What kind of right-minded person wants someone to die?
I'm sorry to break it to you but such people exist; while I wouldn't wish death upon BJ, I devoutly believe that the world would be a better place if a fat coated artery were to give way in the brain of a certain tangerine nightmare.
The point was that the idea of BJ as some saintly turner of the other cheek is effing hilarious.
He doesn't come off as the kind of person that would wish death on someone else.
Who said he did?
Otoh I'm pretty sure this isn't a million miles off the mark.
Serology data gathered in the last two weeks has also concerned government experts. While chief scientific adviser Patrick Vallance said back in March that he expected around 60% of the population to eventually contract the virus, achieving “herd immunity”, it is currently believed that the percentage of those who have had it is in the low teens or high single figures. This also raises the possibility of an extremely deadly second wave.
No big iceberg then. So much for it being around since October or whatever.
That's the third study now that knocks that idea on the head. As a rule of thumb it looks like you can take known cases and multiply by 10, it would need to be nearer 100 to give us any confidence that we can ride this out. IRF does seem to be around 0.8%, so it's also quite a lot worse than most flu seasons, and closer to the truly catastrophic flu outbreaks of history.
My hunch is that things will go from bad to worse, probably much worse, before any treatment or vaccine is ready.
To get an idea of where some think we are at, Google and Facebook have told all their employees is it work from home for the rest of the year as the general rule, with exceptions made where required.
Yep. My best mate works for SAP in Germany. They are WFH till New Year. Of course they don't need to be physically there necessarily. But. She won't be going skiing. She won't be buying any new work clothes or shoes any time soon. She won't be eating or drinking out after work. She won't be flying overseas for conferences. She has put her car up for sale. No use for it. And a myriad of other things large and small. This is why the world wide economy is fucked.
b) a rise in cases, leading to further fear amongst population
are a better economic position than
c) waiting a bit longer.
Can they?
They are. But more likely it is a refined version of Brexit cakeism. Basically it will be all right. Because, well, because it will.
This does not include the group who think lockdown is having more serious social and health side effects than the disease itself btw.
Yes it does. I’m one. I know how bad this but is I am now of the opinion we should go for herd immunity.
There will be a big death toll. It won’t be enormous because we will have spare capacity to avoid Wuhan/Milan. But it will be big.
Let those who want to go out and work, or play, or drink, do that. Let every adult decide for themselves. Assess the risk. It’s your call.
The government needs to level with us. This isn’t going away and it’s grim. But a Totally fucked economy is grimmer
You think the economy survives a massive death toll?
I've got a bridge to sell you....
Given that 95% of those who die of this thing are over 60, any Government concerned solely with the good of the economy would allow the illness to run its course. It would materially reduce the median age of the population, altering the ratio of working to retired persons in favour of the former, significantly cut the cost to the taxpayer of providing pensions and social care, and release a pulse of consumption into the economy as heirs spend some of their inheritances.
Lockdown is fundamentally all about altruism and human decency. Its economic consequences are, of course, entirely negative.
Over 60s are huge economic actors, you know...
And yet, overall they cost more to look after than they contribute. This is logical.
If your average retired person made a net positive contribution to the economy then there would be no need for anybody to work.
I'd be interested to hear what others have spent this week.
For me, its
£3.49 x 2 - Amazon films £33 - some beard oil, just now £73.55 - a week's shopping for two people
We have no mortgage, no bills due this week.
I'd say thats about 1/3rd to 1/4 of my usual discretionary weekly spend.
I'm not going to be spending more next week if the Govt actually removed lockdown entirely. Because the fear.
I’ve just spent £450 on a football season ticket for next campaign, despite my team being relegated due to the remaining fixtures being curtailed - beat that for that for irrational optimism!
I've grown to accept WFH - we have a couple of project meetings in mind for the next month or so that just won't work on Zoom which will make a welcome change. Its not working at home that's the problem, its working from a desk. For the first time in 18 years I am not going anywhere to see customers or market visits or team meetings or conferences.
Anyway, the only place I really want to go is to see my son. I miss my son.
b) a rise in cases, leading to further fear amongst population
are a better economic position than
c) waiting a bit longer.
Can they?
They are. But more likely it is a refined version of Brexit cakeism. Basically it will be all right. Because, well, because it will.
This does not include the group who think lockdown is having more serious social and health side effects than the disease itself btw.
Yes it does. I’m one. I know how bad this but is I am now of the opinion we should go for herd immunity.
There will be a big death toll. It won’t be enormous because we will have spare capacity to avoid Wuhan/Milan. But it will be big.
Let those who want to go out and work, or play, or drink, do that. Let every adult decide for themselves. Assess the risk. It’s your call.
The government needs to level with us. This isn’t going away and it’s grim. But a Totally fucked economy is grimmer
You think the economy survives a massive death toll?
I've got a bridge to sell you....
Given that 95% of those who die of this thing are over 60, any Government concerned solely with the good of the economy would allow the illness to run its course. It would materially reduce the median age of the population, altering the ratio of working to retired persons in favour of the former, significantly cut the cost to the taxpayer of providing pensions and social care, and release a pulse of consumption into the economy as heirs spend some of their inheritances.
Lockdown is fundamentally all about altruism and human decency. Its economic consequences are, of course, entirely negative.
Over 60s are huge economic actors, you know...
And yet, overall they cost more to look after than they contribute. This is logical.
If your average retired person made a net positive contribution to the economy then there would be no need for anybody to work.
I'd be interested to hear what others have spent this week.
For me, its
£3.49 x 2 - Amazon films £33 - some beard oil, just now £73.55 - a week's shopping for two people
We have no mortgage, no bills due this week.
I'd say thats about 1/3rd to 1/4 of my usual discretionary weekly spend.
I'm not going to be spending more next week if the Govt actually removed lockdown entirely. Because the fear.
I’ve just spent £450 on a football season ticket for next campaign, despite my team being relegated due to the remaining fixtures being curtailed - beat that for that for irrational optimism!
Jambo?
Unless you’re speaking Swahili, in that case Hi to you!
The two Kiehl's beard oil I bought a fortnight ago cost less than a week's fares so I'm still ahead and I'm becoming more like George Clooney each day.
Serology data gathered in the last two weeks has also concerned government experts. While chief scientific adviser Patrick Vallance said back in March that he expected around 60% of the population to eventually contract the virus, achieving “herd immunity”, it is currently believed that the percentage of those who have had it is in the low teens or high single figures. This also raises the possibility of an extremely deadly second wave.
No big iceberg then. So much for it being around since October or whatever.
That's the third study now that knocks that idea on the head. As a rule of thumb it looks like you can take known cases and multiply by 10, it would need to be nearer 100 to give us any confidence that we can ride this out. IRF does seem to be around 0.8%, so it's also quite a lot worse than most flu seasons, and closer to the truly catastrophic flu outbreaks of history.
My hunch is that things will go from bad to worse, probably much worse, before any treatment or vaccine is ready.
To get an idea of where some think we are at, Google and Facebook have told all their employees is it work from home for the rest of the year as the general rule, with exceptions made where required.
Yep. My best mate works for SAP in Germany. They are WFH till New Year. Of course they don't need to be physically there necessarily. But. She won't be going skiing. She won't be buying any new work clothes or shoes any time soon. She won't be eating or drinking out after work. She won't be flying overseas for conferences. She has put her car up for sale. No use for it. And a myriad of other things large and small. This is why the world wide economy is fucked.
Exactly....the real economy imo....is going to be about 30% smaller this time next year....
There will be lots of people who are...instead of cash rich and time poor...cash rich and fuck all to spend it on types.....
b) a rise in cases, leading to further fear amongst population
are a better economic position than
c) waiting a bit longer.
Can they?
They are. But more likely it is a refined version of Brexit cakeism. Basically it will be all right. Because, well, because it will.
This does not include the group who think lockdown is having more serious social and health side effects than the disease itself btw.
Yes it does. I’m one. I know how bad this but is I am now of the opinion we should go for herd immunity.
There will be a big death toll. It won’t be enormous because we will have spare capacity to avoid Wuhan/Milan. But it will be big.
Let those who want to go out and work, or play, or drink, do that. Let every adult decide for themselves. Assess the risk. It’s your call.
The government needs to level with us. This isn’t going away and it’s grim. But a Totally fucked economy is grimmer
You think the economy survives a massive death toll?
I've got a bridge to sell you....
Given that 95% of those who die of this thing are over 60, any Government concerned solely with the good of the economy would allow the illness to run its course. It would materially reduce the median age of the population, altering the ratio of working to retired persons in favour of the former, significantly cut the cost to the taxpayer of providing pensions and social care, and release a pulse of consumption into the economy as heirs spend some of their inheritances.
Lockdown is fundamentally all about altruism and human decency. Its economic consequences are, of course, entirely negative.
Over 60s are huge economic actors, you know...
And yet, overall they cost more to look after than they contribute. This is logical.
If your average retired person made a net positive contribution to the economy then there would be no need for anybody to work.
I'd be interested to hear what others have spent this week.
For me, its
£3.49 x 2 - Amazon films £33 - some beard oil, just now £73.55 - a week's shopping for two people
We have no mortgage, no bills due this week.
I'd say thats about 1/3rd to 1/4 of my usual discretionary weekly spend.
