Spain just added 25k backdated over the last 7 days. I'm seriously worried that Spain and France will head into a second lockdown in the next couple of weeks and we'll follow 4-6 weeks after that.
The government seriously needs to be creative and come up with a new strategy.
Or just lockdown now.
No, there has to be another way. Lockdown will finish off the economy and put us on a long recovery road.
I agree it’s too blunt and not data driven, sledge hammer response. Ignoring it is equally crass but I’m not bright enough to know the answer.
Spain just added 25k backdated over the last 7 days. I'm seriously worried that Spain and France will head into a second lockdown in the next couple of weeks and we'll follow 4-6 weeks after that.
The government seriously needs to be creative and come up with a new strategy.
The only time this government is creative is when it needs a really stupid lie to conceal its latest act of naked criminality.
I missed the main reason there won’t be a national lockdown which is Sanchez won’t get a majority for the powers necessary to implement one, even if he wanted to.
Spain just added 25k backdated over the last 7 days. I'm seriously worried that Spain and France will head into a second lockdown in the next couple of weeks and we'll follow 4-6 weeks after that.
The government seriously needs to be creative and come up with a new strategy.
They will not go into second national lockdown in Spain, there is no need and a killer to the economy, they will continue to use localized lockdowns where necessary. The only possible restriction could be stopping movement between different communities which would be welcome.
That's like Boris saying no national lockdown and just having the whole population under local lockdown measures.
No I could possibly try and post a map of current lockdowns which are highly focused, even to a degree in Madrid, they are nowhere near as extensive as in the UK. Things can change though.
As for GB News - we already know Sir Robbie Gibb is involved and a "spokesman" for the new channel, due to launch on Freeview next February said:
“The channel will be a truly impartial source of news, unlike the woke, wet BBC,”
I suspect their definition of "truly impartial" and mine will be very different. Theirs will be as balanced as Fox News so a strong anti-Left bias can be expected with praise of whichever Conservative is flavour of the month and a steady diet of anti-Starmer opinion dressed up as commentary and analysis.
Of course, were I an old cynic, I would suggest this is an attempt by wealth to manipulate opinion but that wouldn't be a "truly impartial" viewpoint, would it?
The liberal authoritarian within me feels all media outlets should be forced to be balanced but that's up there with tolerance - as a liberal I have to tolerate intolerance because it's the right of any individual to offend or to be intolerant as part of freedom of speech and self-expression. Forcing tolerance on the intolerant is by definition intolerant and therefore a non-starter or even a non sequitur.
Why is anyone going to Uni this year? I would be d*mned if I was going to pay £9K for video lectures. You might as well put the OU back on the telly...
Somebody, one day, will make a great deal of money with such a view.
I suspect you've not had a short position for very long, you don't really believe in it, and that you will lose money.
I've done well on oil and Apple this year. Tesla continues to be overvalued so I'm going to hold this short for a while. Tesla strikes me as a company that will crash through the floor and then will recover very slowly over the next decade.
As for GB News - we already know Sir Robbie Gibb is involved and a "spokesman" for the new channel, due to launch on Freeview next February said:
“The channel will be a truly impartial source of news, unlike the woke, wet BBC,”
I suspect their definition of "truly impartial" and mine will be very different. Theirs will be as balanced as Fox News so a strong anti-Left bias can be expected with praise of whichever Conservative is flavour of the month and a steady diet of anti-Starmer opinion dressed up as commentary and analysis.
Of course, were I an old cynic, I would suggest this is an attempt by wealth to manipulate opinion but that wouldn't be a "truly impartial" viewpoint, would it?
The liberal authoritarian within me feels all media outlets should be forced to be balanced but that's up there with tolerance - as a liberal I have to tolerate intolerance because it's the right of any individual to offend or to be intolerant as part of freedom of speech and self-expression. Forcing tolerance on the intolerant is by definition intolerant and therefore a non-starter or even a non sequitur.
People who want us to look like America after a couple of decades of Fox News will be pleased.
Spain just added 25k backdated over the last 7 days. I'm seriously worried that Spain and France will head into a second lockdown in the next couple of weeks and we'll follow 4-6 weeks after that.
The government seriously needs to be creative and come up with a new strategy.
Or just lockdown now.
It wants to, but it needs a further period of rising cases before doing an April so that this course of action can be blamed on the public. We've not got long to wait, then we'll all be imprisoned for six months.
This country is finished. Might as well give up now.
It's all right - we've been finished before.
We've been in terrible difficulties before. The difference this time is that our leaders actively seek to destroy us.
The Prime Minister and his advisers are totally fixated on the virus, to the exclusion of everything else. The Chancellor is trying to help, but all of his schemes will transpire to have been worse than useless when we end up imprisoned in our homes for so long that almost all economic activity that requires people to go out (apart from essential shopping) is obliterated.
At the end of all this we're going to save about 0.2% of the population from premature death at the cost of creating a smoking ruin that's no longer worth living in for anybody. Oh, and in the long run being blasted back into the Middle Ages will kill vastly more people than the virus. Not that Johnson cares about any of that.
Covid-19 clearly has mental and psychological impacts that far outweigh its physical issues.
The government - rightly or wrongly - thinks that if the virus explodes again, and tens of thousands of people die, then they will be blamed.
They are, I'm sure, being excessively cautious, because the consequences of being wrong (like Pascal's Wager) are severe.
But even if we do go into a second full on lockdown (which I don't think we will), it will not be the end of the UK. It will not mean that thousands of teenagers and young adults lives are destroyed. It will not create a smoking ruin.
Why is anyone going to Uni this year? I would be d*mned if I was going to pay £9K for video lectures. You might as well put the OU back on the telly...
