Given how dire the warnings from the egg heads yesterday, i can't imagine they are really on board with all we need to do for 6 months is shut the pub earlier and ask for continued WFH.
I think they are hoping that like in early March people go much into a de facto lockdown.
I reckon your father's source from last night was nearer the truth. This is a last throw of the dice by HMG, to try and keep the economy going, and relying - as you say - on human fear and caution to do the work of distancing.
However, they don't really expect it to work, and in a few weeks we will get proper Lockdown the Second
I suspect most people will try and reduce their ability to catch the plague.
The unknown is the return of universities, does anyone know how many students live at home when they go to university?
That could be the difference between a light touch and lockdown 2?
This is not far from me. Headingley has been noticeably busier with students over the weekend.
France’s “temporary unemployment” scheme to avert mass bankruptcies and lay-offs as a result of the coronavirus crisis will be extended, and is now expected to last up to two years, the country’s labour minister said. .................... Muriel Pénicaud, the labour minister, said that at the end of April some 8.6m employees were benefiting from the French scheme, under which the state pays subsidies to companies to fund the salaries of those prevented from working.
“We are going to put in place a long-term partial-activity scheme,” Ms Pénicaud told Franceinfo radio, “through which employees could have fewer working hours and be partly supported by the state.” The scheme “is likely to last a year or two,” she added. .........................
Ms Pénicaud did not say what share of wages the French government would continue to pay — currently 84-100 per cent of net salary for the lower paid — but that this was under discussion with employers and trade unions. She also said the government would make 50,000 inspections before the end of the summer to detect and punish fraudulent use of the scheme. .............
“I think it makes sense even if the fiscal cost is going to be huge,” said Gilles Moec, Axa chief economist. .........................“
The fact Cummings beat you in the Referendum is the running sore you can't get over.
“Yes, we’re hiding in the cellar of our bombed-out house, eating rats to survive, and there's a battalion of Russians at the other end of the street, but how about the way the Fuhrer stuck it to the French back in 1940 eh?”
More like you and Scott are like the Japanese soldiers still fighting WWII long after the war had finished.
Scott in particular will be like Hiroo Onoda, years from now he will be rocking back and forth saying "but Dominic Cummings" again and again.
Yes, listen to all those rozzers who had deal with plebs dealing with other lockdown bandits, they had to listen to people using the Cummings defence.
And how did that go for them?
I mean, if people want to disregard the rules and risk catching a potentially fatal disease because Dominic Cumming can be as stupid at some times as he is clever at others I am very tempted to encourage them to go ahead. After all, what's the worst that could happen?
The point is more the impact on that group of people - and it will be quite a large group - who on the whole were following the rules despite feeling there was little personal risk to them in not doing so, on the grounds of "rules are rules" and some innate level of respect for the PM and the government communicating them.
Seeing Cummings, whilst knowingly infected and with the epidemic raging, brazenly break the rules that had only just been minted by a group of people including him, followed not only by no apology from him or from Johnson, but from the latter by a comment verging on praise - "He did what he thought in the best interests of himself and his family and I will not mark him down for that" - this would have caused them, quite reasonably, to relax their own compliance. That would have cost lives and thus is not a trivial matter.
Reading LadyG's posts about "Oh, can't we just get it over with, let other people die, I just want it to be back to normal" - I don't think they've thought about the arithmetic.
I agree with your point, but I don't think it's a matter of arithmetic for certain people. Those who are fundamentally selfish don't care how many die or suffer as long as they think this won't include them. And they are precisely the reason that The Swedish Model would not work for us...
--AS
I have thought about the arithmetic. I have thought about the arithmetic of an extended lockdown - quasi or severe - for six months. I have thought about the people who will die of undiagnosed cancers, the millions with intensified mental health problems, the huge uptick in suicides, the addicts and drunks who will relapse from despair, the centres of our cities hollowed out for good.
I have thought about all this and I am unpersuaded that a second lockdown will, on balance, be a benefit to the nation.
I really don't see why this is complex.
You implement a consistent set of measures that minimise R, without shutting down economic activity:
- no nightclubs, karaoke, rock concerts, etc. Restrictions on the maximum number of people in pubs. - proper quarantine procedures for people coming from overseas - you continue to encourage working from home - compulsory masks in places like public transport
Plus, you ramp up rapid testing for things like schools, so that flare ups can be shut down quickly.
Now, it means that Christmas parties are going to be more sedate this year. But it means they still happen. Most people are able to go about their lives with minimal disruption.
It doesn't get rid of CV19, but it manages it until a vaccine exists.
And there are those who insist on trying to invent a "tough choice" that they would make: economy or public health.
It doesn't matter how much evidence there is that they're linked, that it's not "either or" but "both or nothing," they'll insist on saying, "Well, I'd sacrifice public health for the economy, because it would be better in the long term."
No it wouldn't. Sacrifice public health and you ALSO sacrifice the economy. Preserve one, and you preserve the other.
And "let it rip" literally MEANS the worst of a "quasi lockdown" for longer than six months (or as long as it takes to get to a virus.
@LadyG : how many infections per day do you think we should sustain? Divide 40 million by that number to get the number of days we'd be going through it.
For every ten thousand infections per day you accept, put in 250 hospitalisations per day and 40 deaths per day. (So 50,000 is 1250 hospitalisations per day and 200 deaths per day, for example).
Don't just say "I've done the arithmetic." Actually do the arithmetic. Give us your result - in numbers: Total length of time taken, number of hospitalisations per day, number of deaths per day.
There's a much easier way to crunch the numbers than that. Look at Sweden.
Their fall in GDP has been much less than ours - or France, Spain, Italy, etc. Because their lockdown was much less intense. Schools stayed open (allowing parents to work), restaurants also carried on, and so forth. Economic activity was reduced, but it wasn't decimated.
As a result we should now expect to see a huge surge as Sweden endures a second wave, right? As they have been more lax, and are not reimposing restrictions.
As their epidemiologist predicted, cases are bubbling along at about the same rate - way down on the peak. Deaths are minimal. Their health service is not swamped. Life goes on.
As nar as we can tell, Sweden has cracked it. It really is as simple as that. They said you just have to live with this virus, and that is what they are doing.
AND WE'RE SHIFTING TO DOING WHAT SWEDEN IS DOING!
Jesus Christ, don't people actually understand what they're suggesting?
Tegnell's recipe is: Find a level of restrictions that works to bring down the virus and stick with it for the long term.
It costs you early on in extra deaths because you take longer to bring them down (compare with their neighbours - ten times greater) and even a worse economic hit than otherwise (again, compare with their neighbours - theirs is worse), but the idea is people will stick to them in the longer term.
Sweden hasn't got herd immunity. They've got long-term restrictions at the level that's working for them.
We've just announced these restrictions for six months. We're hoping these are the minimum acceptable to bring the level down.
WE'RE FOLLOWING SWEDEN'S PLAN NOW!
It's not "something something less restrictions and then it all somehow works."
It's not "They've got to herd immunity somehow"
To get to herd immunity, you have to feed your population through the infection. That's where the arithmetic comes in. The arithmetic you refuse to do when you bleat on about trying to "get it over with."
Sweden hasn't "got it over with." Neither have we.
Weren't you once a journalist? If so, no wonder the media are so incompetent with anything relating to numbers or logic.
We move closer to Banana Republic status with every passing day - one law for powerful, another law for the rest of us. The army on streets whilst coppers watch everyone looking for any breach of the rules. Meanwhile freedoms continue to be tossed out the window with no democratic oversight from elected representatives and there is the Winter of Brexit for no one to discuss because no one in govt wants to....
New PB rule, anyone who posts a Karol Sikora tweet on PB to support their argument is likely to be mocked mercilessly
Thing is, when the counterargument was Piers Morgan and much of the internet advocating people be sealed in their homes indefinitely, Sikora seemed reasonable as a voice of no panic.
That sheen wore off pretty quickly when it became clear that he didn't have a clue what he was on about. It didn't stop the daytime TV shows from continuing to book him for months though.
The media come out of this year worse than just about anyone else.
They’re the one group whose behaviour comes across as actively malicious in dealing with the pandemic.
I agree. It's pretty obvious that they're the ones seeding some of the confusion we see.
The cycle usually goes:
1. PM/Minister's press briefing/statement to Parliament with a simple change to the regulations e.g rule of six 2. The media immediately talk about "confusing new regulations" straight after said statement/press briefing ends, purely because it's not all or nothing 3. The media then speak to members of the public 4. The members of the public (who have watched the coverage including the media talking about how confusing it all is) complain about "how confusing all this is" 5. The media uses this as validation that the PM/Minister's announcement is unworkable and full of holes
Cycle repeats after each announcement.
Not to mention the constant requirement to have people disagreeing with each other, and undue prominence given to fringe views and dubious experts, and asking utterly inane questions of politicians and government scientists.
What’s wrong with getting Andrew Neil or Stephen Sackur to interview Chris Whitty about his work for half an hour?