I'm not going to be spending more next week if the Govt actually removed lockdown entirely. Because the fear.
The general direction of travel seems to be a decline in support of the Tories and/or the Government - but that support is not yet going to Labour.
I would suggest the polls will tighten over the next two years. Keir will want to be at 40%, or want the Tories to have dropped, to have real confidence in his approach.
If you are a man under 70 you are still less likely to die of it than a woman over 80. The only reason BAME people are more affected is they tend to live in big cities, BAME people in rural areas are less affected than white people in big cities.
So my point stands, a line has to be drawn somewhere and 70 is it.
Over 70s are retired and do not need to work, they can live off their pension and just go out when absolutely necessary
Individual calculated risks is the only way to go, otherwise you are condemning people who don't fit your blunt instrument division.
That you talk about 'not needing to work' is a big tell. Kill off those who are not quite at pension age and it will save a lot of money. The old? Well those over seventy are going to die soon anyway, the real saving is if we can harvest a lot of those who are getting ready to draw their pensions for twenty plus years. That is the calculation isn't it?
How many times does it take to get the idea through that this is not just about deaths, anyway? It's about hospitalisations and the likelihood of long term health issues as much anything.
I've grown to accept WFH - we have a couple of project meetings in mind for the next month or so that just won't work on Zoom which will make a welcome change. Its not working at home that's the problem, its working from a desk. For the first time in 18 years I am not going anywhere to see customers or market visits or team meetings or conferences.
Anyway, the only place I really want to go is to see my son. I miss my son.</blockquot I get this - we need a clear timetable from Boris re loosening of social restrictions as well as getting people back to work
Serology data gathered in the last two weeks has also concerned government experts. While chief scientific adviser Patrick Vallance said back in March that he expected around 60% of the population to eventually contract the virus, achieving “herd immunity”, it is currently believed that the percentage of those who have had it is in the low teens or high single figures. This also raises the possibility of an extremely deadly second wave.
No big iceberg then. So much for it being around since October or whatever.
That's the third study now that knocks that idea on the head. As a rule of thumb it looks like you can take known cases and multiply by 10, it would need to be nearer 100 to give us any confidence that we can ride this out. IRF does seem to be around 0.8%, so it's also quite a lot worse than most flu seasons, and closer to the truly catastrophic flu outbreaks of history.
My hunch is that things will go from bad to worse, probably much worse, before any treatment or vaccine is ready.
To get an idea of where some think we are at, Google and Facebook have told all their employees is it work from home for the rest of the year as the general rule, with exceptions made where required.
Yep. My best mate works for SAP in Germany. They are WFH till New Year. Of course they don't need to be physically there necessarily. But. She won't be going skiing. She won't be buying any new work clothes or shoes any time soon. She won't be eating or drinking out after work. She won't be flying overseas for conferences. She has put her car up for sale. No use for it. And a myriad of other things large and small. This is why the world wide economy is fucked.
Exactly....the real economy imo....is going to be about 30% smaller this time next year....
There will be lots of people who are...instead of cash rich and time poor...cash rich and fuck all to spend it on types.....
This makes the rather heroic assumption that anyone who does still have plenty of cash isn't going to be bled white by the taxman. Someone has to pay for the majority of the population that will be living off pensions and other forms of social security.
Different lockdowns in different parts of the country....like when Atlanta opened up and people flocked there from neighbouring states.
'flocked' is a bit of an emotive way of saying a 13% rise from the week before. at a time when all states had at least some rise, compared to the week before, regardless of whether they relaxed their lock-dons or not.
Someone has a house party of 50 people - arrest and charge the organisers.
People sunbathing in their own groups in a park - if the park gets too busy dont let more people in or move people on.
Is it really complicated?
Laws + common sense = Good policing
As long as it stays nice and middle class. I don't know what it's like round your bit but impromptu parties in parks mixed with drink and sunshine have a tendency to kick off where I am.
Not sure Ive ever seen any problems in a London park, and there will often be a mix from homeless thru underclass, working class, middle class and toffs using them.
The general direction of travel seems to be a decline in support of the Tories and/or the Government - but that support is not yet going to Labour.
I would suggest the polls will tighten over the next two years. Keir will want to be at 40%, or want the Tories to have dropped, to have real confidence in his approach.
Decline in support for the Tories? They've been in the high 40s, low 50s for a while now.
Serology data gathered in the last two weeks has also concerned government experts. While chief scientific adviser Patrick Vallance said back in March that he expected around 60% of the population to eventually contract the virus, achieving “herd immunity”, it is currently believed that the percentage of those who have had it is in the low teens or high single figures. This also raises the possibility of an extremely deadly second wave.
No big iceberg then. So much for it being around since October or whatever.
That's the third study now that knocks that idea on the head. As a rule of thumb it looks like you can take known cases and multiply by 10, it would need to be nearer 100 to give us any confidence that we can ride this out. IRF does seem to be around 0.8%, so it's also quite a lot worse than most flu seasons, and closer to the truly catastrophic flu outbreaks of history.
My hunch is that things will go from bad to worse, probably much worse, before any treatment or vaccine is ready.
To get an idea of where some think we are at, Google and Facebook have told all their employees is it work from home for the rest of the year as the general rule, with exceptions made where required.
Yep. My best mate works for SAP in Germany. They are WFH till New Year. Of course they don't need to be physically there necessarily. But. She won't be going skiing. She won't be buying any new work clothes or shoes any time soon. She won't be eating or drinking out after work. She won't be flying overseas for conferences. She has put her car up for sale. No use for it. And a myriad of other things large and small. This is why the world wide economy is fucked.
Exactly....the real economy imo....is going to be about 30% smaller this time next year....
There will be lots of people who are...instead of cash rich and time poor...cash rich and fuck all to spend it on types.....
This makes the rather heroic assumption that anyone who does still have plenty of cash isn't going to be bled white by the taxman. Someone has to pay for the majority of the population that will be living off pensions and other forms of social security.
Its all right, they found the magic money tree down the back of the sofa. Repayment will be on the never never.
BBC Interviewer: "You're a bachelor and I'm told that you ran a gay campaign." Jeremy Thorpe: "The people of Devon do like a bit of gaiety but they have to get to know you before they'll take too much of it."
There really isn't a correlation between virus death and economic activity: the more death, the better the economy. Roughly speaking if you let the epidemic rip the economy is still fucked. In that case you might as well save lives, even if you weren't minded to anyway. And if we can get the infection and death rates down to background levels that might give people the confidence to do things again. As well as saving lives, which I would suggest is a good thing.
I would though make wearing masks on the tube and public transport compulsory.
I said those with pre existing health conditions would join over 70s in being advised to stay in
Fair enough - I'm in the latter category and intend to keep very much at home for the foreseeable.
Masks? From my experience on the Central Line I should say even making people use a hanky would be a major improvement.
As evidenced by what happened earlier on in the outbreak, the single best thing that any of us can do to cut our chances of catching the Plague is not to live in London, or any other such filthy city.
It's no coincidence that the South West - overwhelmingly rural, no cities of any great size except Bristol, distant from all major conurbations - has, of all the regions, thus far got off lightest.
Different lockdowns in different parts of the country....like when Atlanta opened up and people flocked there from neighbouring states.
'flocked' is a bit of an emotive way of saying a 13% rise from the week before. at a time when all states had at least some rise, compared to the week before, regardless of whether they relaxed their lock-dons or not.
My Georgia source reports a complete reopening from 1 May but not too many people making use of it!
I would though make wearing masks on the tube and public transport compulsory.
I said those with pre existing health conditions would join over 70s in being advised to stay in
Fair enough - I'm in the latter category and intend to keep very much at home for the foreseeable.
Masks? From my experience on the Central Line I should say even making people use a hanky would be a major improvement.
As evidenced by what happened earlier on in the outbreak, the single best thing that any of us can do to cut our chances of catching the Plague is not to live in London, or any other such filthy city.
It's no coincidence that the South West - overwhelmingly rural, no cities of any great size except Bristol, distant from all major conurbations - has, of all the regions, thus far got off lightest.
If you are a man under 70 you are still less likely to die of it than a woman over 80. The only reason BAME people are more affected is they tend to live in big cities, BAME people in rural areas are less affected than white people in big cities.
So my point stands, a line has to be drawn somewhere and 70 is it.
Over 70s are retired and do not need to work, they can live off their pension and just go out when absolutely necessary
Individual calculated risks is the only way to go, otherwise you are condemning people who don't fit your blunt instrument division.
That you talk about 'not needing to work' is a big tell. Kill off those who are not quite at pension age and it will save a lot of money. The old? Well those over seventy are going to die soon anyway, the real saving is if we can harvest a lot of those who are getting ready to draw their pensions for twenty plus years. That is the calculation isn't it?
How many times does it take to get the idea through that this is not just about deaths, anyway? It's about hospitalisations and the likelihood of long term health issues as much anything.
No, the calculation is we need to get people back to work to get the economy going again and to pay the extra tax we are going to need and it is only once you get over 70 that you get even to a 10% death rate from catching Covid.
When 95% of 60 to 70s will survive Covid it is not a very efficient way of killing them off even if a government was that way inclined
I would though make wearing masks on the tube and public transport compulsory.
