.

I would like to see a proper national response set out by Boris by no later than 7 May

Too tedious to try and work out at which stage of squirrely contortions the BJ boosters are with SAGE.

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1255106683560513536?s=20

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1255114004676165632?s=20

Yes the UK government need to get on with publishing the plan as I mentioned earlier - the electorate broadly support the lockdown but we need to see a plan!

Prevaricate, prevaricate, prevaricate until Dom tells us what to do.

I suppose it's a plan of sorts.

It's quite often the best plan too. Probably not in this case, but who knows?

DavidL

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Well precisely. And once you've squashed the deficit then you can manage the debt via growth and interest payments and paying a keen eye on the deficit in future.

But there is a difficult reality. We went into the 08 crash with debt at 40% of GDP and a deficit of 3%. We go into this crisis with debt at 85% of GDP and a deficit of 1.2%. Meaning we are less well placed. An extra 45% on debt is a bigger drag than the 1.8% mitigating extra headroom on deficit.

Last time spending cuts took the strain - with almost everything bar the NHS squeezed until the pips squeaked. This was morally wrong because it hit the least well off very badly. It also means that in practice it cannot be done again. There's no scope. Our public realm is denuded.

What was missing in our response to 08 was tax hikes on the better off - by which I mean everyone who is doing more than "just about managing" or not managing at all. The need is for a contribution via taxation (focused more on wealth than income - but on both) which becomes sharply higher as you go up the scale of affluence. It should have happened long before now. I hope this abdication of political leadership and moral obligation is not continued.

When the Coalition was elected in 2010 I still got a personal allowance. I still got CB. I didn't have such restrictions on my pension contributions. I didn't have to pay extra for the privilege of living in Scotland. It is frankly ridiculous to say that tax on the higher earners was not increased substantially. My bill went up roughly £20k a year over that period which was about a 50% increase. The proportion of taxes paid by the highest earners went up sharply. That is as it should be and I am not complaining but this fantasy that Osborne was somehow protecting his rich friends whilst imposing harsh cuts on the poor is really nonsense.

Malmesbury

eristdoof said:

Malmesbury said:

We were talking about the delays in reporting in the NHS England data the other day.

The above shows the curve of how each days deaths are reported - about 20% on the first report (day after) and somewhere in the region of 40-50% on the second day.

Having one curve for each date is obscuring rather than helping in this diagramm. The plot would be clearer if the average curve was plotted in black and then the individual day curves in light grey to give a feeling of the variability.

Do you want to have a go?

Original data file at - https://drive.google.com/open?id=1aLfG_PAa01K7wgOh3wmU2r8Fc2QfBpeA

Pulpstar

Philip_Thompson said:

Pulpstar said:

felix said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Looking forward in a constructive sense, what we need more than anything else is better information on exactly what the transmission modes for this virus are. For example, if it is the case (as seems likely) that transmission outdoors, and transmission via virus residues on surfaces, are not very significant, and that children are very little involved in spreading the disease, that would mean some aspects of the lockdown could be selectively relaxed with little risk. More research is urgently needed on this.

The schools could probably re-open with minimal risk. Here in Spain they're off till September now which seems stupid in the circumstances.

Primary schools, not secondary methinks. All the "very low transmission" stuff is on kids under 10.

Problem is secondary school kids can be trusted to make their own way to and from school. Primary school kids can't and need to be taken to or from school by parents or grandparents who aren't immune to the virus (or spreading it) while crowding together at the school gates.

Sending secondary schools back before primary (Seeing as they contain a fair number of pupils who are biologically as good as an adult vector so far as the virus is concerned) would be absurd.

Philip_Thompson

dixiedean said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Pulpstar said:

felix said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Looking forward in a constructive sense, what we need more than anything else is better information on exactly what the transmission modes for this virus are. For example, if it is the case (as seems likely) that transmission outdoors, and transmission via virus residues on surfaces, are not very significant, and that children are very little involved in spreading the disease, that would mean some aspects of the lockdown could be selectively relaxed with little risk. More research is urgently needed on this.

The schools could probably re-open with minimal risk. Here in Spain they're off till September now which seems stupid in the circumstances.

Primary schools, not secondary methinks. All the "very low transmission" stuff is on kids under 10.

Problem is secondary school kids can be trusted to make their own way to and from school. Primary school kids can't and need to be taken to or from school by parents or grandparents who aren't immune to the virus (or spreading it) while crowding together at the school gates.

How about Secondary School kids who live many many miles from school and don't have any public transport or parenta available to drive them?
Here in rural Nortumberland there is an extensive and long standing network of extremely crowded school buses.
The list of difficulties with almost everything grows more complicated when it is looked at more closely.

Indeed I'm not suggesting all secondary school children are trusted but they can be. Primary school children can't.

When I was picking my daughter up from school the teacher wouldn't let her even step out of the building until she saw me and the same with other kids. All parents crowd together where they can be seen by the teacher and wait for their children to come out. Releasing the children to be taken potentially by a stranger is against the schools safeguarding rules and quite appropriately for five year olds.

A five year old may not be a transmission risk but unless we're going to tear up all modern safeguarding how on earth are they supposed to get to school or back without an adult being involved? There is not a chance in hell I'd let her walk to school on her own!

felix

dixiedean said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Pulpstar said:

felix said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Looking forward in a constructive sense, what we need more than anything else is better information on exactly what the transmission modes for this virus are. For example, if it is the case (as seems likely) that transmission outdoors, and transmission via virus residues on surfaces, are not very significant, and that children are very little involved in spreading the disease, that would mean some aspects of the lockdown could be selectively relaxed with little risk. More research is urgently needed on this.

The schools could probably re-open with minimal risk. Here in Spain they're off till September now which seems stupid in the circumstances.

Primary schools, not secondary methinks. All the "very low transmission" stuff is on kids under 10.

Problem is secondary school kids can be trusted to make their own way to and from school. Primary school kids can't and need to be taken to or from school by parents or grandparents who aren't immune to the virus (or spreading it) while crowding together at the school gates.

How about Secondary School kids who live many many miles from school and don't have any public transport or parenta available to drive them?
Here in rural Nortumberland there is an extensive and long standing network of extremely crowded school buses.
The list of difficulties with almost everything grows more complicated when it is looked at more closely.

You don't let the unusual or exceptional govern all your actions. Some staggered or rotational opening - is perfectly possible. The key message is that easing of the lockdown requires phasing and it is not a return to the status quo ante. That must await a vaccine and until then there will be 'new normals' for everyone.

Philip_Thompson

Pulpstar said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Pulpstar said:

felix said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Looking forward in a constructive sense, what we need more than anything else is better information on exactly what the transmission modes for this virus are. For example, if it is the case (as seems likely) that transmission outdoors, and transmission via virus residues on surfaces, are not very significant, and that children are very little involved in spreading the disease, that would mean some aspects of the lockdown could be selectively relaxed with little risk. More research is urgently needed on this.

The schools could probably re-open with minimal risk. Here in Spain they're off till September now which seems stupid in the circumstances.

Primary schools, not secondary methinks. All the "very low transmission" stuff is on kids under 10.

