My paediatric colleagues seem to be finding the Kawasaki like syndrome in children perhaps isn't very rare either.
But according to Contrarian that is irrelevant because "The number of people who have died in hospital from Corona with no pre-existing condition is 250 from age 0-60. Even for 0-80 its under 750. Out of 20,000."
Those are facts, not conjecture. I'm sorry if its a fact that you are uncomfortable with, given what we are doing to our economy, but its a fact nevertheless
Plus, as I understand, it, some of the children with this inflammation have tested negative for Corona. It may of course be Corona, but the link is not proven.
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.
Come on Philip. Thinking cap.
If the absolute level of debt does not matter why should we worry about spending more than we take in? About the deficit? Answer - we shouldn't. Because it wouldn't matter a jot.
But you and I - and indeed all bar true esoterics - agree that the deficit DOES matter.
Why? Because if not controlled it leads to unsustainable DEBT. Which matters.
It is time for a clear and simple "Yes, I see now" and then we can continue.
*Facepalm*
An unsustainable deficit can indeed lead to unstainable debt, but how does stable debt without a deficit and with low interest lead to unsustainable debt?
Exactly! We worry about a deficit because it can lead to unsustainable debt. Ergo the level of debt matters. If it did not matter, nor would deficits.
That took longer than it should have done but no matter.
Now then, next question and it's crux. If we were to phone up Rishi Sunak and ask him which of the following fiscal positions he would prefer going into this crisis -
(i) Debt at 40% of GDP and Deficit at 2.8% (ii) Debt at 85% of GDP and Deficit at 1.2%
Which would he choose and why?
Ignoring the fact he couldn't choose (ii) would make it easier to bring the deficit back under control.
Historically an average deficit under 2.5 to 3% over the long term was considered acceptable because GDP growth and inflation would keep debt to GDP under control then. The problem with Brown is he hubristically thought boom and bust was broken which is why he was arrogantly running a 2.8% deficit so he had no room left to go when the recession came.
Let us imagine that this recession permanetly wipes out 5% of our tax base. In case (i) that means blowing the deficit out to 7.8% but in case (ii) it means blowing the deficit out to 6.2%. To bring the deficit back down safely to below 3% in case (i) means spending cuts or tax rises of 4.8% - to brink the deficit back down safely to below 3% in case (ii) means spending cuts or tax rises of 3.2%
Case (i) needs 50% more tax rises or spending cuts than case (ii) does.
That's without considering compound maths which we should all know the imporatance of by now.
You are ignoring debt again when we have just finally agreed that it matters. It matters because we must not run up "unsustainable" debt. What is unsustainable as a number? We don't know. Nobody does. But what we do know is that 85% of GDP is closer to unsustainable than 40% is. Of course it is. It's more than double.
OK. So we either start with 85% debt and have to tackle (over time) a 1.2% annual addition to it. Or we start with 40% debt and have to tackle an opening 2.8% annual addition to it. Which scenario is the more comfortable in terms of our objective of staying below a level of cumulative debt which is unsustainable?
When contemplating this, please try to forget about Gordon Brown. He is not relevant.
There is no debt figure that is unsustainable per se. Records of UK debt go past 250% of GDP without a default.
It is the deficit that determines sustainability.
Yes, I said that already. We cannot put a specific number on what level of debt is unsustainable. But nevertheless we agree that at some level it would be.
Which means both the deficit AND the level of debt is relevant.
I can do no more, Philip. Thanks for the exchange. It was worth having.
I haven't watched the news for a while because it's extremely depressing. The first item. "674 deaths in the last 24 hours". No they fucking weren't. They were reported in the last 24 hours you idiots. This is causing a lot of unnecessary angst among people who think the death rate isn't going down.
Interesting stats on public trust for info on COVID - people trust the NHS (81%), Scottish Government (70%), the Welsh Government (56%), the British government (54%), the BBC (52%), Ch 4 (50%), and none of the print media, though the Guardian (39%) and FT (38%) are miles ahead of the rest (Mail 21%, the Sun 14%). I suspect most of us will find some of these figures surprising. Broadly, the media ratings correlate with seriousness of tone.
I haven't watched the news for a while because it's extremely depressing. The first item. "674 deaths in the last 24 hours". No they fucking weren't. They were reported in the last 24 hours you idiots. This is causing a lot of unnecessary angst among people who think the death rate isn't going down.
Does it make much difference? As the rate begins to fall both the daily reported deaths and the deaths ler day will fall on average, with day to day fluctuations.
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.
Come on Philip. Thinking cap.
If the absolute level of debt does not matter why should we worry about spending more than we take in? About the deficit? Answer - we shouldn't. Because it wouldn't matter a jot.
But you and I - and indeed all bar true esoterics - agree that the deficit DOES matter.
Why? Because if not controlled it leads to unsustainable DEBT. Which matters.
It is time for a clear and simple "Yes, I see now" and then we can continue.
*Facepalm*
An unsustainable deficit can indeed lead to unstainable debt, but how does stable debt without a deficit and with low interest lead to unsustainable debt?
