"I believe history will say trying to control Covid-19 through lockdown was a monumental mistake on a global scale, the cure was worse than the disease."
"I believe the harm lockdown is doing to our education, health care access, and broader aspects of our economy and society will turn out to be at least as great as the harm done by COVID-19.”
Mark Woolhouse, a scientist who advises the Government on infectious diseases. SAGE member.
I have some sympathy with that view
I think at this point it’s self evident. Good that someone on the formal panel is now brave enough to say it.
If the virus had originated almost anywhere other than China things might’ve been different, as we’d have had more transparent data to work with. Instead all we had was what they chose to share, plus the leaks of total and utter chaos followed by the dystopian civil control measures.
That some people are still scared to leave the house when in most places there is no Covid at all right now speaks volumes. That our healthcare system has still not returned to full speed is totally perplexing and does rather put the weekly clapathon into sharp relief.
"I believe history will say trying to control Covid-19 through lockdown was a monumental mistake on a global scale, the cure was worse than the disease."
"I believe the harm lockdown is doing to our education, health care access, and broader aspects of our economy and society will turn out to be at least as great as the harm done by COVID-19.”
Mark Woolhouse, a scientist who advises the Government on infectious diseases. SAGE member.
I have some sympathy with that view
The health care access is a growing scandal of huge proportions imho.
Lockdownsceptics.com is now featuring summaries of the flood of emails they are getting of people who are being denied cancer treatment and so on, because most of the NHS seems to have shut down and is just running a skeleton telephone service.
Some of it sounds like rank professional negligence to me.
There are going to be some major and costly litigations imho, unless the NHS has some kind of catch all get out clause because of the emergency powers under covid.
US election betting... excluding people hoovering up 1.01 “day before” bets such as the vp nominee, I’m intrigued to know how much lolly all you betting experts put down on an event such as the next president market.
Do most here put down some drinking money as a bit of fun? Or aim to really move the dial by going big when you think you’re right?
Fine but France is the nation most visited by tourists in the world, the UK is only the 10th most visited nation (though London is the 3rd most visited city)
We had and arguably still have a bigger economy but they have Paris, the Alps for skiing, the south of France with better weather for their beaches as well as more countryside and still history like we have with their chateaux and museums
But they don’t have the Queen, so they can’t have more visitors, surely.
People go to the South of France for sunnier weathier, to the Alps for Skiing etc, none of which we have. There are not that many celebrities taking their yachts to the North Sea and English Channel compared to the Mediterranean
As I posted too more people go to London than to Paris, so if we did not have the Royal Family and royal weddings and jubilees etc centred on London we would have even fewer visitors relative to France
That makes no sense at all.
You do realise don't you that Versailles is not in Paris? So Versailles is regularly getting tourists precisely because France doesn't have a monarch clogging up the Palace and blocking it from access to tourists? But they don't appear in Paris's tourism figures precisely because its not in Paris. That undermines your argument and goes to why the whole of France gets more tourism than we do.
If we had no monarchy we could open up Windsor Castle, Buckingham Palace to tourism every day of the year just like Versailles gets.
Which do you think gets more annual visits by tourists - Versailles, Buckingham or Windsor? Its not even close.
Windsor is open all year round
But has restricted access when HMQ is there.
I’ve never noticed the restriction. Used to be there most weekends when I was younger
US election betting... excluding people hoovering up 1.01 “day before” bets such as the vp nominee, I’m intrigued to know how much lolly all you betting experts put down on an event such as the next president market.
Do most here put down some drinking money as a bit of fun? Or aim to really move the dial by going big when you think you’re right?
Drinking and curry money for me. Although I enjoy a good few curries in normal times, i doubt my bets will move the market.
"I believe history will say trying to control Covid-19 through lockdown was a monumental mistake on a global scale, the cure was worse than the disease."
"I believe the harm lockdown is doing to our education, health care access, and broader aspects of our economy and society will turn out to be at least as great as the harm done by COVID-19.”
Mark Woolhouse, a scientist who advises the Government on infectious diseases. SAGE member.
I have some sympathy with that view
I think at this point it’s self evident. Good that someone on the formal panel is now brave enough to say it.