I said those with pre existing health conditions would join over 70s in being advised to stay in
Fair enough - I'm in the latter category and intend to keep very much at home for the foreseeable.
Masks? From my experience on the Central Line I should say even making people use a hanky would be a major improvement.
As evidenced by what happened earlier on in the outbreak, the single best thing that any of us can do to cut our chances of catching the Plague is not to live in London, or any other such filthy city.
It's no coincidence that the South West - overwhelmingly rural, no cities of any great size except Bristol, distant from all major conurbations - has, of all the regions, thus far got off lightest.
Intrigued why Bristol has managed to do quite well. Its pretty densely packed city, significant BAME community, particularly Somali and Black Afro Caribbean, pockets of serious poverty, two unis and lots of people who work in London part of the week, so lots of opportunity for importation.
Serology data gathered in the last two weeks has also concerned government experts. While chief scientific adviser Patrick Vallance said back in March that he expected around 60% of the population to eventually contract the virus, achieving “herd immunity”, it is currently believed that the percentage of those who have had it is in the low teens or high single figures. This also raises the possibility of an extremely deadly second wave.
No big iceberg then. So much for it being around since October or whatever.
That's the third study now that knocks that idea on the head. As a rule of thumb it looks like you can take known cases and multiply by 10, it would need to be nearer 100 to give us any confidence that we can ride this out. IRF does seem to be around 0.8%, so it's also quite a lot worse than most flu seasons, and closer to the truly catastrophic flu outbreaks of history.
My hunch is that things will go from bad to worse, probably much worse, before any treatment or vaccine is ready.
To get an idea of where some think we are at, Google and Facebook have told all their employees is it work from home for the rest of the year as the general rule, with exceptions made where required.
Yep. My best mate works for SAP in Germany. They are WFH till New Year. Of course they don't need to be physically there necessarily. But. She won't be going skiing. She won't be buying any new work clothes or shoes any time soon. She won't be eating or drinking out after work. She won't be flying overseas for conferences. She has put her car up for sale. No use for it. And a myriad of other things large and small. This is why the world wide economy is fucked.
Exactly....the real economy imo....is going to be about 30% smaller this time next year....
There will be lots of people who are...instead of cash rich and time poor...cash rich and fuck all to spend it on types.....
This makes the rather heroic assumption that anyone who does still have plenty of cash isn't going to be bled white by the taxman. Someone has to pay for the majority of the population that will be living off pensions and other forms of social security.
It might make those people happier paying higher taxes if there is fuck all else to waste their money on....
There really isn't a correlation between virus death and economic activity: the more death, the better the economy. Roughly speaking if you let the epidemic rip the economy is still fucked. In that case you might as well save lives, even if you weren't minded to anyway. And if we can get the infection and death rates down to background levels that might give people the confidence to do things again. As well as saving lives, which I would suggest is a good thing.
An interesting reflection of national myths, perhaps, rather than considered historical judgement. Whether it is even a meaningful question is also open to doubt. The war was won by the three main allied powers, and it is not certain it could have been won without any one of them.
Isn't the saying that we supplied time, the Americans supplied money, and the Russians supplied men?
Without any one of those three, the war would have been lost.
The RAF gets all the attention due to the Battle of Britain and Dambusters etc. (glamour) but the Royal Navy was actually thereal unsung hero of WWII and rather good at it. Our gunnery was far better than in WWI due to the experiences of Jutland. Training had been relentless in it during the 20s and 30s.
Also, the British Army was kind of shit. It wasn't great in 1940 and nor was it for most of the rest of the war. The only single victory won "unaided" was El Alamein but we had Aussies, Kiwis, Saffers and Indian divisions on our side. Plus some lend-lease tanks.
Had the UK quite literally been fighting "alone" - rather than with a big Empire at our back - we'd have only been able to put up 3-4 second rate divisions in North Africa and we'd have been kicked out of Egypt before you could say Ice Cold in Alex.
I would though make wearing masks on the tube and public transport compulsory.
I said those with pre existing health conditions would join over 70s in being advised to stay in
Fair enough - I'm in the latter category and intend to keep very much at home for the foreseeable.
Masks? From my experience on the Central Line I should say even making people use a hanky would be a major improvement.
As evidenced by what happened earlier on in the outbreak, the single best thing that any of us can do to cut our chances of catching the Plague is not to live in London, or any other such filthy city.
It's no coincidence that the South West - overwhelmingly rural, no cities of any great size except Bristol, distant from all major conurbations - has, of all the regions, thus far got off lightest.
If you are a man under 70 you are still less likely to die of it than a woman over 80. The only reason BAME people are more affected is they tend to live in big cities, BAME people in rural areas are less affected than white people in big cities.
So my point stands, a line has to be drawn somewhere and 70 is it.
Over 70s are retired and do not need to work, they can live off their pension and just go out when absolutely necessary
Individual calculated risks is the only way to go, otherwise you are condemning people who don't fit your blunt instrument division.
That you talk about 'not needing to work' is a big tell. Kill off those who are not quite at pension age and it will save a lot of money. The old? Well those over seventy are going to die soon anyway, the real saving is if we can harvest a lot of those who are getting ready to draw their pensions for twenty plus years. That is the calculation isn't it?
How many times does it take to get the idea through that this is not just about deaths, anyway? It's about hospitalisations and the likelihood of long term health issues as much anything.
No, the calculation is we need to get people back to work to get the economy going again and to pay the extra tax we are going to need and it is only once you get over 70 that you get even to a 10% death rate from catching Covid.
When 95% of 60 to 70s will survive Covid it is not a very efficient way of killing them off even if a government was that way inclined
This is not just about deaths (ad infinitum).
In any case, a 10% death rate? Do you even realise what you are saying? That a figure just short of this shocking level of deaths is fine?
I sure as hell would rather exit the workforce rather than pay taxes to feather the nest of those whose calculation is of that order.
It wasn’t long ago that some PBers were berating other posters for taking a drive in the countryside on their own because they “might break down”.
I'll repeat that right now. I couldn't give a feck if dickheads want to increase their risk of infection.
What I do object to is that if infected they then increase the risk of everyone they encounter. And that includes the doctors and nurses they would expect to treat them if they need to be hospitalised.
What are the chances of someone’s car breaking down on a local drive?
Higher than if they don't make the unnecessary journey.
And it isn't about 1 person's car. It is about the statistical probably of breakdowns across a population.
But I guess you already know that really.
I’m asking a question. What are the risks associated with people going for local drives?
I don’t have a car so I don’t know.
I don't have a car either. Aside from the breakdown accident already covered, one problem is where are they driving to? If it is local it will be to one of a handful of local amenities or beauty spots. Thus creating a crowd.
How likely is it to create a crowd in places like the Peak District though? You are taking tens of thousands of acres of open country.
If you are a man under 70 you are still less likely to die of it than a woman over 80. The only reason BAME people are more affected is they tend to live in big cities, BAME people in rural areas are less affected than white people in big cities.
So my point stands, a line has to be drawn somewhere and 70 is it.
Over 70s are retired and do not need to work, they can live off their pension and just go out when absolutely necessary
Individual calculated risks is the only way to go, otherwise you are condemning people who don't fit your blunt instrument division.
That you talk about 'not needing to work' is a big tell. Kill off those who are not quite at pension age and it will save a lot of money. The old? Well those over seventy are going to die soon anyway, the real saving is if we can harvest a lot of those who are getting ready to draw their pensions for twenty plus years. That is the calculation isn't it?
How many times does it take to get the idea through that this is not just about deaths, anyway? It's about hospitalisations and the likelihood of long term health issues as much anything.
No, the calculation is we need to get people back to work to get the economy going again and to pay the extra tax we are going to need and it is only once you get over 70 that you get even to a 10% death rate from catching Covid.
When 95% of 60 to 70s will survive Covid it is not a very efficient way of killing them off even if a government was that way inclined
This is not just about deaths (ad infinitum).
In any case, a 10% death rate? Do you even realise what you are saying? That a figure just short of this shocking level of deaths is fine?
I sure as hell would rather exit the workforce rather than pay taxes to feather the nest of those whose calculation is of that order.
The death rate for 60 to 69s is around 3% for those who catch it, not 10%.
However if you are over 60 and wish to exit the workforce albeit with a slightly reduced pension fine, it is under 50s we really need to get back to work
I would though make wearing masks on the tube and public transport compulsory.
I said those with pre existing health conditions would join over 70s in being advised to stay in
Fair enough - I'm in the latter category and intend to keep very much at home for the foreseeable.
Masks? From my experience on the Central Line I should say even making people use a hanky would be a major improvement.
As evidenced by what happened earlier on in the outbreak, the single best thing that any of us can do to cut our chances of catching the Plague is not to live in London, or any other such filthy city.
It's no coincidence that the South West - overwhelmingly rural, no cities of any great size except Bristol, distant from all major conurbations - has, of all the regions, thus far got off lightest.
Explain Cumbria?
Cumbria's a weird one, granted. You would expect it to be a lot closer to relatively low case rural areas like the West Country; (most of) Norfolk, Suffolk and Lincolnshire; and the Marches. What that's all about I don't know.
Personally I think the economy is screwed but I thought that before Coronavirus anyway
Do you think that Keir will win the next GE then?