Exactly! We worry about a deficit because it can lead to unsustainable debt. Ergo the level of debt matters. If it did not matter, nor would deficits.
That took longer than it should have done but no matter.
Now then, next question and it's crux. If we were to phone up Rishi Sunak and ask him which of the following fiscal positions he would prefer going into this crisis -
(i) Debt at 40% of GDP and Deficit at 2.8% (ii) Debt at 85% of GDP and Deficit at 1.2%
Which would he choose and why?
Scenario 2. Any day.
I didn't ask you! You're meant to be explaining why property taxes can't work because they reduce the value of the property.
But I must duck out for a haircut now. Wife is waving scissors at me.
It's quite simple really, assets hold value based on their returns, make the returns negative and the asset value drops, usually quite significantly.
The value of an asset does indeed depend on expected returns. So if an annual tax is levied on a property - where before there was no such tax - it's value will indeed fall.
But the question was - why does this mean that the tax will not raise lots of money for HMRC?
Taxing a falling asset value will necessitate an increase in the tax rate which will compound the loss in value and create a negative feedback loop. Wealth taxes only make sense to push behaviour change, not to raise money as people shift money into an untaxed asset class (and eventually overseas to tax havens).
Apart from that accentuate the positive vibe v. the let's err on the side of caution thing. That difference is important in a government that governs by briefing, 'sources' and letting others interpret nuances.
Interesting stats on public trust for info on COVID - people trust the NHS (81%), Scottish Government (70%), the Welsh Government (56%), the British government (54%), the BBC (52%), Ch 4 (50%), and none of the print media, though the Guardian (39%) and FT (38%) are miles ahead of the rest (Mail 21%, the Sun 14%). I suspect most of us will find some of these figures surprising. Broadly, the media ratings correlate with seriousness of tone.
That last statement would also apply to the presentational ambience of the respective leading ministers of the three governments. That 70% cannot be put down to Indy vs Union (unless that has changed far more than I expect). The very low fiture for NI Gmt is interesting too.
Well, no physical primary school for a while then !
I think it contradicts what some other studies have found.
You really do have to cut Boris and other leaders around the world some slack when there is so much uncertainty about this virus.
Yes, it's what I have been ceaselessly banging on. We know the square root of hee haw about this virus, anyone speaking with confidence about it is either an idiot or a charlatan.
And worse our feedback times are very long for actions we take. It is why acting 'rapidly' now could be so disruptive and counter productive. You have to operate at the speed of your senses.
They are informative. They tell us that national population density figures are misleading. Most people live in areas that are much more densely populated than the national figure. I think this is especially true of GB and the Netherlands.
Striking how Scotland is effectively the central belt, between two wildernesses.
And the coastal fringe NE-about to Inverness. Wales is just the opposite.
Very nice maps.
Love that Paris pop density is a model of the Eiffel Tower.
A good reminder of how empty most of France and Spain are.
81611 tests is very good. Pound for pound more than Germany !
We are miles behind in testing overall
Spain, Italy Germany in a totally different league in terms of total numbers or tests per million population.
At 100000 tests per day tests per million will rise by 1500 per day, and I don't think 100k is the limit, it's probably double that within the next week or so. We're no longer miles behind in testing. Antigen testing only helps for people who currently have it testing people who had it would be completey pointless.
Spain, Italy Germany in a totally different league in terms of total numbers or tests per million population.
That's not right - that 81k is more than Italy (72k today), or Germany (~70k according to last RKI info I saw). Spain might be close to us, not too open with info - they were ramping up and have a smaller population. France doesn't publish dailies but are miles behind, I think I remember them aiming for 50k by end of the month, but dunno if they got there.
Some of the smaller nations are doing huge amounts per capita though.
It is thought to be an inflammatory response triggered by viral infection.
The mother of a local child posted a Facebook picture of her son's chilblain like red spots on his toes, which have since been diagnosed as a symptom of Covid.
According to the PM the UK avoided the tragedy that has hit other countries !
So it’s all been a great success ! 2nd worst in Europe for deaths ! And thankfully they didn’t show all cause mortality which he said was a better indicator as that’s even worse !
Shit! I almost would have taken Monday off as Bank Holiday. I'd seen the VE Day stuff but hadn't appreciated the change.
I'm not particularly impressed by this, feels like another example of the forced commemoration that PBers have bristled against in recent weeks. Don't dick with my Bank Holidays.
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.
Come on Philip. Thinking cap.
If the absolute level of debt does not matter why should we worry about spending more than we take in? About the deficit? Answer - we shouldn't. Because it wouldn't matter a jot.
But you and I - and indeed all bar true esoterics - agree that the deficit DOES matter.
Why? Because if not controlled it leads to unsustainable DEBT. Which matters.
It is time for a clear and simple "Yes, I see now" and then we can continue.
*Facepalm*
An unsustainable deficit can indeed lead to unstainable debt, but how does stable debt without a deficit and with low interest lead to unsustainable debt?
