The rising proportion of oldies means spending on pensions and healthcare rises, even while the number of workers providing tax income falls.
That is the inevitable consequence of a TFR below 2, and rising life expectancies.
There is nothing any government can do about it, well nothing much, and it therefore means that either spending on other services is cut, or taxpayers need to reach into their pockets and pay more in taxes.
That is - however you cut it - austerity.
Raise the pension age.
Scrap remaining defined benefit pensions paid by the public purse.
The first has a bunch of negative consequences (mainly screwing up the labour market, at a time when we really need it to remain unscrewed).
The second: unless you plan to effectively steal from millions of current public sector workers and retirees, it will have precisely zero effect for several decades, since most of the schemes that matter are unfunded.
In the near term, it makes things worse because you need to start actually paying into a pot on behalf of public sector employees.
In the long term it saves you a lot of money. Hence start yesterday.
And results in massive brain drain from the public sector. Regardless of your views as to the competence of civil servants, removal of the gold-plated pension arrangements (the one obvious draw to a career there) is unlikely to make things better.
Better to pay staff the money they deserve at the time of employment rather than for 40 years after they have retired to Tuscany aged 55.
Strange. Almost all the rest of your posts paint you as a hard-nosed pragmatist. Where's this fluffy idealism coming from?
It is pragmatic - if certain public sector workers deserve more money then pay em - but now not a padded pension. But don't bloat the system
Collective bargaining prevents the best public sector workers getting paid more.
Truth is I'm being disingenuous. I can see no reason for civil servants to retain access to a benefit that no-one under the age of 40 now has in the private sector. It should have been done years ago.
The problem is that it won't make any difference until at least 2065. The private sector defined benefit industry has been effectively dead for years already, but it'll keep running around like the proverbial headless chicken for decades to come.
The screaming from Uni staff when it was threatened to be taken away was something else.
Nothing like next year when huge numbers get canned because there are no foreign students to pay the bills.
for those flowing US Presidential elections, basically everybody on here. US Congressman Justin Amash, who left the Republican party last year has joined the Libertarian Party, and will try to be its candidate for POTUS.
Will he win, almost certainly not, but in these uncertain times, maybe, just maybe.
I will be chearing him on and wish him all the best, for what little that is worth.
Will it change the dynamics of the election, probably not a lot, but perhaps more than last time, after a legal battle, its more likely that he will be in at least one of the TV Debates.
any thoughts?
I've never quite understood libertarianism. I'm fully on board with destroying the power of the state, but I don't get why it's perfectly OK to replace it with private power. At least a state can be democratic and have some sort of public oversight of the exercise of power.
for those flowing US Presidential elections, basically everybody on here. US Congressman Justin Amash, who left the Republican party last year has joined the Libertarian Party, and will try to be its candidate for POTUS.
Will he win, almost certainly not, but in these uncertain times, maybe, just maybe.
I will be chearing him on and wish him all the best, for what little that is worth.
Will it change the dynamics of the election, probably not a lot, but perhaps more than last time, after a legal battle, its more likely that he will be in at least one of the TV Debates.
any thoughts?
I've never quite understood libertarianism. I'm fully on board with destroying the power of the state, but I don't get why it's perfectly OK to replace it with private power. At least a state can be democratic and have some sort of public oversight of the exercise of power.
And as for "'anarcho'-capitalism"! ROFLMAO.
Amash is really more of a traditional American conservative. He might tip the scales slightly for Biden but not massively.
At least three of my immediate street neighbours out of maybe twenty didn't come out for the NHS clap.
Things changing? Or just poorer colder weather?
Today was the first time I heard any sound at 2000, and going out for a run there were a fair few down my street out clapping. I think there's delayed transmission.
In fairness the last 2 hours have been the best weather all day.
Just saw the time and realised we forgot to do the clap today but didn't hear any of our neighbours do it either. I think it raining probably pump a dampener on people's enthusiasm.
I lost track of time and missed it too.
To make up for it I'll do a Google image search for nurses...
Safe search on, sir, or you shall be reported to the NHS appreciation society.
Just saw the time and realised we forgot to do the clap today but didn't hear any of our neighbours do it either. I think it raining probably pump a dampener on people's enthusiasm.
I lost track of time and missed it too.
To make up for it I'll do a Google image search for nurses...
Safe search on, sir, or you shall be reported to the NHS appreciation society.
Walpurgis Night. Traditional merrymaking and socialising will take place in Germany, Sweden, Finland, Estonia and Netherlands. Or not, as the case may be.
No it perpetually depends upon the circumstances. If we had 3000% borrowing but the Bank of England owned 2995% of the bonds and the 5% of the bonds owned by private investors had a 0.2% yield and we were running a budget surplus then how sustainable or unsustainable would that be?
If we had borrowing at 10% GDP but had a structural 33% of GDP budget deficit per annum then how sustainable or unsustainable would that be?
I'm talking about external debt.
Your question? - not a great fiscal position.
Because the deficit is important. As is the debt. You must look at both together.
for those flowing US Presidential elections, basically everybody on here. US Congressman Justin Amash, who left the Republican party last year has joined the Libertarian Party, and will try to be its candidate for POTUS.
Will he win, almost certainly not, but in these uncertain times, maybe, just maybe.
I will be chearing him on and wish him all the best, for what little that is worth.
Will it change the dynamics of the election, probably not a lot, but perhaps more than last time, after a legal battle, its more likely that he will be in at least one of the TV Debates.
any thoughts?
Thoughts?
Jo Swinson has the same chance of being next Prime Minister as Amash has of being next President.
The rising proportion of oldies means spending on pensions and healthcare rises, even while the number of workers providing tax income falls.
That is the inevitable consequence of a TFR below 2, and rising life expectancies.
There is nothing any government can do about it, well nothing much, and it therefore means that either spending on other services is cut, or taxpayers need to reach into their pockets and pay more in taxes.
That is - however you cut it - austerity.
Raise the pension age.
Scrap remaining defined benefit pensions paid by the public purse.
The first has a bunch of negative consequences (mainly screwing up the labour market, at a time when we really need it to remain unscrewed).
The second: unless you plan to effectively steal from millions of current public sector workers and retirees, it will have precisely zero effect for several decades, since most of the schemes that matter are unfunded.
In the near term, it makes things worse because you need to start actually paying into a pot on behalf of public sector employees.
In the long term it saves you a lot of money. Hence start yesterday.
And results in massive brain drain from the public sector. Regardless of your views as to the competence of civil servants, removal of the gold-plated pension arrangements (the one obvious draw to a career there) is unlikely to make things better.
Better to pay staff the money they deserve at the time of employment rather than for 40 years after they have retired to Tuscany aged 55.
Strange. Almost all the rest of your posts paint you as a hard-nosed pragmatist. Where's this fluffy idealism coming from?
It is pragmatic - if certain public sector workers deserve more money then pay em - but now not a padded pension. But don't bloat the system
Collective bargaining prevents the best public sector workers getting paid more.
Truth is I'm being disingenuous. I can see no reason for civil servants to retain access to a benefit that no-one under the age of 40 now has in the private sector. It should have been done years ago.
The problem is that it won't make any difference until at least 2065. The private sector defined benefit industry has been effectively dead for years already, but it'll keep running around like the proverbial headless chicken for decades to come.
The screaming from Uni staff when it was threatened to be taken away was something else.
Nothing like next year when huge numbers get canned because there are no foreign students to pay the bills.