The media has collectively failed to understand their role in a pandemic isn’t simply to treat as as any other story, but understand that people are relying on them for accurate information and in a situation where thousands of people are dying.
Government need to get public information ad campaigns up and running, making it clear how they are expecting people to behave.
Yes, listen to all those rozzers who had deal with plebs dealing with other lockdown bandits, they had to listen to people using the Cummings defence.
And how did that go for them?
I mean, if people want to disregard the rules and risk catching a potentially fatal disease because Dominic Cumming can be as stupid at some times as he is clever at others I am very tempted to encourage them to go ahead. After all, what's the worst that could happen?
The point is more the impact on that group of people - and it will be quite a large group - who on the whole were following the rules despite feeling there was little personal risk to them in not doing so, on the grounds of "rules are rules" and some innate level of respect for the PM and the government communicating them.
Seeing Cummings, whilst knowingly infected and with the epidemic raging, brazenly break the rules that had only just been minted by a group of people including him, followed not only by no apology from him or from Johnson, but from the latter by a comment verging on praise - "He did what he thought in the best interests of himself and his family and I will not mark him down for that" - this would have caused them, quite reasonably, to relax their own compliance. That would have cost lives and thus is not a trivial matter.
'Would have cost lives'? Except it didn't, because the lockdown worked perfectly and cases dropped in a straight line even after all the confected press furore. I've still got all of Malmesbury's charts that show it had no effect whatsoever on the efficacy of the lockdown.
Feel free to quote some hard infection data to contradict me - you won't find any.
Reading LadyG's posts about "Oh, can't we just get it over with, let other people die, I just want it to be back to normal" - I don't think they've thought about the arithmetic.
I agree with your point, but I don't think it's a matter of arithmetic for certain people. Those who are fundamentally selfish don't care how many die or suffer as long as they think this won't include them. And they are precisely the reason that The Swedish Model would not work for us...
--AS
I have thought about the arithmetic. I have thought about the arithmetic of an extended lockdown - quasi or severe - for six months. I have thought about the people who will die of undiagnosed cancers, the millions with intensified mental health problems, the huge uptick in suicides, the addicts and drunks who will relapse from despair, the centres of our cities hollowed out for good.
I have thought about all this and I am unpersuaded that a second lockdown will, on balance, be a benefit to the nation.
I really don't see why this is complex.
You implement a consistent set of measures that minimise R, without shutting down economic activity:
- no nightclubs, karaoke, rock concerts, etc. Restrictions on the maximum number of people in pubs. - proper quarantine procedures for people coming from overseas - you continue to encourage working from home - compulsory masks in places like public transport
Plus, you ramp up rapid testing for things like schools, so that flare ups can be shut down quickly.
Now, it means that Christmas parties are going to be more sedate this year. But it means they still happen. Most people are able to go about their lives with minimal disruption.
It doesn't get rid of CV19, but it manages it until a vaccine exists.
And there are those who insist on trying to invent a "tough choice" that they would make: economy or public health.
It doesn't matter how much evidence there is that they're linked, that it's not "either or" but "both or nothing," they'll insist on saying, "Well, I'd sacrifice public health for the economy, because it would be better in the long term."
No it wouldn't. Sacrifice public health and you ALSO sacrifice the economy. Preserve one, and you preserve the other.
And "let it rip" literally MEANS the worst of a "quasi lockdown" for longer than six months (or as long as it takes to get to a virus.
@LadyG : how many infections per day do you think we should sustain? Divide 40 million by that number to get the number of days we'd be going through it.
For every ten thousand infections per day you accept, put in 250 hospitalisations per day and 40 deaths per day. (So 50,000 is 1250 hospitalisations per day and 200 deaths per day, for example).
Don't just say "I've done the arithmetic." Actually do the arithmetic. Give us your result - in numbers: Total length of time taken, number of hospitalisations per day, number of deaths per day.
There's a much easier way to crunch the numbers than that. Look at Sweden.
Their fall in GDP has been much less than ours - or France, Spain, Italy, etc. Because their lockdown was much less intense. Schools stayed open (allowing parents to work), restaurants also carried on, and so forth. Economic activity was reduced, but it wasn't decimated.
As a result we should now expect to see a huge surge as Sweden endures a second wave, right? As they have been more lax, and are not reimposing restrictions.
As their epidemiologist predicted, cases are bubbling along at about the same rate - way down on the peak. Deaths are minimal. Their health service is not swamped. Life goes on.
As nar as we can tell, Sweden has cracked it. It really is as simple as that. They said you just have to live with this virus, and that is what they are doing.
AND WE'RE SHIFTING TO DOING WHAT SWEDEN IS DOING!
Jesus Christ, don't people actually understand what they're suggesting?
Tegnell's recipe is: Find a level of restrictions that works to bring down the virus and stick with it for the long term.
It costs you early on in extra deaths because you take longer to bring them down (compare with their neighbours - ten times greater) and even a worse economic hit than otherwise (again, compare with their neighbours - theirs is worse), but the idea is people will stick to them in the longer term.
Sweden hasn't got herd immunity. They've got long-term restrictions at the level that's working for them.
We've just announced these restrictions for six months. We're hoping these are the minimum acceptable to bring the level down.
WE'RE FOLLOWING SWEDEN'S PLAN NOW!
It's not "something something less restrictions and then it all somehow works."
It's not "They've got to herd immunity somehow"
To get to herd immunity, you have to feed your population through the infection. That's where the arithmetic comes in. The arithmetic you refuse to do when you bleat on about trying to "get it over with."
Sweden hasn't "got it over with." Neither have we.
Weren't you once a journalist? If so, no wonder the media are so incompetent with anything relating to numbers or logic.
The government did a terrible job of preparing for a second wave over the summer. We got notice from US states like Georgia that the virus could easily flare up again. And we could have invested in large quantities of rapid testing equipment.
Yet we did not.
We were also aware that many countries - like India, Brazil and Mexico - were doing a terrible job of controlling infections. We knew that Spain was following policies (like opening nightclubs) that would potentially cause R to skyrocket.
Yet we did nothing to shut down travel from these places. We did nothing to test people on arrival. And we did nothing to properly quarantine people, instead relying on a bizarre "stay home for two weeks after travelling home by public transport."
Both these issues were particularly serious because they presaged the reopening of schools in September. There was always going to be the potential for a rush of cases as children infected each other (social distancing in the playground is no easy thing), so this was a crucial time to be prepared.
And we were not.
There has, in fairness, been a massive increase in testing capacity over the summer. There were 219k tests yesterday. No one else in Europe has increased testing capacity by anything like as much. Today they are talking about this doubling again by the end of October.
Travel, however, has been a mystery to me since February. Anyone travelling abroad should have been in mandatory quarantine away from their families on their return at their own cost for at least 10 days or two clear tests. Nothing else I can see would have reduced our R rate over the late summer by more.
But it's not just testing capacity, it's rapid testing that's needed - the ability to get a saliva sample and get a result in 15 minutes. Abbot produces one of these, and it's $5/test.
Imagine being able to test kids at the school gates every Monday morning. You'd find out who was infectious before they'd passed the disease on to 30 of their friends in the playground.
With rapid testing, you are able to isolate the infectious early. This is a disease where the fundamental problem is that you are most infectious in the week before you feel symptoms. Rapid testing means you identify people before they spread the disease.
If you checked 20 million people once a week, it would be $100m (before discounts) a week.
That's chump change.
Obviously the cost of administering the test, transmitting the results etc would be a multiple of that. And once a week risks someone being infectious for 6 days before they are caught. And what about the other 45m? And could they really scale that up to 20m tests a week? My understanding is that the technology to do that reliably doesn't yet exist and is still being developed.
It needs no machine. You take a nasal swab, fold the card around it, add the reagent (which any half skilled technician or nurse or science teacher can do). And it takes 15 minutes to get a response.
It's an antigen test, so it will miss some positive results.
The US has just ordered 150 million units.
IANAE but from what I have read antigen tests do not pick up people who are currently infectious, as opposed to those who have had it. Perhaps @Nigelb can comment.
The government did a terrible job of preparing for a second wave over the summer. We got notice from US states like Georgia that the virus could easily flare up again. And we could have invested in large quantities of rapid testing equipment.
Yet we did not.
We were also aware that many countries - like India, Brazil and Mexico - were doing a terrible job of controlling infections. We knew that Spain was following policies (like opening nightclubs) that would potentially cause R to skyrocket.
Yet we did nothing to shut down travel from these places. We did nothing to test people on arrival. And we did nothing to properly quarantine people, instead relying on a bizarre "stay home for two weeks after travelling home by public transport."
Both these issues were particularly serious because they presaged the reopening of schools in September. There was always going to be the potential for a rush of cases as children infected each other (social distancing in the playground is no easy thing), so this was a crucial time to be prepared.
And we were not.
There has, in fairness, been a massive increase in testing capacity over the summer. There were 219k tests yesterday. No one else in Europe has increased testing capacity by anything like as much. Today they are talking about this doubling again by the end of October.