If the virus had originated almost anywhere other than China things might’ve been different, as we’d have had more transparent data to work with. Instead all we had was what they chose to share, plus the leaks of total and utter chaos followed by the dystopian civil control measures.
That some people are still scared to leave the house when in most places there is no Covid at all right now speaks volumes. That our healthcare system has still not returned to full speed is totally perplexing and does rather put the weekly clapathon into sharp relief.
Good point. I bet people wouldn't be clapping so much if they knew what has happened to cancer treatment and assessment.
"I believe history will say trying to control Covid-19 through lockdown was a monumental mistake on a global scale, the cure was worse than the disease."
"I believe the harm lockdown is doing to our education, health care access, and broader aspects of our economy and society will turn out to be at least as great as the harm done by COVID-19.”
Mark Woolhouse, a scientist who advises the Government on infectious diseases. SAGE member.
I have some sympathy with that view
The health care access is a growing scandal of huge proportions imho.
Lockdownsceptics.com is now featuring summaries of the flood of emails they are getting of people who are being denied cancer treatment and so on, because most of the NHS seems to have shut down and is just running a skeleton telephone service.
Some of it sounds like rank professional negligence to me.
There are going to be some major and costly litigations imho, unless the NHS has some kind of catch all get out clause because of the emergency powers under covid.
I agree
I was referred for an urgent scan in early March for a possible bi lateral hernia and have not heard anything, do not expect to, and at my age doubt Wales NHS will repair it in time. !!!!!!
This is the second time I have had this problem and in normal times the last one took 65 weeks from diagnosis to repair
Quick update, we've redone our numbers today based on new indicators, I can quite confidently say that the UK economy will lose 4% over the year assuming no second wave. If there is a widespread vaccine before the end of the year then it becomes 2%, if there is a mild second wave then 6%, a severe second shock scenario puts is at -10%.
I've tasked the team with replicating the exercise for the main for European economies (Germany, France, Italy and Spain) but we don't have as good realtime data from them so it could be a while because we'll need to find and subscribe to data providers for those countries to get a sense of what's going on there.
That is so much better than I was anticipating. If we achieve anything like that this will be no worse than a moderate recession. It will have come at a heavy price in terms of debt but wow.
Quick update, we've redone our numbers today based on new indicators, I can quite confidently say that the UK economy will lose 4% over the year assuming no second wave. If there is a widespread vaccine before the end of the year then it becomes 2%, if there is a mild second wave then 6%, a severe second shock scenario puts is at -10%.
I've tasked the team with replicating the exercise for the main for European economies (Germany, France, Italy and Spain) but we don't have as good realtime data from them so it could be a while because we'll need to find and subscribe to data providers for those countries to get a sense of what's going on there.
Okay, so let me get this straight because people throw percentages around and use them to make a political point (which I'm sure you aren't).
If GDP was 100 at the end of Q1, it fell to 79.6 by the end of Q2 but has recovered to 92 by the end of this month and your forecast is 96 by the end of the year (financial or calendar?).
Presumably, there would have been small growth so would GDP have been 101 or 102 without Covid?
The range of year end numbers would be 90 with a severe second wave and 98 with a widely available vaccine.
Historically, that's a large single year drop though both in the 1970s and around the time of the GFC we had two or three years of negative growth which would have accumulated a 4% drop.
Presumably you see a return to some form of growth in 2021 but will it be, as we saw immediately before Covid, very low growth or something different?
"I believe history will say trying to control Covid-19 through lockdown was a monumental mistake on a global scale, the cure was worse than the disease."
"I believe the harm lockdown is doing to our education, health care access, and broader aspects of our economy and society will turn out to be at least as great as the harm done by COVID-19.”
Mark Woolhouse, a scientist who advises the Government on infectious diseases. SAGE member.
I have some sympathy with that view
I'm absolutely certain that the effects of lockdown will cause more damage than the disease itself. Indeed, given that Covid-19 is overwhelmingly a disease of the elderly, in terms of the QALY measurement the virus won't be anywhere close to the lockdown in terms of the number of years of life that it will end up destroying.