Exactly! We worry about a deficit because it can lead to unsustainable debt. Ergo the level of debt matters. If it did not matter, nor would deficits.
That took longer than it should have done but no matter.
Now then, next question and it's crux. If we were to phone up Rishi Sunak and ask him which of the following fiscal positions he would prefer going into this crisis -
(i) Debt at 40% of GDP and Deficit at 2.8% (ii) Debt at 85% of GDP and Deficit at 1.2%
Which would he choose and why?
Ignoring the fact he couldn't choose (ii) would make it easier to bring the deficit back under control.
Historically an average deficit under 2.5 to 3% over the long term was considered acceptable because GDP growth and inflation would keep debt to GDP under control then. The problem with Brown is he hubristically thought boom and bust was broken which is why he was arrogantly running a 2.8% deficit so he had no room left to go when the recession came.
Let us imagine that this recession permanetly wipes out 5% of our tax base. In case (i) that means blowing the deficit out to 7.8% but in case (ii) it means blowing the deficit out to 6.2%. To bring the deficit back down safely to below 3% in case (i) means spending cuts or tax rises of 4.8% - to brink the deficit back down safely to below 3% in case (ii) means spending cuts or tax rises of 3.2%
Case (i) needs 50% more tax rises or spending cuts than case (ii) does.
That's without considering compound maths which we should all know the imporatance of by now.
You are ignoring debt again when we have just finally agreed that it matters. It matters because we must not run up "unsustainable" debt. What is unsustainable as a number? We don't know. Nobody does. But what we do know is that 85% of GDP is closer to unsustainable than 40% is. Of course it is. It's more than double.
OK. So we either start with 85% debt and have to tackle (over time) a 1.2% annual addition to it. Or we start with 40% debt and have to tackle an opening 2.8% annual addition to it. Which scenario is the more comfortable in terms of our objective of staying below a level of cumulative debt which is unsustainable?
When contemplating this, please try to forget about Gordon Brown. He is not relevant.
There is no debt figure that is unsustainable per se. Records of UK debt go past 250% of GDP without a default.
It is the deficit that determines sustainability.
Yes, I said that already. We cannot put a specific number on what level of debt is unsustainable. But nevertheless we agree that at some level it would be.
Which means both the deficit AND the level of debt is relevant.
I can do no more, Philip. Thanks for the exchange. It was worth having.
No! At no point is the debt alone unsustainable! We could sustainably have debt at 3000% of GDP if we were sustainably running a budget surplus and sustainably have 0.2% bond yields. At that point interest would be running at 6% of GDP and could be paid.
What is unsustainable is the deficit which causes debt to increase compoundedly and interest can't be paid.
Debt is relevant but insignificant. What is significant is our structural deficit, which is why our bond yields now are so much cheaper than they were a decade ago.
They are informative. They tell us that national population density figures are misleading. Most people live in areas that are much more densely populated than the national figure. I think this is especially true of GB and the Netherlands.
Striking how Scotland is effectively the central belt, between two wildernesses.
And the coastal fringe NE-about to Inverness. Wales is just the opposite.
Very nice maps.
Love that Paris pop density is a model of the Eiffel Tower.
A good reminder of how empty most of France and Spain are.
Be interesting to see the US rendered this way.
Here you go: the results of the American presidential election.
According to the PM the UK avoided the tragedy that has hit other countries !
So it’s all been a great success ! 2nd worst in Europe for deaths ! And thankfully they didn’t show all cause mortality which he said was a better indicator as that’s even worse !
Thank goodness, I was feeling pretty depressed about what I thought was a tragedy directly affecting people I know and hundreds of thousands of others. Now I know I can just chill.
I will also give anyone who uses the term Britain Trump a right old bollocking.
Surely the 100k tests by today target can't actually happen?
Seems they found enough people wanting tests - eligibility has recently been opened up to everybody and their dog.
Also some maybe slightly dodgy statpadding via increased multiple tests per person too, but I imagine that's not un-useful to have clinically wrt false negatives etc (Dr Foxy?)
According to the PM the UK avoided the tragedy that has hit other countries !
So it’s all been a great success ! 2nd worst in Europe for deaths ! And thankfully they didn’t show all cause mortality which he said was a better indicator as that’s even worse !
Yep, that is a very jarring line. He would be well advised to drop it.
Shit! I almost would have taken Monday off as Bank Holiday. I'd seen the VE Day stuff but hadn't appreciated the change.
I'm not particularly impressed by this, feels like another example of the forced commemoration that PBers have bristled against in recent weeks. Don't dick with my Bank Holidays.
It is also a bit half-hearted. If we want to celebrate VE Day that should have been an additional bank holiday, not the old one on a different day.
No need for that Big_G. I don't have the daily test numbers because Worldometers doesn't quote that but ask me tomorrow - I have captured yesterday's totals and will do the same for today's final totals. Then by a clever process of subtraction, I'll give you your answer.