If a vaccine arrives then all will be well. If not, we are talking an ocean of blood on the carpet in HE.
The rising proportion of oldies means spending on pensions and healthcare rises, even while the number of workers providing tax income falls.
That is the inevitable consequence of a TFR below 2, and rising life expectancies.
There is nothing any government can do about it, well nothing much, and it therefore means that either spending on other services is cut, or taxpayers need to reach into their pockets and pay more in taxes.
That is - however you cut it - austerity.
Raise the pension age.
Scrap remaining defined benefit pensions paid by the public purse.
The first has a bunch of negative consequences (mainly screwing up the labour market, at a time when we really need it to remain unscrewed).
The second: unless you plan to effectively steal from millions of current public sector workers and retirees, it will have precisely zero effect for several decades, since most of the schemes that matter are unfunded.
In the near term, it makes things worse because you need to start actually paying into a pot on behalf of public sector employees.
In the long term it saves you a lot of money. Hence start yesterday.
And results in massive brain drain from the public sector. Regardless of your views as to the competence of civil servants, removal of the gold-plated pension arrangements (the one obvious draw to a career there) is unlikely to make things better.
Better to pay staff the money they deserve at the time of employment rather than for 40 years after they have retired to Tuscany aged 55.
Strange. Almost all the rest of your posts paint you as a hard-nosed pragmatist. Where's this fluffy idealism coming from?
It is pragmatic - if certain public sector workers deserve more money then pay em - but now not a padded pension. But don't bloat the system
Collective bargaining prevents the best public sector workers getting paid more.
Truth is I'm being disingenuous. I can see no reason for civil servants to retain access to a benefit that no-one under the age of 40 now has in the private sector. It should have been done years ago.
The problem is that it won't make any difference until at least 2065. The private sector defined benefit industry has been effectively dead for years already, but it'll keep running around like the proverbial headless chicken for decades to come.
The screaming from Uni staff when it was threatened to be taken away was something else.
Nothing like next year when huge numbers get canned because there are no foreign students to pay the bills.
The one the puzzles me is that Paul Macartney's family will get an income from his work for 90 years after he pops his clogs, whilst sitting on the arses.
The rising proportion of oldies means spending on pensions and healthcare rises, even while the number of workers providing tax income falls.
That is the inevitable consequence of a TFR below 2, and rising life expectancies.
There is nothing any government can do about it, well nothing much, and it therefore means that either spending on other services is cut, or taxpayers need to reach into their pockets and pay more in taxes.
That is - however you cut it - austerity.
Raise the pension age.
Scrap remaining defined benefit pensions paid by the public purse.
The first has a bunch of negative consequences (mainly screwing up the labour market, at a time when we really need it to remain unscrewed).
The second: unless you plan to effectively steal from millions of current public sector workers and retirees, it will have precisely zero effect for several decades, since most of the schemes that matter are unfunded.
In the near term, it makes things worse because you need to start actually paying into a pot on behalf of public sector employees.
In the long term it saves you a lot of money. Hence start yesterday.
I agree: defined benefit pension schemes are a ticking time bomb.
In the US, there are a large number of municipalities that are on the verge of bankruptcy due to pension obligations. There it's worse, because you have a negative feedback loop. Pension costs cause local income taxes to rise. Workers leave because other places have lower taxes. Proportion of municipality's spending on pensions rises. They cut the education, police and parks budget. More workers leave. It's a really horrible negative feedback loop that we need to avoid.
I think that's a positive feedback loop, pedantically speaking, because it is self reinforcing (local income tax rises cause x which causes local income tax rises) so it is a turbocharger rather than a Watt governor. I do love radiohead, though.
for those flowing US Presidential elections, basically everybody on here. US Congressman Justin Amash, who left the Republican party last year has joined the Libertarian Party, and will try to be its candidate for POTUS.
Will he win, almost certainly not, but in these uncertain times, maybe, just maybe.
I will be chearing him on and wish him all the best, for what little that is worth.
Will it change the dynamics of the election, probably not a lot, but perhaps more than last time, after a legal battle, its more likely that he will be in at least one of the TV Debates.
any thoughts?
Why would he be in the debates? What has changed? He is likely to poll less than Johnson did in 2016.
I suspect he might be marginally better for Biden than Trump by taking some GOP-leaners who dislike Trump but otherwise would have stuck with him, but my main thought is 3rd parties are unlikely to have such a presence this time around. Rightly or wrongly I suspect lots of people who voted for Johnson or Stein last time feel they almost or actually had a spoiler effect they regret (their voters, that is. I doubt the candidates regret being spoilers or even think they were).
for those flowing US Presidential elections, basically everybody on here. US Congressman Justin Amash, who left the Republican party last year has joined the Libertarian Party, and will try to be its candidate for POTUS.
Will he win, almost certainly not, but in these uncertain times, maybe, just maybe.
I will be chearing him on and wish him all the best, for what little that is worth.
Will it change the dynamics of the election, probably not a lot, but perhaps more than last time, after a legal battle, its more likely that he will be in at least one of the TV Debates.
any thoughts?
Thoughts?
Jo Swinson has the same chance of being next Prime Minister as Amash has of being next President.
As good as that? I would be surprised if Amash polled 1%
for those flowing US Presidential elections, basically everybody on here. US Congressman Justin Amash, who left the Republican party last year has joined the Libertarian Party, and will try to be its candidate for POTUS.
Will he win, almost certainly not, but in these uncertain times, maybe, just maybe.
I will be chearing him on and wish him all the best, for what little that is worth.
Will it change the dynamics of the election, probably not a lot, but perhaps more than last time, after a legal battle, its more likely that he will be in at least one of the TV Debates.
any thoughts?
Thoughts?
Jo Swinson has the same chance of being next Prime Minister as Amash has of being next President.
As good as that? I would be surprised if Amash polled 1%
Agreed, he's about the same as a non-MP ex-leader from a minor party in the running.
Boris has never struck many people as being particularly impressive, even as grudgingly it has had to be admitted he has a personal touch which has definitely delivered results for himself and now his party (aided, of course, by various political factors). But I don't think anyone who gets to be PM is as unimpressive as we might think, so he is not as unimpressive as many think.
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).
That sounds like bollox to me, I'm afraid.
It sounds like it's fatal to your argument in other words.
The rising proportion of oldies means spending on pensions and healthcare rises, even while the number of workers providing tax income falls.
That is the inevitable consequence of a TFR below 2, and rising life expectancies.
There is nothing any government can do about it, well nothing much, and it therefore means that either spending on other services is cut, or taxpayers need to reach into their pockets and pay more in taxes.
That is - however you cut it - austerity.
Raise the pension age.
Scrap remaining defined benefit pensions paid by the public purse.
The first has a bunch of negative consequences (mainly screwing up the labour market, at a time when we really need it to remain unscrewed).
The second: unless you plan to effectively steal from millions of current public sector workers and retirees, it will have precisely zero effect for several decades, since most of the schemes that matter are unfunded.
In the near term, it makes things worse because you need to start actually paying into a pot on behalf of public sector employees.
In the long term it saves you a lot of money. Hence start yesterday.
And results in massive brain drain from the public sector. Regardless of your views as to the competence of civil servants, removal of the gold-plated pension arrangements (the one obvious draw to a career there) is unlikely to make things better.
Better to pay staff the money they deserve at the time of employment rather than for 40 years after they have retired to Tuscany aged 55.
Strange. Almost all the rest of your posts paint you as a hard-nosed pragmatist. Where's this fluffy idealism coming from?