The only question then left is whether anything other than the measures that were actually deployed between March and the present would've resulted in a preferable outcome, and that's hard to answer. One could plausibly argue that we would've done substantially better if we had made a better fist of segmenting the population (rings of biosecurity around care homes, shielding for everybody over 60 as well as the medically highly vulnerable, life as normal for everyone else.) But there will always be arguments as to how achievable that approach would've been, especially with very little time to prepare, and whether substantial chunks of the relatively young and healthy population would've been terrified into staying at home too in any event.
Certainly if there's a repetition - God forbid - of something like Covid again in our lifetimes, then there will be a desperate drive to understand who it affects and how it is transmitted as quickly as possible, and then to make educated guesses about the best targeted measures that might help to deal with it. Unless it is both hugely infectious and very lethal then there will be no desire to repeat the blanket lockdown experiment. If the medics had been able to get a grasp of the characteristics of Covid before widespread community transmission took hold, then I'm quite sure we wouldn't have handled it the way that we did.
The problem is, of course, that lockdowns happen from a "de facto" point of view, whatever the government says. Swedes spending fell just as fast as in other countries, because people stayed home. They just weren't ordered to.
"I believe history will say trying to control Covid-19 through lockdown was a monumental mistake on a global scale, the cure was worse than the disease."
"I believe the harm lockdown is doing to our education, health care access, and broader aspects of our economy and society will turn out to be at least as great as the harm done by COVID-19.”
Mark Woolhouse, a scientist who advises the Government on infectious diseases. SAGE member.
Well, we can always compare with the places like Brazil that didn't lockdown. Ignoring reality is not a cost free option.
"I believe history will say trying to control Covid-19 through lockdown was a monumental mistake on a global scale, the cure was worse than the disease."
"I believe the harm lockdown is doing to our education, health care access, and broader aspects of our economy and society will turn out to be at least as great as the harm done by COVID-19.”
Mark Woolhouse, a scientist who advises the Government on infectious diseases. SAGE member.
I have some sympathy with that view
I think at this point it’s self evident. Good that someone on the formal panel is now brave enough to say it.
If the virus had originated almost anywhere other than China things might’ve been different, as we’d have had more transparent data to work with. Instead all we had was what they chose to share, plus the leaks of total and utter chaos followed by the dystopian civil control measures.
That some people are still scared to leave the house when in most places there is no Covid at all right now speaks volumes. That our healthcare system has still not returned to full speed is totally perplexing and does rather put the weekly clapathon into sharp relief.
Good point. I bet people wouldn't be clapping so much if they knew what has happened to cancer treatment and assessment.
Cancer is the obvious headliner and what’s happening there is very sad. I’m sure many of us can point to someone we know who has received sub optimal care for cancer since March that might end up costing them valuable time. And that’s without missed diagnosis that we aren’t yet seeing.
But what of non life threatening but still potentially very damaging effects? Delayed hearing tests for toddlers for example. Eye pressure tests. And mental health of course...
I'm trying to figure out how school re-opening will go "badly", are people suggesting they don't open at all?
For a certain fraction of the population, the answer to that is "yes." It might not be practical or desirable for the entire population to barricade themselves in their homes until someone cracks the vaccine problem, but some people are extremely afraid and/or risk averse. Exhibit A:
I'm trying to figure out how school re-opening will go "badly", are people suggesting they don't open at all?
A few dead teachers would be an indicator of 'badly'.
Exhibit B: 17 infected teachers at a school in Dundee.
Let's hope that they all recover.
We've had infected people all over the place from the early stages of this thing. Including key workers without whom huge chunks of the population could not have sat at home for months whilst relying on others to keep the power and water on and deliver regular online grocery deliveries, amongst other things.
The kids have got to go back to school some time. If the schools open then, so long as the disease hasn't been completely eradicated, some of the kids and some of the teachers are going to end up getting it. That's not a good argument for all the kids and all the teachers rotting at home in self-isolation for years.