That would be a genuinely good way for the BBC to fulfil their public service remit.
I am not sure western society, as we know it, is going to survive a winter of lockdown
People wont do it
85% will and 15% won't. Many of the 85% will comply to make sure they avoid the 15%.
One good thing about the 90%+ mask-wearing in shops, buses etc is that it makes it so easy to spot the numpties and give them a wide berth.
Or their names might be Jonathan Sumption, Peter Hitchens, Anders Tegnell, Prof John Ioaniddis, Emeritus Prof Beda Stadler, Prof Michael Levitt, Dr Malcolm Kendrick, Dr Ivor Cummins et al.
The only positive outcome of this has been that
1 distancing (but 1 m is the recommended figure) 2 some forms of better hygiene
have been found to be useful in reducing the spread of all viruses incl flu (but not masks so far).
Flu viruses are trickier to deal with than coronaviruses. In a repeat of 2017-18, when the flu vaccine failed and the NHS was badly overloaded, it would be sensible to use 1&2 to keep cases within NHS capacity.
Other than that, I'm afraid Whitty and Vallance can go take a running jump and the PM can stick his mask where the sun doesn't shine. Give me my life back and stop ruining the economy.
That's fine. You stick to your theory and I'll keep steering well clear of the non-mask wearers in the shops and on public transport.
You won't get the economy back on track if 85% of the population doesn't want to mingle with the those that hold our views.
Rural voter is simply wrong on the science. A recent study dramatically proved that mask-wearing has a huge impact, not just in reducing the transmission rate, but also in the initial inoculum, which the evidence points to being key in how an infection progresses. Low initial inoculum - facilitated by universal mask-wearing - is strongly associated with aymptomatic or mildly symptomatic disease progression, whereas high initial inoculum is associated with higher morbidity and mortality.
As for GB News - we already know Sir Robbie Gibb is involved and a "spokesman" for the new channel, due to launch on Freeview next February said:
“The channel will be a truly impartial source of news, unlike the woke, wet BBC,”
I suspect their definition of "truly impartial" and mine will be very different. Theirs will be as balanced as Fox News so a strong anti-Left bias can be expected with praise of whichever Conservative is flavour of the month and a steady diet of anti-Starmer opinion dressed up as commentary and analysis.
Of course, were I an old cynic, I would suggest this is an attempt by wealth to manipulate opinion but that wouldn't be a "truly impartial" viewpoint, would it?
The liberal authoritarian within me feels all media outlets should be forced to be balanced but that's up there with tolerance - as a liberal I have to tolerate intolerance because it's the right of any individual to offend or to be intolerant as part of freedom of speech and self-expression. Forcing tolerance on the intolerant is by definition intolerant and therefore a non-starter or even a non sequitur.
Already shaping up to be a mouthpiece for that notoriously underrepresented and seldom heard from group. Ageing right wing blokes.
Why is anyone going to Uni this year? I would be d*mned if I was going to pay £9K for video lectures. You might as well put the OU back on the telly...
That would be a genuinely good way for the BBC to fulfil their public service remit.
Those OU programmes were mostly magnificent. Some of the best documentaries ever made were designed for the OU.
Spain just added 25k backdated over the last 7 days. I'm seriously worried that Spain and France will head into a second lockdown in the next couple of weeks and we'll follow 4-6 weeks after that.
The government seriously needs to be creative and come up with a new strategy.
Or just lockdown now.
It wants to, but it needs a further period of rising cases before doing an April so that this course of action can be blamed on the public. We've not got long to wait, then we'll all be imprisoned for six months.
This country is finished. Might as well give up now.
It's all right - we've been finished before.
We've been in terrible difficulties before. The difference this time is that our leaders actively seek to destroy us.
The Prime Minister and his advisers are totally fixated on the virus, to the exclusion of everything else. The Chancellor is trying to help, but all of his schemes will transpire to have been worse than useless when we end up imprisoned in our homes for so long that almost all economic activity that requires people to go out (apart from essential shopping) is obliterated.
At the end of all this we're going to save about 0.2% of the population from premature death at the cost of creating a smoking ruin that's no longer worth living in for anybody. Oh, and in the long run being blasted back into the Middle Ages will kill vastly more people than the virus. Not that Johnson cares about any of that.
Covid-19 clearly has mental and psychological impacts that far outweigh its physical issues.
The government - rightly or wrongly - thinks that if the virus explodes again, and tens of thousands of people die, then they will be blamed.
They are, I'm sure, being excessively cautious, because the consequences of being wrong (like Pascal's Wager) are severe.
But even if we do go into a second full on lockdown (which I don't think we will), it will not be the end of the UK. It will not mean that thousands of teenagers and young adults lives are destroyed. It will not create a smoking ruin.
I don't think the entire country will be levelled to the ground, as was, say, Hiroshima
But a second long quasi-national lockdown, with maybe mass deaths and illness, is just something no one has ever experienced. We have nothing to compare it too. And this will be happening worldwide, as well.
Humanity is going into a dark tunnel that we have not visited before.
Seriously negative outcomes - civil strife, martial law, revolutions in some countries - are not implausible.
Spain just added 25k backdated over the last 7 days. I'm seriously worried that Spain and France will head into a second lockdown in the next couple of weeks and we'll follow 4-6 weeks after that.
The government seriously needs to be creative and come up with a new strategy.
Or just lockdown now.
It wants to, but it needs a further period of rising cases before doing an April so that this course of action can be blamed on the public. We've not got long to wait, then we'll all be imprisoned for six months.
This country is finished. Might as well give up now.
It's all right - we've been finished before.