Problem is secondary school kids can be trusted to make their own way to and from school. Primary school kids can't and need to be taken to or from school by parents or grandparents who aren't immune to the virus (or spreading it) while crowding together at the school gates.

Sending secondary schools back before primary (Seeing as they contain a fair number of pupils who are biologically as good as an adult vector so far as the virus is concerned) would be absurd.

Its not just about pupils though is it?

At the schoolgate for my daughters school there will be hundreds of pupils coming out being met by hundreds of parents and grandparents. Hundreds of people crowding together and social distancing would be impossible.

If we're trying to keep social distancing what does it matter how safe the pupils are if we're going to have grandparents and parents forced to crowd together without social distancing? There needs to be an answer to that question.

rkrkrk

Richard_Nabavi said:

On Mike's last paragraph: Sir Keir is simultaneously complaining that the government acted too late (conveniently omitting to mention that Labour didn't call for earlier action), and saying we should be beginning to relax the lockdown. Whilst this might be good if cynical politics, the combination of the two positions cannot make sense.

On the polling, the media's wall-to-wall whinging is no doubt having some effect - again, whinging informed hugely by hindsight. Still, any fool can say 'we should have acted earlier'. There is always something you could have done earlier. For example, in 2009, the government could have included PPE stockpiling in its pandemic planning, as was recommended at the time. Isn't hindsight wonderful?

As I understand it - Labour are calling for the lockdown exit plan to be published but are not calling for a date to be set on when we exit.

Technically Labour did call for earlier action I think, but not by much!
https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/labour-urges-boris-johnson-to-shift-to-enforced-social-distancing-amid-widespread-noncompliance-with-coronavirus-guidance

williamglenn

Andy_JS said:

O/T

Interesting to compare the four biggest Anglosphere countries using Geert Hofstede's cultural dimensions. They're all pretty much the same on "Power Distance", "Individualism", and "Indulgence". Canada is slightly less "Masculine" than the others. The UK has a lower score on "Uncertainty Avoidance" than the others. The biggest differences are with the "Long Term Orientation" dimension: UK much higher and Australia and the USA much lower.

https://www.hofstede-insights.com/country-comparison/australia,canada,the-uk,the-usa/

These are highly subjective categories and some of the explanations are very dubious. For example they give France a high number for 'power distance' compared to the UK, and use the Paris-centric nature of the French transport network as evidence of a hierarchical power structure.

Philip_Thompson

felix said:

Philip_Thompson said:

felix said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Looking forward in a constructive sense, what we need more than anything else is better information on exactly what the transmission modes for this virus are. For example, if it is the case (as seems likely) that transmission outdoors, and transmission via virus residues on surfaces, are not very significant, and that children are very little involved in spreading the disease, that would mean some aspects of the lockdown could be selectively relaxed with little risk. More research is urgently needed on this.

The schools could probably re-open with minimal risk. Here in Spain they're off till September now which seems stupid in the circumstances.

So when grandparents and parents crowd together to pick up the rugrats after school they're not going to transmit the virus to each other how exactly?

By imposing sensible measures to ensure that doesn't happen ...is how.

OK go on then. What are they? What sensible measures ensure that hundreds of parents and grandparents don't mingle in a limited space?

FrancisUrquhart

https://twitter.com/cricketwyvern/status/1255836170476535813?s=20

Theuniondivvie

Luckyguy1983 said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Ave_it said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Ave_it said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Ave_it said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Ave_it said:

Sturgeon's negative approach is unhelpful and reflects the incompetent approach taken by the Scottish Executive in dealing with Covid-19

Hopefully Boris can ignore these regional authorities and articulate a clear national route out of lockdown, I don't expect that today but we need a plan by 7 May

how dare those regional authorities have a plan? They shouldn't have a plan like wot we haven't.

Seems that the plan in Scotland is just to be a shambles!

So presumably you must approve of the the reproduction of HMG and BJ's response then?

Scotland seem to want to go its own way on this eg masks - not supported by the evidence - and virtually no testing.

I would like to see a proper national response set out by Boris by no later than 7 May

Too tedious to try and work out at which stage of squirrely contortions the BJ boosters are with SAGE.

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1255106683560513536?s=20

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1255114004676165632?s=20

Yes the UK government need to get on with publishing the plan as I mentioned earlier - the electorate broadly support the lockdown but we need to see a plan!

Prevaricate, prevaricate, prevaricate until Dom tells us what to do.

I suppose it's a plan of sorts.

It's quite often the best plan too. Probably not in this case, but who knows?

Is Dom General Percival or General Slim? A question to keep us all awake at night.

felix

felix said:

dixiedean said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Pulpstar said:

felix said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Looking forward in a constructive sense, what we need more than anything else is better information on exactly what the transmission modes for this virus are. For example, if it is the case (as seems likely) that transmission outdoors, and transmission via virus residues on surfaces, are not very significant, and that children are very little involved in spreading the disease, that would mean some aspects of the lockdown could be selectively relaxed with little risk. More research is urgently needed on this.

The schools could probably re-open with minimal risk. Here in Spain they're off till September now which seems stupid in the circumstances.

Primary schools, not secondary methinks. All the "very low transmission" stuff is on kids under 10.

Problem is secondary school kids can be trusted to make their own way to and from school. Primary school kids can't and need to be taken to or from school by parents or grandparents who aren't immune to the virus (or spreading it) while crowding together at the school gates.

How about Secondary School kids who live many many miles from school and don't have any public transport or parenta available to drive them?
Here in rural Nortumberland there is an extensive and long standing network of extremely crowded school buses.
The list of difficulties with almost everything grows more complicated when it is looked at more closely.

You don't let the unusual or exceptional govern all your actions. Some staggered or rotational opening - is perfectly possible. The key message is that easing of the lockdown requires phasing and it is not a return to the status quo ante. That must await a vaccine and until then there will be 'new normals' for everyone.

Edit: for example,

Spanish government will set timetables for walks as part of confinement deescalation
The health minister will confirm the full details of how the adult population will be allowed outside at a press conference later today. El Pais.

Carnyx

Theuniondivvie said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Ave_it said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Ave_it said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Ave_it said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Ave_it said:

Sturgeon's negative approach is unhelpful and reflects the incompetent approach taken by the Scottish Executive in dealing with Covid-19

Hopefully Boris can ignore these regional authorities and articulate a clear national route out of lockdown, I don't expect that today but we need a plan by 7 May

how dare those regional authorities have a plan? They shouldn't have a plan like wot we haven't.

Seems that the plan in Scotland is just to be a shambles!

So presumably you must approve of the the reproduction of HMG and BJ's response then?

Scotland seem to want to go its own way on this eg masks - not supported by the evidence - and virtually no testing.

I would like to see a proper national response set out by Boris by no later than 7 May

Too tedious to try and work out at which stage of squirrely contortions the BJ boosters are with SAGE.

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1255106683560513536?s=20

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1255114004676165632?s=20

Yes the UK government need to get on with publishing the plan as I mentioned earlier - the electorate broadly support the lockdown but we need to see a plan!

Prevaricate, prevaricate, prevaricate until Dom tells us what to do.