Not going to make any predictions after getting egg on my face last time
Fair enough. At the moment it doesn't really matter. Currently it's all about getting UK down to Covid Level 1 alert so we can get some normal form of life
An interesting reflection of national myths, perhaps, rather than considered historical judgement. Whether it is even a meaningful question is also open to doubt. The war was won by the three main allied powers, and it is not certain it could have been won without any one of them.
Isn't the saying that we supplied time, the Americans supplied money, and the Russians supplied men?
Without any one of those three, the war would have been lost.
The RAF gets all the attention due to the Battle of Britain and Dambusters etc. (glamour) but the Royal Navy was actually thereal unsung hero of WWII and rather good at it. Our gunnery was far better than in WWI due to the experiences of Jutland. Training had been relentless in it during the 20s and 30s.
Also, the British Army was kind of shit. It wasn't great in 1940 and nor was it for most of the rest of the war. The only single victory won "unaided" was El Alamein but we had Aussies, Kiwis, Saffers and Indian divisions on our side. Plus some lend-lease tanks.
Had the UK quite literally been fighting "alone" - rather than with a big Empire at our back - we'd have only been able to put up 3-4 second rate divisions in North Africa and we'd have been kicked out of Egypt before you could say Ice Cold in Alex.
I had that conversation at work on Thursday....what better experience in life is there than an Ice Cold in Alex? And...I have had some very good sexual times......and some really, life enhancing euphoric, class A fuelled druggy times too.....and some combining the two....
But the....Ice Cold in Alex.....a different level of pleasure entirely....
b) a rise in cases, leading to further fear amongst population
are a better economic position than
c) waiting a bit longer.
Can they?
They are. But more likely it is a refined version of Brexit cakeism. Basically it will be all right. Because, well, because it will.
This does not include the group who think lockdown is having more serious social and health side effects than the disease itself btw.
Yes it does. I’m one. I know how bad this but is I am now of the opinion we should go for herd immunity.
There will be a big death toll. It won’t be enormous because we will have spare capacity to avoid Wuhan/Milan. But it will be big.
Let those who want to go out and work, or play, or drink, do that. Let every adult decide for themselves. Assess the risk. It’s your call.
The government needs to level with us. This isn’t going away and it’s grim. But a Totally fucked economy is grimmer
You think the economy survives a massive death toll?
I've got a bridge to sell you....
Given that 95% of those who die of this thing are over 60, anycut the cost to the taxpayer of providing pensions and social care, and release a pulse of consumption into the economy as heirs spend some of their inheritances.
Lockdown is fundamentally all about altruism and human decency. Its economic consequences are, of course, entirely negative.
Over 60s are huge economic actors, you know...
And yet, overall they cost more to look after than they contribute. This is logical.
If your average retired person made a net positive contribution to the economy then there would be no need for anybody to work.
I'd be interested to hear what others have spent this week.
For me, its
£3.49 x 2 - Amazon films £33 - some beard oil, just now £73.55 - a week's shopping for two people
We have no mortgage, no bills due this week.
I'd say thats about 1/3rd to 1/4 of my usual discretionary weekly spend.
I'm not going to be spending more next week if the Govt actually removed lockdown entirely. Because the fear.
We’ve got eight in our lockdown house - me, the wife, three kids, two partners and a grandchild. I’m spending a fortune every week on food and drink!
Thousands of vital coronavirus ‘contact tracers’ are only now being recruited by the Government – two weeks after the Health Secretary first announced they would be hired.
b) a rise in cases, leading to further fear amongst population
are a better economic position than
c) waiting a bit longer.
Can they?
They are. But more likely it is a refined version of Brexit cakeism. Basically it will be all right. Because, well, because it will.
This does not include the group who think lockdown is having more serious social and health side effects than the disease itself btw.
Yes it does. I’m one. I know how bad this but is I am now of the opinion we should go for herd immunity.
There will be a big death toll. It won’t be enormous because we will have spare capacity to avoid Wuhan/Milan. But it will be big.
Let those who want to go out and work, or play, or drink, do that. Let every adult decide for themselves. Assess the risk. It’s your call.
The government needs to level with us. This isn’t going away and it’s grim. But a Totally fucked economy is grimmer
You think the economy survives a massive death toll?
I've got a bridge to sell you....
Given that 95% of those who die of this thing are over 60, anycut the cost to the taxpayer of providing pensions and social care, and release a pulse of consumption into the economy as heirs spend some of their inheritances.
Lockdown is fundamentally all about altruism and human decency. Its economic consequences are, of course, entirely negative.
Over 60s are huge economic actors, you know...
And yet, overall they cost more to look after than they contribute. This is logical.
If your average retired person made a net positive contribution to the economy then there would be no need for anybody to work.
I'd be interested to hear what others have spent this week.
For me, its
£3.49 x 2 - Amazon films £33 - some beard oil, just now £73.55 - a week's shopping for two people
We have no mortgage, no bills due this week.
I'd say thats about 1/3rd to 1/4 of my usual discretionary weekly spend.
I'm not going to be spending more next week if the Govt actually removed lockdown entirely. Because the fear.
We’ve got eight in our lockdown house - me, the wife, three kids, two partners and a grandchild. I’m spending a fortune every week on food and drink!
There really isn't a correlation between virus death and economic activity: the more death, the better the economy. Roughly speaking if you let the epidemic rip the economy is still fucked. In that case you might as well save lives, even if you weren't minded to anyway. And if we can get the infection and death rates down to background levels that might give people the confidence to do things again. As well as saving lives, which I would suggest is a good thing.
A series of evidence-less assertions
I am surprised to find people who do think there is a correlation between virus death and economic activity.
Several papers on this, including this one. And as another one pointed out, you're no longer contributing to the economy if you are dead.
An interesting reflection of national myths, perhaps, rather than considered historical judgement. Whether it is even a meaningful question is also open to doubt. The war was won by the three main allied powers, and it is not certain it could have been won without any one of them.
Isn't the saying that we supplied time, the Americans supplied money, and the Russians supplied men?
Without any one of those three, the war would have been lost.
The RAF gets all the attention due to the Battle of Britain and Dambusters etc. (glamour) but the Royal Navy was actually thereal unsung hero of WWII and rather good at it. Our gunnery was far better than in WWI due to the experiences of Jutland. Training had been relentless in it during the 20s and 30s.
Also, the British Army was kind of shit. It wasn't great in 1940 and nor was it for most of the rest of the war. The only single victory won "unaided" was El Alamein but we had Aussies, Kiwis, Saffers and Indian divisions on our side. Plus some lend-lease tanks.
Had the UK quite literally been fighting "alone" - rather than with a big Empire at our back - we'd have only been able to put up 3-4 second rate divisions in North Africa and we'd have been kicked out of Egypt before you could say Ice Cold in Alex.
I had that conversation at work on Thursday....what better experience in life is there than an Ice Cold in Alex? And...I have had some very good sexual times......and some really, life enhancing euphoric, class A fuelled druggy times too.....and some combining the two....
But the....Ice Cold in Alex.....a different level of pleasure entirely....
Thousands of vital coronavirus ‘contact tracers’ are only now being recruited by the Government – two weeks after the Health Secretary first announced they would be hired.
If you are a man under 70 you are still less likely to die of it than a woman over 80. The only reason BAME people are more affected is they tend to live in big cities, BAME people in rural areas are less affected than white people in big cities.
So my point stands, a line has to be drawn somewhere and 70 is it.
Over 70s are retired and do not need to work, they can live off their pension and just go out when absolutely necessary
Individual calculated risks is the only way to go, otherwise you are condemning people who don't fit your blunt instrument division.
That you talk about 'not needing to work' is a big tell. Kill off those who are not quite at pension age and it will save a lot of money. The old? Well those over seventy are going to die soon anyway, the real saving is if we can harvest a lot of those who are getting ready to draw their pensions for twenty plus years. That is the calculation isn't it?
How many times does it take to get the idea through that this is not just about deaths, anyway? It's about hospitalisations and the likelihood of long term health issues as much anything.
No, the calculation is we need to get people back to work to get the economy going again and to pay the extra tax we are going to need and it is only once you get over 70 that you get even to a 10% death rate from catching Covid.
When 95% of 60 to 70s will survive Covid it is not a very efficient way of killing them off even if a government was that way inclined
This is not just about deaths (ad infinitum).
In any case, a 10% death rate? Do you even realise what you are saying? That a figure just short of this shocking level of deaths is fine?
I sure as hell would rather exit the workforce rather than pay taxes to feather the nest of those whose calculation is of that order.
The death rate for 60 to 69s is around 3% for those who catch it, not 10%.
However if you are over 60 and wish to exit the workforce albeit with a slightly reduced pension fine, it is under 50s we really need to get back to work
Again, it's not just about deaths.
In any case, you do realise that for millions the only thing they have is their state pension? They can't just 'take less'.
I'm lucky and I could do so quite easily but it's a luxury open to few. I could take my pension in January or in the months after that, pay off the small amount left on my mortgage, keep myself out of it for a couple of years and then re-enter the workforce if I need to for a few years. I am very lucky in being able to do that but think of those who are not.
Thousands of vital coronavirus ‘contact tracers’ are only now being recruited by the Government – two weeks after the Health Secretary first announced they would be hired.