This is all very silly. Neither side wants a deal badly enough to get one done. Both would be better off leaving these utterly pointless negotiations and preparing, as far as possible, for the consequences of that.
81611 tests is very good. Pound for pound more than Germany !
We are miles behind in testing overall
Spain, Italy Germany in a totally different league in terms of total numbers or tests per million population.
I think it's fine that the UK has for the first time been able to do as many tests, that's a good thing. What deserves a little more attention, though, seems to be, to me at least, the remarkable success rate of these tests. The UK did a little more tests than Germany today and identified almost 12x as many new infections. I'd say that's something to think about.
I think the 30% who don't use public transport at all should be paid more attention. Some people bleat on about public transport as if we're all using it.
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.
Come on Philip. Thinking cap.
If the absolute level of debt does not matter why should we worry about spending more than we take in? About the deficit? Answer - we shouldn't. Because it wouldn't matter a jot.
But you and I - and indeed all bar true esoterics - agree that the deficit DOES matter.
Why? Because if not controlled it leads to unsustainable DEBT. Which matters.
It is time for a clear and simple "Yes, I see now" and then we can continue.
*Facepalm*
An unsustainable deficit can indeed lead to unstainable debt, but how does stable debt without a deficit and with low interest lead to unsustainable debt?
Exactly! We worry about a deficit because it can lead to unsustainable debt. Ergo the level of debt matters. If it did not matter, nor would deficits.
That took longer than it should have done but no matter.
Now then, next question and it's crux. If we were to phone up Rishi Sunak and ask him which of the following fiscal positions he would prefer going into this crisis -
(i) Debt at 40% of GDP and Deficit at 2.8% (ii) Debt at 85% of GDP and Deficit at 1.2%
Which would he choose and why?
Ignoring the fact he couldn't choose (ii) would make it easier to bring the deficit back under control.
Historically an average deficit under 2.5 to 3% over the long term was considered acceptable because GDP growth and inflation would keep debt to GDP under control then. The problem with Brown is he hubristically thought boom and bust was broken which is why he was arrogantly running a 2.8% deficit so he had no room left to go when the recession came.
Let us imagine that this recession permanetly wipes out 5% of our tax base. In case (i) that means blowing the deficit out to 7.8% but in case (ii) it means blowing the deficit out to 6.2%. To bring the deficit back down safely to below 3% in case (i) means spending cuts or tax rises of 4.8% - to brink the deficit back down safely to below 3% in case (ii) means spending cuts or tax rises of 3.2%
Case (i) needs 50% more tax rises or spending cuts than case (ii) does.
That's without considering compound maths which we should all know the imporatance of by now.
You are ignoring debt again when we have just finally agreed that it matters. It matters because we must not run up "unsustainable" debt. What is unsustainable as a number? We don't know. Nobody does. But what we do know is that 85% of GDP is closer to unsustainable than 40% is. Of course it is. It's more than double.
OK. So we either start with 85% debt and have to tackle (over time) a 1.2% annual addition to it. Or we start with 40% debt and have to tackle an opening 2.8% annual addition to it. Which scenario is the more comfortable in terms of our objective of staying below a level of cumulative debt which is unsustainable?
When contemplating this, please try to forget about Gordon Brown. He is not relevant.
There is no debt figure that is unsustainable per se. Records of UK debt go past 250% of GDP without a default.
It is the deficit that determines sustainability.
Yes, I said that already. We cannot put a specific number on what level of debt is unsustainable. But nevertheless we agree that at some level it would be.
Which means both the deficit AND the level of debt is relevant.
I can do no more, Philip. Thanks for the exchange. It was worth having.
No! At no point is the debt alone unsustainable! We could sustainably have debt at 3000% of GDP if we were sustainably running a budget surplus and sustainably have 0.2% bond yields. At that point interest would be running at 6% of GDP and could be paid.
What is unsustainable is the deficit which causes debt to increase compoundedly and interest can't be paid.
Debt is relevant but insignificant. What is significant is our structural deficit, which is why our bond yields now are so much cheaper than they were a decade ago.
What’s also significant is that no one has much idea what the structure will look like in twelve months’ time.
No need for that Big_G. I don't have the daily test numbers because Worldometers doesn't quote that but ask me tomorrow - I have captured yesterday's totals and will do the same for today's final totals. Then by a clever process of subtraction, I'll give you your answer.
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.
Come on Philip. Thinking cap.
If the absolute level of debt does not matter why should we worry about spending more than we take in? About the deficit? Answer - we shouldn't. Because it wouldn't matter a jot.
But you and I - and indeed all bar true esoterics - agree that the deficit DOES matter.
Why? Because if not controlled it leads to unsustainable DEBT. Which matters.
It is time for a clear and simple "Yes, I see now" and then we can continue.
*Facepalm*
An unsustainable deficit can indeed lead to unstainable debt, but how does stable debt without a deficit and with low interest lead to unsustainable debt?
Exactly! We worry about a deficit because it can lead to unsustainable debt. Ergo the level of debt matters. If it did not matter, nor would deficits.