I suppose it's a plan of sorts.

It's quite often the best plan too. Probably not in this case, but who knows?

Is Dom General Percival or General Slim? A question to keep us all awake at night.

Mind, it was General Yamashita who was the real disruptor ... the British Empire was never the same again.

eristdoof

Philip_Thompson said:

dixiedean said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Pulpstar said:

felix said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Looking forward in a constructive sense, what we need more than anything else is better information on exactly what the transmission modes for this virus are. For example, if it is the case (as seems likely) that transmission outdoors, and transmission via virus residues on surfaces, are not very significant, and that children are very little involved in spreading the disease, that would mean some aspects of the lockdown could be selectively relaxed with little risk. More research is urgently needed on this.

The schools could probably re-open with minimal risk. Here in Spain they're off till September now which seems stupid in the circumstances.

Primary schools, not secondary methinks. All the "very low transmission" stuff is on kids under 10.

Problem is secondary school kids can be trusted to make their own way to and from school. Primary school kids can't and need to be taken to or from school by parents or grandparents who aren't immune to the virus (or spreading it) while crowding together at the school gates.

How about Secondary School kids who live many many miles from school and don't have any public transport or parenta available to drive them?
Here in rural Nortumberland there is an extensive and long standing network of extremely crowded school buses.
The list of difficulties with almost everything grows more complicated when it is looked at more closely.

Indeed I'm not suggesting all secondary school children are trusted but they can be. Primary school children can't.

When I was picking my daughter up from school the teacher wouldn't let her even step out of the building until she saw me and the same with other kids. All parents crowd together where they can be seen by the teacher and wait for their children to come out. Releasing the children to be taken potentially by a stranger is against the schools safeguarding rules and quite appropriately for five year olds.

A five year old may not be a transmission risk but unless we're going to tear up all modern safeguarding how on earth are they supposed to get to school or back without an adult being involved? There is not a chance in hell I'd let her walk to school on her own!

For me a very conspicuous difference between British culture and German culture is the responsibility German parents give their children. I often see 7 or 8 year olds walking on their own to school or walking to school with their younger sibling. Quite a lot at this age cycle too. Occasionally I see a child even younger walking to school/nursery school alone, but that is if the house is on the same block as the school.

Cyclefree

Richard_Nabavi said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Looking forward in a constructive sense, what we need more than anything else is better information on exactly what the transmission modes for this virus are. For example, if it is the case (as seems likely) that transmission outdoors, and transmission via virus residues on surfaces, are not very significant, and that children are very little involved in spreading the disease, that would mean some aspects of the lockdown could be selectively relaxed with little risk. More research is urgently needed on this.

Yes, obviously, and has already been mentioned here many times.

It may have been mentioned on here, and it is certainly obvious, but it doesn't seem to be obvious to journalists, the BBC, or opposition MPs, who whinge on about a plan for relaxing the lockdown without any apparent understanding that the research is needed to inform such a plan.

According to today’s reports La Scala is planning to reopen in September with a performance of Verdi’s Requiem. I’m assuming that the orchestra and choir aren’t going to be singing and playing 2 metres apart. Nor that the audience will be sitting 2 metres apart.

So maybe ask the Italians whether they have some research showing that opening your mouth and expelling air to make a beautiful sound is not a vector for transmission. Because if this is feasible then pretty much anything else is, frankly.

northern_monkey

Philip_Thompson said:

felix said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Looking forward in a constructive sense, what we need more than anything else is better information on exactly what the transmission modes for this virus are. For example, if it is the case (as seems likely) that transmission outdoors, and transmission via virus residues on surfaces, are not very significant, and that children are very little involved in spreading the disease, that would mean some aspects of the lockdown could be selectively relaxed with little risk. More research is urgently needed on this.

The schools could probably re-open with minimal risk. Here in Spain they're off till September now which seems stupid in the circumstances.

So when grandparents and parents crowd together to pick up the rugrats after school they're not going to transmit the virus to each other how exactly?

Don’t let them crowd together? Have them queuing, 2m apart, and be passed the appropriate rugrat when they reach the head of the queue. Is that difficult?

Alistair

Pulpstar said:

felix said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Looking forward in a constructive sense, what we need more than anything else is better information on exactly what the transmission modes for this virus are. For example, if it is the case (as seems likely) that transmission outdoors, and transmission via virus residues on surfaces, are not very significant, and that children are very little involved in spreading the disease, that would mean some aspects of the lockdown could be selectively relaxed with little risk. More research is urgently needed on this.

The schools could probably re-open with minimal risk. Here in Spain they're off till September now which seems stupid in the circumstances.

Primary schools, not secondary methinks. All the "very low transmission" stuff is on kids under 10.

And as we all know Primary children get themselves to school without relying on parents or grand parents in anyway.

Simple to re open the schools.

HYUFD

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Well precisely. And once you've squashed the deficit then you can manage the debt via growth and interest payments and paying a keen eye on the deficit in future.

But there is a difficult reality. We went into the 08 crash with debt at 40% of GDP and a deficit of 3%. We go into this crisis with debt at 85% of GDP and a deficit of 1.2%. Meaning we are less well placed. An extra 45% on debt is a bigger drag than the 1.8% mitigating extra headroom on deficit.

Last time spending cuts took the strain - with almost everything bar the NHS squeezed until the pips squeaked. This was morally wrong because it hit the least well off very badly. It also means that in practice it cannot be done again. There's no scope. Our public realm is denuded.

What was missing in our response to 08 was tax hikes on the better off - by which I mean everyone who is doing more than "just about managing" or not managing at all. The need is for a contribution via taxation (focused more on wealth than income - but on both) which becomes sharply higher as you go up the scale of affluence. It should have happened long before now. I hope this abdication of political leadership and moral obligation is not continued.

What was the 50p top income tax rate Brown and Darling introduced but a tax hike on the better off? It raised little money and hit growth and investment so Osborne correctly cut it to 45p once the Coalition got in to government

Philip_Thompson

eristdoof said:

Philip_Thompson said:

dixiedean said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Pulpstar said:

felix said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Looking forward in a constructive sense, what we need more than anything else is better information on exactly what the transmission modes for this virus are. For example, if it is the case (as seems likely) that transmission outdoors, and transmission via virus residues on surfaces, are not very significant, and that children are very little involved in spreading the disease, that would mean some aspects of the lockdown could be selectively relaxed with little risk. More research is urgently needed on this.

The schools could probably re-open with minimal risk. Here in Spain they're off till September now which seems stupid in the circumstances.

Primary schools, not secondary methinks. All the "very low transmission" stuff is on kids under 10.

Problem is secondary school kids can be trusted to make their own way to and from school. Primary school kids can't and need to be taken to or from school by parents or grandparents who aren't immune to the virus (or spreading it) while crowding together at the school gates.

How about Secondary School kids who live many many miles from school and don't have any public transport or parenta available to drive them?
Here in rural Nortumberland there is an extensive and long standing network of extremely crowded school buses.
The list of difficulties with almost everything grows more complicated when it is looked at more closely.

Indeed I'm not suggesting all secondary school children are trusted but they can be. Primary school children can't.