We do seem to lack govt capability to do something new and start within a day or two. Im not sure why, there must be loads of civil servants with not much on, cant a minister just get them re-assigned to a new project asap.
I am not sure how the public are going to react when it starts to dawn that this social distancing thing isn't just for Christmas, it forever, until we get a vaccine.
I think a lot of people think few more weeks and it will be basically back to normal in time for my holibobs to Ayia Napa or Ibiza.
They won’t do it. The lockdown is already breaking.
BBC Interviewer: "You're a bachelor and I'm told that you ran a gay campaign." Jeremy Thorpe: "The people of Devon do like a bit of gaiety but they have to get to know you before they'll take too much of it."
'Gay' did not have such a connotation at all in 1959. I recall looking at the tombstone of the motor racing driver - Mike Hawthorn - in Farnham who tragically died in an accident in January 1959. It reads 'A Gay, Gallant Sportsman'.
If you are a man under 70 you are still less likely to die of it than a woman over 80. The only reason BAME people are more affected is they tend to live in big cities, BAME people in rural areas are less affected than white people in big cities.
So my point stands, a line has to be drawn somewhere and 70 is it.
Over 70s are retired and do not need to work, they can live off their pension and just go out when absolutely necessary
Individual calculated risks is the only way to go, otherwise you are condemning people who don't fit your blunt instrument division.
That you talk about 'not needing to work' is a big tell. Kill off those who are not quite at pension age and it will save a lot of money. The old? Well those over seventy are going to die soon anyway, the real saving is if we can harvest a lot of those who are getting ready to draw their pensions for twenty plus years. That is the calculation isn't it?
How many times does it take to get the idea through that this is not just about deaths, anyway? It's about hospitalisations and the likelihood of long term health issues as much anything.
No, the calculation is we need to get people back to work to get the economy going again and to pay the extra tax we are going to need and it is only once you get over 70 that you get even to a 10% death rate from catching Covid.
When 95% of 60 to 70s will survive Covid it is not a very efficient way of killing them off even if a government was that way inclined
This is not just about deaths (ad infinitum).
In any case, a 10% death rate? Do you even realise what you are saying? That a figure just short of this shocking level of deaths is fine?
I sure as hell would rather exit the workforce rather than pay taxes to feather the nest of those whose calculation is of that order.
The death rate for 60 to 69s is around 3% for those who catch it, not 10%.
However if you are over 60 and wish to exit the workforce albeit with a slightly reduced pension fine, it is under 50s we really need to get back to work
Again, it's not just about deaths.
In any case, you do realise that for millions the only thing they have is their state pension? They can't just 'take less'.
I'm lucky and I could do so quite easily but it's a luxury open to few. I could take my pension in January or in the months after that, pay off the small amount left on my mortgage, keep myself out of it for a couple of years and then re-enter the workforce if I need to for a few years. I am very lucky in being able to do that but think of those who are not.
Actually for the most part it is, if the rest recover after a few weeks at most.
If you want to keep your full NI contributions record go back to work then, it was you who said people should drop out of the workforce despite being under 70 not me.
Increasingly the number just reliant on the state pension has fallen anyway due to compulsory enrolment in workplace pension schemes
There really isn't a correlation between virus death and economic activity: the more death, the better the economy. Roughly speaking if you let the epidemic rip the economy is still fucked. In that case you might as well save lives, even if you weren't minded to anyway. And if we can get the infection and death rates down to background levels that might give people the confidence to do things again. As well as saving lives, which I would suggest is a good thing.
A series of evidence-less assertions
I am surprised to find people who do think there is a correlation between virus death and economic activity.
Several papers on this, including this one. And as another one pointed out, you're no longer contributing to the economy if you are dead.
As the epidemic death rate rises people take more extreme countermeasures to avoid infection.This leads to a much greater economic cost. If you knock the epidemic hard at the beginning people won't see a need to take those measures later on: https://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/rebelo/htm/epidemics.pdf
Serology data gathered in the last two weeks has also concerned government experts. While chief scientific adviser Patrick Vallance said back in March that he expected around 60% of the population to eventually contract the virus, achieving “herd immunity”, it is currently believed that the percentage of those who have had it is in the low teens or high single figures. This also raises the possibility of an extremely deadly second wave.
No big iceberg then. So much for it being around since October or whatever.
That's the third study now that knocks that idea on the head. As a rule of thumb it looks like you can take known cases and multiply by 10, it would need to be nearer 100 to give us any confidence that we can ride this out. IRF does seem to be around 0.8%, so it's also quite a lot worse than most flu seasons, and closer to the truly catastrophic flu outbreaks of history.
My hunch is that things will go from bad to worse, probably much worse, before any treatment or vaccine is ready.
To get an idea of where some think we are at, Google and Facebook have told all their employees is it work from home for the rest of the year as the general rule, with exceptions made where required.
Yep. My best mate works for SAP in Germany. They are WFH till New Year. Of course they don't need to be physically there necessarily. But. She won't be going skiing. She won't be buying any new work clothes or shoes any time soon. She won't be eating or drinking out after work. She won't be flying overseas for conferences. She has put her car up for sale. No use for it. And a myriad of other things large and small. This is why the world wide economy is fucked.
WFH and other changes will stick after the virus. Vodaphone and IBM have already said they won’t be asking staff to come in five days a week again. That’s a positive: five days a week in the office is daft.
Thousands of vital coronavirus ‘contact tracers’ are only now being recruited by the Government – two weeks after the Health Secretary first announced they would be hired.
We do seem to lack govt capability to do something new and start within a day or two. Im not sure why, there must be loads of civil servants with not much on, cant a minister just get them re-assigned to a new project asap.
Perhaps Big Dom has a point about the blob that is the civil service?
Thousands of vital coronavirus ‘contact tracers’ are only now being recruited by the Government – two weeks after the Health Secretary first announced they would be hired.
We do seem to lack govt capability to do something new and start within a day or two. Im not sure why, there must be loads of civil servants with not much on, cant a minister just get them re-assigned to a new project asap.
For all we know that's what's actually happened, and the civil servants now in charge of developing vital health infrastructure were previously tasked with the funding and development of opera and ballet? It would explain a great many things.
An interesting reflection of national myths, perhaps, rather than considered historical judgement. Whether it is even a meaningful question is also open to doubt. The war was won by the three main allied powers, and it is not certain it could have been won without any one of them.
Isn't the saying that we supplied time, the Americans supplied money, and the Russians supplied men?
Without any one of those three, the war would have been lost.
The RAF gets all the attention due to the Battle of Britain and Dambusters etc. (glamour) but the Royal Navy was actually thereal unsung hero of WWII and rather good at it. Our gunnery was far better than in WWI due to the experiences of Jutland. Training had been relentless in it during the 20s and 30s.
Also, the British Army was kind of shit. It wasn't great in 1940 and nor was it for most of the rest of the war. The only single victory won "unaided" was El Alamein but we had Aussies, Kiwis, Saffers and Indian divisions on our side. Plus some lend-lease tanks.
Had the UK quite literally been fighting "alone" - rather than with a big Empire at our back - we'd have only been able to put up 3-4 second rate divisions in North Africa and we'd have been kicked out of Egypt before you could say Ice Cold in Alex.
I had that conversation at work on Thursday....what better experience in life is there than an Ice Cold in Alex? And...I have had some very good sexual times......and some really, life enhancing euphoric, class A fuelled druggy times too.....and some combining the two....
But the....Ice Cold in Alex.....a different level of pleasure entirely....
Only works if you have a 24 year old Sylvia Sims in attendance. Pound for pound in the top 5 beauties.
Someone has a house party of 50 people - arrest and charge the organisers.
People sunbathing in their own groups in a park - if the park gets too busy dont let more people in or move people on.
Is it really complicated?
Laws + common sense = Good policing
As long as it stays nice and middle class. I don't know what it's like round your bit but impromptu parties in parks mixed with drink and sunshine have a tendency to kick off where I am.
Not sure Ive ever seen any problems in a London park, and there will often be a mix from homeless thru underclass, working class, middle class and toffs using them.
London Fields is like this most sunny Saturdays and I’ve never seen it “kick off”. Maybe affable park life is a London thing?
Someone has a house party of 50 people - arrest and charge the organisers.
People sunbathing in their own groups in a park - if the park gets too busy dont let more people in or move people on.
Is it really complicated?
Laws + common sense = Good policing
As long as it stays nice and middle class. I don't know what it's like round your bit but impromptu parties in parks mixed with drink and sunshine have a tendency to kick off where I am.
Not sure Ive ever seen any problems in a London park, and there will often be a mix from homeless thru underclass, working class, middle class and toffs using them.
If you are a man under 70 you are still less likely to die of it than a woman over 80. The only reason BAME people are more affected is they tend to live in big cities, BAME people in rural areas are less affected than white people in big cities.
So my point stands, a line has to be drawn somewhere and 70 is it.
Over 70s are retired and do not need to work, they can live off their pension and just go out when absolutely necessary
Individual calculated risks is the only way to go, otherwise you are condemning people who don't fit your blunt instrument division.
That you talk about 'not needing to work' is a big tell. Kill off those who are not quite at pension age and it will save a lot of money. The old? Well those over seventy are going to die soon anyway, the real saving is if we can harvest a lot of those who are getting ready to draw their pensions for twenty plus years. That is the calculation isn't it?
