Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Home truths about Covid-19 – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited October 2020 in General
imageHome truths about Covid-19 – politicalbetting.com

OK, time to take stock.  Covid-19 cases are rising again.  Where should we go from here?  Plenty of others will use the statistics to construct arguments for preferred courses of action.  I intend instead to focus on some big, simple and mostly unpalatable truths.  

Read the full story here

«134567

Comments

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,956
    edited October 2020
    First, so people can post on the thread.
  • Top piece, wanted to get that picture into a thread header for a while.
  • The left need to accept responsibility for this chaos, of which I include myself.

    If we had not offered Corbyn again this would have all been prevented.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,072
    I want to go to the pub with my friends FFS.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,708
    edited October 2020
    Unless and until we get a vaccine basically the government cannot do more than balance containing the rise in Covid cases with the damage to the economy from doing so
  • No_Offence_AlanNo_Offence_Alan Posts: 3,701
    edited October 2020

    Top piece, wanted to get that picture into a thread header for a while.

    Is Malcolm Tucker just out of shot?
  • NerysHughesNerysHughes Posts: 3,346
    I like the comment on the last thread that Marcus Rashford is "pretty well off"

    He earns a million quid a month.
  • I am a complete pessimist on COVID.

    I don't think a vaccine will be found for a long time, I don't think there is a viable track and trace solution and it's a waste of time and money looking for one and I don't think locking down does a lot other than string the crisis out over a longer period of time.

    Of course all government policy on it is going to be a disaster as there is nothing productive they can actually do.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,007
    On topic, it's hard to disagree with any of this.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578
    Very good article Alastair.

    I think Governments around the world have got themselves into the dilemma that, if they start to say we cannot go on lockdown because of the costs involved, their previous actions will be questioned and they will just be chucked out at the next election. Hence, they stick with the same policy knowing that it is unsustainable
  • Top piece, wanted to get that picture into a thread header for a while.

    Is Malcolm Tucker just out of shot?
    Yes, just behind Dominic Cummings.
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797

    The left need to accept responsibility for this chaos, of which I include myself.

    If we had not offered Corbyn again this would have all been prevented.

    Really? Boris would still have been PM and he is completely unsuited for the task.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited October 2020
    "Labour have stated that they would use the time to improve track and trace, but this isn’t an either/or. Track and trace needs to be improved anyway, with or without a circuit breaker."

    Two weeks won't change anything. Two months would unlikely to change anything. After the blip of the schools going back and stupidly offering testing to anybody with a sniffle or coming back from holiday and wanted to just check (rather than the German system of having a gatekeeper to ensure only those with the correct symptoms get one), testing seems to be working.

    The trace element can never work. It isn't possible to do this manually. How would Labour improve this? I heard some muttering around give to local councils, so they can knock on people's doors. But that's even slower than phoning / texting them. Its all far too late by the time you have actually manually worked out who is at risk.

    It is intellectually dishonest to say we can just have 2 week shutdown and that solve the problems. Nobody will know in 2 weeks if it worked, how well it worked. If you are going to advocate a shutdown again, it either has to be a longer one OR as part of an ongoing plan of regular shutdowns.
  • I like the comment on the last thread that Marcus Rashford is "pretty well off"

    He earns a million quid a month.

    And his career is quite short, and could be even shorter if Jordan Pickford launches another potential career assault again him.

    Plus in your head Marcus Rashford pays no tax I'm guessing.
  • I want to go to the pub with my friends FFS.

    Why? Pubs are expensive and not very cosy.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,708
    edited October 2020

    I am a complete pessimist on COVID.

    I don't think a vaccine will be found for a long time, I don't think there is a viable track and trace solution and it's a waste of time and money looking for one and I don't think locking down does a lot other than string the crisis out over a longer period of time.

    Of course all government policy on it is going to be a disaster as there is nothing productive they can actually do.

    The best we can do until then is follow South Korea ie compulsory mask wearing on public transport and in public places, social distancing and effective track and trace and largely avoid lockdowns and major economic damage
  • BromBrom Posts: 3,760

    I like the comment on the last thread that Marcus Rashford is "pretty well off"

    He earns a million quid a month.

    And his career is quite short, and could be even shorter if Jordan Pickford launches another potential career assault again him.

    Plus in your head Marcus Rashford pays no tax I'm guessing.
    The guy is wildly overpaid - hasn't even managed a 20 goal season yet in the league despite having tonnes of chances.