When the overall damage caused to the whole population of schoolchildren of not being educated properly (to say nothing of the many children who are trapped in excruciatingly shit circumstances at home) exceeds that caused to a certain percentage of kids and teachers from catching the disease, then that is the moment to get everyone back to school. To put it even more bluntly, a certain number of teachers killed by Covid (and, especially if the oldest and sickest ones are allowed to continue working from home, that number should be very small) is a price worth paying to avoid crippling the lifetime prospects of a whole generation of children, through a combination of lost opportunities and economic devastation. Just in the same way as society tolerates a certain number of children being turned to strawberry jam on the roads every year as an acceptable price to pay for being able to keep using motorized transportation. We can mitigate risks but, as Chris Whitty has correctly said about Covid-19 in schools, we can't always eliminate them.
We simply don't all have the luxury of sitting at home shitting our pants until next year, or the one after, or the one after that whilst we wait for a cure. The hopelessly medically vulnerable might do it. The scared witless elderly might do it. Some people who can do 100% of their work from home and are terrified of contagion might also do it. But the rest of us (e.g. me, who has had zero option but to keep going out to work throughout this fucking mess) have to keep going to a greater or lesser extent, or civilization will collapse. That also goes for the teaching profession. It's as simple as that.
I'm sure many cancer patients have been done over by Covid. However, some anecdotals for you:
1. Member of my extended family got diagnosed with cancer a few months ago. The attention he's received from the NHS seems pretty good, a relatively swift diagnosis and now receiving chemo.
2. Close family member receiving aftercare following an operation last year; blood tests, pharmacy appointments all done fine (in empty hospitals). Appointments with consultants over phone. Pretty good, thanking our lucky stars the main treatment didn't coincide with covid.
I guess experience may vary depending on trust and specifics.
I'm trying to figure out how school re-opening will go "badly", are people suggesting they don't open at all?
For a certain fraction of the population, the answer to that is "yes." It might not be practical or desirable for the entire population to barricade themselves in their homes until someone cracks the vaccine problem, but some people are extremely afraid and/or risk averse. Exhibit A:
I'm trying to figure out how school re-opening will go "badly", are people suggesting they don't open at all?
A few dead teachers would be an indicator of 'badly'.
Exhibit B: 17 infected teachers at a school in Dundee.
Let's hope that they all recover.
We've had infected people all over the place from the early stages of this thing. Including key workers without whom huge chunks of the population could not have sat at home for months whilst relying on others to keep the power and water on and deliver regular online grocery deliveries, amongst other things.
The kids have got to go back to school some time. If the schools open then, so long as the disease hasn't been completely eradicated, some of the kids and some of the teachers are going to end up getting it. That's not a good argument for all the kids and all the teachers rotting at home in self-isolation for years.
When the overall damage caused to the whole population of schoolchildren of not being educated properly (to say nothing of the many children who are trapped in excruciatingly shit circumstances at home) exceeds that caused to a certain percentage of kids and teachers from catching the disease, then that is the moment to get everyone back to school. To put it even more bluntly, a certain number of teachers killed by Covid (and, especially if the oldest and sickest ones are allowed to continue working from home, that number should be very small) is a price worth paying to avoid crippling the lifetime prospects of a whole generation of children, through a combination of lost opportunities and economic devastation. Just in the same way as society tolerates a certain number of children being turned to strawberry jam on the roads every year as an acceptable price to pay for being able to keep using motorized transportation. We can mitigate risks but, as Chris Whitty has correctly said about Covid-19 in schools, we can't always eliminate them.
We simply don't all have the luxury of sitting at home shitting our pants until next year, or the one after, or the one after that whilst we wait for a cure. The hopelessly medically vulnerable might do it. The scared witless elderly might do it. Some people who can do 100% of their work from home and are terrified of contagion might also do it. But the rest of us (e.g. me, who has had zero option but to keep going out to work throughout this fucking mess) have to keep going to a greater or lesser extent, or civilization will collapse. That also goes for the teaching profession. It's as simple as that.
It’s notable that it is 17 staff and only 2 children affected in that outbreak. It seems extremely likely that some of the staff got infected on holiday and returned to work with it, quite possibly symptomless. The children at that school have severe additional needs and many would be very vulnerable to any breathing related issue. For the parents it will be an absolute nightmare. These children require around the clock care and “school” is respite as much as anything else. After months of coping on their own the parents will be devastated that the school has closed.
"I believe history will say trying to control Covid-19 through lockdown was a monumental mistake on a global scale, the cure was worse than the disease."