We've been in terrible difficulties before. The difference this time is that our leaders actively seek to destroy us.
The Prime Minister and his advisers are totally fixated on the virus, to the exclusion of everything else. The Chancellor is trying to help, but all of his schemes will transpire to have been worse than useless when we end up imprisoned in our homes for so long that almost all economic activity that requires people to go out (apart from essential shopping) is obliterated.
At the end of all this we're going to save about 0.2% of the population from premature death at the cost of creating a smoking ruin that's no longer worth living in for anybody. Oh, and in the long run being blasted back into the Middle Ages will kill vastly more people than the virus. Not that Johnson cares about any of that.
Covid-19 clearly has mental and psychological impacts that far outweigh its physical issues.
The government - rightly or wrongly - thinks that if the virus explodes again, and tens of thousands of people die, then they will be blamed.
They are, I'm sure, being excessively cautious, because the consequences of being wrong (like Pascal's Wager) are severe.
But even if we do go into a second full on lockdown (which I don't think we will), it will not be the end of the UK. It will not mean that thousands of teenagers and young adults lives are destroyed. It will not create a smoking ruin.
I don't think the entire country will be levelled to the ground, as was, say, Hiroshima
But a second long quasi-national lockdown, with maybe mass deaths and illness, is just something no one has ever experienced. We have nothing to compare it too. And this will be happening worldwide, as well.
Humanity is going into a dark tunnel that we have not visited before.
Seriously negative outcomes - civil strife, martial law, revolutions in some countries - are not implausible.
China, Venezuela, Pakistan, North Korea, Russia, America, Brazil, the other failed democracies? Revolution in some of those might be positively beneficial.
For a pub the flat rate scheme has reduced VAT from 6.5% to just 1% so that's an 84.6% reduction in VAT bills liable which should be significant
If your daughter thinks she isn't gaining from this scheme then I'd recommend she seeks professional advice as she absolutely should be gaining as far as I understand it. I wouldn't want her to be paying 6.5x the amount liable.
She has had professional advice from a very good set of accountants on everything this year.
Small businesses like hers are already exempt from business rates.
In response to @rcs1000, the reason why taxpayers should pay is that the benefits of restricting pub activity are for the benefit of all whereas the costs are currently being largely borne by the pubs themselves. There is a mismatch IMO between costs and benefits.
Also, her business is viable - it was profitable last year, it increased turnover by 60% and its customers want to use it. So it makes sense to support such businesses until there is a vaccine.
And what does viable jobs even mean? How many white collar jobs are actually viable?
But if the decision is to be to let this sector die, the government needs to understand the huge direct and indirect costs of that for many regions of the country. And it should bloody well be honest about what it is doing, which it isn’t being.
No, there's a couple of clusters appearing in Brooklyn and Queens. The overall curve for the state remains nicely flat but does appear to be very slightly increasing in the last few days. I'm pretty confident Cuomo will be able to contain it though.
We've been in terrible difficulties before. The difference this time is that our leaders actively seek to destroy us.
The Prime Minister and his advisers are totally fixated on the virus, to the exclusion of everything else. The Chancellor is trying to help, but all of his schemes will transpire to have been worse than useless when we end up imprisoned in our homes for so long that almost all economic activity that requires people to go out (apart from essential shopping) is obliterated.
At the end of all this we're going to save about 0.2% of the population from premature death at the cost of creating a smoking ruin that's no longer worth living in for anybody. Oh, and in the long run being blasted back into the Middle Ages will kill vastly more people than the virus. Not that Johnson cares about any of that.
I have to say I don't share your doom-laden prognosis.
As is so often the case on here, hyperbole and generalisations cloud the issue. I've seen the claim that "councils are shut" because an acquaintance isn't doing any work - that shows a breath-taking ignorance of how local authorities operate and the huge amount of extra work Covid has provided.
Similarly, throwing around notions we will be "blasted back into the Middle Ages" is just absurd. Aspects of economic life thrived during lockdown - companies which could adapt to the burgeoning home working sector did very well and have recruited thousands of extra workers.
Capitalism is brutal but evolutionary - adversity creates opportunity. There will be jobs lost but there will also be new areas for enterprise and entrepreneurs to develop. It will be painful - change often is - but we have and will continue to adapt as we did in earlier far graver times.
This isn't global nuclear war or a pandemic with a 95% infection rate and a 90% mortality rate (they would definitely fit your scenarios). Perhaps we prioritise health over economy - that wasn't always the way but perhaps we do now. That's a cultural question.
It's interesting to read an expectation that Premier League football clubs should help out the lower league clubs - it's called philanthropy or motivated self-interest. Should those who have more voluntarily support those who face ruin, should the Government be the only financier of last resort?
Perhaps the virus also gives us time to think about what is really important - life is important, living it is important, if part of living it is socialising and "talking bs with friends" perhaps that too needs to be recognised. The contrast with how we might wish to live and how economic culture forces us to live is another area which has been thrown into sharp relief.
As with Brexit (curiously), the situation forces us to consider the questions we don't normally have the time or desire to consider possibly, I suspect, because we don't like the answers.
Why is anyone going to Uni this year? I would be d*mned if I was going to pay £9K for video lectures. You might as well put the OU back on the telly...
That would be a genuinely good way for the BBC to fulfil their public service remit.
Those OU programmes were mostly magnificent. Some of the best documentaries ever made were designed for the OU.
If the objective of education is merely knowledge acquisition, I'd agree. No need for universities any more. But having your beliefs challenged, learning to ask the right questions, learning to learn from peers, learning to collaborate in teams, and developing the interpersonal skills and self-control/emotional intelligence to be an effective teammate are really, really tough to develop using remote learning tools.