    His career is short - about 15 years earning £20m a year? - diddums.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,038

    Top piece, wanted to get that picture into a thread header for a while.

    Is Malcolm Tucker just out of shot?
    Yes, just behind Dominic Cummings.
    You think Tucker would oversee all these serial fuck ups? No chance.
  • NerysHughesNerysHughes Posts: 3,346
    edited October 2020

    I like the comment on the last thread that Marcus Rashford is "pretty well off"

    He earns a million quid a month.

    And his career is quite short, and could be even shorter if Jordan Pickford launches another potential career assault again him.

    Plus in your head Marcus Rashford pays no tax I'm guessing.
    He will have his money funnelled through a company so he only pays Capital Gains Tax.

    Over his career of 15 years he will earn over £100 million. Do you think he will have to have a testimonial so that he can buy a pub?

  • In other news in France, the interior minister has called the Collective against Islamophobia (CCIF) there an "enemy of the people" for their involvement in the beheading of the teacher.

    The CCIF is funded by donations from various institutions such as....the EU.

    Regardless of your view of the EU, it's good to know the the UK will soon no longer be funding this sort of thing from now on.
  • Brom said:

    I like the comment on the last thread that Marcus Rashford is "pretty well off"

    He earns a million quid a month.

    And his career is quite short, and could be even shorter if Jordan Pickford launches another potential career assault again him.

    Plus in your head Marcus Rashford pays no tax I'm guessing.
    The guy is wildly overpaid - hasn't even managed a 20 goal season yet in the league despite having tonnes of chances.

    His career is short - about 15 years earning £20m a year? - diddums.
    Why do you hate the free market?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603
    Roy_G_Biv said:

    MaxPB said:

    https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1318878921534939136

    Jesus why on Earth would you say that?

    The data says as much, there's a couple of areas that are worrying but most of the country is close to R=1 already.
    He probably meant "it won't take much longer", or "the current measures are enough to get us there"... but clumsy to leave it at that, if the tweet is a fair representation of how he put it.

    There's a related risk here, though. Too much focus on R=1 is dangerous. If R=0.95, the number of people infected will not be falling, so it'll still be burning through the population. If your main concern is with hospital capacity, R<1 is a win. But if your aim is to stop people getting sick, it should not be something that ought to get much fanfare.</p>
    Yes, I agree with that. I also think that the government are fixing the wrong problem, which means we're never going to see large enough drops in the R for cases to fall by a significant number. At 0.95 it's a halving time of around 20-24 days, from 20k cases per day it would take 5 cycles to get cases below 1k per day nationally which is up to 120 days of whatever measures are necessary for R=0.95, and that's a big ask for those regions under tier 2 and 3 restrictions.

  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited October 2020

    I like the comment on the last thread that Marcus Rashford is "pretty well off"

    He earns a million quid a month.

    And his career is quite short, and could be even shorter if Jordan Pickford launches another potential career assault again him.

    Plus in your head Marcus Rashford pays no tax I'm guessing.
    I think it is absolutely guaranteed that his income will have been arranged in the most tax efficient manner. In fact, I don't even think club offer it any other ways to players (bit like the way the BBC paid its presenters). They absolutely don't get £500k a month deposited into an account in the way normal people on PAYE do.
  • I want to go to the pub with my friends FFS.

    Think of a get rich quick scheme or perhaps selling some non existant PPE to the govt or a bridge from Newcastle to Denmark. Invite them to a business meeting at the pub to discuss if they want to invest. Once they decline you may as well have a bit of a social whilst waiting for your food and drinks.
  • DAlexanderDAlexander Posts: 815
    edited October 2020

    I like the comment on the last thread that Marcus Rashford is "pretty well off"

    He earns a million quid a month.

    And his career is quite short, and could be even shorter if Jordan Pickford launches another potential career assault again him.

    Plus in your head Marcus Rashford pays no tax I'm guessing.
    He will have his money funnelled through a company so he only pays Capital Gains Tax.

    Over his career of 15 years he will earn over £100 million. Do you think he will have to have a testimonial so that he can buy a pub?

    They should report his earnings in units of childrens' meals from now on.

    Rashford who earns approximately 200,000 childrens' meals a month, demands the government does more to help those worse off than himself.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 7,518
    Brom said:

    I like the comment on the last thread that Marcus Rashford is "pretty well off"

    He earns a million quid a month.

    And his career is quite short, and could be even shorter if Jordan Pickford launches another potential career assault again him.