When I was picking my daughter up from school the teacher wouldn't let her even step out of the building until she saw me and the same with other kids. All parents crowd together where they can be seen by the teacher and wait for their children to come out. Releasing the children to be taken potentially by a stranger is against the schools safeguarding rules and quite appropriately for five year olds.

A five year old may not be a transmission risk but unless we're going to tear up all modern safeguarding how on earth are they supposed to get to school or back without an adult being involved? There is not a chance in hell I'd let her walk to school on her own!

For me a very conspicuous difference between British culture and German culture is the responsibility German parents give their children. I often see 7 or 8 year olds walking on their own to school or walking to school with their younger sibling. Quite a lot at this age cycle too. Occasionally I see a child even younger walking to school/nursery school alone, but that is if the house is on the same block as the school.

My daughter has turned six during lockdown, the school is over a mile away and the route to get there involves crossing two very busy roads and going along one very busy road (in normal circumstances, not now obviously). If I was told to send her to school but I wasn't allowed to take her she would not be going to school it is as simple as that.

A solution for primary school children must include a solution for their parents and grandparents too.

dixiedean

Philip_Thompson said:

dixiedean said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Pulpstar said:

felix said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Looking forward in a constructive sense, what we need more than anything else is better information on exactly what the transmission modes for this virus are. For example, if it is the case (as seems likely) that transmission outdoors, and transmission via virus residues on surfaces, are not very significant, and that children are very little involved in spreading the disease, that would mean some aspects of the lockdown could be selectively relaxed with little risk. More research is urgently needed on this.

The schools could probably re-open with minimal risk. Here in Spain they're off till September now which seems stupid in the circumstances.

Primary schools, not secondary methinks. All the "very low transmission" stuff is on kids under 10.

Problem is secondary school kids can be trusted to make their own way to and from school. Primary school kids can't and need to be taken to or from school by parents or grandparents who aren't immune to the virus (or spreading it) while crowding together at the school gates.

How about Secondary School kids who live many many miles from school and don't have any public transport or parenta available to drive them?
Here in rural Nortumberland there is an extensive and long standing network of extremely crowded school buses.
The list of difficulties with almost everything grows more complicated when it is looked at more closely.

Indeed I'm not suggesting all secondary school children are trusted but they can be. Primary school children can't.

When I was picking my daughter up from school the teacher wouldn't let her even step out of the building until she saw me and the same with other kids. All parents crowd together where they can be seen by the teacher and wait for their children to come out. Releasing the children to be taken potentially by a stranger is against the schools safeguarding rules and quite appropriately for five year olds.

A five year old may not be a transmission risk but unless we're going to tear up all modern safeguarding how on earth are they supposed to get to school or back without an adult being involved? There is not a chance in hell I'd let her walk to school on her own!

I agree wholeheartedly with you. There are schools and schools. Any pupils and pupils. And pubs and pubs.
It really isn't quite as simple as re-opening when it is safe. What is safe for one pupil will not be for others. And we need a plan for the exceptions as well as what is convenient for the majority.
What will we do for the pupil who lives 35 miles from secondary school along tiny country roads? A round trip of over 2 hours twice a day for parents. Assuming they have transport.

felix

Philip_Thompson said:

felix said:

Philip_Thompson said:

felix said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Looking forward in a constructive sense, what we need more than anything else is better information on exactly what the transmission modes for this virus are. For example, if it is the case (as seems likely) that transmission outdoors, and transmission via virus residues on surfaces, are not very significant, and that children are very little involved in spreading the disease, that would mean some aspects of the lockdown could be selectively relaxed with little risk. More research is urgently needed on this.

The schools could probably re-open with minimal risk. Here in Spain they're off till September now which seems stupid in the circumstances.

So when grandparents and parents crowd together to pick up the rugrats after school they're not going to transmit the virus to each other how exactly?

By imposing sensible measures to ensure that doesn't happen ...is how.

OK go on then. What are they? What sensible measures ensure that hundreds of parents and grandparents don't mingle in a limited space?

Staggered shift classes with different pick-up slots would be a simple example. As I said upthread we're not going back to before for a good long while yet. That doesn't mean we do nothing. A nother option would be half classes in the mornings and afternoons. I'm sure there are better minds than mine which can cme up with a system. Maybe, dare I suggest it, parents consider changing their habits could help make everyone a little safer.

Alistair

FrancisUrquhart said:

https://twitter.com/cricketwyvern/status/1255836170476535813?s=20

The intensive care figures. Despite the highest ever peak appearing on the 22nd there the overall trends is clearly downwards from the start of the month

kinabalu

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Well precisely. And once you've squashed the deficit then you can manage the debt via growth and interest payments and paying a keen eye on the deficit in future.

But there is a difficult reality. We went into the 08 crash with debt at 40% of GDP and a deficit of 3%. We go into this crisis with debt at 85% of GDP and a deficit of 1.2%. Meaning we are less well placed. An extra 45% on debt is a bigger drag than the 1.8% mitigating extra headroom on deficit.

Last time spending cuts took the strain - with almost everything bar the NHS squeezed until the pips squeaked. This was morally wrong because it hit the least well off very badly. It also means that in practice it cannot be done again. There's no scope. Our public realm is denuded.

What was missing in our response to 08 was tax hikes on the better off - by which I mean everyone who is doing more than "just about managing" or not managing at all. The need is for a contribution via taxation (focused more on wealth than income - but on both) which becomes sharply higher as you go up the scale of affluence. It should have happened long before now. I hope this abdication of political leadership and moral obligation is not continued.

No we are thankfully better placed now. That 1.8% difference in deficit is what matters massively more than the 45% on debt. Especially when much of that debt is owned by the Bank of England who would never call it in and don't demand interest on it either.

The deficit and interest payments are the two real elements which measure what we can afford not the debt.

Forget debt, we're never going to repay debt. We have to pay interest on debt - and the government bonds are frequently set to 30-50 year schedules so interest rate changes don't suddenly vary through to the budget.

We are going into this recession with interest being below 3% of government expenditure and the deficit being 1.2% of the government's budget. That's a lot healthier that we went into 2008 with.

What is a deficit? It is the amount by which debt is rising.

Why do we worry about a deficit? Because of its impact on debt.

So when discussing the public finances can we really "forget debt"?

Clearly not. Because if this were the case - that debt does not matter - then the thing which is causing the debt to increase would not matter either. This thing being the deficit.

FrancisUrquhart

391 new deaths in England.

DavidL

Philip_Thompson said:

dixiedean said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Pulpstar said:

felix said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Looking forward in a constructive sense, what we need more than anything else is better information on exactly what the transmission modes for this virus are. For example, if it is the case (as seems likely) that transmission outdoors, and transmission via virus residues on surfaces, are not very significant, and that children are very little involved in spreading the disease, that would mean some aspects of the lockdown could be selectively relaxed with little risk. More research is urgently needed on this.

The schools could probably re-open with minimal risk. Here in Spain they're off till September now which seems stupid in the circumstances.

Primary schools, not secondary methinks. All the "very low transmission" stuff is on kids under 10.