It is pragmatic - if certain public sector workers deserve more money then pay em - but now not a padded pension. But don't bloat the system
Collective bargaining prevents the best public sector workers getting paid more.
Truth is I'm being disingenuous. I can see no reason for civil servants to retain access to a benefit that no-one under the age of 40 now has in the private sector. It should have been done years ago.
The problem is that it won't make any difference until at least 2065. The private sector defined benefit industry has been effectively dead for years already, but it'll keep running around like the proverbial headless chicken for decades to come.
The screaming from Uni staff when it was threatened to be taken away was something else.
Nothing like next year when huge numbers get canned because there are no foreign students to pay the bills.
The one the puzzles me is that Paul Macartney's family will get an income from his work for 90 years after he pops his clogs, whilst sitting on the arses.
You mean they'll get an income from John Lennon's work.
The rising proportion of oldies means spending on pensions and healthcare rises, even while the number of workers providing tax income falls.
That is the inevitable consequence of a TFR below 2, and rising life expectancies.
There is nothing any government can do about it, well nothing much, and it therefore means that either spending on other services is cut, or taxpayers need to reach into their pockets and pay more in taxes.
That is - however you cut it - austerity.
Raise the pension age.
Scrap remaining defined benefit pensions paid by the public purse.
The first has a bunch of negative consequences (mainly screwing up the labour market, at a time when we really need it to remain unscrewed).
The second: unless you plan to effectively steal from millions of current public sector workers and retirees, it will have precisely zero effect for several decades, since most of the schemes that matter are unfunded.
In the near term, it makes things worse because you need to start actually paying into a pot on behalf of public sector employees.
In the long term it saves you a lot of money. Hence start yesterday.
I agree: defined benefit pension schemes are a ticking time bomb.
In the US, there are a large number of municipalities that are on the verge of bankruptcy due to pension obligations. There it's worse, because you have a negative feedback loop. Pension costs cause local income taxes to rise. Workers leave because other places have lower taxes. Proportion of municipality's spending on pensions rises. They cut the education, police and parks budget. More workers leave. It's a really horrible negative feedback loop that we need to avoid.
I think that's a positive feedback loop, pedantically speaking, because it is self reinforcing (local income tax rises cause x which causes local income tax rises) so it is a turbocharger rather than a Watt governor. I do love radiohead, though.
Almost all of what people call negative feedback loops are actually positive feedback loops.
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).
The rising proportion of oldies means spending on pensions and healthcare rises, even while the number of workers providing tax income falls.
That is the inevitable consequence of a TFR below 2, and rising life expectancies.
There is nothing any government can do about it, well nothing much, and it therefore means that either spending on other services is cut, or taxpayers need to reach into their pockets and pay more in taxes.
That is - however you cut it - austerity.
Raise the pension age.
Scrap remaining defined benefit pensions paid by the public purse.
The first has a bunch of negative consequences (mainly screwing up the labour market, at a time when we really need it to remain unscrewed).
The second: unless you plan to effectively steal from millions of current public sector workers and retirees, it will have precisely zero effect for several decades, since most of the schemes that matter are unfunded.
In the near term, it makes things worse because you need to start actually paying into a pot on behalf of public sector employees.
In the long term it saves you a lot of money. Hence start yesterday.
I agree: defined benefit pension schemes are a ticking time bomb.
In the US, there are a large number of municipalities that are on the verge of bankruptcy due to pension obligations. There it's worse, because you have a negative feedback loop. Pension costs cause local income taxes to rise. Workers leave because other places have lower taxes. Proportion of municipality's spending on pensions rises. They cut the education, police and parks budget. More workers leave. It's a really horrible negative feedback loop that we need to avoid.
I think that's a positive feedback loop, pedantically speaking, because it is self reinforcing (local income tax rises cause x which causes local income tax rises) so it is a turbocharger rather than a Watt governor. I do love radiohead, though.
Almost all of what people call negative feedback loops are actually positive feedback loops.
This is a case where negative is good and positive is bad (for stability), so perhaps a bit confusing.
The rising proportion of oldies means spending on pensions and healthcare rises, even while the number of workers providing tax income falls.
That is the inevitable consequence of a TFR below 2, and rising life expectancies.
There is nothing any government can do about it, well nothing much, and it therefore means that either spending on other services is cut, or taxpayers need to reach into their pockets and pay more in taxes.
That is - however you cut it - austerity.
Raise the pension age.
Scrap remaining defined benefit pensions paid by the public purse.
The first has a bunch of negative consequences (mainly screwing up the labour market, at a time when we really need it to remain unscrewed).
The second: unless you plan to effectively steal from millions of current public sector workers and retirees, it will have precisely zero effect for several decades, since most of the schemes that matter are unfunded.
In the near term, it makes things worse because you need to start actually paying into a pot on behalf of public sector employees.
In the long term it saves you a lot of money. Hence start yesterday.
And results in massive brain drain from the public sector. Regardless of your views as to the competence of civil servants, removal of the gold-plated pension arrangements (the one obvious draw to a career there) is unlikely to make things better.
Better to pay staff the money they deserve at the time of employment rather than for 40 years after they have retired to Tuscany aged 55.
Strange. Almost all the rest of your posts paint you as a hard-nosed pragmatist. Where's this fluffy idealism coming from?
It is pragmatic - if certain public sector workers deserve more money then pay em - but now not a padded pension. But don't bloat the system
Collective bargaining prevents the best public sector workers getting paid more.
Truth is I'm being disingenuous. I can see no reason for civil servants to retain access to a benefit that no-one under the age of 40 now has in the private sector. It should have been done years ago.
The problem is that it won't make any difference until at least 2065. The private sector defined benefit industry has been effectively dead for years already, but it'll keep running around like the proverbial headless chicken for decades to come.
The screaming from Uni staff when it was threatened to be taken away was something else.
Nothing like next year when huge numbers get canned because there are no foreign students to pay the bills.
The one the puzzles me is that Paul Macartney's family will get an income from his work for 90 years after he pops his clogs, whilst sitting on the arses.
It is said that every time Mickey Mouse approaches the copyright limit, America tacks on another 10 years.
for those flowing US Presidential elections, basically everybody on here. US Congressman Justin Amash, who left the Republican party last year has joined the Libertarian Party, and will try to be its candidate for POTUS.
Will he win, almost certainly not, but in these uncertain times, maybe, just maybe.
I will be chearing him on and wish him all the best, for what little that is worth.
Will it change the dynamics of the election, probably not a lot, but perhaps more than last time, after a legal battle, its more likely that he will be in at least one of the TV Debates.
any thoughts?
Thoughts?
Jo Swinson has the same chance of being next Prime Minister as Amash has of being next President.
As good as that? I would be surprised if Amash polled 1%
Libertarians got 3.3% in 2016, so I think they will get more that 1%
Boris has never struck many people as being particularly impressive, even as grudgingly it has had to be admitted he has a personal touch which has definitely delivered results for himself and now his party (aided, of course, by various political factors). But I don't think anyone who gets to be PM is as unimpressive as we might think, so he is not as unimpressive as many think.
Absolutely agree. People who get to be MPs let alone PM are determined, clever, resilient, focused.
I think Boris is all of those things. But he is also solipsistic, not a details guy, lazy, and entitled.
And those latter traits are what I believe people will now come to see.
He has one shot - to redeem himself as a born again serious politician having been touched (literally) by birth and death over the past month. There were traces of that today although that might just have been exhaustion and the effects of CV-19.