We are social animals, but we need to socialize to learn and retain those skills.
Spain just added 25k backdated over the last 7 days. I'm seriously worried that Spain and France will head into a second lockdown in the next couple of weeks and we'll follow 4-6 weeks after that.
The government seriously needs to be creative and come up with a new strategy.
Or just lockdown now.
It wants to, but it needs a further period of rising cases before doing an April so that this course of action can be blamed on the public. We've not got long to wait, then we'll all be imprisoned for six months.
This country is finished. Might as well give up now.
It's all right - we've been finished before.
We've been in terrible difficulties before. The difference this time is that our leaders actively seek to destroy us.
The Prime Minister and his advisers are totally fixated on the virus, to the exclusion of everything else. The Chancellor is trying to help, but all of his schemes will transpire to have been worse than useless when we end up imprisoned in our homes for so long that almost all economic activity that requires people to go out (apart from essential shopping) is obliterated.
At the end of all this we're going to save about 0.2% of the population from premature death at the cost of creating a smoking ruin that's no longer worth living in for anybody. Oh, and in the long run being blasted back into the Middle Ages will kill vastly more people than the virus. Not that Johnson cares about any of that.
Covid-19 clearly has mental and psychological impacts that far outweigh its physical issues.
The government - rightly or wrongly - thinks that if the virus explodes again, and tens of thousands of people die, then they will be blamed.
They are, I'm sure, being excessively cautious, because the consequences of being wrong (like Pascal's Wager) are severe.
But even if we do go into a second full on lockdown (which I don't think we will), it will not be the end of the UK. It will not mean that thousands of teenagers and young adults lives are destroyed. It will not create a smoking ruin.
I don't think the entire country will be levelled to the ground, as was, say, Hiroshima
But a second long quasi-national lockdown, with maybe mass deaths and illness, is just something no one has ever experienced. We have nothing to compare it too. And this will be happening worldwide, as well.
Humanity is going into a dark tunnel that we have not visited before.
Seriously negative outcomes - civil strife, martial law, revolutions in some countries - are not implausible.
China, Venezuela, Pakistan, North Korea, Russia, America, Brazil, the other failed democracies? Revolution in some of those might be positively beneficial.
LOL America as a failed democracy. It might be in danger if Trump is good to his rhetoric, but it is far from failed while, like any democracy, being far from perfect.
I think the idea was a good one, but only with the proviso that establishments strictly follow the rules. Just judging from what I've seen as I've gone past pubs and restaurants over the last couple of months I do not think many places have followed the rules fully, and when there is next to no enforcement that's not surprising.
I think the idea was a good one, but only with the proviso that establishments strictly follow the rules. Just judging from what I've seen as I've gone past pubs and restaurants over the last couple of months I do not think many places have followed the rules fully, and when there is next to no enforcement that's not surprising.
It looks obvious from that research that doing other stuff is the principal risk factor. If people just stuck to the top fourteen listed activities only and stopped doing dangerous ‘Other’ stuff, we’d all be safer.
Spain just added 25k backdated over the last 7 days. I'm seriously worried that Spain and France will head into a second lockdown in the next couple of weeks and we'll follow 4-6 weeks after that.
The government seriously needs to be creative and come up with a new strategy.
Or just lockdown now.
It wants to, but it needs a further period of rising cases before doing an April so that this course of action can be blamed on the public. We've not got long to wait, then we'll all be imprisoned for six months.
This country is finished. Might as well give up now.
It's all right - we've been finished before.
We've been in terrible difficulties before. The difference this time is that our leaders actively seek to destroy us.
The Prime Minister and his advisers are totally fixated on the virus, to the exclusion of everything else. The Chancellor is trying to help, but all of his schemes will transpire to have been worse than useless when we end up imprisoned in our homes for so long that almost all economic activity that requires people to go out (apart from essential shopping) is obliterated.
At the end of all this we're going to save about 0.2% of the population from premature death at the cost of creating a smoking ruin that's no longer worth living in for anybody. Oh, and in the long run being blasted back into the Middle Ages will kill vastly more people than the virus. Not that Johnson cares about any of that.
Covid-19 clearly has mental and psychological impacts that far outweigh its physical issues.
The government - rightly or wrongly - thinks that if the virus explodes again, and tens of thousands of people die, then they will be blamed.
They are, I'm sure, being excessively cautious, because the consequences of being wrong (like Pascal's Wager) are severe.
But even if we do go into a second full on lockdown (which I don't think we will), it will not be the end of the UK. It will not mean that thousands of teenagers and young adults lives are destroyed. It will not create a smoking ruin.
Would I be right in my recollection that you do not live here and therefore don't have to suffer the consequences of any of the actions of this hopeless administration?
Of course the lives of the young will be destroyed, and in very large numbers. They're being thrown on the bonfire of penury as part of the PTSD-induced Government reaction to this disease.
They're desperate to lock back down. They're waiting for the excuse to do it. It won't be long in coming.
Why is anyone going to Uni this year? I would be d*mned if I was going to pay £9K for video lectures. You might as well put the OU back on the telly...
One wonders in the long run (assuming that the country doesn't simply disintegrate under the weight of this full spectrum catastrophe) if some of the universities may decide it's a good idea to undercut the competition on price by offering cheaper courses by distance learning? Perhaps even under a part-time, OU-style model, so that students can work and make money whilst doing their studies?
A few top-quality distance learning providers, free of the physical constraints of having to house their students and provide them with lecture theatres in which to sit, could cater for a large chunk of the undergraduate population between them. It would finish off all the weaker institutions, which wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.