Problem is secondary school kids can be trusted to make their own way to and from school. Primary school kids can't and need to be taken to or from school by parents or grandparents who aren't immune to the virus (or spreading it) while crowding together at the school gates.

How about Secondary School kids who live many many miles from school and don't have any public transport or parenta available to drive them?
Here in rural Nortumberland there is an extensive and long standing network of extremely crowded school buses.
The list of difficulties with almost everything grows more complicated when it is looked at more closely.

Indeed I'm not suggesting all secondary school children are trusted but they can be. Primary school children can't.

When I was picking my daughter up from school the teacher wouldn't let her even step out of the building until she saw me and the same with other kids. All parents crowd together where they can be seen by the teacher and wait for their children to come out. Releasing the children to be taken potentially by a stranger is against the schools safeguarding rules and quite appropriately for five year olds.

A five year old may not be a transmission risk but unless we're going to tear up all modern safeguarding how on earth are they supposed to get to school or back without an adult being involved? There is not a chance in hell I'd let her walk to school on her own!

This very much depends on the child. My son definitely needed picked up every day before some better idea got into his head about where to go all the way to year 6. My daughter looked a little bewildered that mum was coming to the school gate again on day 2 and made it clear that this was not necessary. Thereafter she made her own way home without incident. Overall I agree with @eristdoof that we are overly cautious with our kids but then I live in a village, not a city.

DavidL

Cyclefree said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Looking forward in a constructive sense, what we need more than anything else is better information on exactly what the transmission modes for this virus are. For example, if it is the case (as seems likely) that transmission outdoors, and transmission via virus residues on surfaces, are not very significant, and that children are very little involved in spreading the disease, that would mean some aspects of the lockdown could be selectively relaxed with little risk. More research is urgently needed on this.

Yes, obviously, and has already been mentioned here many times.

It may have been mentioned on here, and it is certainly obvious, but it doesn't seem to be obvious to journalists, the BBC, or opposition MPs, who whinge on about a plan for relaxing the lockdown without any apparent understanding that the research is needed to inform such a plan.

According to today’s reports La Scala is planning to reopen in September with a performance of Verdi’s Requiem. I’m assuming that the orchestra and choir aren’t going to be singing and playing 2 metres apart. Nor that the audience will be sitting 2 metres apart.

So maybe ask the Italians whether they have some research showing that opening your mouth and expelling air to make a beautiful sound is not a vector for transmission. Because if this is feasible then pretty much anything else is, frankly.

I seem to recall a pretty horrific infection story from the US based around a Baptist choir.

Alistair

I've realised for producing moving averages of these daily bucketed figures you don't want to us a 3/5/7 day rolling average for them. Instead you want to normally distribute the days figures both forward and back. So if the 15th of April is 100 deaths then when producing an averaged chart you assign 68 deaths to the 15th. 13.5 to the 16th and 14th and 2.5 to the 13th and 17th.

Philip_Thompson

northern_monkey said:

Philip_Thompson said:

felix said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Looking forward in a constructive sense, what we need more than anything else is better information on exactly what the transmission modes for this virus are. For example, if it is the case (as seems likely) that transmission outdoors, and transmission via virus residues on surfaces, are not very significant, and that children are very little involved in spreading the disease, that would mean some aspects of the lockdown could be selectively relaxed with little risk. More research is urgently needed on this.

The schools could probably re-open with minimal risk. Here in Spain they're off till September now which seems stupid in the circumstances.

So when grandparents and parents crowd together to pick up the rugrats after school they're not going to transmit the virus to each other how exactly?

Don’t let them crowd together? Have them queuing, 2m apart, and be passed the appropriate rugrat when they reach the head of the queue. Is that difficult?

Yes. For 100 parents/grandparents you'd be looking at a 2 kilometre queue.

eek

DavidL said:

Cyclefree said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Looking forward in a constructive sense, what we need more than anything else is better information on exactly what the transmission modes for this virus are. For example, if it is the case (as seems likely) that transmission outdoors, and transmission via virus residues on surfaces, are not very significant, and that children are very little involved in spreading the disease, that would mean some aspects of the lockdown could be selectively relaxed with little risk. More research is urgently needed on this.

Yes, obviously, and has already been mentioned here many times.

It may have been mentioned on here, and it is certainly obvious, but it doesn't seem to be obvious to journalists, the BBC, or opposition MPs, who whinge on about a plan for relaxing the lockdown without any apparent understanding that the research is needed to inform such a plan.

According to today’s reports La Scala is planning to reopen in September with a performance of Verdi’s Requiem. I’m assuming that the orchestra and choir aren’t going to be singing and playing 2 metres apart. Nor that the audience will be sitting 2 metres apart.

So maybe ask the Italians whether they have some research showing that opening your mouth and expelling air to make a beautiful sound is not a vector for transmission. Because if this is feasible then pretty much anything else is, frankly.

I seem to recall a pretty horrific infection story from the US based around a Baptist choir.

+1 - from everything I've heard group singing in a confined space seems just about the most likely route for rapid transmission.

DavidL

Alistair said:

I've realised for producing moving averages of these daily bucketed figures you don't want to us a 3/5/7 day rolling average for them. Instead you want to normally distribute the days figures both forward and back. So if the 15th of April is 100 deaths then when producing an averaged chart you assign 68 deaths to the 15th. 13.5 to the 16th and 14th and 2.5 to the 13th and 17th.

Is that not going to be thrown off by the acceleration in reporting?

Malmesbury

NHS England data is out

https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/04/COVID-19-daily-announced-deaths-30-April-2020.xlsx

391

dixiedean

northern_monkey said:

Philip_Thompson said:

felix said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Looking forward in a constructive sense, what we need more than anything else is better information on exactly what the transmission modes for this virus are. For example, if it is the case (as seems likely) that transmission outdoors, and transmission via virus residues on surfaces, are not very significant, and that children are very little involved in spreading the disease, that would mean some aspects of the lockdown could be selectively relaxed with little risk. More research is urgently needed on this.

The schools could probably re-open with minimal risk. Here in Spain they're off till September now which seems stupid in the circumstances.

So when grandparents and parents crowd together to pick up the rugrats after school they're not going to transmit the virus to each other how exactly?

Don’t let them crowd together? Have them queuing, 2m apart, and be passed the appropriate rugrat when they reach the head of the queue. Is that difficult?

Bloody time consuming though. Are we expecting a queue of reveal hundred parents stretching for a km down the street

Malmesbury

The accumulated curves.

underlying spreasheet -

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1ikbNNfF1Uq51bGgapBQjTP3l5VfSodQE

contains the entire NHS England data set

MaxPB

FrancisUrquhart said:

391 new deaths in England.

As I said yesterday, I think this is where we're at for the next 2 weeks or so. The infection rate for the past two weeks has been fairly constant.

FrancisUrquhart

Not many historical deaths in todays figures. Not crunching the numbers properly, but it look like probably running at ~400 deaths a day now.

I guess by this time next week it might be ~300 a day....and weeks of this long tail of low 100s of deaths every day.

kingbongo

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Well precisely. And once you've squashed the deficit then you can manage the debt via growth and interest payments and paying a keen eye on the deficit in future.