Travel, however, has been a mystery to me since February. Anyone travelling abroad should have been in mandatory quarantine away from their families on their return at their own cost for at least 10 days or two clear tests. Nothing else I can see would have reduced our R rate over the late summer by more.
But it's not just testing capacity, it's rapid testing that's needed - the ability to get a saliva sample and get a result in 15 minutes. Abbot produces one of these, and it's $5/test.
Imagine being able to test kids at the school gates every Monday morning. You'd find out who was infectious before they'd passed the disease on to 30 of their friends in the playground.
With rapid testing, you are able to isolate the infectious early. This is a disease where the fundamental problem is that you are most infectious in the week before you feel symptoms. Rapid testing means you identify people before they spread the disease.
If you checked 20 million people once a week, it would be $100m (before discounts) a week.
That's chump change.
I don't know Abbott can provide anything like that volume ? The Harvard guy has a similar paper strip antigen test, royalty free, which would probably come in around half that price in mass volumes. He's been trying to get someone to pick it up for months.
A regional proof of concept trial could have been done for a few million.
They've been talking about it for a few months. If we'd placed an order early, manufacturing capacity would have been ramped up earlier.
So similarish story, then. Starting from here it will be months; ...We will ship tens of millions of tests in September and will ramp manufacturing to 50 million tests a month in October. Abbott is manufacturing the test at massive scale in two new U.S. facilities.
What is the preferred choice of browser for PB fans?
I mostly use Firefox but that's really because I like foxes - at my casual user level I find the differences from Chrome (which I used at work) and Edge (which I use when there's a Firefox problem) absolutely minimal. I know there are people who feel very keen on one and are utterly scornful of people who use others (especially Edge for some reason - because it's Microsoft?), but they're like wine snobs sneering at people who like a different drink.
Edge and Chrome now use the same engine (Chromium) so there really is no difference now beyond the look and feel.
Firefox and Safari do use different engines, which makes testing a pain. I still have to test on IE!
France’s “temporary unemployment” scheme to avert mass bankruptcies and lay-offs as a result of the coronavirus crisis will be extended, and is now expected to last up to two years, the country’s labour minister said. .................... Muriel Pénicaud, the labour minister, said that at the end of April some 8.6m employees were benefiting from the French scheme, under which the state pays subsidies to companies to fund the salaries of those prevented from working.
“We are going to put in place a long-term partial-activity scheme,” Ms Pénicaud told Franceinfo radio, “through which employees could have fewer working hours and be partly supported by the state.” The scheme “is likely to last a year or two,” she added. .........................
Ms Pénicaud did not say what share of wages the French government would continue to pay — currently 84-100 per cent of net salary for the lower paid — but that this was under discussion with employers and trade unions. She also said the government would make 50,000 inspections before the end of the summer to detect and punish fraudulent use of the scheme. .............
“I think it makes sense even if the fiscal cost is going to be huge,” said Gilles Moec, Axa chief economist. .........................“
Apparently the cut-off time in Wales and Northern Ireland is going to be 11pm, not 10pm.
This stuff is just pathetic signalling that devolved regions has some powers. It does nothing to really change public health outcomes.
When I was a student (in the North East) 60 years ago closing time was always 10pm. We just started earlier.
In normal times 10pm is starting time for students.
It seems to have slipped back over the years, doesn't it. We were always in the pub 7-ish, whereas my 'children' never stated before 8. Grandchildren seem/seemed to think 9 a good time to go out, IIRC, although they weren't/aren't in front of us!
Yes, listen to all those rozzers who had deal with plebs dealing with other lockdown bandits, they had to listen to people using the Cummings defence.
And how did that go for them?
I mean, if people want to disregard the rules and risk catching a potentially fatal disease because Dominic Cumming can be as stupid at some times as he is clever at others I am very tempted to encourage them to go ahead. After all, what's the worst that could happen?
The point is more the impact on that group of people - and it will be quite a large group - who on the whole were following the rules despite feeling there was little personal risk to them in not doing so, on the grounds of "rules are rules" and some innate level of respect for the PM and the government communicating them.
Seeing Cummings, whilst knowingly infected and with the epidemic raging, brazenly break the rules that had only just been minted by a group of people including him, followed not only by no apology from him or from Johnson, but from the latter by a comment verging on praise - "He did what he thought in the best interests of himself and his family and I will not mark him down for that" - this would have caused them, quite reasonably, to relax their own compliance. That would have cost lives and thus is not a trivial matter.
Quite so. What I find most baffling about the Cummings episode is why they just didn't take it on the chin - a political misjudgment. Imagine if he'd said, promptly: "I'm really sorry. I meant well, but I now recognise that it was an error of judgement that broke the spirit, if not the letter, of the government's guidance. Many apologies." He could have survived with this. Surely even the Cummings fans on here would agree that this would have been a better political strategy? Nobody would still be going on about it, I suspect.
That’s the same as happened when the terrorism alert went sky high a few years ago and they needed every armed policeman they could find. Use the soldiers in sentry positions and free up police for the exceptional task in hand.
The government did a terrible job of preparing for a second wave over the summer. We got notice from US states like Georgia that the virus could easily flare up again. And we could have invested in large quantities of rapid testing equipment.
Yet we did not.
We were also aware that many countries - like India, Brazil and Mexico - were doing a terrible job of controlling infections. We knew that Spain was following policies (like opening nightclubs) that would potentially cause R to skyrocket.
Yet we did nothing to shut down travel from these places. We did nothing to test people on arrival. And we did nothing to properly quarantine people, instead relying on a bizarre "stay home for two weeks after travelling home by public transport."
Both these issues were particularly serious because they presaged the reopening of schools in September. There was always going to be the potential for a rush of cases as children infected each other (social distancing in the playground is no easy thing), so this was a crucial time to be prepared.
And we were not.
There has, in fairness, been a massive increase in testing capacity over the summer. There were 219k tests yesterday. No one else in Europe has increased testing capacity by anything like as much. Today they are talking about this doubling again by the end of October.
Travel, however, has been a mystery to me since February. Anyone travelling abroad should have been in mandatory quarantine away from their families on their return at their own cost for at least 10 days or two clear tests. Nothing else I can see would have reduced our R rate over the late summer by more.
But it's not just testing capacity, it's rapid testing that's needed - the ability to get a saliva sample and get a result in 15 minutes. Abbot produces one of these, and it's $5/test.
Imagine being able to test kids at the school gates every Monday morning. You'd find out who was infectious before they'd passed the disease on to 30 of their friends in the playground.
With rapid testing, you are able to isolate the infectious early. This is a disease where the fundamental problem is that you are most infectious in the week before you feel symptoms. Rapid testing means you identify people before they spread the disease.
If you checked 20 million people once a week, it would be $100m (before discounts) a week.
That's chump change.
Obviously the cost of administering the test, transmitting the results etc would be a multiple of that. And once a week risks someone being infectious for 6 days before they are caught. And what about the other 45m? And could they really scale that up to 20m tests a week? My understanding is that the technology to do that reliably doesn't yet exist and is still being developed.
It needs no machine. You take a nasal swab, fold the card around it, add the reagent (which any half skilled technician or nurse or science teacher can do). And it takes 15 minutes to get a response.
It's an antigen test, so it will miss some positive results.
The US has just ordered 150 million units.
IANAE but from what I have read antigen tests do not pick up people who are currently infectious, as opposed to those who have had it. Perhaps @Nigelb can comment.
I believe that is correct - antigen tests show who has *had* the disease.
France’s “temporary unemployment” scheme to avert mass bankruptcies and lay-offs as a result of the coronavirus crisis will be extended, and is now expected to last up to two years, the country’s labour minister said. .................... Muriel Pénicaud, the labour minister, said that at the end of April some 8.6m employees were benefiting from the French scheme, under which the state pays subsidies to companies to fund the salaries of those prevented from working.
“We are going to put in place a long-term partial-activity scheme,” Ms Pénicaud told Franceinfo radio, “through which employees could have fewer working hours and be partly supported by the state.” The scheme “is likely to last a year or two,” she added. .........................
Ms Pénicaud did not say what share of wages the French government would continue to pay — currently 84-100 per cent of net salary for the lower paid — but that this was under discussion with employers and trade unions. She also said the government would make 50,000 inspections before the end of the summer to detect and punish fraudulent use of the scheme. .............
“I think it makes sense even if the fiscal cost is going to be huge,” said Gilles Moec, Axa chief economist. .........................“
That’s the same as happened when the terrorism alert went sky high a few years ago and they needed every armed policeman they could find. Use the soldiers in sentry positions and free up police for the exceptional task in hand.
We need armed police to enforce mask wearing and pub closures?
France’s “temporary unemployment” scheme to avert mass bankruptcies and lay-offs as a result of the coronavirus crisis will be extended, and is now expected to last up to two years, the country’s labour minister said. .................... Muriel Pénicaud, the labour minister, said that at the end of April some 8.6m employees were benefiting from the French scheme, under which the state pays subsidies to companies to fund the salaries of those prevented from working.