That took longer than it should have done but no matter.
Now then, next question and it's crux. If we were to phone up Rishi Sunak and ask him which of the following fiscal positions he would prefer going into this crisis -
(i) Debt at 40% of GDP and Deficit at 2.8% (ii) Debt at 85% of GDP and Deficit at 1.2%
Which would he choose and why?
Ignoring the fact he couldn't choose (ii) would make it easier to bring the deficit back under control.
Historically an average deficit under 2.5 to 3% over the long term was considered acceptable because GDP growth and inflation would keep debt to GDP under control then. The problem with Brown is he hubristically thought boom and bust was broken which is why he was arrogantly running a 2.8% deficit so he had no room left to go when the recession came.
Let us imagine that this recession permanetly wipes out 5% of our tax base. In case (i) that means blowing the deficit out to 7.8% but in case (ii) it means blowing the deficit out to 6.2%. To bring the deficit back down safely to below 3% in case (i) means spending cuts or tax rises of 4.8% - to brink the deficit back down safely to below 3% in case (ii) means spending cuts or tax rises of 3.2%
Case (i) needs 50% more tax rises or spending cuts than case (ii) does.
That's without considering compound maths which we should all know the imporatance of by now.
You are ignoring debt again when we have just finally agreed that it matters. It matters because we must not run up "unsustainable" debt. What is unsustainable as a number? We don't know. Nobody does. But what we do know is that 85% of GDP is closer to unsustainable than 40% is. Of course it is. It's more than double.
OK. So we either start with 85% debt and have to tackle (over time) a 1.2% annual addition to it. Or we start with 40% debt and have to tackle an opening 2.8% annual addition to it. Which scenario is the more comfortable in terms of our objective of staying below a level of cumulative debt which is unsustainable?
When contemplating this, please try to forget about Gordon Brown. He is not relevant.
There is no debt figure that is unsustainable per se. Records of UK debt go past 250% of GDP without a default.
It is the deficit that determines sustainability.
Yes, I said that already. We cannot put a specific number on what level of debt is unsustainable. But nevertheless we agree that at some level it would be.
Which means both the deficit AND the level of debt is relevant.
I can do no more, Philip. Thanks for the exchange. It was worth having.
No! At no point is the debt alone unsustainable! We could sustainably have debt at 3000% of GDP if we were sustainably running a budget surplus and sustainably have 0.2% bond yields. At that point interest would be running at 6% of GDP and could be paid.
What is unsustainable is the deficit which causes debt to increase compoundedly and interest can't be paid.
Debt is relevant but insignificant. What is significant is our structural deficit, which is why our bond yields now are so much cheaper than they were a decade ago.
What’s also significant is that no one has much idea what the structure will look like in twelve months’ time.
It's ok to consciously use one according to Fowler.
Does Fowler then claim to inadvertently split an infinitive is not OK?
IIRC no.
I donated my well-thumbed Fowler to some grad when I retired but I seem to remember he divided the populace into four: those happy souls who neither know nor care know about split infinitives, those who care but don't really understand them, those who know but don't really care, and finally the poor sods who feel they have to always (yes, I know) point out their superior knowledge by picking up any sign of a dreaded SI.
According to the PM the UK avoided the tragedy that has hit other countries !
So it’s all been a great success ! 2nd worst in Europe for deaths ! And thankfully they didn’t show all cause mortality which he said was a better indicator as that’s even worse !
Their metric is “ Did the NHS fall over” - and in that sense they’ve succeeded, while others have failed.
As to the bigger question of “how has the U.K. done?” We won’t know for a while. Comparing crude published COVID deaths is a mugs game given you’re comparing apples with bananas. Longer term controlling vs population density and pre-existing medical factors (eg obesity, diabetes) will answer that question - and indicate future action - for example being more aggressive in tackling both.
Surely the 100k tests by today target can't actually happen?
It is very close.
Will know tomorrow and if Hancock hits it or even goes over it, watch the media explode in utter disappointment
Will know tomorrow and if Hancock hits it or even goes over it, watch the media explode in utter disappointment barely mention it and bang on about something else instead.
81611 tests is very good. Pound for pound more than Germany !
We are miles behind in testing overall
Spain, Italy Germany in a totally different league in terms of total numbers or tests per million population.
I think it's fine that the UK has for the first time been able to do as many tests, that's a good thing. What deserves a little more attention, though, seems to be, to me at least, the remarkable success rate of these tests. The UK did a little more tests than Germany today and identified almost 12x as many new infections. I'd say that's something to think about.
Exactly. Testing capacity is very important but next most important is to get those infected people to stay home and ensuring they do. Either by putting them into government isolation for 14 days or by locking them into their homes Wuhan style.
The former option would require a huge amount of temporary internment of the population but it would effectively wipe out the virus as it takes out a gigantic source of infection everyday. To my mind it's the way forwards, 6k people per day for 14 days minus any that need to be hospitalised. Remove >90% of viral spreaders from the population within 14 days.