Spain just added 25k backdated over the last 7 days. I'm seriously worried that Spain and France will head into a second lockdown in the next couple of weeks and we'll follow 4-6 weeks after that.
The government seriously needs to be creative and come up with a new strategy.
Or just lockdown now.
It wants to, but it needs a further period of rising cases before doing an April so that this course of action can be blamed on the public. We've not got long to wait, then we'll all be imprisoned for six months.
This country is finished. Might as well give up now.
It's all right - we've been finished before.
We've been in terrible difficulties before. The difference this time is that our leaders actively seek to destroy us.
The Prime Minister and his advisers are totally fixated on the virus, to the exclusion of everything else. The Chancellor is trying to help, but all of his schemes will transpire to have been worse than useless when we end up imprisoned in our homes for so long that almost all economic activity that requires people to go out (apart from essential shopping) is obliterated.
At the end of all this we're going to save about 0.2% of the population from premature death at the cost of creating a smoking ruin that's no longer worth living in for anybody. Oh, and in the long run being blasted back into the Middle Ages will kill vastly more people than the virus. Not that Johnson cares about any of that.
Covid-19 clearly has mental and psychological impacts that far outweigh its physical issues.
The government - rightly or wrongly - thinks that if the virus explodes again, and tens of thousands of people die, then they will be blamed.
They are, I'm sure, being excessively cautious, because the consequences of being wrong (like Pascal's Wager) are severe.
But even if we do go into a second full on lockdown (which I don't think we will), it will not be the end of the UK. It will not mean that thousands of teenagers and young adults lives are destroyed. It will not create a smoking ruin.
I don't think the entire country will be levelled to the ground, as was, say, Hiroshima
But a second long quasi-national lockdown, with maybe mass deaths and illness, is just something no one has ever experienced. We have nothing to compare it too. And this will be happening worldwide, as well.
Humanity is going into a dark tunnel that we have not visited before.
Seriously negative outcomes - civil strife, martial law, revolutions in some countries - are not implausible.
The 1918 flu epidemic was far worse, but of course at that time most people didn't know what wasn't going on outside their immediate vicinity.
I think the idea was a good one, but only with the proviso that establishments strictly follow the rules. Just judging from what I've seen as I've gone past pubs and restaurants over the last couple of months I do not think many places have followed the rules fully, and when there is next to no enforcement that's not surprising.
Surely this graph on its own tells us nothing. If 25% of those who contracted COVID dined out in the preceding 5 days, whereas 35% of the population did, then dining out would negatively correlate with getting COVID.
For a pub the flat rate scheme has reduced VAT from 6.5% to just 1% so that's an 84.6% reduction in VAT bills liable which should be significant
If your daughter thinks she isn't gaining from this scheme then I'd recommend she seeks professional advice as she absolutely should be gaining as far as I understand it. I wouldn't want her to be paying 6.5x the amount liable.
She has had professional advice from a very good set of accountants on everything this year.
Small businesses like hers are already exempt from business rates.
In response to @rcs1000, the reason why taxpayers should pay is that the benefits of restricting pub activity are for the benefit of all whereas the costs are currently being largely borne by the pubs themselves. There is a mismatch IMO between costs and benefits.
Also, her business is viable - it was profitable last year, it increased turnover by 60% and its customers want to use it. So it makes sense to support such businesses until there is a vaccine.
And what does viable jobs even mean? How many white collar jobs are actually viable?
But if the decision is to be to let this sector die, the government needs to understand the huge direct and indirect costs of that for many regions of the country. And it should bloody well be honest about what it is doing, which it isn’t being.
You are aware that Sunak is the MP for a large part of the Yorkshire Dales. He will know what the impact is (as I’m sure every landlord in the constituency is telling him).
Downside is that in Richmond itself as we drove through it on Wednesday night the only pub that seemed busy was the Spoons
Instead of spending the last two months telling everyone it was getting better, we should have instead been preparing for the inevitable second wave. Arrogance slipped in once again and the Tories must be held responsible.
Don’t you need a control group for analysis like that? Because people don’t do all those activities with equal frequency or duration.
And it could be who your mixing with rather than where, but it’s good to see some effort to collect thieve data.
Yes, but if the entire population ate out at least once a week, the information on how many of those who had caught the virus had done so (which would be all of them) would clearly be meaningless. What you want to know is what differences in prior activity there might be between those who catch it and those who didnt
Instead of spending the last two months telling everyone it was getting better, we should have instead been preparing for the inevitable second wave. Arrogance slipped in once again and the Tories must be held responsible.
How are the conservatives responsible for the outbreaks across Europe which are as bad if not worst than here
Your new hero Keir would be equally struggling in this crisis
The ONS Infection Survey uses random sampling to overcome the problem of selection bias. While these data suggest that somewhere between 4,200 and 8,300 people per day are getting the infection, it tells you nothing about the infectious status of the individuals , and the small sample number of cases in the survey (over the latest six-week period 136 people from 118 households tested positive out of 208,730 tests). This gives rise to small sample bias that can lead to chance findings.
Instead of spending the last two months telling everyone it was getting better, we should have instead been preparing for the inevitable second wave. Arrogance slipped in once again and the Tories must be held responsible.
How are the conservatives responsible for the outbreaks across Europe which are as bad if not worst than here
Your new hero Keir would be equally struggling in this crisis
I thought we were friends Big G, are you going to continue this kind of response to every post I make? I detect subtle anger
I took the case numbers from the ONS infection survey and assumed that the deaths 14 days later are the relevant numbers. Which produced this -
What does it look like if you make it 21 days?
It shifts the curve seven steps to the left, doh.
Not necessarily. You are changing the denominator for each numerator.