But there is a difficult reality. We went into the 08 crash with debt at 40% of GDP and a deficit of 3%. We go into this crisis with debt at 85% of GDP and a deficit of 1.2%. Meaning we are less well placed. An extra 45% on debt is a bigger drag than the 1.8% mitigating extra headroom on deficit.

Last time spending cuts took the strain - with almost everything bar the NHS squeezed until the pips squeaked. This was morally wrong because it hit the least well off very badly. It also means that in practice it cannot be done again. There's no scope. Our public realm is denuded.

What was missing in our response to 08 was tax hikes on the better off - by which I mean everyone who is doing more than "just about managing" or not managing at all. The need is for a contribution via taxation (focused more on wealth than income - but on both) which becomes sharply higher as you go up the scale of affluence. It should have happened long before now. I hope this abdication of political leadership and moral obligation is not continued.

No we are thankfully better placed now. That 1.8% difference in deficit is what matters massively more than the 45% on debt. Especially when much of that debt is owned by the Bank of England who would never call it in and don't demand interest on it either.

The deficit and interest payments are the two real elements which measure what we can afford not the debt.

Forget debt, we're never going to repay debt. We have to pay interest on debt - and the government bonds are frequently set to 30-50 year schedules so interest rate changes don't suddenly vary through to the budget.

We are going into this recession with interest being below 3% of government expenditure and the deficit being 1.2% of the government's budget. That's a lot healthier that we went into 2008 with.

What is a deficit? It is the amount by which debt is rising.

Why do we worry about a deficit? Because of its impact on debt.

So when discussing the public finances can we really "forget debt"?

Clearly not. Because if this were the case - that debt does not matter - then the thing which is causing the debt to increase would not matter either. This thing being the deficit.

decades and decades of experience tells us that essentially debt doesn't matter - provided the interest on it can be paid - as a lot of modern UK government debt is owed to the Bank of England it is east to imagine it is a problem that can be kicked into some very long grass indeed.

Cyclefree

DavidL said:

Cyclefree said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Looking forward in a constructive sense, what we need more than anything else is better information on exactly what the transmission modes for this virus are. For example, if it is the case (as seems likely) that transmission outdoors, and transmission via virus residues on surfaces, are not very significant, and that children are very little involved in spreading the disease, that would mean some aspects of the lockdown could be selectively relaxed with little risk. More research is urgently needed on this.

Yes, obviously, and has already been mentioned here many times.

It may have been mentioned on here, and it is certainly obvious, but it doesn't seem to be obvious to journalists, the BBC, or opposition MPs, who whinge on about a plan for relaxing the lockdown without any apparent understanding that the research is needed to inform such a plan.

According to today’s reports La Scala is planning to reopen in September with a performance of Verdi’s Requiem. I’m assuming that the orchestra and choir aren’t going to be singing and playing 2 metres apart. Nor that the audience will be sitting 2 metres apart.

So maybe ask the Italians whether they have some research showing that opening your mouth and expelling air to make a beautiful sound is not a vector for transmission. Because if this is feasible then pretty much anything else is, frankly.

I seem to recall a pretty horrific infection story from the US based around a Baptist choir.

Quite. That this should be contemplated seems utterly inconsistent with all the stuff we hear about having social distancing, a new normal, not going back to the status quo ante etc. Or maybe people are deciding that they are going to do things they did before because well, you know, life.

We seem to be utterly inconsistent in our approach to all this. If social distancing is to be a reality all those things I listed in my earlier post which won’t be happening, won’t be. Life will be bleak for many.

And if they are happening then social distancing is not going to be the reality whatever people say.

FrancisUrquhart

MaxPB said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

391 new deaths in England.

As I said yesterday, I think this is where we're at for the next 2 weeks or so. The infection rate for the past two weeks has been fairly constant.

We aren't going anywhere fast, that is for certain. Mr Spoons ain't having his pubs open for starters.

Cyclefree

eek said:

DavidL said:

Cyclefree said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Looking forward in a constructive sense, what we need more than anything else is better information on exactly what the transmission modes for this virus are. For example, if it is the case (as seems likely) that transmission outdoors, and transmission via virus residues on surfaces, are not very significant, and that children are very little involved in spreading the disease, that would mean some aspects of the lockdown could be selectively relaxed with little risk. More research is urgently needed on this.

Yes, obviously, and has already been mentioned here many times.

It may have been mentioned on here, and it is certainly obvious, but it doesn't seem to be obvious to journalists, the BBC, or opposition MPs, who whinge on about a plan for relaxing the lockdown without any apparent understanding that the research is needed to inform such a plan.

According to today’s reports La Scala is planning to reopen in September with a performance of Verdi’s Requiem. I’m assuming that the orchestra and choir aren’t going to be singing and playing 2 metres apart. Nor that the audience will be sitting 2 metres apart.

So maybe ask the Italians whether they have some research showing that opening your mouth and expelling air to make a beautiful sound is not a vector for transmission. Because if this is feasible then pretty much anything else is, frankly.

I seem to recall a pretty horrific infection story from the US based around a Baptist choir.

+1 - from everything I've heard group singing in a confined space seems just about the most likely route for rapid transmission.

So either the Italians know something we don’t or all those playing and watching will have been tested to show that they are immune or they’ve decided to take the risk.

(Or I suppose the story is cobblers.)

Pulpstar

Philip_Thompson said:

northern_monkey said:

Philip_Thompson said:

felix said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Looking forward in a constructive sense, what we need more than anything else is better information on exactly what the transmission modes for this virus are. For example, if it is the case (as seems likely) that transmission outdoors, and transmission via virus residues on surfaces, are not very significant, and that children are very little involved in spreading the disease, that would mean some aspects of the lockdown could be selectively relaxed with little risk. More research is urgently needed on this.

The schools could probably re-open with minimal risk. Here in Spain they're off till September now which seems stupid in the circumstances.

So when grandparents and parents crowd together to pick up the rugrats after school they're not going to transmit the virus to each other how exactly?

Don’t let them crowd together? Have them queuing, 2m apart, and be passed the appropriate rugrat when they reach the head of the queue. Is that difficult?

Yes. For 100 parents/grandparents you'd be looking at a 2 kilometre queue.

Doubt it.

Andy_Cooke

Pulpstar said:

felix said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Looking forward in a constructive sense, what we need more than anything else is better information on exactly what the transmission modes for this virus are. For example, if it is the case (as seems likely) that transmission outdoors, and transmission via virus residues on surfaces, are not very significant, and that children are very little involved in spreading the disease, that would mean some aspects of the lockdown could be selectively relaxed with little risk. More research is urgently needed on this.

The schools could probably re-open with minimal risk. Here in Spain they're off till September now which seems stupid in the circumstances.

Primary schools, not secondary methinks. All the "very low transmission" stuff is on kids under 10.

Yes - and needs confirmation.
If it's true, it's great.
If it's not, and we do this, things go badly.

We need to know if it's true.

logical_song

DavidL said:

Cyclefree said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Looking forward in a constructive sense, what we need more than anything else is better information on exactly what the transmission modes for this virus are. For example, if it is the case (as seems likely) that transmission outdoors, and transmission via virus residues on surfaces, are not very significant, and that children are very little involved in spreading the disease, that would mean some aspects of the lockdown could be selectively relaxed with little risk. More research is urgently needed on this.