"I believe the harm lockdown is doing to our education, health care access, and broader aspects of our economy and society will turn out to be at least as great as the harm done by COVID-19.”
Mark Woolhouse, a scientist who advises the Government on infectious diseases. SAGE member.
I have some sympathy with that view
I think at this point it’s self evident. Good that someone on the formal panel is now brave enough to say it.
If the virus had originated almost anywhere other than China things might’ve been different, as we’d have had more transparent data to work with. Instead all we had was what they chose to share, plus the leaks of total and utter chaos followed by the dystopian civil control measures.
That some people are still scared to leave the house when in most places there is no Covid at all right now speaks volumes. That our healthcare system has still not returned to full speed is totally perplexing and does rather put the weekly clapathon into sharp relief.
Good point. I bet people wouldn't be clapping so much if they knew what has happened to cancer treatment and assessment.
I fear that there is going to be hundreds of cancers found at stages 3 or 4, and many will prove inoperable.
I'm trying to figure out how school re-opening will go "badly", are people suggesting they don't open at all?
For a certain fraction of the population, the answer to that is "yes." It might not be practical or desirable for the entire population to barricade themselves in their homes until someone cracks the vaccine problem, but some people are extremely afraid and/or risk averse. Exhibit A:
I'm trying to figure out how school re-opening will go "badly", are people suggesting they don't open at all?
A few dead teachers would be an indicator of 'badly'.
Exhibit B: 17 infected teachers at a school in Dundee.
Let's hope that they all recover.
We've had infected people all over the place from the early stages of this thing. Including key workers without whom huge chunks of the population could not have sat at home for months whilst relying on others to keep the power and water on and deliver regular online grocery deliveries, amongst other things.
The kids have got to go back to school some time. If the schools open then, so long as the disease hasn't been completely eradicated, some of the kids and some of the teachers are going to end up getting it. That's not a good argument for all the kids and all the teachers rotting at home in self-isolation for years.
When the overall damage caused to the whole population of schoolchildren of not being educated properly (to say nothing of the many children who are trapped in excruciatingly shit circumstances at home) exceeds that caused to a certain percentage of kids and teachers from catching the disease, then that is the moment to get everyone back to school. To put it even more bluntly, a certain number of teachers killed by Covid (and, especially if the oldest and sickest ones are allowed to continue working from home, that number should be very small) is a price worth paying to avoid crippling the lifetime prospects of a whole generation of children, through a combination of lost opportunities and economic devastation. Just in the same way as society tolerates a certain number of children being turned to strawberry jam on the roads every year as an acceptable price to pay for being able to keep using motorized transportation. We can mitigate risks but, as Chris Whitty has correctly said about Covid-19 in schools, we can't always eliminate them.
We simply don't all have the luxury of sitting at home shitting our pants until next year, or the one after, or the one after that whilst we wait for a cure. The hopelessly medically vulnerable might do it. The scared witless elderly might do it. Some people who can do 100% of their work from home and are terrified of contagion might also do it. But the rest of us (e.g. me, who has had zero option but to keep going out to work throughout this fucking mess) have to keep going to a greater or lesser extent, or civilization will collapse. That also goes for the teaching profession. It's as simple as that.
Societies did not fully collapse during pandemics which eradicated a quarter or more of the population (although it probably got pretty close), we cannot very well permanently collapse entire segments of ours for one which fortunately is far less vicious (and that in no way undermines how serious an event it has all been or the need for serious counter measures and mitigations). We will see rises, and we will see deaths. As an individual I often find myself paralysed with indecision due to overfocus on risks, but society simply cannot bear that overall.
"I believe history will say trying to control Covid-19 through lockdown was a monumental mistake on a global scale, the cure was worse than the disease."
"I believe the harm lockdown is doing to our education, health care access, and broader aspects of our economy and society will turn out to be at least as great as the harm done by COVID-19.”
Mark Woolhouse, a scientist who advises the Government on infectious diseases. SAGE member.
I have some sympathy with that view
I think at this point it’s self evident. Good that someone on the formal panel is now brave enough to say it.