According to the PM the UK avoided the tragedy that has hit other countries !
So it’s all been a great success ! 2nd worst in Europe for deaths ! And thankfully they didn’t show all cause mortality which he said was a better indicator as that’s even worse !
Their metric is “ Did the NHS fall over” - and in that sense they’ve succeeded, while others have failed.
As to the bigger question of “how has the U.K. done?” We won’t know for a while. Comparing crude published COVID deaths is a mugs game given you’re comparing apples with bananas. Longer term controlling vs population density and pre-existing medical factors (eg obesity, diabetes) will answer that question - and indicate future action - for example being more aggressive in tackling both.
Indeed. We've all seen scenes of hospitals in Italy and Spain struggling to cope - that simply hasn't happened in the UK.
Surely the 100k tests by today target can't actually happen?
It is very close.
Will know tomorrow and if Hancock hits it or even goes over it, watch the media explode in utter disappointment
Will know tomorrow and if Hancock hits it or even goes over it, watch the media explode in utter disappointment barely mention it and bang on about something else instead.
New obsession with be daily fluctuations in R value.
I expect by then we will be very near to Boris walking away unless they change their tune
The timing could hardly be better to walk away to be frank.
You mean walk away from a protocol the UK government agreed to and is part of an International Treaty . It’s amazing the attitude of some Leavers in here .
It's ok to consciously use one according to Fowler.
Does Fowler then claim to inadvertently split an infinitive is not OK?
IIRC no.
I donated my well-thumbed Fowler to some grad when I retired but I seem to remember he divided the populace into four: those happy souls who neither know nor care know about split infinitives, those who care but don't really understand them, those who know but don't really care, and finally the poor sods who feel they have to always (yes, I know) point out their superior knowledge by picking up any sign of a dreaded SI.
And he notes that the “neither know nor care” are in a happy position because logic is not a friend of their critics. Isn’t it a deluded hangover from Latin grammar?
Fowler is great fun - I love his description of Malapropisms - explaining that her followers are feebler folk, slipping in as single spies in an article, not whole battalions in a paragraph.
I expect by then we will be very near to Boris walking away unless they change their tune
The timing could hardly be better to walk away to be frank.
You mean walk away from a protocol the UK government agreed to and is part of an International Treaty . It’s amazing the attitude of some Leavers in here .
No walk away from trade negotiations given Barnier is still talking nonsense.
The supposed prime risk of walking away was that the border couldn't cope with the traffic etc - no longer seems such a risk.
According to the PM the UK avoided the tragedy that has hit other countries !
So it’s all been a great success ! 2nd worst in Europe for deaths ! And thankfully they didn’t show all cause mortality which he said was a better indicator as that’s even worse !
Their metric is “ Did the NHS fall over” - and in that sense they’ve succeeded, while others have failed.
As to the bigger question of “how has the U.K. done?” We won’t know for a while. Comparing crude published COVID deaths is a mugs game given you’re comparing apples with bananas. Longer term controlling vs population density and pre-existing medical factors (eg obesity, diabetes) will answer that question - and indicate future action - for example being more aggressive in tackling both.
Indeed. We've all seen scenes of hospitals in Italy and Spain struggling to cope - that simply hasn't happened in the UK.
The NHS didn’t fall over because people were not getting to hospital in time . Having loads of ICU beds available when people are dropping dead in their own homes or getting to hospital once their condition had deteriorated too much is hardly a success .
I expect by then we will be very near to Boris walking away unless they change their tune
The timing could hardly be better to walk away to be frank.
You mean walk away from a protocol the UK government agreed to and is part of an International Treaty . It’s amazing the attitude of some Leavers in here .
It is a two way street and the EU are the ones making unacceptable demands
It's ok to consciously use one according to Fowler.
Does Fowler then claim to inadvertently split an infinitive is not OK?
IIRC no.
I donated my well-thumbed Fowler to some grad when I retired but I seem to remember he divided the populace into four: those happy souls who neither know nor care know about split infinitives, those who care but don't really understand them, those who know but don't really care, and finally the poor sods who feel they have to always (yes, I know) point out their superior knowledge by picking up any sign of a dreaded SI.
And he notes that the “neither know nor care” are in a happy position because logic is not a friend of their critics. Isn’t it a deluded hangover from Latin grammar?
Fowler is great fun - I love his description of Malapropisms - explaining that her followers are feebler folk, slipping in as single spies in an article, not whole battalions in a paragraph.
I suspect you are right re SIs. Mind you, not ending a sentence with a preposition is a sillier rule.
And yes - it's a very witty book. Wish I still had my copy now.
I was pleased to see a graph of daily hospital admissions rather than the usual total number in hospital. I submitted a question asking for this, so perhaps someone read it and responded.
I think this graph is more useful as it has less of a lag than the total in hospital or the number of deaths. Important when we are trying to keep tabs on R.
I would hope by the end of May, CV transmission will have be squashed enough that there wont be enough people requiring tests.