At least five other people had died from the coronavirus in the UK by the time the government reported the first death from the outbreak, new data has revealed.
Mr Recode from Iceland is confident coronavirus was widespread a lot earlier than the official numbers show.
He has one shot - to redeem himself as a born again serious politician having been touched (literally) by birth and death over the past month. There were traces of that today although that might just have been exhaustion and the effects of CV-19.
Johnson can reboot his premiership if necessary at some point by firing Dominic Cummings.
Not a leg-end perhaps - some other kind of end possibly.
So roughly 3 tests for every 2 people - I'm puzzled. Does every other person get a second test - a kind of don't buy one but get one free anyway promotion?
The rising proportion of oldies means spending on pensions and healthcare rises, even while the number of workers providing tax income falls.
That is the inevitable consequence of a TFR below 2, and rising life expectancies.
There is nothing any government can do about it, well nothing much, and it therefore means that either spending on other services is cut, or taxpayers need to reach into their pockets and pay more in taxes.
That is - however you cut it - austerity.
Raise the pension age.
Scrap remaining defined benefit pensions paid by the public purse.
The first has a bunch of negative consequences (mainly screwing up the labour market, at a time when we really need it to remain unscrewed).
The second: unless you plan to effectively steal from millions of current public sector workers and retirees, it will have precisely zero effect for several decades, since most of the schemes that matter are unfunded.
In the near term, it makes things worse because you need to start actually paying into a pot on behalf of public sector employees.
In the long term it saves you a lot of money. Hence start yesterday.
I agree: defined benefit pension schemes are a ticking time bomb.
In the US, there are a large number of municipalities that are on the verge of bankruptcy due to pension obligations. There it's worse, because you have a negative feedback loop. Pension costs cause local income taxes to rise. Workers leave because other places have lower taxes. Proportion of municipality's spending on pensions rises. They cut the education, police and parks budget. More workers leave. It's a really horrible negative feedback loop that we need to avoid.
I think that's a positive feedback loop, pedantically speaking, because it is self reinforcing (local income tax rises cause x which causes local income tax rises) so it is a turbocharger rather than a Watt governor. I do love radiohead, though.
Almost all of what people call negative feedback loops are actually positive feedback loops.
This is a case where negative is good and positive is bad (for stability), so perhaps a bit confusing.
That is generally the case, though, because moderating the input into a system is inherently safer than cranking up the volume.
Not a leg-end perhaps - some other kind of end possibly.
So roughly 3 tests for every 2 people - I'm puzzled. Does every other person get a second test - a kind of don't buy one but get one free anyway promotion?
It is standard procedure to test people in hospital multiple times due to accuracy of the test. This is a good thing that lots of people are now getting them done in a day.
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).
That sounds like bollox to me, I'm afraid.
There's decades of evidence of that.
Is there? I wonder if that is true.
Yes there is which is why almost any wealth tax ever introduced has been dropped by the countries doing it. There's a reason every nation has taxes like income tax and sales taxes (however they call it) and almost no nation has a wealth tax - if they worked to raise revenue then they'd be universal.
He has one shot - to redeem himself as a born again serious politician having been touched (literally) by birth and death over the past month. There were traces of that today although that might just have been exhaustion and the effects of CV-19.
Johnson can reboot his premiership if necessary at some point by firing Dominic Cummings.
Well yes but whoever his advisors are he is the one making decisions and those can change whoever is in his entourage. Boris retained Cummings and that is/was part of his premiership. cf Blair/Mandy/Campbell.
for those flowing US Presidential elections, basically everybody on here. US Congressman Justin Amash, who left the Republican party last year has joined the Libertarian Party, and will try to be its candidate for POTUS.
Will he win, almost certainly not, but in these uncertain times, maybe, just maybe.
I will be chearing him on and wish him all the best, for what little that is worth.
Will it change the dynamics of the election, probably not a lot, but perhaps more than last time, after a legal battle, its more likely that he will be in at least one of the TV Debates.
any thoughts?
Why would he be in the debates? What has changed? He is likely to poll less than Johnson did in 2016.
I suspect he might be marginally better for Biden than Trump by taking some GOP-leaners who dislike Trump but otherwise would have stuck with him, but my main thought is 3rd parties are unlikely to have such a presence this time around. Rightly or wrongly I suspect lots of people who voted for Johnson or Stein last time feel they almost or actually had a spoiler effect they regret (their voters, that is. I doubt the candidates regret being spoilers or even think they were).
Whats has changed? the legal case against the presedantail debate commition, which (i've just tried to google to find the exact result) but should make it more likely that he is going to be in the debate stage, which might help
I would suggest that countries/cities/states fall into one of three categories:
(1) Totally fucked it up. Overloaded healthcare system. High death rates. Lockdown too late. Lombardy and New York City are the key standouts here.
(2) Locked down a little later than they should have done, but broadly did "OK". These countries - like France and the UK and much of the US - are mostly looking now to how they ease restrictions.
(3) Did really well, and have contained the virus. Which is a very small number of countries, like South Korea and some of China.
The UK is comfortably in the second group. We've done OK. We could have done better. But we've done OK.
China, subject to an independent audit. That we will never get.
China did massively stringent lockdowns in a way we didn't.
Now, I realise this is an anecdote from one person in one city, but:
- during lockdown only one person from any household was allowed out to do essential shopping - shops had temperature monitors at the door - masks were compulsory when you were on the street - everything, on public transport and in shops, was regularly sprayed with disinfectant. Event the corridors and lift in his apartment block were sprayed twice a day - people were proactively tested, and if you were positive you were taken away from your family and moved to coronavirus "hostel" so you couldn't infect others - and if one person got it in a household, the rest of the members would be tested every three or four days over a two week period to make sure there was no inter-family transmission
That's much more stringent than anything we've done in Western Europe, or in the US.
Now, does that mean I believe the numbers? No, of course not, I'm not an idiot. But I do believe that they took far more stringent measures than we did, and therefore they did a better job of crushing R to a lower level than us.
At least five other people had died from the coronavirus in the UK by the time the government reported the first death from the outbreak, new data has revealed.
Mr Recode from Iceland is confident coronavirus was widespread a lot earlier than the official numbers show.
I had a very bad flu-like illness which lasted until about 3rd January this year. The gap between that date and the earliest known case of Covid-19 in Europe seems to be getting smaller all the time. A lot of other people have been saying something similar.
It is standard procedure to test people in hospital multiple times due to accuracy of the test. This is a good thing that lots of people are now getting them done in a day.
Okay but I'd be a lot happier if 100,000 people were being tested every day rather than 10,000 people being tested 10 times each for example. I suspect that nuance is lost on a lot of people as it was on me - most people probably think 100,000 tests means 100,000 people being tested.
That's been my problem with Johnson since Mayor of London days. I'll forgive a lot of someone who makes me laugh. I have never found him funny or charming, although others clearly do. If the jokes fall flat he has nothing going for him.
At least five other people had died from the coronavirus in the UK by the time the government reported the first death from the outbreak, new data has revealed.
Mr Recode from Iceland is confident coronavirus was widespread a lot earlier than the official numbers show.
I had a very bad flu-like illness which lasted until about 3rd January this year. The gap between that date and the earliest known case of Covid-19 in Europe seems to be getting smaller all the time. A lot of other people have been saying something similar.
I know people who say they had a mystery flu in January.
The anti-body test might show some surprising results if it is developed.