“We are going to put in place a long-term partial-activity scheme,” Ms Pénicaud told Franceinfo radio, “through which employees could have fewer working hours and be partly supported by the state.” The scheme “is likely to last a year or two,” she added. .........................
Ms Pénicaud did not say what share of wages the French government would continue to pay — currently 84-100 per cent of net salary for the lower paid — but that this was under discussion with employers and trade unions. She also said the government would make 50,000 inspections before the end of the summer to detect and punish fraudulent use of the scheme. .............
“I think it makes sense even if the fiscal cost is going to be huge,” said Gilles Moec, Axa chief economist. .........................“
I have come to the conclusion he is actually an idiot. These are not the articulation of thoughts from an intelligent human being. I can only conclude that there was a shortage of applicants to read Classics at Oxford in the year he applied (there often is), and that he had considerable "help" to get him through.
I don't think we are anywhere near the next roll of the dice being lockdown. I think the game is to steer into the wind, aim to steer R towards or just below 1 for as long as possible and, adjust, adjust, adjust each time the onset of winter blows in and pushes R higher.
In that sense, second lockdown will look very similar to lockdown release, though even more localised in its operation. I think I do expect a more or less full lockdown at some point, probably in early December. For TSEs point, an early Christmas holiday for the uni students, and some temporary relaxation (rule of six?), for family visits at Christmas perhaps, but it may be a substantial lockdown.
I hope also they do differentiate somewhat between institutional outbreaks and community - yes, there is crossover that cannot be avoided, but treat each as its own thing.
That’s the same as happened when the terrorism alert went sky high a few years ago and they needed every armed policeman they could find. Use the soldiers in sentry positions and free up police for the exceptional task in hand.
We need armed police to enforce mask wearing and pub closures?
We are lucky that they are not nuking us from orbit...
France’s “temporary unemployment” scheme to avert mass bankruptcies and lay-offs as a result of the coronavirus crisis will be extended, and is now expected to last up to two years, the country’s labour minister said. .................... Muriel Pénicaud, the labour minister, said that at the end of April some 8.6m employees were benefiting from the French scheme, under which the state pays subsidies to companies to fund the salaries of those prevented from working.
“We are going to put in place a long-term partial-activity scheme,” Ms Pénicaud told Franceinfo radio, “through which employees could have fewer working hours and be partly supported by the state.” The scheme “is likely to last a year or two,” she added. .........................
Ms Pénicaud did not say what share of wages the French government would continue to pay — currently 84-100 per cent of net salary for the lower paid — but that this was under discussion with employers and trade unions. She also said the government would make 50,000 inspections before the end of the summer to detect and punish fraudulent use of the scheme. .............
“I think it makes sense even if the fiscal cost is going to be huge,” said Gilles Moec, Axa chief economist. .........................“
I have come to the conclusion he is actually an idiot. These are not the articulation of thoughts from an intelligent human being. I can only conclude that there was a shortage of applicants to read Classics at Oxford in the year he applied (there often is), and that he had considerable "help" to get him through.
If he wasn't born rich he'd have achieved nothing in life
France’s “temporary unemployment” scheme to avert mass bankruptcies and lay-offs as a result of the coronavirus crisis will be extended, and is now expected to last up to two years, the country’s labour minister said. .................... Muriel Pénicaud, the labour minister, said that at the end of April some 8.6m employees were benefiting from the French scheme, under which the state pays subsidies to companies to fund the salaries of those prevented from working.
“We are going to put in place a long-term partial-activity scheme,” Ms Pénicaud told Franceinfo radio, “through which employees could have fewer working hours and be partly supported by the state.” The scheme “is likely to last a year or two,” she added. .........................
Ms Pénicaud did not say what share of wages the French government would continue to pay — currently 84-100 per cent of net salary for the lower paid — but that this was under discussion with employers and trade unions. She also said the government would make 50,000 inspections before the end of the summer to detect and punish fraudulent use of the scheme. .............
“I think it makes sense even if the fiscal cost is going to be huge,” said Gilles Moec, Axa chief economist. .........................“
European governments are going to end up with debts like Japan. ~200% of GDP
And just like Japan, all the debt will be owed to the Central Bank.
AIUI Japan sustains this huge debt because so much of it is held by private Japanese citizens.
I think - I would have to Google - that European debt is not quite the same, eg more British debt is owned overseas, compared to Japan, so running a 200% national debt would be more problematic.
Reading LadyG's posts about "Oh, can't we just get it over with, let other people die, I just want it to be back to normal" - I don't think they've thought about the arithmetic.
I agree with your point, but I don't think it's a matter of arithmetic for certain people. Those who are fundamentally selfish don't care how many die or suffer as long as they think this won't include them. And they are precisely the reason that The Swedish Model would not work for us...
--AS
I have thought about the arithmetic. I have thought about the arithmetic of an extended lockdown - quasi or severe - for six months. I have thought about the people who will die of undiagnosed cancers, the millions with intensified mental health problems, the huge uptick in suicides, the addicts and drunks who will relapse from despair, the centres of our cities hollowed out for good.
I have thought about all this and I am unpersuaded that a second lockdown will, on balance, be a benefit to the nation.
I really don't see why this is complex.
You implement a consistent set of measures that minimise R, without shutting down economic activity:
- no nightclubs, karaoke, rock concerts, etc. Restrictions on the maximum number of people in pubs. - proper quarantine procedures for people coming from overseas - you continue to encourage working from home - compulsory masks in places like public transport
Plus, you ramp up rapid testing for things like schools, so that flare ups can be shut down quickly.
Now, it means that Christmas parties are going to be more sedate this year. But it means they still happen. Most people are able to go about their lives with minimal disruption.
It doesn't get rid of CV19, but it manages it until a vaccine exists.
And there are those who insist on trying to invent a "tough choice" that they would make: economy or public health.
It doesn't matter how much evidence there is that they're linked, that it's not "either or" but "both or nothing," they'll insist on saying, "Well, I'd sacrifice public health for the economy, because it would be better in the long term."
No it wouldn't. Sacrifice public health and you ALSO sacrifice the economy. Preserve one, and you preserve the other.
And "let it rip" literally MEANS the worst of a "quasi lockdown" for longer than six months (or as long as it takes to get to a virus.
@LadyG : how many infections per day do you think we should sustain? Divide 40 million by that number to get the number of days we'd be going through it.
For every ten thousand infections per day you accept, put in 250 hospitalisations per day and 40 deaths per day. (So 50,000 is 1250 hospitalisations per day and 200 deaths per day, for example).
Don't just say "I've done the arithmetic." Actually do the arithmetic. Give us your result - in numbers: Total length of time taken, number of hospitalisations per day, number of deaths per day.
There's a much easier way to crunch the numbers than that. Look at Sweden.
Their fall in GDP has been much less than ours - or France, Spain, Italy, etc. Because their lockdown was much less intense. Schools stayed open (allowing parents to work), restaurants also carried on, and so forth. Economic activity was reduced, but it wasn't decimated.
As a result we should now expect to see a huge surge as Sweden endures a second wave, right? As they have been more lax, and are not reimposing restrictions.
As their epidemiologist predicted, cases are bubbling along at about the same rate - way down on the peak. Deaths are minimal. Their health service is not swamped. Life goes on.
As nar as we can tell, Sweden has cracked it. It really is as simple as that. They said you just have to live with this virus, and that is what they are doing.
AND WE'RE SHIFTING TO DOING WHAT SWEDEN IS DOING!
Jesus Christ, don't people actually understand what they're suggesting?
Tegnell's recipe is: Find a level of restrictions that works to bring down the virus and stick with it for the long term.
It costs you early on in extra deaths because you take longer to bring them down (compare with their neighbours - ten times greater) and even a worse economic hit than otherwise (again, compare with their neighbours - theirs is worse), but the idea is people will stick to them in the longer term.
Sweden hasn't got herd immunity. They've got long-term restrictions at the level that's working for them.
We've just announced these restrictions for six months. We're hoping these are the minimum acceptable to bring the level down.
WE'RE FOLLOWING SWEDEN'S PLAN NOW!
It's not "something something less restrictions and then it all somehow works."
It's not "They've got to herd immunity somehow"
To get to herd immunity, you have to feed your population through the infection. That's where the arithmetic comes in. The arithmetic you refuse to do when you bleat on about trying to "get it over with."
Sweden hasn't "got it over with." Neither have we.
Weren't you once a journalist? If so, no wonder the media are so incompetent with anything relating to numbers or logic.
Tegnell states that EVERY COUNTRY IS DIFFERENT. We have a different economy, culture, number of people per house, population distribution, climate. Copying exactly what restrictions Sweden does and does not have won't work.
It won't magically go away by saying "let's cut restrictions and people behave"
There won't be any more spread.
But maybe I should trust what a Telegraph journalist claims is the Swedish strategy over, let's say, the actual architect of it?