~2k daily infections estimated for then if current decay is maintained. Might be low enough for the contact tracers to take over - it's probably roughly comparable to what Korea was facing at their peak.
According to the PM the UK avoided the tragedy that has hit other countries !
So it’s all been a great success ! 2nd worst in Europe for deaths ! And thankfully they didn’t show all cause mortality which he said was a better indicator as that’s even worse !
Yep, that is a very jarring line. He would be well advised to drop it.
According to the PM the UK avoided the tragedy that has hit other countries !
So it’s all been a great success ! 2nd worst in Europe for deaths ! And thankfully they didn’t show all cause mortality which he said was a better indicator as that’s even worse !
Their metric is “ Did the NHS fall over” - and in that sense they’ve succeeded, while others have failed.
As to the bigger question of “how has the U.K. done?” We won’t know for a while. Comparing crude published COVID deaths is a mugs game given you’re comparing apples with bananas. Longer term controlling vs population density and pre-existing medical factors (eg obesity, diabetes) will answer that question - and indicate future action - for example being more aggressive in tackling both.
Indeed. We've all seen scenes of hospitals in Italy and Spain struggling to cope - that simply hasn't happened in the UK.
Because we have managed to spread what has been just as bad a scenario more evenly, both over time and by geography.
Both unionist muppets in the one post, they rant and rave against Sturgeon and then when heap praise on Buffoon when he steals her ideas, pair of fannies.
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.
Come on Philip. Thinking cap.
If the absolute level of debt does not matter why should we worry about spending more than we take in? About the deficit? Answer - we shouldn't. Because it wouldn't matter a jot.
But you and I - and indeed all bar true esoterics - agree that the deficit DOES matter.
Why? Because if not controlled it leads to unsustainable DEBT. Which matters.
It is time for a clear and simple "Yes, I see now" and then we can continue.
*Facepalm*
An unsustainable deficit can indeed lead to unstainable debt, but how does stable debt without a deficit and with low interest lead to unsustainable debt?
Exactly! We worry about a deficit because it can lead to unsustainable debt. Ergo the level of debt matters. If it did not matter, nor would deficits.
That took longer than it should have done but no matter.
Now then, next question and it's crux. If we were to phone up Rishi Sunak and ask him which of the following fiscal positions he would prefer going into this crisis -
(i) Debt at 40% of GDP and Deficit at 2.8% (ii) Debt at 85% of GDP and Deficit at 1.2%
Which would he choose and why?
Ignoring the fact he couldn't choose (ii) would make it easier to bring the deficit back under control.
Historically an average deficit under 2.5 to 3% over the long term was considered acceptable because GDP growth and inflation would keep debt to GDP under control then. The problem with Brown is he hubristically thought boom and bust was broken which is why he was arrogantly running a 2.8% deficit so he had no room left to go when the recession came.
Let us imagine that this recession permanetly wipes out 5% of our tax base. In case (i) that means blowing the deficit out to 7.8% but in case (ii) it means blowing the deficit out to 6.2%. To bring the deficit back down safely to below 3% in case (i) means spending cuts or tax rises of 4.8% - to brink the deficit back down safely to below 3% in case (ii) means spending cuts or tax rises of 3.2%
Case (i) needs 50% more tax rises or spending cuts than case (ii) does.
That's without considering compound maths which we should all know the imporatance of by now.
You are ignoring debt again when we have just finally agreed that it matters. It matters because we must not run up "unsustainable" debt. What is unsustainable as a number? We don't know. Nobody does. But what we do know is that 85% of GDP is closer to unsustainable than 40% is. Of course it is. It's more than double.
OK. So we either start with 85% debt and have to tackle (over time) a 1.2% annual addition to it. Or we start with 40% debt and have to tackle an opening 2.8% annual addition to it. Which scenario is the more comfortable in terms of our objective of staying below a level of cumulative debt which is unsustainable?
When contemplating this, please try to forget about Gordon Brown. He is not relevant.
There is no debt figure that is unsustainable per se. Records of UK debt go past 250% of GDP without a default.
It is the deficit that determines sustainability.
Yes, I said that already. We cannot put a specific number on what level of debt is unsustainable. But nevertheless we agree that at some level it would be.
Which means both the deficit AND the level of debt is relevant.
I can do no more, Philip. Thanks for the exchange. It was worth having.
No! At no point is the debt alone unsustainable! We could sustainably have debt at 3000% of GDP if we were sustainably running a budget surplus and sustainably have 0.2% bond yields. At that point interest would be running at 6% of GDP and could be paid.
What is unsustainable is the deficit which causes debt to increase compoundedly and interest can't be paid.
Debt is relevant but insignificant. What is significant is our structural deficit, which is why our bond yields now are so much cheaper than they were a decade ago.
Which only illustrates my point. At some stage on the torrid journey of UK plc from debt of 85% towards debt of 3000% - and almost certainly well before such a level is reached - it will become untenable. Budget surpluses would hardly be relevant unless we are postulating coming down to 3000% from an even higher level. Which is not possible since if 3000% is unsustainable, anything higher would already have been unsustainable and thus never reached.