At least five other people had died from the coronavirus in the UK by the time the government reported the first death from the outbreak, new data has revealed.
Mr Recode from Iceland is confident coronavirus was widespread a lot earlier than the official numbers show.
I had a very bad flu-like illness which lasted until about 3rd January this year. The gap between that date and the earliest known case of Covid-19 in Europe seems to be getting smaller all the time. A lot of other people have been saying something similar.
The problem with the virus is that the symptoms match plenty of other viruses too and in normal circumstances you'd just feel rotten not think coronavirus.
My wife had all of the coronavirus symptoms on Mother's Day last year. Confident that wasn't Covid19 but if she'd had those identical symptoms this year instead from the same virus she must have had last year we'd have mistakenly assumed it was Covid19.
I would suggest that countries/cities/states fall into one of three categories:
(1) Totally fucked it up. Overloaded healthcare system. High death rates. Lockdown too late. Lombardy and New York City are the key standouts here.
(2) Locked down a little later than they should have done, but broadly did "OK". These countries - like France and the UK and much of the US - are mostly looking now to how they ease restrictions.
(3) Did really well, and have contained the virus. Which is a very small number of countries, like South Korea and some of China.
The UK is comfortably in the second group. We've done OK. We could have done better. But we've done OK.
China, subject to an independent audit. That we will never get.
China did massively stringent lockdowns in a way we didn't.
Now, I realise this is an anecdote from one person in one city, but:
- during lockdown only one person from any household was allowed out to do essential shopping - shops had temperature monitors at the door - masks were compulsory when you were on the street - everything, on public transport and in shops, was regularly sprayed with disinfectant. Event the corridors and lift in his apartment block were sprayed twice a day - people were proactively tested, and if you were positive you were taken away from your family and moved to coronavirus "hostel" so you couldn't infect others - and if one person got it in a household, the rest of the members would be tested every three or four days over a two week period to make sure there was no inter-family transmission
That's much more stringent than anything we've done in Western Europe, or in the US.
Now, does that mean I believe the numbers? No, of course not, I'm not an idiot. But I do believe that they took far more stringent measures than we did, and therefore they did a better job of crushing R to a lower level than us.
Now, does that mean I believe the numbers? No, of course not, I'm not an idiot. But I do believe that they took far more stringent measures than we did, and therefore they did a better job of crushing R to a lower level than us.
The more difficult question to answer is how (if?) they managed to prevent sustained community transmission in China outside Hubei without doing those things, given that there was a lag of at least a few weeks between the start of the outbreak and any serious countermeasures.
At least five other people had died from the coronavirus in the UK by the time the government reported the first death from the outbreak, new data has revealed.
Mr Recode from Iceland is confident coronavirus was widespread a lot earlier than the official numbers show.
I had a very bad flu-like illness which lasted until about 3rd January this year. The gap between that date and the earliest known case of Covid-19 in Europe seems to be getting smaller all the time. A lot of other people have been saying something similar.
Me too.Second or third week of January. Violent temperature, sorry throat Came on in an hour. Dry cough Utter exhaustion for 2 days.Then felt s bit better.Csme roaring back a few days later with worrying struggle for breath.2 full weeks. Like no cold ever. But not like the flu. Was named informally the boomerang cold by my colleagues and acquaintances. Quite a few had it.
I would suggest that countries/cities/states fall into one of three categories:
(1) Totally fucked it up. Overloaded healthcare system. High death rates. Lockdown too late. Lombardy and New York City are the key standouts here.
(2) Locked down a little later than they should have done, but broadly did "OK". These countries - like France and the UK and much of the US - are mostly looking now to how they ease restrictions.
(3) Did really well, and have contained the virus. Which is a very small number of countries, like South Korea and some of China.
The UK is comfortably in the second group. We've done OK. We could have done better. But we've done OK.
China, subject to an independent audit. That we will never get.
China did massively stringent lockdowns in a way we didn't.
Now, I realise this is an anecdote from one person in one city, but:
- during lockdown only one person from any household was allowed out to do essential shopping - shops had temperature monitors at the door - masks were compulsory when you were on the street - everything, on public transport and in shops, was regularly sprayed with disinfectant. Event the corridors and lift in his apartment block were sprayed twice a day - people were proactively tested, and if you were positive you were taken away from your family and moved to coronavirus "hostel" so you couldn't infect others - and if one person got it in a household, the rest of the members would be tested every three or four days over a two week period to make sure there was no inter-family transmission
That's much more stringent than anything we've done in Western Europe, or in the US.
Now, does that mean I believe the numbers? No, of course not, I'm not an idiot. But I do believe that they took far more stringent measures than we did, and therefore they did a better job of crushing R to a lower level than us.
It is standard procedure to test people in hospital multiple times due to accuracy of the test. This is a good thing that lots of people are now getting them done in a day.
Okay but I'd be a lot happier if 100,000 people were being tested every day rather than 10,000 people being tested 10 times each for example. I suspect that nuance is lost on a lot of people as it was on me - most people probably think 100,000 tests means 100,000 people being tested.
Actually, there are two things that are more important than shear numbers. Time from test taken to getting results. It needs to be max 24hrs. And priority based testing i.e. those in front-line positions or likely to spread it to lots of other people, need to be getting a test and result in hours.
In comparison, a pleb like me, who only lives with Mrs U, can easily self isolate and can work from home, it really isn't as important that its takes a bit longer to get test / result.
So I think it's time for the government to consider the unpalatable idea of holing people up in hotels for 14 days if they test positive. We need to start separating people with the virus from the rest of the public until they are definitely no longer infectious. Leaving them to their own devices isn't working.
If we have the capability to test 100k people per day we will be catching a significant proportion of the people who have the virus everyday, enough to lower the R to well below 1 in just a few days.
It's not going to be a cheap way of doing it but it will work.
I'd guess we'll need somewhere between 150k and 200k hotel rooms and other temporary accommodation at peak. Is that feasible? I don't know but we definitely need to try, what we're doing at the moment isn't working and will not only result in another 20,000 people dying it will prevent the reopening of the economy for another 3 months.
I would suggest that countries/cities/states fall into one of three categories:
(1) Totally fucked it up. Overloaded healthcare system. High death rates. Lockdown too late. Lombardy and New York City are the key standouts here.
(2) Locked down a little later than they should have done, but broadly did "OK". These countries - like France and the UK and much of the US - are mostly looking now to how they ease restrictions.
(3) Did really well, and have contained the virus. Which is a very small number of countries, like South Korea and some of China.
The UK is comfortably in the second group. We've done OK. We could have done better. But we've done OK.
China, subject to an independent audit. That we will never get.
China did massively stringent lockdowns in a way we didn't.
Now, I realise this is an anecdote from one person in one city, but:
- during lockdown only one person from any household was allowed out to do essential shopping - shops had temperature monitors at the door - masks were compulsory when you were on the street - everything, on public transport and in shops, was regularly sprayed with disinfectant. Event the corridors and lift in his apartment block were sprayed twice a day - people were proactively tested, and if you were positive you were taken away from your family and moved to coronavirus "hostel" so you couldn't infect others - and if one person got it in a household, the rest of the members would be tested every three or four days over a two week period to make sure there was no inter-family transmission
That's much more stringent than anything we've done in Western Europe, or in the US.
Now, does that mean I believe the numbers? No, of course not, I'm not an idiot. But I do believe that they took far more stringent measures than we did, and therefore they did a better job of crushing R to a lower level than us.