If the virus had originated almost anywhere other than China things might’ve been different, as we’d have had more transparent data to work with. Instead all we had was what they chose to share, plus the leaks of total and utter chaos followed by the dystopian civil control measures.
That some people are still scared to leave the house when in most places there is no Covid at all right now speaks volumes. That our healthcare system has still not returned to full speed is totally perplexing and does rather put the weekly clapathon into sharp relief.
Good point. I bet people wouldn't be clapping so much if they knew what has happened to cancer treatment and assessment.
I fear that there is going to be hundreds of cancers found at stages 3 or 4, and many will prove inoperable.
There was such a mass panic at the start of all of this - and so many infectious and very sick Covid patients to cope with, along with a patchy knowledge of the disease - that it's entirely understandable that the healthcare system struggled to cope.
However, as things currently stand the rate of Covid-19 hospitalisation for the UK population stands at about 12 per million, or about 1 per million for those being mechanically ventilated. I would therefore be fascinated to know whether or not the NHS has recovered even to the point of being able to deliver a service comparable to pre-pandemic levels, never mind beginning to make a dent in the colossal waiting lists that will have built up in the meantime. And if not, (a) why not? and (b) what's being done to address the problems?
I'm sure many cancer patients have been done over by Covid. However, some anecdotals for you:
1. Member of my extended family got diagnosed with cancer a few months ago. The attention he's received from the NHS seems pretty good, a relatively swift diagnosis and now receiving chemo.
2. Close family member receiving aftercare following an operation last year; blood tests, pharmacy appointments all done fine (in empty hospitals). Appointments with consultants over phone. Pretty good, thanking our lucky stars the main treatment didn't coincide with covid.
I guess experience may vary depending on trust and specifics.
I think it's a complete lottery and depends, as you say, on location and nature of condition. My severely asthmatic husband has had dealings with the local GP and Addenbrooke's Hospital over the course of this shitshow and his experiences have generally speaking been good. OTOH, we have also heard from people on here who have been unable to see a GP at all because they've simply packed the surgery up and all gone home, and horror stories in the media of existing cancer patients who have had their treatment halted and effectively been abandoned to die, amongst other things.
Luck is going to play a bigger role than usual in the fates of many people who have fallen ill with all sorts of conditions other than Covid during the past six months, and many of them won't have had any.
"I believe history will say trying to control Covid-19 through lockdown was a monumental mistake on a global scale, the cure was worse than the disease."
"I believe the harm lockdown is doing to our education, health care access, and broader aspects of our economy and society will turn out to be at least as great as the harm done by COVID-19.”
Mark Woolhouse, a scientist who advises the Government on infectious diseases. SAGE member.
I have some sympathy with that view
I'm absolutely certain that the effects of lockdown will cause more damage than the disease itself. Indeed, given that Covid-19 is overwhelmingly a disease of the elderly, in terms of the QALY measurement the virus won't be anywhere close to the lockdown in terms of the number of years of life that it will end up destroying.
The only question then left is whether anything other than the measures that were actually deployed between March and the present would've resulted in a preferable outcome, and that's hard to answer. One could plausibly argue that we would've done substantially better if we had made a better fist of segmenting the population (rings of biosecurity around care homes, shielding for everybody over 60 as well as the medically highly vulnerable, life as normal for everyone else.) But there will always be arguments as to how achievable that approach would've been, especially with very little time to prepare, and whether substantial chunks of the relatively young and healthy population would've been terrified into staying at home too in any event.
Certainly if there's a repetition - God forbid - of something like Covid again in our lifetimes, then there will be a desperate drive to understand who it affects and how it is transmitted as quickly as possible, and then to make educated guesses about the best targeted measures that might help to deal with it. Unless it is both hugely infectious and very lethal then there will be no desire to repeat the blanket lockdown experiment. If the medics had been able to get a grasp of the characteristics of Covid before widespread community transmission took hold, then I'm quite sure we wouldn't have handled it the way that we did.
The problem is, of course, that lockdowns happen from a "de facto" point of view, whatever the government says. Swedes spending fell just as fast as in other countries, because people stayed home. They just weren't ordered to.
Largely because of the fearfulness drummed up by governments worldwide. I suspect Black Rock is right: did we know in March what we know now, the messaging would have been different.