The government did a terrible job of preparing for a second wave over the summer. We got notice from US states like Georgia that the virus could easily flare up again. And we could have invested in large quantities of rapid testing equipment.
Yet we did not.
We were also aware that many countries - like India, Brazil and Mexico - were doing a terrible job of controlling infections. We knew that Spain was following policies (like opening nightclubs) that would potentially cause R to skyrocket.
Yet we did nothing to shut down travel from these places. We did nothing to test people on arrival. And we did nothing to properly quarantine people, instead relying on a bizarre "stay home for two weeks after travelling home by public transport."
Both these issues were particularly serious because they presaged the reopening of schools in September. There was always going to be the potential for a rush of cases as children infected each other (social distancing in the playground is no easy thing), so this was a crucial time to be prepared.
And we were not.
There has, in fairness, been a massive increase in testing capacity over the summer. There were 219k tests yesterday. No one else in Europe has increased testing capacity by anything like as much. Today they are talking about this doubling again by the end of October.
Travel, however, has been a mystery to me since February. Anyone travelling abroad should have been in mandatory quarantine away from their families on their return at their own cost for at least 10 days or two clear tests. Nothing else I can see would have reduced our R rate over the late summer by more.
But it's not just testing capacity, it's rapid testing that's needed - the ability to get a saliva sample and get a result in 15 minutes. Abbot produces one of these, and it's $5/test.
Imagine being able to test kids at the school gates every Monday morning. You'd find out who was infectious before they'd passed the disease on to 30 of their friends in the playground.
With rapid testing, you are able to isolate the infectious early. This is a disease where the fundamental problem is that you are most infectious in the week before you feel symptoms. Rapid testing means you identify people before they spread the disease.
If you checked 20 million people once a week, it would be $100m (before discounts) a week.
That's chump change.
Obviously the cost of administering the test, transmitting the results etc would be a multiple of that. And once a week risks someone being infectious for 6 days before they are caught. And what about the other 45m? And could they really scale that up to 20m tests a week? My understanding is that the technology to do that reliably doesn't yet exist and is still being developed.
It needs no machine. You take a nasal swab, fold the card around it, add the reagent (which any half skilled technician or nurse or science teacher can do). And it takes 15 minutes to get a response.
It's an antigen test, so it will miss some positive results.
The US has just ordered 150 million units.
IANAE but from what I have read antigen tests do not pick up people who are currently infectious, as opposed to those who have had it. Perhaps @Nigelb can comment.
I believe that is correct - antigen tests show who has *had* the disease.
You are confusing Antigen and Antibody.
Antigen shows currently infected. It measures the existence of a pathogen.
Antibody shows previous infection. It measures the existence of an immune response.
On topic, Johnson's statement included some line about how the vast majority who obey the rules are understandably angry about the minority who don't, and I couldn't hear the rest of what he said because it was drowned out by a the string of obscenities on my part. Either he's trolling the public, or he really does think that rules are only for the little people. The Cummings episode remains a problem for the government when it comes to achieving compliance, I think for many of us we are now thinking "what can I get away with" and not "what should I do" .
It's a tragedy really. Here we are in the throes of the biggest crisis in peacetime that anyone of any age can recall and it's important that the guy charged with leading us through it can make a statement such as the one you mention without a vast section of the public either laughing their socks off or throwing things at the telly. I personally want to support him on this stuff. We only have one PM and Boris Johnson is it. I truly would love to get right behind him on everything to do with controlling the virus. But he makes it very difficult.
France’s “temporary unemployment” scheme to avert mass bankruptcies and lay-offs as a result of the coronavirus crisis will be extended, and is now expected to last up to two years, the country’s labour minister said. .................... Muriel Pénicaud, the labour minister, said that at the end of April some 8.6m employees were benefiting from the French scheme, under which the state pays subsidies to companies to fund the salaries of those prevented from working.
“We are going to put in place a long-term partial-activity scheme,” Ms Pénicaud told Franceinfo radio, “through which employees could have fewer working hours and be partly supported by the state.” The scheme “is likely to last a year or two,” she added. .........................
Ms Pénicaud did not say what share of wages the French government would continue to pay — currently 84-100 per cent of net salary for the lower paid — but that this was under discussion with employers and trade unions. She also said the government would make 50,000 inspections before the end of the summer to detect and punish fraudulent use of the scheme. .............
“I think it makes sense even if the fiscal cost is going to be huge,” said Gilles Moec, Axa chief economist. .........................“
European governments are going to end up with debts like Japan. ~200% of GDP
And just like Japan, all the debt will be owed to the Central Bank.
AIUI Japan sustains this huge debt because so much of it is held by private Japanese citizens.
I think - I would have to Google - that European debt is not quite the same, eg more British debt is owned overseas, compared to Japan, so running a 200% national debt would be more problematic.
But anyhoo, I have to go work. Sayonara
The Bank of Japan owns half of all Japanese government debt.
The fact Cummings beat you in the Referendum is the running sore you can't get over.
“Yes, we’re hiding in the cellar of our bombed-out house, eating rats to survive, and there's a battalion of Russians at the other end of the street, but how about the way the Fuhrer stuck it to the French back in 1940 eh?”
More like you and Scott are like the Japanese soldiers still fighting WWII long after the war had finished.
Scott in particular will be like Hiroo Onoda, years from now he will be rocking back and forth saying "but Dominic Cummings" again and again.
Haha, that is a risky metaphor for the man that has nothing else to do with his time but be a 24/7 keyboard warrior on PB; he with the most backward reactionary views this side of Donald Trump's inner ring piece !
Clearly the Government think there will be a compliance issue so want to ramp up the forces of the state to enforce the rules.
Prepare yourself for far more heavy handed and aggressive policing. The very fact that troops are there "on the map" will push the Overton Window of policing further to the authoritarian side.
This could get nasty and ugly. And just wait until the first BAME person is tripwired by it and that's caught on camera.
The government did a terrible job of preparing for a second wave over the summer. We got notice from US states like Georgia that the virus could easily flare up again. And we could have invested in large quantities of rapid testing equipment.
Yet we did not.
We were also aware that many countries - like India, Brazil and Mexico - were doing a terrible job of controlling infections. We knew that Spain was following policies (like opening nightclubs) that would potentially cause R to skyrocket.
Yet we did nothing to shut down travel from these places. We did nothing to test people on arrival. And we did nothing to properly quarantine people, instead relying on a bizarre "stay home for two weeks after travelling home by public transport."
Both these issues were particularly serious because they presaged the reopening of schools in September. There was always going to be the potential for a rush of cases as children infected each other (social distancing in the playground is no easy thing), so this was a crucial time to be prepared.
And we were not.
There has, in fairness, been a massive increase in testing capacity over the summer. There were 219k tests yesterday. No one else in Europe has increased testing capacity by anything like as much. Today they are talking about this doubling again by the end of October.
Travel, however, has been a mystery to me since February. Anyone travelling abroad should have been in mandatory quarantine away from their families on their return at their own cost for at least 10 days or two clear tests. Nothing else I can see would have reduced our R rate over the late summer by more.
But it's not just testing capacity, it's rapid testing that's needed - the ability to get a saliva sample and get a result in 15 minutes. Abbot produces one of these, and it's $5/test.
Imagine being able to test kids at the school gates every Monday morning. You'd find out who was infectious before they'd passed the disease on to 30 of their friends in the playground.
With rapid testing, you are able to isolate the infectious early. This is a disease where the fundamental problem is that you are most infectious in the week before you feel symptoms. Rapid testing means you identify people before they spread the disease.
If you checked 20 million people once a week, it would be $100m (before discounts) a week.
That's chump change.
Obviously the cost of administering the test, transmitting the results etc would be a multiple of that. And once a week risks someone being infectious for 6 days before they are caught. And what about the other 45m? And could they really scale that up to 20m tests a week? My understanding is that the technology to do that reliably doesn't yet exist and is still being developed.
It needs no machine. You take a nasal swab, fold the card around it, add the reagent (which any half skilled technician or nurse or science teacher can do). And it takes 15 minutes to get a response.
It's an antigen test, so it will miss some positive results.
The US has just ordered 150 million units.
IANAE but from what I have read antigen tests do not pick up people who are currently infectious, as opposed to those who have had it. Perhaps @Nigelb can comment.
You're confusing antigen with antibody. (Antibodies are what your immune system creates in response to the virus, don't appear until you've been infected and are infectious for a few days, and hang around for months. Antigens are molecules or bits of molecules on the virus itself which either immune system or this test recognise/detect.)
Antigen tests might miss some who have had the virus and are no longer infectious - they're less sensitive than PCR, for example - but they are more sensitive to those who are more infectious.
That’s the same as happened when the terrorism alert went sky high a few years ago and they needed every armed policeman they could find. Use the soldiers in sentry positions and free up police for the exceptional task in hand.
We need armed police to enforce mask wearing and pub closures?