Yes, obviously, and has already been mentioned here many times.

It may have been mentioned on here, and it is certainly obvious, but it doesn't seem to be obvious to journalists, the BBC, or opposition MPs, who whinge on about a plan for relaxing the lockdown without any apparent understanding that the research is needed to inform such a plan.

According to today’s reports La Scala is planning to reopen in September with a performance of Verdi’s Requiem. I’m assuming that the orchestra and choir aren’t going to be singing and playing 2 metres apart. Nor that the audience will be sitting 2 metres apart.

So maybe ask the Italians whether they have some research showing that opening your mouth and expelling air to make a beautiful sound is not a vector for transmission. Because if this is feasible then pretty much anything else is, frankly.

I seem to recall a pretty horrific infection story from the US based around a Baptist choir.

I think there were a few, here's one:
https://www.newsweek.com/virginia-pastor-dies-coronavirus-after-previously-saying-media-pumping-out-fear-about-pandemic-1494702

dixiedean

felix said:

Philip_Thompson said:

felix said:

Philip_Thompson said:

felix said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Looking forward in a constructive sense, what we need more than anything else is better information on exactly what the transmission modes for this virus are. For example, if it is the case (as seems likely) that transmission outdoors, and transmission via virus residues on surfaces, are not very significant, and that children are very little involved in spreading the disease, that would mean some aspects of the lockdown could be selectively relaxed with little risk. More research is urgently needed on this.

The schools could probably re-open with minimal risk. Here in Spain they're off till September now which seems stupid in the circumstances.

So when grandparents and parents crowd together to pick up the rugrats after school they're not going to transmit the virus to each other how exactly?

By imposing sensible measures to ensure that doesn't happen ...is how.

OK go on then. What are they? What sensible measures ensure that hundreds of parents and grandparents don't mingle in a limited space?

Staggered shift classes with different pick-up slots would be a simple example. As I said upthread we're not going back to before for a good long while yet. That doesn't mean we do nothing. A nother option would be half classes in the mornings and afternoons. I'm sure there are better minds than mine which can cme up with a system. Maybe, dare I suggest it, parents consider changing their habits could help make everyone a little safer.

Staggered shifts is OK in theory. But what if you have 3 kids? Each starting and finishing at different times? Or even at different schools? You wouldn't be able to hold down a full time job.
And where does child 1 go while you go back to pick up 2 or 3? At home alone or back to school?
Most likely hang out with you at the school gates waiting.
Of course there are always the grandparents to help out...
All solutions are more complicated the closer you look

FrancisUrquhart

So press conference questions for today..

You are going to miss testing numbers aren't you?
Why have you missed the testing target?
When will the testing target be hit?
Deaths aren't falling very quickly, how will we exit lockdown?
When we will exit lockdown?
What about lockdown?
lockdown?
lockdown?
lockdown?
Congratulations Mr Johnson on your new born baby, have you picked a name yet?

ukpaul

FrancisUrquhart said:

Not many historical deaths in todays figures. Not crunching the numbers properly, but it look like probably running at ~400 deaths a day now.

I guess by this time next week it might be ~300 a day....and weeks of this long tail of low 100s of deaths every day.

Surely it is ceasing to be a tail so, in a week or so, it will be reflective of the level of lockdown we have.

Philip_Thompson

Pulpstar said:

Philip_Thompson said:

northern_monkey said:

Philip_Thompson said:

felix said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Looking forward in a constructive sense, what we need more than anything else is better information on exactly what the transmission modes for this virus are. For example, if it is the case (as seems likely) that transmission outdoors, and transmission via virus residues on surfaces, are not very significant, and that children are very little involved in spreading the disease, that would mean some aspects of the lockdown could be selectively relaxed with little risk. More research is urgently needed on this.

The schools could probably re-open with minimal risk. Here in Spain they're off till September now which seems stupid in the circumstances.

So when grandparents and parents crowd together to pick up the rugrats after school they're not going to transmit the virus to each other how exactly?

Don’t let them crowd together? Have them queuing, 2m apart, and be passed the appropriate rugrat when they reach the head of the queue. Is that difficult?

Yes. For 100 parents/grandparents you'd be looking at a 2 kilometre queue.

Doubt it.

Sorry, messed that up didn't I. Don't know how I did that.

ABZ

FrancisUrquhart said:

MaxPB said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

391 new deaths in England.

As I said yesterday, I think this is where we're at for the next 2 weeks or so. The infection rate for the past two weeks has been fairly constant.

We aren't going anywhere fast, that is for certain. Mr Spoons ain't having his pubs open for starters.

While the headline infection rate has been constant, those tested in hospital (the most serious) has been consistently declining over the past two weeks (https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/ - third chart from the bottom). Given this, a steady decline rather than plateau is perhaps more reasonable.

eek

Cyclefree said:

eek said:

DavidL said:

Cyclefree said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Looking forward in a constructive sense, what we need more than anything else is better information on exactly what the transmission modes for this virus are. For example, if it is the case (as seems likely) that transmission outdoors, and transmission via virus residues on surfaces, are not very significant, and that children are very little involved in spreading the disease, that would mean some aspects of the lockdown could be selectively relaxed with little risk. More research is urgently needed on this.

Yes, obviously, and has already been mentioned here many times.

It may have been mentioned on here, and it is certainly obvious, but it doesn't seem to be obvious to journalists, the BBC, or opposition MPs, who whinge on about a plan for relaxing the lockdown without any apparent understanding that the research is needed to inform such a plan.

According to today’s reports La Scala is planning to reopen in September with a performance of Verdi’s Requiem. I’m assuming that the orchestra and choir aren’t going to be singing and playing 2 metres apart. Nor that the audience will be sitting 2 metres apart.

So maybe ask the Italians whether they have some research showing that opening your mouth and expelling air to make a beautiful sound is not a vector for transmission. Because if this is feasible then pretty much anything else is, frankly.

I seem to recall a pretty horrific infection story from the US based around a Baptist choir.

+1 - from everything I've heard group singing in a confined space seems just about the most likely route for rapid transmission.

So either the Italians know something we don’t or all those playing and watching will have been tested to show that they are immune or they’ve decided to take the risk.

(Or I suppose the story is cobblers.)

Or the management haven't thought things through 100% and are operating on hope rather than science and reality.

One thing we probably forget on this site is that we are incredibly well informed compared to most other people..

williamglenn

FrancisUrquhart said:

MaxPB said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

391 new deaths in England.

As I said yesterday, I think this is where we're at for the next 2 weeks or so. The infection rate for the past two weeks has been fairly constant.

We aren't going anywhere fast, that is for certain. Mr Spoons ain't having his pubs open for starters.

Mr Spoons pre-emptively banned foreign beer so there's no risk of getting corona.

justin124

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Well precisely. And once you've squashed the deficit then you can manage the debt via growth and interest payments and paying a keen eye on the deficit in future.