Botton line - both debt and deficit are relevant and significant. This is obviously true. Pretend it's not me telling you if it helps. Pretend it's Sunak.
Surely the 100k tests by today target can't actually happen?
It is very close.
Will know tomorrow and if Hancock hits it or even goes over it, watch the media explode in utter disappointment
So if we do 99k on the 30th April (announced tomorrow) and 101k (announced Saturday) on the 1st of the May - did he meet his milestone ?
Well done to Hancock if hits the target. It looked very unlikely at one time.
However if the numbers then fall right back afterwards it will just look like a face saving PR exercise. Surely the idea was to ramp up to doing that number of tests every day so let's hope that proves to be the case and not just a big push for May 1st to enable the government to say it hit its target
Comments
Plus, as I understand, it, some of the children with this inflammation have tested negative for Corona. It may of course be Corona, but the link is not proven.
Which means both the deficit AND the level of debt is relevant.
I can do no more, Philip. Thanks for the exchange. It was worth having.
JFK has been shot and mortally wounded.
At a key moment both statements were true, but one was somewhat
missing the point.
Spain, Italy Germany in a totally different league in terms of total numbers or tests per million population.
And worse our feedback times are very long for actions we take. It is why acting 'rapidly' now could be so disruptive and counter productive. You have to operate at the speed of your senses.
Be interesting to see the US rendered this way.
Some of the smaller nations are doing huge amounts per capita though.
Figure for the UK is 12k test per million.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
https://youtu.be/3BdPKpWbxTg
So it’s all been a great success ! 2nd worst in Europe for deaths ! And thankfully they didn’t show all cause mortality which he said was a better indicator as that’s even worse !
Please quote their daily tests by numbers
I know he 'failed to connect'.
I'm not particularly impressed by this, feels like another example of the forced commemoration that PBers have bristled against in recent weeks. Don't dick with my Bank Holidays.
What is unsustainable is the deficit which causes debt to increase compoundedly and interest can't be paid.
Debt is relevant but insignificant. What is significant is our structural deficit, which is why our bond yields now are so much cheaper than they were a decade ago.
If they're testing 31k per million daily that's impressive.
Half the country by population votes red and half blue, but the state-by-state maps show the GOP won a far bigger land mass. That is population density, more-or-less.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election
I will also give anyone who uses the term Britain Trump a right old bollocking.
Also some maybe slightly dodgy statpadding via increased multiple tests per person too, but I imagine that's not un-useful to have clinically wrt false negatives etc (Dr Foxy?)
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1255893439931125766?s=20
Will know tomorrow and if Hancock hits it or even goes over it, watch the media explode in utter disappointment
https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1255909399710875648?s=20
I don't have the daily test numbers because Worldometers doesn't quote that but ask me tomorrow - I have captured yesterday's totals and will do the same for today's final totals. Then by a clever process of subtraction, I'll give you your answer.
What deserves a little more attention, though, seems to be, to me at least, the remarkable success rate of these tests. The UK did a little more tests than Germany today and identified almost 12x as many new infections. I'd say that's something to think about.
https://www.flightradar24.com/MLD906/246ddc41
Swings and roundabouts.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1240754657263144960?s=19
I donated my well-thumbed Fowler to some grad when I retired but I seem to remember he divided the populace into four: those happy souls who neither know nor care know about split infinitives, those who care but don't really understand them, those who know but don't really care, and finally the poor sods who feel they have to always (yes, I know) point out their superior knowledge by picking up any sign of a dreaded SI.
As to the bigger question of “how has the U.K. done?” We won’t know for a while. Comparing crude published COVID deaths is a mugs game given you’re comparing apples with bananas. Longer term controlling vs population density and pre-existing medical factors (eg obesity, diabetes) will answer that question - and indicate future action - for example being more aggressive in tackling both.
The former option would require a huge amount of temporary internment of the population but it would effectively wipe out the virus as it takes out a gigantic source of infection everyday. To my mind it's the way forwards, 6k people per day for 14 days minus any that need to be hospitalised. Remove >90% of viral spreaders from the population within 14 days.
Fowler is great fun - I love his description of Malapropisms - explaining that her followers are feebler folk, slipping in as single spies in an article, not whole battalions in a paragraph.
The supposed prime risk of walking away was that the border couldn't cope with the traffic etc - no longer seems such a risk.
And yes - it's a very witty book. Wish I still had my copy now.
I think this graph is more useful as it has less of a lag than the total in hospital or the number of deaths. Important when we are trying to keep tabs on R.
Can PB Tories provide a list please
Botton line - both debt and deficit are relevant and significant. This is obviously true. Pretend it's not me telling you if it helps. Pretend it's Sunak.
However if the numbers then fall right back afterwards it will just look like a face saving PR exercise. Surely the idea was to ramp up to doing that number of tests every day so let's hope that proves to be the case and not just a big push for May 1st to enable the government to say it hit its target