And there was a lot of footage of tanker lorries driving 6 abreast spraying the street with some sort of disinfectant. Nothing like that elsewhere.
So I think it's time for the government to consider the unpalatable idea of holing people up in hotels for 14 days if they test positive. We need to start separating people with the virus from the rest of the public until they are definitely no longer infectious. Leaving them to their own devices isn't working.
If we have the capability to test 100k people per day we will be catching a significant proportion of the people who have the virus everyday, enough to lower the R to well below 1 in just a few days.
It's not going to be a cheap way of doing it but it will work.
I'd guess we'll need somewhere between 150k and 200k hotel rooms and other temporary accommodation at peak. Is that feasible? I don't know but we definitely need to try, what we're doing at the moment isn't working and will not only result in another 20,000 people dying it will prevent the reopening of the economy for another 3 months.
Also set up some covid care homes within hotels so that elderly people who are discharged from hospitals while positive are discharged to them rather than care homes.
So I think it's time for the government to consider the unpalatable idea of holing people up in hotels for 14 days if they test positive. We need to start separating people with the virus from the rest of the public until they are definitely no longer infectious. Leaving them to their own devices isn't working.
If we have the capability to test 100k people per day we will be catching a significant proportion of the people who have the virus everyday, enough to lower the R to well below 1 in just a few days.
It's not going to be a cheap way of doing it but it will work.
I'd guess we'll need somewhere between 150k and 200k hotel rooms and other temporary accommodation at peak. Is that feasible? I don't know but we definitely need to try, what we're doing at the moment isn't working and will not only result in another 20,000 people dying it will prevent the reopening of the economy for another 3 months.
The initial operation of putting those brought back from China in Uni halls near a hospital was very sensible. With unis closed, and no conferences happening this summer, all that accommodation will be empty.
Now, I know there are complications if you are a single parent etc, but all those that can, really need to be taken out of general circulation. That is what they did in China.
So I think it's time for the government to consider the unpalatable idea of holing people up in hotels for 14 days if they test positive. We need to start separating people with the virus from the rest of the public until they are definitely no longer infectious. Leaving them to their own devices isn't working.
If we have the capability to test 100k people per day we will be catching a significant proportion of the people who have the virus everyday, enough to lower the R to well below 1 in just a few days.
It's not going to be a cheap way of doing it but it will work.
I'd guess we'll need somewhere between 150k and 200k hotel rooms and other temporary accommodation at peak. Is that feasible? I don't know but we definitely need to try, what we're doing at the moment isn't working and will not only result in another 20,000 people dying it will prevent the reopening of the economy for another 3 months.
The initial operation of putting those brought back from China in Uni halls near a hospital was very sensible. With unis closed, and no conferences happening this summer, all that accommodation will be empty.
Now, I know there are complications if you are a single parent etc, but all those that can, really need to be taken out of general circulation. That is what they did in China.
Single parents can be put in with their kids into larger rooms, the kids are at little to no risk anyway.
So I think it's time for the government to consider the unpalatable idea of holing people up in hotels for 14 days if they test positive. We need to start separating people with the virus from the rest of the public until they are definitely no longer infectious. Leaving them to their own devices isn't working.
If we have the capability to test 100k people per day we will be catching a significant proportion of the people who have the virus everyday, enough to lower the R to well below 1 in just a few days.
It's not going to be a cheap way of doing it but it will work.
I'd guess we'll need somewhere between 150k and 200k hotel rooms and other temporary accommodation at peak. Is that feasible? I don't know but we definitely need to try, what we're doing at the moment isn't working and will not only result in another 20,000 people dying it will prevent the reopening of the economy for another 3 months.
Seems high. 6000 found positive today is 84k people. Positive numbers should be going down too.
I would suggest that countries/cities/states fall into one of three categories:
(1) Totally fucked it up. Overloaded healthcare system. High death rates. Lockdown too late. Lombardy and New York City are the key standouts here.
(2) Locked down a little later than they should have done, but broadly did "OK". These countries - like France and the UK and much of the US - are mostly looking now to how they ease restrictions.
(3) Did really well, and have contained the virus. Which is a very small number of countries, like South Korea and some of China.
The UK is comfortably in the second group. We've done OK. We could have done better. But we've done OK.
China, subject to an independent audit. That we will never get.
China did massively stringent lockdowns in a way we didn't.
Now, I realise this is an anecdote from one person in one city, but:
- during lockdown only one person from any household was allowed out to do essential shopping - shops had temperature monitors at the door - masks were compulsory when you were on the street - everything, on public transport and in shops, was regularly sprayed with disinfectant. Event the corridors and lift in his apartment block were sprayed twice a day - people were proactively tested, and if you were positive you were taken away from your family and moved to coronavirus "hostel" so you couldn't infect others - and if one person got it in a household, the rest of the members would be tested every three or four days over a two week period to make sure there was no inter-family transmission
That's much more stringent than anything we've done in Western Europe, or in the US.
Now, does that mean I believe the numbers? No, of course not, I'm not an idiot. But I do believe that they took far more stringent measures than we did, and therefore they did a better job of crushing R to a lower level than us.
And there was a lot of footage of tanker lorries driving 6 abreast spraying the street with some sort of disinfectant. Nothing like that elsewhere.
Because nobody spits on the streets like the Chinese?
Everyone who had last winter’s cold now suddenly thinks they had the virus already. Lol
There was quite a buffet of nasty bastard bugs last winter.
Indeed there was, I had one myself. But no peak in pneumonia cases and no spike in excess deaths. Would be a funny virus that front-loaded all the mild cases.
Still, at least (almost) all of us didn’t go wasting the NHS’s time over it back in January.
So I think it's time for the government to consider the unpalatable idea of holing people up in hotels for 14 days if they test positive. We need to start separating people with the virus from the rest of the public until they are definitely no longer infectious. Leaving them to their own devices isn't working.
If we have the capability to test 100k people per day we will be catching a significant proportion of the people who have the virus everyday, enough to lower the R to well below 1 in just a few days.
It's not going to be a cheap way of doing it but it will work.
I'd guess we'll need somewhere between 150k and 200k hotel rooms and other temporary accommodation at peak. Is that feasible? I don't know but we definitely need to try, what we're doing at the moment isn't working and will not only result in another 20,000 people dying it will prevent the reopening of the economy for another 3 months.
The initial operation of putting those brought back from China in Uni halls near a hospital was very sensible. With unis closed, and no conferences happening this summer, all that accommodation will be empty.
Now, I know there are complications if you are a single parent etc, but all those that can, really need to be taken out of general circulation. That is what they did in China.
Single parents can be put in with their kids into larger rooms, the kids are at little to no risk anyway.
As a general concept, I struggle to see the issue. Most modern uni halls are split into small flats with ensuite, and with kitchen / communal area. As you will have all those people in a single location, should be fairly easy to deliver food to people (uni campus obviously have supermarkets and food outlets already) and makes it easier to regular assessment of people's health as you just need to go around a series of big blocks.
I would have people go to these, then if they start to get worse to a Nightingale, and then to proper hospital if need serious treatment.
Everyone who had last winter’s cold now suddenly thinks they had the virus already. Lol
No they don't. I've said on here whatever I had wasn't covid-19 but it wasn't a "winter cold" nor was it any kind of flu I've ever had. It was a virus but fortunately one which responded to antibiotics.
Too many people have reported too many strange illnesses for this to be mere coincidence - I've said on here as well I think the anomalously mild winter across the northern hemisphere was a factor in allowing the spread of viruses and perhaps a degree of mutation or increased severity.