    Plus in your head Marcus Rashford pays no tax I'm guessing.
    The guy is wildly overpaid - hasn't even managed a 20 goal season yet in the league despite having tonnes of chances.

    His career is short - about 15 years earning £20m a year? - diddums.
    https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/21/football/gustavo-henrique-testicle-injury-flamengo-spt-intl/index.html
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,557

    I like the comment on the last thread that Marcus Rashford is "pretty well off"

    He earns a million quid a month.

    The rhetorical device of understatement is a new one on you, then ?
  • Nigelb said:

    I like the comment on the last thread that Marcus Rashford is "pretty well off"

    He earns a million quid a month.

    The rhetorical device of understatement is a new one on you, then ?
    Wait until NerysHughes finds out that Rashford advocates mask wearing.
  • BromBrom Posts: 3,760

    Brom said:

    I like the comment on the last thread that Marcus Rashford is "pretty well off"

    He earns a million quid a month.

    And his career is quite short, and could be even shorter if Jordan Pickford launches another potential career assault again him.

    Plus in your head Marcus Rashford pays no tax I'm guessing.
    The guy is wildly overpaid - hasn't even managed a 20 goal season yet in the league despite having tonnes of chances.

    His career is short - about 15 years earning £20m a year? - diddums.
    Why do you hate the free market?
    Don't hate the free market but plastic Liverpool fans are much like their club completely out of touch with the disparities within the game. The free market would actually be some kind of hideous European Super League where Man Utd and Liverpool sell their own TV rights and players like Rashford earn twice what they do now.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,583
    Just caught BBC One o'clock news, and caught up with PMQs. Looks like a big win for Boris.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,038
    The flu pandemic of 1968 affected millions and killed thousands but there was no suggestion that the country should be placed in a deep freeze while it was suppressed. Looking through the parliamentary archives in Hansard, I have struggled to find the outbreak mentioned at all beyond a few questions about NHS preparedness. Even as recently as January 2000, the year of the last serious flu epidemic, no-one suggested lockdowns, tiered or otherwise.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/10/20/tyranny-data-has-put-us-mercy-new-covid-priesthood/
  • HYUFD said:

    I am a complete pessimist on COVID.

    I don't think a vaccine will be found for a long time, I don't think there is a viable track and trace solution and it's a waste of time and money looking for one and I don't think locking down does a lot other than string the crisis out over a longer period of time.

    Of course all government policy on it is going to be a disaster as there is nothing productive they can actually do.

    The best we can do until then is follow South Korea ie compulsory mask wearing on public transport and in public places, social distancing and effective track and trace and largely avoid lockdowns and major economic damage
    I am very impressed with South Korea, but I really don't think a similar solution would work here. Almost everyone there is on the internet 24/7 with their smart phone on them and people are much more likely to do what they are supposed to in these situations.

    Also I have my doubts they can keep this up until COVID is completely gone, the virus hasn't finished yet.
  • kicorsekicorse Posts: 431
    On the article, it's a good read but it does perpetuate the myth that circuit breakers are about buying time for some mythical action. They are not. They are about saving lives in the way that minimises harm to the economy, mental health, and community solidarity.

    And no, they are not forever. We don't even have an effective test-and-trace yet, so it's far too early to talk in those terms.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,038
    I fear that now lockdowns have become part of a politicians toolkit, they will be used every winter there is a bad flu season.
  • The flu pandemic of 1968 affected millions and killed thousands but there was no suggestion that the country should be placed in a deep freeze while it was suppressed. Looking through the parliamentary archives in Hansard, I have struggled to find the outbreak mentioned at all beyond a few questions about NHS preparedness. Even as recently as January 2000, the year of the last serious flu epidemic, no-one suggested lockdowns, tiered or otherwise.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/10/20/tyranny-data-has-put-us-mercy-new-covid-priesthood/

    Do you think honestly think from a medical point of view that flu is similar to Covid-19?

    What do you think the death toll would have been like if the country hadn't gone into a de facto and de jure lockdown in March?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,038
    kicorse said:

    On the article, it's a good read but it does perpetuate the myth that circuit breakers are about buying time for some mythical action. They are not. They are about saving lives in the way that minimises harm to the economy, mental health, and community solidarity.

    And no, they are not forever. We don't even have an effective test-and-trace yet, so it's far too early to talk in those terms.

    If you think once we start down a national circuit breaker it will only be for two weeks, then I have a bridge to sell you.