Quick update, we've redone our numbers today based on new indicators, I can quite confidently say that the UK economy will lose 4% over the year assuming no second wave. If there is a widespread vaccine before the end of the year then it becomes 2%, if there is a mild second wave then 6%, a severe second shock scenario puts is at -10%.
I've tasked the team with replicating the exercise for the main for European economies (Germany, France, Italy and Spain) but we don't have as good realtime data from them so it could be a while because we'll need to find and subscribe to data providers for those countries to get a sense of what's going on there.
Okay, so let me get this straight because people throw percentages around and use them to make a political point (which I'm sure you aren't).
If GDP was 100 at the end of Q1, it fell to 79.6 by the end of Q2 but has recovered to 92 by the end of this month and your forecast is 96 by the end of the year (financial or calendar?).
Presumably, there would have been small growth so would GDP have been 101 or 102 without Covid?
The range of year end numbers would be 90 with a severe second wave and 98 with a widely available vaccine.
Historically, that's a large single year drop though both in the 1970s and around the time of the GFC we had two or three years of negative growth which would have accumulated a 4% drop.
Presumably you see a return to some form of growth in 2021 but will it be, as we saw immediately before Covid, very low growth or something different?
Yes, using February 2020 as 100 index. You're right, it will be a moderate recession we'd normally see take 3-5 quarters happen in just a few months. Compared against expected growth before the virus we'd be 6 points down, which is bad but not the disaster we've been hearing from forecasters. I think the BoE will update their economic forecast soon as well, there is just far too much data on the upside to continue with their current projections.
2021 is very difficult to get a fix on, I'm not confident in anything we've done so far.
It can now safely be said, as his first term in the White House draws toward closure, that Donald Trump’s party is the very definition of a cult of personality. It stands for no special ideal. It possesses no organizing principle. It represents no detailed vision for governing. Filling the vacuum is a lazy, identity-based populism that draws from that lowest common denominator Sanford alluded to. If it agitates the base, if it lights up a Fox News chyron, if it serves to alienate sturdy real Americans from delicate coastal elites, then it’s got a place in the Grand Old Party.
“Owning the libs and pissing off the media,” shrugs Brendan Buck, a longtime senior congressional aide and imperturbable party veteran if ever there was one. “That’s what we believe in now. There’s really not much more to it.”
This is exactly what I predicted would happen. Children go back to school. Children get colds and develop symptoms after a week of being back at school. Children get cough and temperature.
Of course they then get tested.
It's like the most obvious thing in the world that was going to happen.
This is exactly what I predicted would happen. Children go back to school. Children get colds and develop symptoms after a week of being back at school. Children get cough and temperature.
Of course they then get tested.
It's like the most obvious thing in the world that was going to happen.
Was the Scottish government prepared? Don't they have the capacity for 40,000 tests/day?
Comments
If the virus had originated almost anywhere other than China things might’ve been different, as we’d have had more transparent data to work with. Instead all we had was what they chose to share, plus the leaks of total and utter chaos followed by the dystopian civil control measures.
That some people are still scared to leave the house when in most places there is no Covid at all right now speaks volumes. That our healthcare system has still not returned to full speed is totally perplexing and does rather put the weekly clapathon into sharp relief.
Lockdownsceptics.com is now featuring summaries of the flood of emails they are getting of people who are being denied cancer treatment and so on, because most of the NHS seems to have shut down and is just running a skeleton telephone service.
Some of it sounds like rank professional negligence to me.
There are going to be some major and costly litigations imho, unless the NHS has some kind of catch all get out clause because of the emergency powers under covid.
Do most here put down some drinking money as a bit of fun? Or aim to really move the dial by going big when you think you’re right?
I was referred for an urgent scan in early March for a possible bi lateral hernia and have not heard anything, do not expect to, and at my age doubt Wales NHS will repair it in time. !!!!!!
This is the second time I have had this problem and in normal times the last one took 65 weeks from diagnosis to repair
Good job I am used to living with the pain
If GDP was 100 at the end of Q1, it fell to 79.6 by the end of Q2 but has recovered to 92 by the end of this month and your forecast is 96 by the end of the year (financial or calendar?).