Everyone who had last winter’s cold now suddenly thinks they had the virus already. Lol
No they don't. I've said on here whatever I had wasn't covid-19 but it wasn't a "winter cold" nor was it any kind of flu I've ever had. It was a virus but fortunately one which responded to antibiotics.
Too many people have reported too many strange illnesses for this to be mere coincidence - I've said on here as well I think the anomalously mild winter across the northern hemisphere was a factor in allowing the spread of viruses and perhaps a degree of mutation or increased severity.
It was a virus but fortunately one which responded to antibiotics. o_O
So I think it's time for the government to consider the unpalatable idea of holing people up in hotels for 14 days if they test positive. We need to start separating people with the virus from the rest of the public until they are definitely no longer infectious. Leaving them to their own devices isn't working.
If we have the capability to test 100k people per day we will be catching a significant proportion of the people who have the virus everyday, enough to lower the R to well below 1 in just a few days.
It's not going to be a cheap way of doing it but it will work.
I'd guess we'll need somewhere between 150k and 200k hotel rooms and other temporary accommodation at peak. Is that feasible? I don't know but we definitely need to try, what we're doing at the moment isn't working and will not only result in another 20,000 people dying it will prevent the reopening of the economy for another 3 months.
Seems high. 6000 found positive today is 84k people. Positive numbers should be going down too.
Possibly but don't forget we won't get everyone and some people may need to stay longer than 14 days. This is about going from R_0.7 to R_0.2 as fast as possible. It's better to spend £2-3bn on a scheme like this than have the economy partially closed for another 6-8 weeks.
I would suggest that countries/cities/states fall into one of three categories:
(1) Totally fucked it up. Overloaded healthcare system. High death rates. Lockdown too late. Lombardy and New York City are the key standouts here.
(2) Locked down a little later than they should have done, but broadly did "OK". These countries - like France and the UK and much of the US - are mostly looking now to how they ease restrictions.
(3) Did really well, and have contained the virus. Which is a very small number of countries, like South Korea and some of China.
The UK is comfortably in the second group. We've done OK. We could have done better. But we've done OK.
China, subject to an independent audit. That we will never get.
China did massively stringent lockdowns in a way we didn't.
Now, I realise this is an anecdote from one person in one city, but:
- during lockdown only one person from any household was allowed out to do essential shopping - shops had temperature monitors at the door - masks were compulsory when you were on the street - everything, on public transport and in shops, was regularly sprayed with disinfectant. Event the corridors and lift in his apartment block were sprayed twice a day - people were proactively tested, and if you were positive you were taken away from your family and moved to coronavirus "hostel" so you couldn't infect others - and if one person got it in a household, the rest of the members would be tested every three or four days over a two week period to make sure there was no inter-family transmission
That's much more stringent than anything we've done in Western Europe, or in the US.
Now, does that mean I believe the numbers? No, of course not, I'm not an idiot. But I do believe that they took far more stringent measures than we did, and therefore they did a better job of crushing R to a lower level than us.
And there was a lot of footage of tanker lorries driving 6 abreast spraying the street with some sort of disinfectant. Nothing like that elsewhere.
Because nobody spits on the streets like the Chinese?
Everyone who had last winter’s cold now suddenly thinks they had the virus already. Lol
No they don't. I've said on here whatever I had wasn't covid-19 but it wasn't a "winter cold" nor was it any kind of flu I've ever had. It was a virus but fortunately one which responded to antibiotics.
Too many people have reported too many strange illnesses for this to be mere coincidence - I've said on here as well I think the anomalously mild winter across the northern hemisphere was a factor in allowing the spread of viruses and perhaps a degree of mutation or increased severity.
Yet the death toll was below average through all of winter until Covid19 took off.
At least five other people had died from the coronavirus in the UK by the time the government reported the first death from the outbreak, new data has revealed.
Mr Recode from Iceland is confident coronavirus was widespread a lot earlier than the official numbers show.
I had a very bad flu-like illness which lasted until about 3rd January this year. The gap between that date and the earliest known case of Covid-19 in Europe seems to be getting smaller all the time. A lot of other people have been saying something similar.
Not sure I had that but from October to December last year, and even into the new year, I had a sort of infinite cold. Mucus and blocked nose that never ever ended.
Another big daily death toll in Brazil, +390. Had this feeling for a while now: they're going to be worse than anywhere except the US.
But Brazilian Trump says no problem there, nothing to see....has he blamed the gays yet for it?
More seriously, it seems inconceivable they won't be really badly hit. Places like Sao Paulo, 12+ million people, all crammed into, especially in the favelas.
Actually, there are two things that are more important than shear numbers. Time from test taken to getting results. It needs to be max 24hrs. And priority based testing i.e. those in front-line positions or likely to spread it to lots of other people, need to be getting a test and result in hours.
In comparison, a pleb like me, who only lives with Mrs U, can easily self isolate and can work from home, it really isn't as important that its takes a bit longer to get test / result.
I'm like you - I'm not a high priority but in time I'd like to think I could get a test by whatever route.
I'm concerned the test isn't accurate which is a bit of a drawback and we need to get the results back as you say as quickly as possible.
No doubt the Hancock fan club will praise their man to the skies when he reaches the target tomorrow - I won't. It's a meaningless target given the caveats. I'll be much more impressed when large numbers of people are tested once with an accurate test and the results returned within a day or less.
Everyone who had last winter’s cold now suddenly thinks they had the virus already. Lol
No they don't. I've said on here whatever I had wasn't covid-19 but it wasn't a "winter cold" nor was it any kind of flu I've ever had. It was a virus but fortunately one which responded to antibiotics.
Too many people have reported too many strange illnesses for this to be mere coincidence - I've said on here as well I think the anomalously mild winter across the northern hemisphere was a factor in allowing the spread of viruses and perhaps a degree of mutation or increased severity.
People are just remembering stuff they would normally have forgotten.
If we were in the middle of a sudden alien invasion there would be tons of people remembering seeing strange lights in the sky weeks earlier.
So I think it's time for the government to consider the unpalatable idea of holing people up in hotels for 14 days if they test positive. We need to start separating people with the virus from the rest of the public until they are definitely no longer infectious. Leaving them to their own devices isn't working.
If we have the capability to test 100k people per day we will be catching a significant proportion of the people who have the virus everyday, enough to lower the R to well below 1 in just a few days.
It's not going to be a cheap way of doing it but it will work.
I'd guess we'll need somewhere between 150k and 200k hotel rooms and other temporary accommodation at peak. Is that feasible? I don't know but we definitely need to try, what we're doing at the moment isn't working and will not only result in another 20,000 people dying it will prevent the reopening of the economy for another 3 months.
The initial operation of putting those brought back from China in Uni halls near a hospital was very sensible. With unis closed, and no conferences happening this summer, all that accommodation will be empty.
Now, I know there are complications if you are a single parent etc, but all those that can, really need to be taken out of general circulation. That is what they did in China.
Single parents can be put in with their kids into larger rooms, the kids are at little to no risk anyway.
As a general concept, I struggle to see the issue. Most modern uni halls are split into small flats with ensuite, and with kitchen / communal area. As you will have all those people in a single location, should be fairly easy to deliver food to people (uni campus obviously have supermarkets and food outlets already) and makes it easier to regular assessment of people's health as you just need to go around a series of big blocks.
I would have people go to these, then if they start to get worse to a Nightingale, and then to proper hospital if need serious treatment.