It’s a better strategy than using the soldiers for lkeeping law and order on the streets. We tried that one before.
Just because a policeman can be armed, doesn’t mean he has to be.
Way too much is placed on this. It is clear that stuff like this is used to try and give people some confidence / optimism.
If he said, right folks, going to be 2 years before anything like normal life comes back, he would be held responsible for all the people killing themselves from mental health breakdowns.
I have come to the conclusion he is actually an idiot. These are not the articulation of thoughts from an intelligent human being. I can only conclude that there was a shortage of applicants to read Classics at Oxford in the year he applied (there often is), and that he had considerable "help" to get him through.
It could just be Boris speaking to his base. There are plenty of Mail readers who think the country has gone to hell in a handcart and it's primarily immigrants and the feckless youth who are to blame. I know such people and they'd be far happier blaming their fellow citizens for any disaster than Boris himself.
France’s “temporary unemployment” scheme to avert mass bankruptcies and lay-offs as a result of the coronavirus crisis will be extended, and is now expected to last up to two years, the country’s labour minister said. .................... Muriel Pénicaud, the labour minister, said that at the end of April some 8.6m employees were benefiting from the French scheme, under which the state pays subsidies to companies to fund the salaries of those prevented from working.
“We are going to put in place a long-term partial-activity scheme,” Ms Pénicaud told Franceinfo radio, “through which employees could have fewer working hours and be partly supported by the state.” The scheme “is likely to last a year or two,” she added. .........................
Ms Pénicaud did not say what share of wages the French government would continue to pay — currently 84-100 per cent of net salary for the lower paid — but that this was under discussion with employers and trade unions. She also said the government would make 50,000 inspections before the end of the summer to detect and punish fraudulent use of the scheme. .............
“I think it makes sense even if the fiscal cost is going to be huge,” said Gilles Moec, Axa chief economist. .........................“
France’s “temporary unemployment” scheme to avert mass bankruptcies and lay-offs as a result of the coronavirus crisis will be extended, and is now expected to last up to two years, the country’s labour minister said. .................... Muriel Pénicaud, the labour minister, said that at the end of April some 8.6m employees were benefiting from the French scheme, under which the state pays subsidies to companies to fund the salaries of those prevented from working.
“We are going to put in place a long-term partial-activity scheme,” Ms Pénicaud told Franceinfo radio, “through which employees could have fewer working hours and be partly supported by the state.” The scheme “is likely to last a year or two,” she added. .........................
Ms Pénicaud did not say what share of wages the French government would continue to pay — currently 84-100 per cent of net salary for the lower paid — but that this was under discussion with employers and trade unions. She also said the government would make 50,000 inspections before the end of the summer to detect and punish fraudulent use of the scheme. .............
“I think it makes sense even if the fiscal cost is going to be huge,” said Gilles Moec, Axa chief economist. .........................“
Yeah, but the LPF provisions remain absolutely critical to a deal, don't they?
I don’t understand what point you are making.
Sorry, but the fall out with the EU was apparently because we would not sign up to their LPF provisions preventing state aid and unfair competition. And the French and, almost inevitably everyone else, will be supporting their businesses on an epic scale over the next 2 years to prevent mass unemployment. It is just another vivid demonstration of how Covid has genuinely changed the world and how trivial the details of Brexit are going to prove to be in the overall scheme of things.
The UK and the EU should stop mucking about with trivia and sign up a free trade, no tariff deal with an agreement to look at the details again in 2 years when this is (hopefully) over. We both have so many vastly more important things to focus on right now.
The government did a terrible job of preparing for a second wave over the summer. We got notice from US states like Georgia that the virus could easily flare up again. And we could have invested in large quantities of rapid testing equipment.
Yet we did not.
We were also aware that many countries - like India, Brazil and Mexico - were doing a terrible job of controlling infections. We knew that Spain was following policies (like opening nightclubs) that would potentially cause R to skyrocket.
Yet we did nothing to shut down travel from these places. We did nothing to test people on arrival. And we did nothing to properly quarantine people, instead relying on a bizarre "stay home for two weeks after travelling home by public transport."
Both these issues were particularly serious because they presaged the reopening of schools in September. There was always going to be the potential for a rush of cases as children infected each other (social distancing in the playground is no easy thing), so this was a crucial time to be prepared.
And we were not.
There has, in fairness, been a massive increase in testing capacity over the summer. There were 219k tests yesterday. No one else in Europe has increased testing capacity by anything like as much. Today they are talking about this doubling again by the end of October.
Travel, however, has been a mystery to me since February. Anyone travelling abroad should have been in mandatory quarantine away from their families on their return at their own cost for at least 10 days or two clear tests. Nothing else I can see would have reduced our R rate over the late summer by more.
But it's not just testing capacity, it's rapid testing that's needed - the ability to get a saliva sample and get a result in 15 minutes. Abbot produces one of these, and it's $5/test.
Imagine being able to test kids at the school gates every Monday morning. You'd find out who was infectious before they'd passed the disease on to 30 of their friends in the playground.
With rapid testing, you are able to isolate the infectious early. This is a disease where the fundamental problem is that you are most infectious in the week before you feel symptoms. Rapid testing means you identify people before they spread the disease.
If you checked 20 million people once a week, it would be $100m (before discounts) a week.
That's chump change.
Obviously the cost of administering the test, transmitting the results etc would be a multiple of that. And once a week risks someone being infectious for 6 days before they are caught. And what about the other 45m? And could they really scale that up to 20m tests a week? My understanding is that the technology to do that reliably doesn't yet exist and is still being developed.
It needs no machine. You take a nasal swab, fold the card around it, add the reagent (which any half skilled technician or nurse or science teacher can do). And it takes 15 minutes to get a response.
It's an antigen test, so it will miss some positive results.
The US has just ordered 150 million units.
IANAE but from what I have read antigen tests do not pick up people who are currently infectious, as opposed to those who have had it. Perhaps @Nigelb can comment.
You're confusing antigen with antibody. Antigen tests might miss some who have had the virus and are no longer infectious - they're less sensitive than PCR, for example - but they are more sensitive to those who are more infectious.
They are - therefore - probably more useful at controlling the spread of infection.
Only 15 is very good indeed for Boris. If that's the level of revolt when he's beset by crises on all sides and asking his troops to march through fire, then fantasies of his imminent demise are rather premature, to say the least
Mrs May as persuasive as ever, I see.
I watched with interest Damien Green's speech - not persuaded by his friend from Maidenhead. Ah, the power of the hope of future advancement.....I don't think his analysis that the HoC breaking an agreement is less damaging than the Executive holds much water...
The Tories aren't going to let Boris get to fight another election.
He's toast.
The ideal get out for the Tories is some sort of EU deal and a vaccine at the end of the year, then he steps down on health grounds and can spin the achievements of getting brexit done and funding vaccine planning / production.
The UK and the EU should stop mucking about with trivia and sign up a free trade, no tariff deal with an agreement to look at the details again in 2 years when this is (hopefully) over. We both have so many vastly more important things to focus on right now.
Implementing such a deal would be a distraction. We need an extension of the status quo.
That’s the same as happened when the terrorism alert went sky high a few years ago and they needed every armed policeman they could find. Use the soldiers in sentry positions and free up police for the exceptional task in hand.
We need armed police to enforce mask wearing and pub closures?
We are lucky that they are not nuking us from orbit...
The UK and the EU should stop mucking about with trivia and sign up a free trade, no tariff deal with an agreement to look at the details again in 2 years when this is (hopefully) over. We both have so many vastly more important things to focus on right now.
Implementing such a deal would be a distraction. We need an extension of the status quo.
The status quo being us in a state of limbo?
No thanks.
David has hit the nail on the head and hopefully the EU sees sense and agree to this. I think Barnier has bitten off more than he can chew and will ultimately back down as his bosses in the European Council ultimately have bigger things to worry about than what he is fussing over.
France’s “temporary unemployment” scheme to avert mass bankruptcies and lay-offs as a result of the coronavirus crisis will be extended, and is now expected to last up to two years, the country’s labour minister said. .................... Muriel Pénicaud, the labour minister, said that at the end of April some 8.6m employees were benefiting from the French scheme, under which the state pays subsidies to companies to fund the salaries of those prevented from working.
“We are going to put in place a long-term partial-activity scheme,” Ms Pénicaud told Franceinfo radio, “through which employees could have fewer working hours and be partly supported by the state.” The scheme “is likely to last a year or two,” she added. .........................
Ms Pénicaud did not say what share of wages the French government would continue to pay — currently 84-100 per cent of net salary for the lower paid — but that this was under discussion with employers and trade unions. She also said the government would make 50,000 inspections before the end of the summer to detect and punish fraudulent use of the scheme. .............
“I think it makes sense even if the fiscal cost is going to be huge,” said Gilles Moec, Axa chief economist. .........................“
I have come to the conclusion he is actually an idiot. These are not the articulation of thoughts from an intelligent human being. I can only conclude that there was a shortage of applicants to read Classics at Oxford in the year he applied (there often is), and that he had considerable "help" to get him through.