How many times does it take to get the idea through that this is not just about deaths, anyway? It's about hospitalisations and the likelihood of long term health issues as much anything.
No, the calculation is we need to get people back to work to get the economy going again and to pay the extra tax we are going to need and it is only once you get over 70 that you get even to a 10% death rate from catching Covid.
When 95% of 60 to 70s will survive Covid it is not a very efficient way of killing them off even if a government was that way inclined
This is not just about deaths (ad infinitum).
In any case, a 10% death rate? Do you even realise what you are saying? That a figure just short of this shocking level of deaths is fine?
I sure as hell would rather exit the workforce rather than pay taxes to feather the nest of those whose calculation is of that order.
The death rate for 60 to 69s is around 3% for those who catch it, not 10%.
However if you are over 60 and wish to exit the workforce albeit with a slightly reduced pension fine, it is under 50s we really need to get back to work
Again, it's not just about deaths.
In any case, you do realise that for millions the only thing they have is their state pension? They can't just 'take less'.
I'm lucky and I could do so quite easily but it's a luxury open to few. I could take my pension in January or in the months after that, pay off the small amount left on my mortgage, keep myself out of it for a couple of years and then re-enter the workforce if I need to for a few years. I am very lucky in being able to do that but think of those who are not.
Your personal circumstances explain your extreme position on extending the lockdown, similar to Mortimer.
Serology data gathered in the last two weeks has also concerned government experts. While chief scientific adviser Patrick Vallance said back in March that he expected around 60% of the population to eventually contract the virus, achieving “herd immunity”, it is currently believed that the percentage of those who have had it is in the low teens or high single figures. This also raises the possibility of an extremely deadly second wave.
No big iceberg then. So much for it being around since October or whatever.
That's the third study now that knocks that idea on the head. As a rule of thumb it looks like you can take known cases and multiply by 10, it would need to be nearer 100 to give us any confidence that we can ride this out. IRF does seem to be around 0.8%, so it's also quite a lot worse than most flu seasons, and closer to the truly catastrophic flu outbreaks of history.
My hunch is that things will go from bad to worse, probably much worse, before any treatment or vaccine is ready.
To get an idea of where some think we are at, Google and Facebook have told all their employees is it work from home for the rest of the year as the general rule, with exceptions made where required.
Yep. My best mate works for SAP in Germany. They are WFH till New Year. Of course they don't need to be physically there necessarily. But. She won't be going skiing. She won't be buying any new work clothes or shoes any time soon. She won't be eating or drinking out after work. She won't be flying overseas for conferences. She has put her car up for sale. No use for it. And a myriad of other things large and small. This is why the world wide economy is fucked.
WFH and other changes will stick after the virus. Vodaphone and IBM have already said they won’t be asking staff to come in five days a week again. That’s a positive: five days a week in the office is daft.
It will lead to a greater globalisation of office work. If you don't need people to turn up to the office, you can recruit the best and cheapest from anywhere. Your talent pool is no longer limited to commuting distance.
Thousands of vital coronavirus ‘contact tracers’ are only now being recruited by the Government – two weeks after the Health Secretary first announced they would be hired.
We do seem to lack govt capability to do something new and start within a day or two. Im not sure why, there must be loads of civil servants with not much on, cant a minister just get them re-assigned to a new project asap.
Perhaps Big Dom has a point about the blob that is the civil service?
Or perhaps it is the Civil Service that is competent, and the government a bunch of bullshitting chancers...
Thousands of vital coronavirus ‘contact tracers’ are only now being recruited by the Government – two weeks after the Health Secretary first announced they would be hired.
We do seem to lack govt capability to do something new and start within a day or two. Im not sure why, there must be loads of civil servants with not much on, cant a minister just get them re-assigned to a new project asap.
Perhaps Big Dom has a point about the blob that is the civil service?
Or perhaps it is the Civil Service that is competent, and the government a bunch of bullshitting chancers...
Aren't the civil service in charge of implementing policy?
Serology data gathered in the last two weeks has also concerned government experts. While chief scientific adviser Patrick Vallance said back in March that he expected around 60% of the population to eventually contract the virus, achieving “herd immunity”, it is currently believed that the percentage of those who have had it is in the low teens or high single figures. This also raises the possibility of an extremely deadly second wave.
No big iceberg then. So much for it being around since October or whatever.
That's the third study now that knocks that idea on the head. As a rule of thumb it looks like you can take known cases and multiply by 10, it would need to be nearer 100 to give us any confidence that we can ride this out. IRF does seem to be around 0.8%, so it's also quite a lot worse than most flu seasons, and closer to the truly catastrophic flu outbreaks of history.
My hunch is that things will go from bad to worse, probably much worse, before any treatment or vaccine is ready.
To get an idea of where some think we are at, Google and Facebook have told all their employees is it work from home for the rest of the year as the general rule, with exceptions made where required.
Yep. My best mate works for SAP in Germany. They are WFH till New Year. Of course they don't need to be physically there necessarily. But. She won't be going skiing. She won't be buying any new work clothes or shoes any time soon. She won't be eating or drinking out after work. She won't be flying overseas for conferences. She has put her car up for sale. No use for it. And a myriad of other things large and small. This is why the world wide economy is fucked.
WFH and other changes will stick after the virus. Vodaphone and IBM have already said they won’t be asking staff to come in five days a week again. That’s a positive: five days a week in the office is daft.
It will lead to a greater globalisation of office work. If you don't need people to turn up to the office, you can recruit the best and cheapest from anywhere. Your talent pool is no longer limited to commuting distance.
Dunno. Think most will move to a hybrid model, that’s what the IBM lady was saying this week. A couple of days in the office, a few days out, each week. Offices won’t be able to accommodate all their staff at once.
"Stay alert, defeat the virus" is a meaningless slogan. What specific thing are people being asked to do and what does "defeat the virus" mean? "Stay at home, save lives" is a concrete call to action with a linked and measurable outcome.
Thousands of vital coronavirus ‘contact tracers’ are only now being recruited by the Government – two weeks after the Health Secretary first announced they would be hired.
We do seem to lack govt capability to do something new and start within a day or two. Im not sure why, there must be loads of civil servants with not much on, cant a minister just get them re-assigned to a new project asap.
Perhaps Big Dom has a point about the blob that is the civil service?
Well he is in control of it now and might be for the next decade (despite his protests of ill health), so time for him to stop moaning and deliver.
"Stay alert, defeat the virus" is a meaningless slogan. What specific thing are people being asked to do and what does "defeat the virus" mean? "Stay at home, save lives" is a concrete call to action with a linked and measurable outcome.
Albeit unsustainable. The Chinese managed only 60 days of Stay At Home. We are nearing that already. People get fed up after a while.
"Stay alert, defeat the virus" is a meaningless slogan. What specific thing are people being asked to do and what does "defeat the virus" mean? "Stay at home, save lives" is a concrete call to action with a linked and measurable outcome.
The telegraph has the actual slogan, which still contains the outcome. I assume alert means be aware of your surroundings, and doing things to minimise exposure.
If you are a man under 70 you are still less likely to die of it than a woman over 80. The only reason BAME people are more affected is they tend to live in big cities, BAME people in rural areas are less affected than white people in big cities.
So my point stands, a line has to be drawn somewhere and 70 is it.
Over 70s are retired and do not need to work, they can live off their pension and just go out when absolutely necessary
Individual calculated risks is the only way to go, otherwise you are condemning people who don't fit your blunt instrument division.
That you talk about 'not needing to work' is a big tell. Kill off those who are not quite at pension age and it will save a lot of money. The old? Well those over seventy are going to die soon anyway, the real saving is if we can harvest a lot of those who are getting ready to draw their pensions for twenty plus years. That is the calculation isn't it?
How many times does it take to get the idea through that this is not just about deaths, anyway? It's about hospitalisations and the likelihood of long term health issues as much anything.
No, the calculation is we need to get people back to work to get the economy going again and to pay the extra tax we are going to need and it is only once you get over 70 that you get even to a 10% death rate from catching Covid.
When 95% of 60 to 70s will survive Covid it is not a very efficient way of killing them off even if a government was that way inclined
This is not just about deaths (ad infinitum).
In any case, a 10% death rate? Do you even realise what you are saying? That a figure just short of this shocking level of deaths is fine?
I sure as hell would rather exit the workforce rather than pay taxes to feather the nest of those whose calculation is of that order.
The death rate for 60 to 69s is around 3% for those who catch it, not 10%.
However if you are over 60 and wish to exit the workforce albeit with a slightly reduced pension fine, it is under 50s we really need to get back to work
Again, it's not just about deaths.
In any case, you do realise that for millions the only thing they have is their state pension? They can't just 'take less'.
I'm lucky and I could do so quite easily but it's a luxury open to few. I could take my pension in January or in the months after that, pay off the small amount left on my mortgage, keep myself out of it for a couple of years and then re-enter the workforce if I need to for a few years. I am very lucky in being able to do that but think of those who are not.
Actually for the most part it is, if the rest recover after a few weeks at most.
If you want to keep your full NI contributions record go back to work then, it was you who said people should drop out of the workforce despite being under 70 not me.