No you're not.
Then he hasn’t done it properly.
We don't really know, but I suspect the vertical axis scales are different. What is shown is the infectivity rate, but deaths? I think they are the pure numbers rescaled.
Instead of spending the last two months telling everyone it was getting better, we should have instead been preparing for the inevitable second wave. Arrogance slipped in once again and the Tories must be held responsible.
How are the conservatives responsible for the outbreaks across Europe which are as bad if not worst than here
Your new hero Keir would be equally struggling in this crisis
I thought we were friends Big G, are you going to continue this kind of response to every post I make? I detect subtle anger
Instead of spending the last two months telling everyone it was getting better, we should have instead been preparing for the inevitable second wave. Arrogance slipped in once again and the Tories must be held responsible.
How are the conservatives responsible for the outbreaks across Europe which are as bad if not worst than here
Your new hero Keir would be equally struggling in this crisis
Most of Europe is still much better. And even those countries like France and Spain, which look in growing difficulty now, start about 10,000 deaths fewer each than us. Our performance has been relatively poor and, like in the US, a big slice of the responsibility for that sits with the government.
No, there's a couple of clusters appearing in Brooklyn and Queens. The overall curve for the state remains nicely flat but does appear to be very slightly increasing in the last few days. I'm pretty confident Cuomo will be able to contain it though.
I see absolutely no reason why the USA (including NYC) will avoid the 2nd waves now hitting Europe
I took the case numbers from the ONS infection survey and assumed that the deaths 14 days later are the relevant numbers. Which produced this -
That's just the difference in the age distribution of those infected?
Lol
I hadn't realised I was trying to be funny there? It's widely reported that the current surge in cases is amongst the young, so is it surprising that the lethality has gone down?
The ONS Infection Survey uses random sampling to overcome the problem of selection bias. While these data suggest that somewhere between 4,200 and 8,300 people per day are getting the infection, it tells you nothing about the infectious status of the individuals , and the small sample number of cases in the survey (over the latest six-week period 136 people from 118 households tested positive out of 208,730 tests). This gives rise to small sample bias that can lead to chance findings.
Instead of spending the last two months telling everyone it was getting better, we should have instead been preparing for the inevitable second wave. Arrogance slipped in once again and the Tories must be held responsible.
How are the conservatives responsible for the outbreaks across Europe which are as bad if not worst than here
Your new hero Keir would be equally struggling in this crisis
I thought we were friends Big G, are you going to continue this kind of response to every post I make? I detect subtle anger
Which is why I did not Eat Out to catch Covid Help Out.
"It is your patriotic duty to go to the pub", according to our great Leader.
Was.
Like we were encouraged to go on holiday.
They clearly forgot that there are a lot of idiots out there who ignored all the rules, both at home and abroad, who came back and did their best to spread it.obviously many pub goers aNd holiday makers were sensible following guidance at home and abroad.
I took the case numbers from the ONS infection survey and assumed that the deaths 14 days later are the relevant numbers. Which produced this -
What does it look like if you make it 21 days?
Used 14 day trend lines to try and get a smooth output...
21 days is the average time between infection and death as I recall.
But this comprises the initial asymptomatic period, then a mild period, then an intensive care period, before death.
What you need to know is the average time between test result and death. A few might be tested during the asymptomatic period, by lucky chance or contact tracing. But most, I guess, will be tested during the symptomatic period, and - given the delays in getting a test and getting a result - quite possibly well into it. Therefore 14 days could well be a max.
The other point is that during the first wave, much of the testing was being done at hospital when people were already well into the symptomatic period and indeed sometimes into the critical period. As testing has ramped up, the time between test and death would, at my guess, have been gradually extending.
I took the case numbers from the ONS infection survey and assumed that the deaths 14 days later are the relevant numbers. Which produced this -
That's just the difference in the age distribution of those infected?
Lol
I hadn't realised I was trying to be funny there? It's widely reported that the current surge in cases is amongst the young, so is it surprising that the lethality has gone down?
So there's still a chance that wave 2 will turn out to be a paper tiger, if we protect the care homes and so on?
I took the case numbers from the ONS infection survey and assumed that the deaths 14 days later are the relevant numbers. Which produced this -
That's just the difference in the age distribution of those infected?
Lol
I hadn't realised I was trying to be funny there? It's widely reported that the current surge in cases is amongst the young, so is it surprising that the lethality has gone down?
Ok, fair enough. I interpreted your comment differently. But the point of the graph was to compare the two indicators, showing how they move kind of parallel but with an offset of two weeks. Both have gone down, perhaps for the reason you suggest, though I think it is the normal evolution of an epicurve.
I took the case numbers from the ONS infection survey and assumed that the deaths 14 days later are the relevant numbers. Which produced this -
That's just the difference in the age distribution of those infected?
Lol
I hadn't realised I was trying to be funny there? It's widely reported that the current surge in cases is amongst the young, so is it surprising that the lethality has gone down?
More likely to be a combination of things, age distribution being one of them. Improved treatments, mask-wearing reducing inoculum and hence disease severity, fewer vulnerable people being exposed. You could make quite a long list of candidates.
I took the case numbers from the ONS infection survey and assumed that the deaths 14 days later are the relevant numbers. Which produced this -
What does it look like if you make it 21 days?
Used 14 day trend lines to try and get a smooth output...
I'm confused about what it's showing then. I thought 14 days was a bit aggressive so the data might be distorted by catching cases earlier now, but that doesn't fit the graph.
I took the case numbers from the ONS infection survey and assumed that the deaths 14 days later are the relevant numbers. Which produced this -
What does it look like if you make it 21 days?
It shifts the curve seven steps to the left, doh.