If he wasn't born rich he'd have achieved nothing in life
Interesting from his wikipedia entry. At Oxford ' in 1986, Johnson ran successfully for president, but his term was not particularly distinguished or memorable and questions were raised regarding his competence and seriousness. Finally, Johnson was awarded an upper second-class degree,and was deeply unhappy that he did not receive a first' Hmmm.
France’s “temporary unemployment” scheme to avert mass bankruptcies and lay-offs as a result of the coronavirus crisis will be extended, and is now expected to last up to two years, the country’s labour minister said. .................... Muriel Pénicaud, the labour minister, said that at the end of April some 8.6m employees were benefiting from the French scheme, under which the state pays subsidies to companies to fund the salaries of those prevented from working.
“We are going to put in place a long-term partial-activity scheme,” Ms Pénicaud told Franceinfo radio, “through which employees could have fewer working hours and be partly supported by the state.” The scheme “is likely to last a year or two,” she added. .........................
Ms Pénicaud did not say what share of wages the French government would continue to pay — currently 84-100 per cent of net salary for the lower paid — but that this was under discussion with employers and trade unions. She also said the government would make 50,000 inspections before the end of the summer to detect and punish fraudulent use of the scheme. .............
“I think it makes sense even if the fiscal cost is going to be huge,” said Gilles Moec, Axa chief economist. .........................“
The fact Cummings beat you in the Referendum is the running sore you can't get over.
I’ll suggest that to my 78-year old Mum. Leave-sympathising, voted Tory last December, and if I ever mention Cummings’ name it’s, “Don’t you speak about THAT MAN!”
She won’t be voting Tory again while Boris is leading them. She thinks his totally weak and under Cummings thumb.
The "you only don't like Cummings because he beat you in a referendum" is PB at its dullest, cringeworthy worst.
The government did a terrible job of preparing for a second wave over the summer. We got notice from US states like Georgia that the virus could easily flare up again. And we could have invested in large quantities of rapid testing equipment.
Yet we did not.
We were also aware that many countries - like India, Brazil and Mexico - were doing a terrible job of controlling infections. We knew that Spain was following policies (like opening nightclubs) that would potentially cause R to skyrocket.
Yet we did nothing to shut down travel from these places. We did nothing to test people on arrival. And we did nothing to properly quarantine people, instead relying on a bizarre "stay home for two weeks after travelling home by public transport."
Both these issues were particularly serious because they presaged the reopening of schools in September. There was always going to be the potential for a rush of cases as children infected each other (social distancing in the playground is no easy thing), so this was a crucial time to be prepared.
And we were not.
There has, in fairness, been a massive increase in testing capacity over the summer. There were 219k tests yesterday. No one else in Europe has increased testing capacity by anything like as much. Today they are talking about this doubling again by the end of October.
Travel, however, has been a mystery to me since February. Anyone travelling abroad should have been in mandatory quarantine away from their families on their return at their own cost for at least 10 days or two clear tests. Nothing else I can see would have reduced our R rate over the late summer by more.
But it's not just testing capacity, it's rapid testing that's needed - the ability to get a saliva sample and get a result in 15 minutes. Abbot produces one of these, and it's $5/test.
Imagine being able to test kids at the school gates every Monday morning. You'd find out who was infectious before they'd passed the disease on to 30 of their friends in the playground.
With rapid testing, you are able to isolate the infectious early. This is a disease where the fundamental problem is that you are most infectious in the week before you feel symptoms. Rapid testing means you identify people before they spread the disease.
If you checked 20 million people once a week, it would be $100m (before discounts) a week.
That's chump change.
Obviously the cost of administering the test, transmitting the results etc would be a multiple of that. And once a week risks someone being infectious for 6 days before they are caught. And what about the other 45m? And could they really scale that up to 20m tests a week? My understanding is that the technology to do that reliably doesn't yet exist and is still being developed.
It needs no machine. You take a nasal swab, fold the card around it, add the reagent (which any half skilled technician or nurse or science teacher can do). And it takes 15 minutes to get a response.
It's an antigen test, so it will miss some positive results.
The US has just ordered 150 million units.
IANAE but from what I have read antigen tests do not pick up people who are currently infectious, as opposed to those who have had it. Perhaps @Nigelb can comment.
You're confusing antigen with antibody. Antigen tests might miss some who have had the virus and are no longer infectious - they're less sensitive than PCR, for example - but they are more sensitive to those who are more infectious.
They are - therefore - probably more useful at controlling the spread of infection.
Well they are certainly far quicker, and available immediately rather than having to be booked, so they would be far more useful in controlling the spread of infection even if they were only 70% accurate.
When it comes to infection control there are four testing metrics, of which accuracy is only one. The others are availability, speed of result, and absolute volume of tests. Antigen tests are undoubtedly superior on those three, and sufficiently competitive on accuracy.
The UK and the EU should stop mucking about with trivia and sign up a free trade, no tariff deal with an agreement to look at the details again in 2 years when this is (hopefully) over. We both have so many vastly more important things to focus on right now.
Implementing such a deal would be a distraction. We need an extension of the status quo.
Yep, there really is no possible alternative now. I know that in theory the transition can't now be extended under EU law, but I would expect that the smart lawyers and bureaucrats of Berlaymont could find some power somewhere that would allow them to come up with a dérogation which would give us a temporary de facto extension on the most important points. I'm pretty sure the political will would exist in the EU27.
Of course that would require a grown-up UK government, acting in our interests, to request it, so little hope there.
Not even in gardens? That's getting close to full lockdown.
England will inevitably follow.
Imagine: six months of this. Enforced by the cops with troops in the background. This is dystopic.
What Sweden definitely got right was the need to make the measures sustainable for 12-24 months. Our wild oscillation from full lockdown to chivvying people to get back in the office and eating out before heading back to full lockdown is not how to do it.
I'm curious how you think Italian testing is going better than British testing? Got any data to back that up?
UK daily test positivity rate: 1.5% Italy daily test positivity rate: 2.7%
Daily tests per thousand people: UK 3.47 Italy 0.87
In what way is Italian testing better?
I am shocked you agree with Johnson, shocked
I agree with facts and figures to hand.
I am shocked that you disagree with no facts or evidence to the contrary. Shocked.
Philip, if it was Keir Starmer you'd be here attacking him. Your views and opinions are not facts, however much you think they are
The testing figures are facts. Quantifiable facts. Actual real numbers.
If you're going to give a hypothesis that our testing regime is worse than Italy's despite us having more tests and a lower positivity rate, please can you give any evidence to support your hypothesis. If you have no evidence to support your hypothesis then you must consider you might be the one who is wrong.
Has Sturgeon put a time on how long this restriction be in place i.e. is Christmas cancelled in Scotland?
She's said she hopes it will be short term, and she hasn't used the six months phrase. However, this is window dressing. If these rules are needed in England for six months, they will be needed in Scotland for the same. Generally, Scottish lockdown has been slightly more severe
That’s the same as happened when the terrorism alert went sky high a few years ago and they needed every armed policeman they could find. Use the soldiers in sentry positions and free up police for the exceptional task in hand.
We need armed police to enforce mask wearing and pub closures?
We are lucky that they are not nuking us from orbit...
Yes, listen to all those rozzers who had deal with plebs dealing with other lockdown bandits, they had to listen to people using the Cummings defence.
And how did that go for them?
I mean, if people want to disregard the rules and risk catching a potentially fatal disease because Dominic Cumming can be as stupid at some times as he is clever at others I am very tempted to encourage them to go ahead. After all, what's the worst that could happen?
The point is more the impact on that group of people - and it will be quite a large group - who on the whole were following the rules despite feeling there was little personal risk to them in not doing so, on the grounds of "rules are rules" and some innate level of respect for the PM and the government communicating them.
Seeing Cummings, whilst knowingly infected and with the epidemic raging, brazenly break the rules that had only just been minted by a group of people including him, followed not only by no apology from him or from Johnson, but from the latter by a comment verging on praise - "He did what he thought in the best interests of himself and his family and I will not mark him down for that" - this would have caused them, quite reasonably, to relax their own compliance. That would have cost lives and thus is not a trivial matter.
Quite so. What I find most baffling about the Cummings episode is why they just didn't take it on the chin - a political misjudgment. Imagine if he'd said, promptly: "I'm really sorry. I meant well, but I now recognise that it was an error of judgement that broke the spirit, if not the letter, of the government's guidance. Many apologies." He could have survived with this. Surely even the Cummings fans on here would agree that this would have been a better political strategy? Nobody would still be going on about it, I suspect.
Yep. Keep his key man but make it clear to the public that he took the matter seriously. Johnson has the political capital and the comms skills to have done that. That he didn't tells us a lot about the Downing St set-up, the power dynamics there, and none of it is good.
Apparently the cut-off time in Wales and Northern Ireland is going to be 11pm, not 10pm.