Presumably, there would have been small growth so would GDP have been 101 or 102 without Covid?
The range of year end numbers would be 90 with a severe second wave and 98 with a widely available vaccine.
Historically, that's a large single year drop though both in the 1970s and around the time of the GFC we had two or three years of negative growth which would have accumulated a 4% drop.
Presumably you see a return to some form of growth in 2021 but will it be, as we saw immediately before Covid, very low growth or something different?
But what of non life threatening but still potentially very damaging effects? Delayed hearing tests for toddlers for example. Eye pressure tests. And mental health of course...
https://twitter.com/thehorseman_99/status/1297951899170242560?s=21
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2020/aug/24/the-unbelievable-story-of-carl-beech-review-the-paedophile-ring-that-wasnt
The kids have got to go back to school some time. If the schools open then, so long as the disease hasn't been completely eradicated, some of the kids and some of the teachers are going to end up getting it. That's not a good argument for all the kids and all the teachers rotting at home in self-isolation for years.
When the overall damage caused to the whole population of schoolchildren of not being educated properly (to say nothing of the many children who are trapped in excruciatingly shit circumstances at home) exceeds that caused to a certain percentage of kids and teachers from catching the disease, then that is the moment to get everyone back to school. To put it even more bluntly, a certain number of teachers killed by Covid (and, especially if the oldest and sickest ones are allowed to continue working from home, that number should be very small) is a price worth paying to avoid crippling the lifetime prospects of a whole generation of children, through a combination of lost opportunities and economic devastation. Just in the same way as society tolerates a certain number of children being turned to strawberry jam on the roads every year as an acceptable price to pay for being able to keep using motorized transportation. We can mitigate risks but, as Chris Whitty has correctly said about Covid-19 in schools, we can't always eliminate them.
We simply don't all have the luxury of sitting at home shitting our pants until next year, or the one after, or the one after that whilst we wait for a cure. The hopelessly medically vulnerable might do it. The scared witless elderly might do it. Some people who can do 100% of their work from home and are terrified of contagion might also do it. But the rest of us (e.g. me, who has had zero option but to keep going out to work throughout this fucking mess) have to keep going to a greater or lesser extent, or civilization will collapse. That also goes for the teaching profession. It's as simple as that.
1. Member of my extended family got diagnosed with cancer a few months ago. The attention he's received from the NHS seems pretty good, a relatively swift diagnosis and now receiving chemo.
2. Close family member receiving aftercare following an operation last year; blood tests, pharmacy appointments all done fine (in empty hospitals). Appointments with consultants over phone. Pretty good, thanking our lucky stars the main treatment didn't coincide with covid.
I guess experience may vary depending on trust and specifics.
The children at that school have severe additional needs and many would be very vulnerable to any breathing related issue. For the parents it will be an absolute nightmare. These children require around the clock care and “school” is respite as much as anything else. After months of coping on their own the parents will be devastated that the school has closed.
However, as things currently stand the rate of Covid-19 hospitalisation for the UK population stands at about 12 per million, or about 1 per million for those being mechanically ventilated. I would therefore be fascinated to know whether or not the NHS has recovered even to the point of being able to deliver a service comparable to pre-pandemic levels, never mind beginning to make a dent in the colossal waiting lists that will have built up in the meantime. And if not, (a) why not? and (b) what's being done to address the problems?
I really don't care
Luck is going to play a bigger role than usual in the fates of many people who have fallen ill with all sorts of conditions other than Covid during the past six months, and many of them won't have had any.
Protect the elderly and infirm. Save lives.
Etc.
2021 is very difficult to get a fix on, I'm not confident in anything we've done so far.
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1298023736512307201?s=20
“Owning the libs and pissing off the media,” shrugs Brendan Buck, a longtime senior congressional aide and imperturbable party veteran if ever there was one. “That’s what we believe in now. There’s really not much more to it.”
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/08/24/republicanmeltdown-trump-convention-400039?fbclid=IwAR0brr7MJFuti2nk0EBTWXjy74Jwnnx6MWcxeBm8FLpm26u9Nc1amiXbenc
Of course they then get tested.
It's like the most obvious thing in the world that was going to happen.