Not necessarily. You are changing the denominator for each numerator.
No you're not.
Then he hasn’t done it properly.
We don't really know, but I suspect the vertical axis scales are different. What is shown is the infectivity rate, but deaths? I think they are the pure numbers rescaled.
What I did was to calculate, based on the day to day infection per 10k number from the ONS the infections per day.
Which gives us this -
Then I looked at dividing deaths 14 and 21 days later by the infections per day. This gave me this -
Instead of spending the last two months telling everyone it was getting better, we should have instead been preparing for the inevitable second wave. Arrogance slipped in once again and the Tories must be held responsible.
How are the conservatives responsible for the outbreaks across Europe which are as bad if not worst than here
Your new hero Keir would be equally struggling in this crisis
Most of Europe is still much better. And even those countries like France and Spain, which look in growing difficulty now, start about 10,000 deaths fewer each than us. Our performance has been relatively poor and, like in the US, a big slice of the responsibility for that sits with the government.
Spain has more deaths per million and a worse fall in GDP. France's deconfinement has been calamitous. And so on.
The only European countries looking "good" are maybe Sweden and Germany, really. And it is quite possible there is another year of this shit to go through, and we are just a third of a way through the nightmare, with who-knows-what outcome at the end.
@Malmesbury "Then I looked at dividing deaths 14 and 21 days later by the infections per day. This gave me this -". So if there were a proportional relation between these variables you would have expected a constant (i.e. flat line) outcome?
I took the case numbers from the ONS infection survey and assumed that the deaths 14 days later are the relevant numbers. Which produced this -
That's just the difference in the age distribution of those infected?
Lol
I hadn't realised I was trying to be funny there? It's widely reported that the current surge in cases is amongst the young, so is it surprising that the lethality has gone down?
Ok, fair enough. I interpreted your comment differently. But the point of the graph was to compare the two indicators, showing how they move kind of parallel but with an offset of two weeks. Both have gone down, perhaps for the reason you suggest, though I think it is the normal evolution of an epicurve.
Could also be mask wearing reducing the amount of virus people are receiving on average. But that seems far more speculative than the difference in the age distribution which is very pronounced.
Why is anyone going to Uni this year? I would be d*mned if I was going to pay £9K for video lectures. You might as well put the OU back on the telly...
OU is barely any different in terms of cost £6 000 per year for 120 credits.
Fox jr 2 seems to be enjoying himself back in the Smoke. 10 lasses for every lad on his course*, half of them from overseas. Meeting up in person for a socially distanced social tommorow night. It all sounds like a Jay from inbetweeners fantasy...
I took the case numbers from the ONS infection survey and assumed that the deaths 14 days later are the relevant numbers. Which produced this -
That's just the difference in the age distribution of those infected?
Lol
I hadn't realised I was trying to be funny there? It's widely reported that the current surge in cases is amongst the young, so is it surprising that the lethality has gone down?
Lethality has gone down at all ages, particularly the elderly.
Instead of spending the last two months telling everyone it was getting better, we should have instead been preparing for the inevitable second wave. Arrogance slipped in once again and the Tories must be held responsible.
How are the conservatives responsible for the outbreaks across Europe which are as bad if not worst than here
Your new hero Keir would be equally struggling in this crisis
Most of Europe is still much better. And even those countries like France and Spain, which look in growing difficulty now, start about 10,000 deaths fewer each than us. Our performance has been relatively poor and, like in the US, a big slice of the responsibility for that sits with the government.
If you think the Spanish deaths figures are accurate I have a bridge you might be interested in!
I see people mentioning a surge in suicides a lot. Are people basing this of actual figures or on intuition? Because as far as I know the ONS is saying you cant draw any conclusions about suicides at the moment as inquests will almost certainly be delayed due to Cornoavirus. Presently the Q2 suicide rate is half what it was a year ago (but will be revised higher once inquests are concluded)
The inquest for my nephew was held a week ago following his death in May. So they’re not being delayed that much.
Sorry, have witnessed at first hand the lack of control in pubs, bars and yes restaurants. As a result, unless I had to enter one due to work and fully donned up in PPE, I would not set a foot inside these places, which, from what I witnessed, were far from hospitable. What others do is up to them.
Comments
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/sep/25/dominic-cummings-data-law-shake-up-a-danger-to-trade-says-eu
I suspect you've not had a short position for very long, you don't really believe in it, and that you will lose money.
“The channel will be a truly impartial source of news, unlike the woke, wet BBC,”
I suspect their definition of "truly impartial" and mine will be very different. Theirs will be as balanced as Fox News so a strong anti-Left bias can be expected with praise of whichever Conservative is flavour of the month and a steady diet of anti-Starmer opinion dressed up as commentary and analysis.
Of course, were I an old cynic, I would suggest this is an attempt by wealth to manipulate opinion but that wouldn't be a "truly impartial" viewpoint, would it?
The liberal authoritarian within me feels all media outlets should be forced to be balanced but that's up there with tolerance - as a liberal I have to tolerate intolerance because it's the right of any individual to offend or to be intolerant as part of freedom of speech and self-expression. Forcing tolerance on the intolerant is by definition intolerant and therefore a non-starter or even a non sequitur.
What do we reckon?
A disguise for when he has to leave the country in a midnight flit? Well, a boy can hope.
The government - rightly or wrongly - thinks that if the virus explodes again, and tens of thousands of people die, then they will be blamed.
They are, I'm sure, being excessively cautious, because the consequences of being wrong (like Pascal's Wager) are severe.