This stuff is just pathetic signalling that devolved regions has some powers. It does nothing to really change public health outcomes.
It's not trivial at all. The busy final hour from ten to eleven can mean profit or loss for a pub or restaurant. Welsh pubs are more likely to survive the winter.
Once again IT'S NOT A FINAL HOUR – the laws preventing pubs opening beyond 11pm were removed years ago. Fifteen years ago.
Why do PBers repeat this fiction that pubs have to close at 11pm?
France’s “temporary unemployment” scheme to avert mass bankruptcies and lay-offs as a result of the coronavirus crisis will be extended, and is now expected to last up to two years, the country’s labour minister said. .................... Muriel Pénicaud, the labour minister, said that at the end of April some 8.6m employees were benefiting from the French scheme, under which the state pays subsidies to companies to fund the salaries of those prevented from working.
“We are going to put in place a long-term partial-activity scheme,” Ms Pénicaud told Franceinfo radio, “through which employees could have fewer working hours and be partly supported by the state.” The scheme “is likely to last a year or two,” she added. .........................
Ms Pénicaud did not say what share of wages the French government would continue to pay — currently 84-100 per cent of net salary for the lower paid — but that this was under discussion with employers and trade unions. She also said the government would make 50,000 inspections before the end of the summer to detect and punish fraudulent use of the scheme. .............
“I think it makes sense even if the fiscal cost is going to be huge,” said Gilles Moec, Axa chief economist. .........................“
I have come to the conclusion he is actually an idiot. These are not the articulation of thoughts from an intelligent human being. I can only conclude that there was a shortage of applicants to read Classics at Oxford in the year he applied (there often is), and that he had considerable "help" to get him through.
If he wasn't born rich he'd have achieved nothing in life
Interesting from his wikipedia entry. At Oxford ' in 1986, Johnson ran successfully for president...
He lost first time round. To a Lib Dem accountant.
Comments
If you actually believed what you're saying you'd be encouraging him to stay. You're really quite painfully transparent...
They are all sitting in groups - this could welll be their “bubbles” from their HMO or student accommodation.
Not sure what the problem is here.
Scott in particular will be like Hiroo Onoda, years from now he will be rocking back and forth saying "but Dominic Cummings" again and again.
Seeing Cummings, whilst knowingly infected and with the epidemic raging, brazenly break the rules that had only just been minted by a group of people including him, followed not only by no apology from him or from Johnson, but from the latter by a comment verging on praise - "He did what he thought in the best interests of himself and his family and I will not mark him down for that" - this would have caused them, quite reasonably, to relax their own compliance. That would have cost lives and thus is not a trivial matter.
Jesus Christ, don't people actually understand what they're suggesting?
Tegnell's recipe is: Find a level of restrictions that works to bring down the virus and stick with it for the long term.
It costs you early on in extra deaths because you take longer to bring them down (compare with their neighbours - ten times greater) and even a worse economic hit than otherwise (again, compare with their neighbours - theirs is worse), but the idea is people will stick to them in the longer term.
Sweden hasn't got herd immunity. They've got long-term restrictions at the level that's working for them.
We've just announced these restrictions for six months. We're hoping these are the minimum acceptable to bring the level down.
WE'RE FOLLOWING SWEDEN'S PLAN NOW!
It's not "something something less restrictions and then it all somehow works."
It's not "They've got to herd immunity somehow"
To get to herd immunity, you have to feed your population through the infection. That's where the arithmetic comes in. The arithmetic you refuse to do when you bleat on about trying to "get it over with."
Sweden hasn't "got it over with." Neither have we.
Weren't you once a journalist? If so, no wonder the media are so incompetent with anything relating to numbers or logic.
What’s wrong with getting Andrew Neil or Stephen Sackur to interview Chris Whitty about his work for half an hour?
The media has collectively failed to understand their role in a pandemic isn’t simply to treat as as any other story, but understand that people are relying on them for accurate information and in a situation where thousands of people are dying.
Government need to get public information ad campaigns up and running, making it clear how they are expecting people to behave.
Feel free to quote some hard infection data to contradict me - you won't find any.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/comment/sweden-really-like-right-now-masks/
Starting from here it will be months;
...We will ship tens of millions of tests in September and will ramp manufacturing to 50 million tests a month in October. Abbott is manufacturing the test at massive scale in two new U.S. facilities.
Firefox and Safari do use different engines, which makes testing a pain. I still have to test on IE!
https://twitter.com/cricketwyvern/status/1308394271557517314?s=19
Wuttttt
Matches up, it's between 2 points and 0
It's what we now do with it, that is important.
FTTP and infrastructure please
In that sense, second lockdown will look very similar to lockdown release, though even more localised in its operation. I think I do expect a more or less full lockdown at some point, probably in early December. For TSEs point, an early Christmas holiday for the uni students, and some temporary relaxation (rule of six?), for family visits at Christmas perhaps, but it may be a substantial lockdown.
I hope also they do differentiate somewhat between institutional outbreaks and community - yes, there is crossover that cannot be avoided, but treat each as its own thing.
I think - I would have to Google - that European debt is not quite the same, eg more British debt is owned overseas, compared to Japan, so running a 200% national debt would be more problematic.
But anyhoo, I have to go work. Sayonara
Tegnell states that EVERY COUNTRY IS DIFFERENT. We have a different economy, culture, number of people per house, population distribution, climate. Copying exactly what restrictions Sweden does and does not have won't work.
It won't magically go away by saying "let's cut restrictions and people behave"
There won't be any more spread.
But maybe I should trust what a Telegraph journalist claims is the Swedish strategy over, let's say, the actual architect of it?
Or maybe not.
Antigen shows currently infected. It measures the existence of a pathogen.
Antibody shows previous infection. It measures the existence of an immune response.
Jesus Christ.
Dark, dark times.
It used to be Firefox but it seems to have become very sluggish over recent years.
Prepare yourself for far more heavy handed and aggressive policing. The very fact that troops are there "on the map" will push the Overton Window of policing further to the authoritarian side.
This could get nasty and ugly. And just wait until the first BAME person is tripwired by it and that's caught on camera.
(Antibodies are what your immune system creates in response to the virus, don't appear until you've been infected and are infectious for a few days, and hang around for months.
Antigens are molecules or bits of molecules on the virus itself which either immune system or this test recognise/detect.)
Antigen tests might miss some who have had the virus and are no longer infectious - they're less sensitive than PCR, for example - but they are more sensitive to those who are more infectious.
Just because a policeman can be armed, doesn’t mean he has to be.
I'm curious how you think Italian testing is going better than British testing? Got any data to back that up?
UK daily test positivity rate: 1.5%
Italy daily test positivity rate: 2.7%
Daily tests per thousand people:
UK 3.47
Italy 0.87
In what way is Italian testing better?
If he said, right folks, going to be 2 years before anything like normal life comes back, he would be held responsible for all the people killing themselves from mental health breakdowns.
Let's just close the whole country down forever over a illness that is a couple of times worse than the flu.
Not sure the Germans will be happy with that.
The UK and the EU should stop mucking about with trivia and sign up a free trade, no tariff deal with an agreement to look at the details again in 2 years when this is (hopefully) over. We both have so many vastly more important things to focus on right now.
No thanks.
David has hit the nail on the head and hopefully the EU sees sense and agree to this. I think Barnier has bitten off more than he can chew and will ultimately back down as his bosses in the European Council ultimately have bigger things to worry about than what he is fussing over.
England will inevitably follow.
Imagine: six months of this. Enforced by the cops with troops in the background. This is dystopic.
I am shocked that you disagree with no facts or evidence to the contrary. Shocked.
At Oxford ' in 1986, Johnson ran successfully for president, but his term was not particularly distinguished or memorable and questions were raised regarding his competence and seriousness. Finally, Johnson was awarded an upper second-class degree,and was deeply unhappy that he did not receive a first'
Hmmm.
When it comes to infection control there are four testing metrics, of which accuracy is only one.
The others are availability, speed of result, and absolute volume of tests. Antigen tests are undoubtedly superior on those three, and sufficiently competitive on accuracy.
(And, of course, they're cheaper.)
Of course that would require a grown-up UK government, acting in our interests, to request it, so little hope there.
If you're going to give a hypothesis that our testing regime is worse than Italy's despite us having more tests and a lower positivity rate, please can you give any evidence to support your hypothesis. If you have no evidence to support your hypothesis then you must consider you might be the one who is wrong.
It's grim oop North
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1308401367493545984
Once again IT'S NOT A FINAL HOUR – the laws preventing pubs opening beyond 11pm were removed years ago. Fifteen years ago.
Why do PBers repeat this fiction that pubs have to close at 11pm?
https://life.spectator.co.uk/articles/longer-opening-hours-were-a-complete-success-how-did-the-experts-get-it-so-wrong/
The problem they have is that they have a diminishing number of people of working age looking after an ever greater number of retirees.
That's something that Italy already struggles with, and that much of the EU will suffer from over the next few decades.
To a Lib Dem accountant.