Increasingly the number just reliant on the state pension has fallen anyway due to compulsory enrolment in workplace pension schemes
As Robert posted earlier, there are a host of conditions being found in survivors. Stopping a large proportion of the workforce from getting it also helps the economy in the long run (or are they considered too old too be economically useful for long enough, like a clapped out nag that you can send to the knacker's yard?)
I've already got nearly 35 years of NI contributions. I wouldn't work again because of that, just for something to do part time, I'd already made some plans for that anyway. In any case, those who will benefit from compulsory enrolment are not those currently close to pensionable age.
"Stay alert, defeat the virus" is a meaningless slogan. What specific thing are people being asked to do and what does "defeat the virus" mean? "Stay at home, save lives" is a concrete call to action with a linked and measurable outcome.
Given the behaviour in the streets and the shops - stay awake and actually do social distancing?
"Stay alert, defeat the virus" is a meaningless slogan. What specific thing are people being asked to do and what does "defeat the virus" mean? "Stay at home, save lives" is a concrete call to action with a linked and measurable outcome.
Albeit unsustainable. The Chinese managed only 60 days of Stay At Home. We are nearing that already. People get fed up after a while.
I was talking about the slogan itself. But in terms of intention does this mean lockdown is over? Or is some aspect of stay at home still in place but he doesn't want to mention it?
Thousands of vital coronavirus ‘contact tracers’ are only now being recruited by the Government – two weeks after the Health Secretary first announced they would be hired.
We do seem to lack govt capability to do something new and start within a day or two. Im not sure why, there must be loads of civil servants with not much on, cant a minister just get them re-assigned to a new project asap.
Perhaps Big Dom has a point about the blob that is the civil service?
Or perhaps it is the Civil Service that is competent, and the government a bunch of bullshitting chancers...
The messaging from government has been dreadful since Wednesday. Nothing to do with the Civil Service as far as I can see.
If you are a man under 70 you are still less likely to die of it than a woman over 80. The only reason BAME people are more affected is they tend to live in big cities, BAME people in rural areas are less affected than white people in big cities.
So my point stands, a line has to be drawn somewhere and 70 is it.
Over 70s are retired and do not need to work, they can live off their pension and just go out when absolutely necessary
Individual calculated risks is the only way to go, otherwise you are condemning people who don't fit your blunt instrument division.
That you talk about 'not needing to work' is a big tell. Kill off those who are not quite at pension age and it will save a lot of money. The old? Well those over seventy are going to die soon anyway, the real saving is if we can harvest a lot of those who are getting ready to draw their pensions for twenty plus years. That is the calculation isn't it?
How many times does it take to get the idea through that this is not just about deaths, anyway? It's about hospitalisations and the likelihood of long term health issues as much anything.
No, the calculation is we need to get people back to work to get the economy going again and to pay the extra tax we are going to need and it is only once you get over 70 that you get even to a 10% death rate from catching Covid.
When 95% of 60 to 70s will survive Covid it is not a very efficient way of killing them off even if a government was that way inclined
This is not just about deaths (ad infinitum).
In any case, a 10% death rate? Do you even realise what you are saying? That a figure just short of this shocking level of deaths is fine?
I sure as hell would rather exit the workforce rather than pay taxes to feather the nest of those whose calculation is of that order.
The death rate for 60 to 69s is around 3% for those who catch it, not 10%.
However if you are over 60 and wish to exit the workforce albeit with a slightly reduced pension fine, it is under 50s we really need to get back to work
Again, it's not just about deaths.
In any case, you do realise that for millions the only thing they have is their state pension? They can't just 'take less'.
I'm lucky and I could do so quite easily but it's a luxury open to few. I could take my pension in January or in the months after that, pay off the small amount left on my mortgage, keep myself out of it for a couple of years and then re-enter the workforce if I need to for a few years. I am very lucky in being able to do that but think of those who are not.
Actually for the most part it is, if the rest recover after a few weeks at most.
If you want to keep your full NI contributions record go back to work then, it was you who said people should drop out of the workforce despite being under 70 not me.
Increasingly the number just reliant on the state pension has fallen anyway due to compulsory enrolment in workplace pension schemes
As Robert posted earlier, there are a host of conditions being found in survivors. Stopping a large proportion of the workforce from getting it also helps the economy in the long run (or are they considered too old too be economically useful for long enough, like a clapped out nag that you can send to the knacker's yard?)
I've already got nearly 35 years of NI contributions. I wouldn't work again because of that, just for something to do part time, I'd already made some plans for that anyway. In any case, those who will benefit from compulsory enrolment are not those currently close to pensionable age.
For a minority but for under 50s well over 99% will survive Covid and for over 50s but under 70s well over 95% will survive it, stopping them working indefinitely until a vaccine is found will not help the economy, it will lead to a 1930s style depression.
"Stay alert, defeat the virus" is a meaningless slogan. What specific thing are people being asked to do and what does "defeat the virus" mean? "Stay at home, save lives" is a concrete call to action with a linked and measurable outcome.
Given the behaviour in the streets and the shops - stay awake and actually do social distancing?
Fine. "Keep your distance. Save lives." works as a call to action.
If you are a man under 70 you are still less likely to die of it than a woman over 80. The only reason BAME people are more affected is they tend to live in big cities, BAME people in rural areas are less affected than white people in big cities.
So my point stands, a line has to be drawn somewhere and 70 is it.
Over 70s are retired and do not need to work, they can live off their pension and just go out when absolutely necessary
Individual calculated risks is the only way to go, otherwise you are condemning people who don't fit your blunt instrument division.
That you talk about 'not needing to work' is a big tell. Kill off those who are not quite at pension age and it will save a lot of money. The old? Well those over seventy are going to die soon anyway, the real saving is if we can harvest a lot of those who are getting ready to draw their pensions for twenty plus years. That is the calculation isn't it?
How many times does it take to get the idea through that this is not just about deaths, anyway? It's about hospitalisations and the likelihood of long term health issues as much anything.
No, the calculation is we need to get people back to work to get the economy going again and to pay the extra tax we are going to need and it is only once you get over 70 that you get even to a 10% death rate from catching Covid.
When 95% of 60 to 70s will survive Covid it is not a very efficient way of killing them off even if a government was that way inclined
This is not just about deaths (ad infinitum).
In any case, a 10% death rate? Do you even realise what you are saying? That a figure just short of this shocking level of deaths is fine?
I sure as hell would rather exit the workforce rather than pay taxes to feather the nest of those whose calculation is of that order.
The death rate for 60 to 69s is around 3% for those who catch it, not 10%.
However if you are over 60 and wish to exit the workforce albeit with a slightly reduced pension fine, it is under 50s we really need to get back to work
Again, it's not just about deaths.
In any case, you do realise that for millions the only thing they have is their state pension? They can't just 'take less'.
I'm lucky and I could do so quite easily but it's a luxury open to few. I could take my pension in January or in the months after that, pay off the small amount left on my mortgage, keep myself out of it for a couple of years and then re-enter the workforce if I need to for a few years. I am very lucky in being able to do that but think of those who are not.
Your personal circumstances explain your extreme position on extending the lockdown, similar to Mortimer.
I'm not the extremist here, everything I've said about what the response of education will be has come to fruition. There was disbelief about what I've said about things from parental concerns, to demands for PPE (which I'd mentioned before unions and such), on the disconnect between the economy and schools in the current situation and so on.
I'd call it being accurate.
My position is for those who aren't as fortunate as myself. I have this luxury but, unlike some others, I'm not going to relax in that knowledge.
If you are a man under 70 you are still less likely to die of it than a woman over 80. The only reason BAME people are more affected is they tend to live in big cities, BAME people in rural areas are less affected than white people in big cities.
So my point stands, a line has to be drawn somewhere and 70 is it.
Over 70s are retired and do not need to work, they can live off their pension and just go out when absolutely necessary
Individual calculated risks is the only way to go, otherwise you are condemning people who don't fit your blunt instrument division.
That you talk about 'not needing to work' is a big tell. Kill off those who are not quite at pension age and it will save a lot of money. The old? Well those over seventy are going to die soon anyway, the real saving is if we can harvest a lot of those who are getting ready to draw their pensions for twenty plus years. That is the calculation isn't it?
How many times does it take to get the idea through that this is not just about deaths, anyway? It's about hospitalisations and the likelihood of long term health issues as much anything.
No, the calculation is we need to get people back to work to get the economy going again and to pay the extra tax we are going to need and it is only once you get over 70 that you get even to a 10% death rate from catching Covid.
When 95% of 60 to 70s will survive Covid it is not a very efficient way of killing them off even if a government was that way inclined
This is not just about deaths (ad infinitum).
In any case, a 10% death rate? Do you even realise what you are saying? That a figure just short of this shocking level of deaths is fine?
I sure as hell would rather exit the workforce rather than pay taxes to feather the nest of those whose calculation is of that order.
The death rate for 60 to 69s is around 3% for those who catch it, not 10%.
However if you are over 60 and wish to exit the workforce albeit with a slightly reduced pension fine, it is under 50s we really need to get back to work
Again, it's not just about deaths.
In any case, you do realise that for millions the only thing they have is their state pension? They can't just 'take less'.
I'm lucky and I could do so quite easily but it's a luxury open to few. I could take my pension in January or in the months after that, pay off the small amount left on my mortgage, keep myself out of it for a couple of years and then re-enter the workforce if I need to for a few years. I am very lucky in being able to do that but think of those who are not.