Yes, that kind of funnelling system is exactly what we need. Treat it like a sales funnel, the general public go in, positive cases are at the top and ICU cases at the bottom, each stage of the funnel needs the same level of isolation but a different level of care.
So I think it's time for the government to consider the unpalatable idea of holing people up in hotels for 14 days if they test positive. We need to start separating people with the virus from the rest of the public until they are definitely no longer infectious. Leaving them to their own devices isn't working.
If we have the capability to test 100k people per day we will be catching a significant proportion of the people who have the virus everyday, enough to lower the R to well below 1 in just a few days.
It's not going to be a cheap way of doing it but it will work.
I'd guess we'll need somewhere between 150k and 200k hotel rooms and other temporary accommodation at peak. Is that feasible? I don't know but we definitely need to try, what we're doing at the moment isn't working and will not only result in another 20,000 people dying it will prevent the reopening of the economy for another 3 months.
Seems high. 6000 found positive today is 84k people. Positive numbers should be going down too.
It should keep coming down - look at other countries (e.g., Austria / Switzerland) they have seen very substantial reductions since their peak without resorting to separating families. It seems quite possible we will be able to achieve the same here.
The more fundamental problem in the UK is that we have (historically) not performed enough tests so previous numbers have been artificially deflated - it seems almost certain that if we could have tested 80000 people at the peak we would have had tens of thousands of positives (plus of course have reduced ongoing infections substantially). Hence, it will take us longer to get the rate down, but there's every reason to hope that this will happen reasonably soon.
Comments
https://twitter.com/PatrickRuffini/status/1255936027472035841
Nothing like next year when huge numbers get canned because there are no foreign students to pay the bills.
Listen to the rhythm of the falling rain
Telling me just what a fool I've been
I wish it would go and let me cry in vain
And let me be alone again
Seems oddly appropriate
And as for "'anarcho'-capitalism"! ROFLMAO.
At least three of my immediate street neighbours out of maybe twenty didn't come out for the NHS clap.
Things changing? Or just poorer colder weather?
Perhaps Brexit wasn't a bad idea after all....
Long run, it's still basically correlated to wider stock market prices (mainly the S&P 500), which is exactly what it's not supposed to do.
In fairness the last 2 hours have been the best weather all day.
Or not, as the case may be.
Your question? - not a great fiscal position.
Because the deficit is important. As is the debt. You must look at both together.
2+2 = 4
It's this sort of point I'm making.
Jo Swinson has the same chance of being next Prime Minister as Amash has of being next President.
https://twitter.com/FrPaul_Stone/status/1255911294387073025?s=20
https://twitter.com/Josh89542607/status/1255927404087971841?s=20
I suspect he might be marginally better for Biden than Trump by taking some GOP-leaners who dislike Trump but otherwise would have stuck with him, but my main thought is 3rd parties are unlikely to have such a presence this time around. Rightly or wrongly I suspect lots of people who voted for Johnson or Stein last time feel they almost or actually had a spoiler effect they regret (their voters, that is. I doubt the candidates regret being spoilers or even think they were).
https://twitter.com/DHSCgovuk/status/1255919299555926016?s=20
I think Boris is all of those things. But he is also solipsistic, not a details guy, lazy, and entitled.
And those latter traits are what I believe people will now come to see.
He has one shot - to redeem himself as a born again serious politician having been touched (literally) by birth and death over the past month. There were traces of that today although that might just have been exhaustion and the effects of CV-19.
Mr Recode from Iceland is confident coronavirus was widespread a lot earlier than the official numbers show.
So roughly 3 tests for every 2 people - I'm puzzled. Does every other person get a second test - a kind of don't buy one but get one free anyway promotion?
Now, I realise this is an anecdote from one person in one city, but:
- during lockdown only one person from any household was allowed out to do essential shopping
- shops had temperature monitors at the door
- masks were compulsory when you were on the street
- everything, on public transport and in shops, was regularly sprayed with disinfectant. Event the corridors and lift in his apartment block were sprayed twice a day
- people were proactively tested, and if you were positive you were taken away from your family and moved to coronavirus "hostel" so you couldn't infect others
- and if one person got it in a household, the rest of the members would be tested every three or four days over a two week period to make sure there was no inter-family transmission
That's much more stringent than anything we've done in Western Europe, or in the US.
Now, does that mean I believe the numbers? No, of course not, I'm not an idiot. But I do believe that they took far more stringent measures than we did, and therefore they did a better job of crushing R to a lower level than us.
The anti-body test might show some surprising results if it is developed.
My wife had all of the coronavirus symptoms on Mother's Day last year. Confident that wasn't Covid19 but if she'd had those identical symptoms this year instead from the same virus she must have had last year we'd have mistakenly assumed it was Covid19.
Intra-family
Soz
Came on in an hour. Dry cough Utter exhaustion for 2 days.Then felt s bit better.Csme roaring back a few days later with worrying struggle for breath.2 full weeks. Like no cold ever. But not like the flu.
Was named informally the boomerang cold by my colleagues and acquaintances.
Quite a few had it.
In comparison, a pleb like me, who only lives with Mrs U, can easily self isolate and can work from home, it really isn't as important that its takes a bit longer to get test / result.
If we have the capability to test 100k people per day we will be catching a significant proportion of the people who have the virus everyday, enough to lower the R to well below 1 in just a few days.
It's not going to be a cheap way of doing it but it will work.
I'd guess we'll need somewhere between 150k and 200k hotel rooms and other temporary accommodation at peak. Is that feasible? I don't know but we definitely need to try, what we're doing at the moment isn't working and will not only result in another 20,000 people dying it will prevent the reopening of the economy for another 3 months.
Now, I know there are complications if you are a single parent etc, but all those that can, really need to be taken out of general circulation. That is what they did in China.
Italy 1.979m tests (32,735 per million)
Germany 2.547m tests (30,400 per million)
Hancock 0.902m tests (13.286 million)
What a legend (not)
https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1255944478105505795?s=20
Still, at least (almost) all of us didn’t go wasting the NHS’s time over it back in January.
I would have people go to these, then if they start to get worse to a Nightingale, and then to proper hospital if need serious treatment.
Too many people have reported too many strange illnesses for this to be mere coincidence - I've said on here as well I think the anomalously mild winter across the northern hemisphere was a factor in allowing the spread of viruses and perhaps a degree of mutation or increased severity.
Though I wouldn't be surprised if he's a 'fags kill the virus' guy.
Edit - even if it costs £20bn it's worth it.
Plenty of flob to avoid stepping in.
Grim.
More seriously, it seems inconceivable they won't be really badly hit. Places like Sao Paulo, 12+ million people, all crammed into, especially in the favelas.
I'm concerned the test isn't accurate which is a bit of a drawback and we need to get the results back as you say as quickly as possible.
No doubt the Hancock fan club will praise their man to the skies when he reaches the target tomorrow - I won't. It's a meaningless target given the caveats. I'll be much more impressed when large numbers of people are tested once with an accurate test and the results returned within a day or less.
If we were in the middle of a sudden alien invasion there would be tons of people remembering seeing strange lights in the sky weeks earlier.
The more fundamental problem in the UK is that we have (historically) not performed enough tests so previous numbers have been artificially deflated - it seems almost certain that if we could have tested 80000 people at the peak we would have had tens of thousands of positives (plus of course have reduced ongoing infections substantially). Hence, it will take us longer to get the rate down, but there's every reason to hope that this will happen reasonably soon.