But even if we do go into a second full on lockdown (which I don't think we will), it will not be the end of the UK. It will not mean that thousands of teenagers and young adults lives are destroyed. It will not create a smoking ruin.
https://twitter.com/Politacs7/status/1309567595436281856?s=20
https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1309540574215757825
Ageing right wing blokes.
But a second long quasi-national lockdown, with maybe mass deaths and illness, is just something no one has ever experienced. We have nothing to compare it too. And this will be happening worldwide, as well.
Humanity is going into a dark tunnel that we have not visited before.
Seriously negative outcomes - civil strife, martial law, revolutions in some countries - are not implausible.
Small businesses like hers are already exempt from business rates.
In response to @rcs1000, the reason why taxpayers should pay is that the benefits of restricting pub activity are for the benefit of all whereas the costs are currently being largely borne by the pubs themselves. There is a mismatch IMO between costs and benefits.
Also, her business is viable - it was profitable last year, it increased turnover by 60% and its customers want to use it. So it makes sense to support such businesses until there is a vaccine.
And what does viable jobs even mean? How many white collar jobs are actually viable?
But if the decision is to be to let this sector die, the government needs to understand the huge direct and indirect costs of that for many regions of the country. And it should bloody well be honest about what it is doing, which it isn’t being.
As is so often the case on here, hyperbole and generalisations cloud the issue. I've seen the claim that "councils are shut" because an acquaintance isn't doing any work - that shows a breath-taking ignorance of how local authorities operate and the huge amount of extra work Covid has provided.
Similarly, throwing around notions we will be "blasted back into the Middle Ages" is just absurd. Aspects of economic life thrived during lockdown - companies which could adapt to the burgeoning home working sector did very well and have recruited thousands of extra workers.
Capitalism is brutal but evolutionary - adversity creates opportunity. There will be jobs lost but there will also be new areas for enterprise and entrepreneurs to develop. It will be painful - change often is - but we have and will continue to adapt as we did in earlier far graver times.
This isn't global nuclear war or a pandemic with a 95% infection rate and a 90% mortality rate (they would definitely fit your scenarios). Perhaps we prioritise health over economy - that wasn't always the way but perhaps we do now. That's a cultural question.
It's interesting to read an expectation that Premier League football clubs should help out the lower league clubs - it's called philanthropy or motivated self-interest. Should those who have more voluntarily support those who face ruin, should the Government be the only financier of last resort?
Perhaps the virus also gives us time to think about what is really important - life is important, living it is important, if part of living it is socialising and "talking bs with friends" perhaps that too needs to be recognised. The contrast with how we might wish to live and how economic culture forces us to live is another area which has been thrown into sharp relief.
As with Brexit (curiously), the situation forces us to consider the questions we don't normally have the time or desire to consider possibly, I suspect, because we don't like the answers.
We are social animals, but we need to socialize to learn and retain those skills.
Thanks Rishi
I took the case numbers from the ONS infection survey and assumed that the deaths 14 days later are the relevant numbers. Which produced this -
Today seems to be national hyperbole day.
https://blackwells.co.uk/bookshop/product/Millions-of-Women-Are-Waiting-to-Meet-You-by-Sean-Thomas/9780747585565
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
Of course the lives of the young will be destroyed, and in very large numbers. They're being thrown on the bonfire of penury as part of the PTSD-induced Government reaction to this disease.
They're desperate to lock back down. They're waiting for the excuse to do it. It won't be long in coming. One wonders in the long run (assuming that the country doesn't simply disintegrate under the weight of this full spectrum catastrophe) if some of the universities may decide it's a good idea to undercut the competition on price by offering cheaper courses by distance learning? Perhaps even under a part-time, OU-style model, so that students can work and make money whilst doing their studies?
A few top-quality distance learning providers, free of the physical constraints of having to house their students and provide them with lecture theatres in which to sit, could cater for a large chunk of the undergraduate population between them. It would finish off all the weaker institutions, which wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.
Downside is that in Richmond itself as we drove through it on Wednesday night the only pub that seemed busy was the Spoons
https://twitter.com/cstross/status/1309572035836874757
Your new hero Keir would be equally struggling in this crisis
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-rule-of-four-how-to-make-sense-of-covid-case-numbers?utm_medium=email&utm_source=CampaignMonitor_Editorial&utm_campaign=BLND 20200925 Charles Stanley JO+CID_37cc20f8d49b7bef21d26309936a80eb
Used 14 day trend lines to try and get a smooth output...
Like we were encouraged to go on holiday.
been ordered to self quarantine, unless it needs an eye test
But this comprises the initial asymptomatic period, then a mild period, then an intensive care period, before death.
What you need to know is the average time between test result and death. A few might be tested during the asymptomatic period, by lucky chance or contact tracing. But most, I guess, will be tested during the symptomatic period, and - given the delays in getting a test and getting a result - quite possibly well into it. Therefore 14 days could well be a max.
The other point is that during the first wave, much of the testing was being done at hospital when people were already well into the symptomatic period and indeed sometimes into the critical period. As testing has ramped up, the time between test and death would, at my guess, have been gradually extending.
Which gives us this -
Then I looked at dividing deaths 14 and 21 days later by the infections per day. This gave me this -
The only European countries looking "good" are maybe Sweden and Germany, really. And it is quite possible there is another year of this shit to go through, and we are just a third of a way through the nightmare, with who-knows-what outcome at the end.
So if there were a proportional relation between these variables you would have expected a constant (i.e. flat line) outcome?
Fox jr 2 seems to be enjoying himself back in the Smoke. 10 lasses for every lad on his course*, half of them from overseas. Meeting up in person for a socially distanced social tommorow night. It all sounds like a Jay from inbetweeners fantasy...
* it is obviously not engineering...