Your personal circumstances explain your extreme position on extending the lockdown, similar to Mortimer.
I'm not the extremist here, everything I've said about what the response of education will be has come to fruition. There was disbelief about what I've said about things from parental concerns, to demands for PPE (which I'd mentioned before unions and such), on the disconnect between the economy and schools in the current situation and so on.
I'd call it being accurate.
My position is for those who aren't as fortunate as myself. I have this luxury but, unlike some others, I'm not going to relax in that knowledge.
No. Every post you write is another of saying, “extend the lockdown”. Yet that’s not a sustainable position.
We need to find a way forward that reconciles liberty, economy and safety.
Thousands of vital coronavirus ‘contact tracers’ are only now being recruited by the Government – two weeks after the Health Secretary first announced they would be hired.
We do seem to lack govt capability to do something new and start within a day or two. Im not sure why, there must be loads of civil servants with not much on, cant a minister just get them re-assigned to a new project asap.
Perhaps Big Dom has a point about the blob that is the civil service?
Or perhaps it is the Civil Service that is competent, and the government a bunch of bullshitting chancers...
If that were true, they would have looked comepetent under Theresa May.
If you are a man under 70 you are still less likely to die of it than a woman over 80. The only reason BAME people are more affected is they tend to live in big cities, BAME people in rural areas are less affected than white people in big cities.
So my point stands, a line has to be drawn somewhere and 70 is it.
Over 70s are retired and do not need to work, they can live off their pension and just go out when absolutely necessary
Individual calculated risks is the only way to go, otherwise you are condemning people who don't fit your blunt instrument division.
That you talk about 'not needing to work' is a big tell. Kill off those who are not quite at pension age and it will save a lot of money. The old? Well those over seventy are going to die soon anyway, the real saving is if we can harvest a lot of those who are getting ready to draw their pensions for twenty plus years. That is the calculation isn't it?
How many times does it take to get the idea through that this is not just about deaths, anyway? It's about hospitalisations and the likelihood of long term health issues as much anything.
No, the calculation is we need to get people back to work to get the economy going again and to pay the extra tax we are going to need and it is only once you get over 70 that you get even to a 10% death rate from catching Covid.
When 95% of 60 to 70s will survive Covid it is not a very efficient way of killing them off even if a government was that way inclined
This is not just about deaths (ad infinitum).
In any case, a 10% death rate? Do you even realise what you are saying? That a figure just short of this shocking level of deaths is fine?
I sure as hell would rather exit the workforce rather than pay taxes to feather the nest of those whose calculation is of that order.
The death rate for 60 to 69s is around 3% for those who catch it, not 10%.
However if you are over 60 and wish to exit the workforce albeit with a slightly reduced pension fine, it is under 50s we really need to get back to work
Again, it's not just about deaths.
In any case, you do realise that for millions the only thing they have is their state pension? They can't just 'take less'.
I'm lucky and I could do so quite easily but it's a luxury open to few. I could take my pension in January or in the months after that, pay off the small amount left on my mortgage, keep myself out of it for a couple of years and then re-enter the workforce if I need to for a few years. I am very lucky in being able to do that but think of those who are not.
Your personal circumstances explain your extreme position on extending the lockdown, similar to Mortimer.
I'm not the extremist here, everything I've said about what the response of education will be has come to fruition. There was disbelief about what I've said about things from parental concerns, to demands for PPE (which I'd mentioned before unions and such), on the disconnect between the economy and schools in the current situation and so on.
I'd call it being accurate.
My position is for those who aren't as fortunate as myself. I have this luxury but, unlike some others, I'm not going to relax in that knowledge.
No. Every post you write is another of saying, “extend the lockdown”. Yet that’s not a sustainable position.
We need to find a way forward that reconciles liberty, economy and safety.
The lockdown is being extended. Isn't it the default position?
You need to look closer, I've said we needed to lock down earlier and harder. Then we wouldn't need to keep it going now. We didn't so we have to. Blame those who claimed that people wouldn't want to lock down too early or the early government response that seemed to follow that line. That was why we are where we are now and those are the people who should be being called to account for it.
Also, you seem to have missed what I've posted again and again (in double figures by now, surely). Namely -
End it by consent. Those who feel that they are safe enough to unlock can do so and be supported via the healthcare system. Those who don't can be supported economically. It's fair on both sides of the argument. I'm not demanding that the young should stay indoors indefinitely (or pensioners), I'm not demanding that everyone needs to get back to work. I would call that a middle ground position but, heigh ho, if that's what an extremist position is from where you are standing, I wonder just where you are standing.
Comments
This is why the world wide economy is fucked.
Anyway, the only place I really want to go is to see my son. I miss my son.
John Stonehouse just elected.
We even drink the same coffee...
Exactly....the real economy imo....is going to be about 30% smaller this time next year....
There will be lots of people who are...instead of cash rich and time poor...cash rich and fuck all to spend it on types.....
I would suggest the polls will tighten over the next two years. Keir will want to be at 40%, or want the Tories to have dropped, to have real confidence in his approach.
That you talk about 'not needing to work' is a big tell. Kill off those who are not quite at pension age and it will save a lot of money. The old? Well those over seventy are going to die soon anyway, the real saving is if we can harvest a lot of those who are getting ready to draw their pensions for twenty plus years. That is the calculation isn't it?
How many times does it take to get the idea through that this is not just about deaths, anyway? It's about hospitalisations and the likelihood of long term health issues as much anything.
https://twitter.com/WhatsEuroPinion/status/1258893227463229440
Jeremy Thorpe: "The people of Devon do like a bit of gaiety but they have to get to know you before they'll take too much of it."
It's no coincidence that the South West - overwhelmingly rural, no cities of any great size except Bristol, distant from all major conurbations - has, of all the regions, thus far got off lightest.
When 95% of 60 to 70s will survive Covid it is not a very efficient way of killing them off even if a government was that way inclined
Also, the British Army was kind of shit. It wasn't great in 1940 and nor was it for most of the rest of the war. The only single victory won "unaided" was El Alamein but we had Aussies, Kiwis, Saffers and Indian divisions on our side. Plus some lend-lease tanks.
Had the UK quite literally been fighting "alone" - rather than with a big Empire at our back - we'd have only been able to put up 3-4 second rate divisions in North Africa and we'd have been kicked out of Egypt before you could say Ice Cold in Alex.
In any case, a 10% death rate? Do you even realise what you are saying? That a figure just short of this shocking level of deaths is fine?
I sure as hell would rather exit the workforce rather than pay taxes to feather the nest of those whose calculation is of that order.
However if you are over 60 and wish to exit the workforce albeit with a slightly reduced pension fine, it is under 50s we really need to get back to work
But the....Ice Cold in Alex.....a different level of pleasure entirely....
Sensible people are trying to look for frameworks that reconcile liberty with safety.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8303897/Matt-Hancocks-Covid-crisis-trace-agents-NO-medical-knowledge.html
Several papers on this, including this one. And as another one pointed out, you're no longer contributing to the economy if you are dead.
In any case, you do realise that for millions the only thing they have is their state pension? They can't just 'take less'.
I'm lucky and I could do so quite easily but it's a luxury open to few. I could take my pension in January or in the months after that, pay off the small amount left on my mortgage, keep myself out of it for a couple of years and then re-enter the workforce if I need to for a few years. I am very lucky in being able to do that but think of those who are not.
It just gives you a silly shiny beard.
If you want to keep your full NI contributions record go back to work then, it was you who said people should drop out of the workforce despite being under 70 not me.
Increasingly the number just reliant on the state pension has fallen anyway due to compulsory enrolment in workplace pension schemes
and you don't even need a royal wedding to inflame things.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-47992818
Are you sure of this "decline in support of the Tories"? I think your genie may have short-changed you on your three wishes.....
I've already got nearly 35 years of NI contributions. I wouldn't work again because of that, just for something to do part time, I'd already made some plans for that anyway. In any case, those who will benefit from compulsory enrolment are not those currently close to pensionable age.
I'd call it being accurate.
My position is for those who aren't as fortunate as myself. I have this luxury but, unlike some others, I'm not going to relax in that knowledge.
It doesn't look like sunny weather is a great disinfectant.
We may well get to see a country that makes the USA look competent, and push us back to 3rd in the world.
We need to find a way forward that reconciles liberty, economy and safety.
Seeing how easily we can manage without flying, driving or consuming much makes a greener economy much closer.
That's not what I saw.
You need to look closer, I've said we needed to lock down earlier and harder. Then we wouldn't need to keep it going now. We didn't so we have to. Blame those who claimed that people wouldn't want to lock down too early or the early government response that seemed to follow that line. That was why we are where we are now and those are the people who should be being called to account for it.
Also, you seem to have missed what I've posted again and again (in double figures by now, surely). Namely -
End it by consent. Those who feel that they are safe enough to unlock can do so and be supported via the healthcare system. Those who don't can be supported economically. It's fair on both sides of the argument. I'm not demanding that the young should stay indoors indefinitely (or pensioners), I'm not demanding that everyone needs to get back to work. I would call that a middle ground position but, heigh ho, if that's what an extremist position is from where you are standing, I wonder just where you are standing.