But there is a difficult reality. We went into the 08 crash with debt at 40% of GDP and a deficit of 3%. We go into this crisis with debt at 85% of GDP and a deficit of 1.2%. Meaning we are less well placed. An extra 45% on debt is a bigger drag than the 1.8% mitigating extra headroom on deficit.

Last time spending cuts took the strain - with almost everything bar the NHS squeezed until the pips squeaked. This was morally wrong because it hit the least well off very badly. It also means that in practice it cannot be done again. There's no scope. Our public realm is denuded.

What was missing in our response to 08 was tax hikes on the better off - by which I mean everyone who is doing more than "just about managing" or not managing at all. The need is for a contribution via taxation (focused more on wealth than income - but on both) which becomes sharply higher as you go up the scale of affluence. It should have happened long before now. I hope this abdication of political leadership and moral obligation is not continued.

Whilst the LDs still like to boast about the policy, it was not the appropriate time to increase Personal Allowances on the significant scale that occurred. Such tax cuts should not have been given priority over public spending.

SirNorfolkPassmore

ukpaul said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Not many historical deaths in todays figures. Not crunching the numbers properly, but it look like probably running at ~400 deaths a day now.

I guess by this time next week it might be ~300 a day....and weeks of this long tail of low 100s of deaths every day.

Surely it is ceasing to be a tail so, in a week or so, it will be reflective of the level of lockdown we have.

Not sure what you mean. If you reduce transmission rate below 1 (which the lockdown appears to have done) the number of deaths should continue to reduce, albeit fairly gradually, even compared with the date on which just about all deaths are of people infected during lockdown. They wouldn't just plateau. So it would look very much like a tail or petering out (albeit one vulnerable to the transmission rate rising above 1 again).

Malmesbury

Pulpstar said:

Philip_Thompson said:

northern_monkey said:

Philip_Thompson said:

felix said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Looking forward in a constructive sense, what we need more than anything else is better information on exactly what the transmission modes for this virus are. For example, if it is the case (as seems likely) that transmission outdoors, and transmission via virus residues on surfaces, are not very significant, and that children are very little involved in spreading the disease, that would mean some aspects of the lockdown could be selectively relaxed with little risk. More research is urgently needed on this.

The schools could probably re-open with minimal risk. Here in Spain they're off till September now which seems stupid in the circumstances.

So when grandparents and parents crowd together to pick up the rugrats after school they're not going to transmit the virus to each other how exactly?

Don’t let them crowd together? Have them queuing, 2m apart, and be passed the appropriate rugrat when they reach the head of the queue. Is that difficult?

Yes. For 100 parents/grandparents you'd be looking at a 2 kilometre queue.

Doubt it.

Ignoring the fence posting issue - you need 2m of space per parent/grandparent group. 200m.

Leaving 1,800m for the groups/individuals themselves.

18m per person/group.

TOPPING

FrancisUrquhart said:

So press conference questions for today..

You are going to miss testing numbers aren't you?
Why have you missed the testing target?
When will the testing target be hit?
Deaths aren't falling very quickly, how will we exit lockdown?
When we will exit lockdown?
What about lockdown?
lockdown?
lockdown?
lockdown?
Congratulations Mr Johnson on your new born baby, have you picked a name yet?

Again a great set of questions.

Me from yesterday:

The trouble with all the (ABC1, well off, property owning, perhaps older if not retired) let's keep the lockdown until further notice crew is that apart from anything else it lets the government off the hook.

The more they think you are happy with being locked down the less pressure there is on them to do anything about the crisis.

They have you where they want you.

Philip_Thompson

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Well precisely. And once you've squashed the deficit then you can manage the debt via growth and interest payments and paying a keen eye on the deficit in future.

But there is a difficult reality. We went into the 08 crash with debt at 40% of GDP and a deficit of 3%. We go into this crisis with debt at 85% of GDP and a deficit of 1.2%. Meaning we are less well placed. An extra 45% on debt is a bigger drag than the 1.8% mitigating extra headroom on deficit.

Last time spending cuts took the strain - with almost everything bar the NHS squeezed until the pips squeaked. This was morally wrong because it hit the least well off very badly. It also means that in practice it cannot be done again. There's no scope. Our public realm is denuded.

What was missing in our response to 08 was tax hikes on the better off - by which I mean everyone who is doing more than "just about managing" or not managing at all. The need is for a contribution via taxation (focused more on wealth than income - but on both) which becomes sharply higher as you go up the scale of affluence. It should have happened long before now. I hope this abdication of political leadership and moral obligation is not continued.

No we are thankfully better placed now. That 1.8% difference in deficit is what matters massively more than the 45% on debt. Especially when much of that debt is owned by the Bank of England who would never call it in and don't demand interest on it either.

The deficit and interest payments are the two real elements which measure what we can afford not the debt.

Forget debt, we're never going to repay debt. We have to pay interest on debt - and the government bonds are frequently set to 30-50 year schedules so interest rate changes don't suddenly vary through to the budget.

We are going into this recession with interest being below 3% of government expenditure and the deficit being 1.2% of the government's budget. That's a lot healthier that we went into 2008 with.

What is a deficit? It is the amount by which debt is rising.

Why do we worry about a deficit? Because of its impact on debt.

So when discussing the public finances can we really "forget debt"?

Clearly not. Because if this were the case - that debt does not matter - then the thing which is causing the debt to increase would not matter either. This thing being the deficit.

No you have it backwards that is not why we worry about a deficit. We worry about a deficit because it means we are spending more than we are taking which is unsustainable, plus it leaves no headroom for changes if something goes wrong like happened in 2008.

Paying interest at 3% of our government expenditure is sustainable. Spending 4 pounds for every 3 pounds the government raises is not.

ukpaul

Philip_Thompson said:

northern_monkey said:

Philip_Thompson said:

felix said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Looking forward in a constructive sense, what we need more than anything else is better information on exactly what the transmission modes for this virus are. For example, if it is the case (as seems likely) that transmission outdoors, and transmission via virus residues on surfaces, are not very significant, and that children are very little involved in spreading the disease, that would mean some aspects of the lockdown could be selectively relaxed with little risk. More research is urgently needed on this.

The schools could probably re-open with minimal risk. Here in Spain they're off till September now which seems stupid in the circumstances.

So when grandparents and parents crowd together to pick up the rugrats after school they're not going to transmit the virus to each other how exactly?

Don’t let them crowd together? Have them queuing, 2m apart, and be passed the appropriate rugrat when they reach the head of the queue. Is that difficult?

Yes. For 100 parents/grandparents you'd be looking at a 2 kilometre queue.

Yes, it’s grandparents in our junior school who are the chosen mode of transport (n.b. Some are younger than me, which is depressing). In the senior school I’d say about 20% come by coach, 5% by public transport (% of day pupils that is). Overseas students aren’t coming back, for many that means not ever (one only just got out of two separate quarantines over a month later, these countries are taking it a lot more seriously). Polling for Northern Ireland showed that maybe 10% of parents would send their kids in, at least before the Summer break. All the bloviating misses the distinct possibility that ‘opening’ schools (they are mostly already open) will be an embarrassing failure. That’s not even mentioning the other important group aside from parents and children.