    Yes the schools will go back after an extra week or two of half term. No one else will be allowed to.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,557
    MaxPB said:

    Roy_G_Biv said:

    MaxPB said:

    https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1318878921534939136

    Jesus why on Earth would you say that?

    The data says as much, there's a couple of areas that are worrying but most of the country is close to R=1 already.
    He probably meant "it won't take much longer", or "the current measures are enough to get us there"... but clumsy to leave it at that, if the tweet is a fair representation of how he put it.

    There's a related risk here, though. Too much focus on R=1 is dangerous. If R=0.95, the number of people infected will not be falling, so it'll still be burning through the population. If your main concern is with hospital capacity, R<1 is a win. But if your aim is to stop people getting sick, it should not be something that ought to get much fanfare.</p>
    Yes, I agree with that. I also think that the government are fixing the wrong problem, which means we're never going to see large enough drops in the R for cases to fall by a significant number. At 0.95 it's a halving time of around 20-24 days, from 20k cases per day it would take 5 cycles to get cases below 1k per day nationally which is up to 120 days of whatever measures are necessary for R=0.95, and that's a big ask for those regions under tier 2 and 3 restrictions.

    Two problems, actually.
    The first being detecting people as soon as they are infectious, rather than days after they start to show symptoms; the second ensuring that most of those who are or have a high risk of being infectious isolate themselves for two weeks.

    PCR testing doesn't do the first, won't even if it gets up to half a million tests a day; and once the infection levels are high enough contact tracing doesn't either.
    And the efforts to encourage people to isolate are utterly feeble.

    Mass tests which provide a more or less instant readout would sort the first, and incentives to isolate the second. It's not rocket science; it's not even advanced management consultancy.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited October 2020

    kicorse said:

    On the article, it's a good read but it does perpetuate the myth that circuit breakers are about buying time for some mythical action. They are not. They are about saving lives in the way that minimises harm to the economy, mental health, and community solidarity.

    And no, they are not forever. We don't even have an effective test-and-trace yet, so it's far too early to talk in those terms.

    If you think once we start down a national circuit breaker it will only be for two weeks, then I have a bridge to sell you.

    Yes the schools will go back after an extra week or two of half term. No one else will be allowed to.
    No politician would end the circuit breaker if recorded cases were still rising and obviously if they were falling, it isn't because of the circuit breaker.

    Saying a month would be much more honest, which is probably why the Tier reviews are 28 days after implementation.
  • Roy_G_BivRoy_G_Biv Posts: 998

    In other news in France, the interior minister has called the Collective against Islamophobia (CCIF) there an "enemy of the people" for their involvement in the beheading of the teacher.

    The CCIF is funded by donations from various institutions such as....the EU.

    Regardless of your view of the EU, it's good to know the the UK will soon no longer be funding this sort of thing from now on.

    Except it probably will. The UK has a long and ignoble history of consciously sponsoring terrorism in other countries and, sadly, even in its own.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,786

    I fear that now lockdowns have become part of a politicians toolkit, they will be used every winter there is a bad flu season.

    That's your paranoia talking. We have vaccines for flu.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,038

    The flu pandemic of 1968 affected millions and killed thousands but there was no suggestion that the country should be placed in a deep freeze while it was suppressed. Looking through the parliamentary archives in Hansard, I have struggled to find the outbreak mentioned at all beyond a few questions about NHS preparedness. Even as recently as January 2000, the year of the last serious flu epidemic, no-one suggested lockdowns, tiered or otherwise.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/10/20/tyranny-data-has-put-us-mercy-new-covid-priesthood/

    Do you think honestly think from a medical point of view that flu is similar to Covid-19?

    What do you think the death toll would have been like if the country hadn't gone into a de facto and de jure lockdown in March?
    I wasn't saying it was like the flu but it's worth reflecting on the differences of response. The piece also talks about the '68 pandemic. Again we didn't lockdown.

    For the record the I think the lockdown in March was on balance the right thing to do because the virus was novel and we didn't know what was going to hit. We do now. And we should learn from Sweden.
  • Bars and restaurants in Scotland's central belt are to remain closed for another week after short-term Covid-19 restrictions were extended.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,956
    edited October 2020
    Impossible have brought this one back.



  • Did BoJo win PMQs?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,557
    There are limits to the power even of totalitarians...

    China Backs Off From Fight With K-Pop Fans
    https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/10/20/china-south-korea-bts-kpop-nationalism-soft-power/
    The PRC proved no match for ARMY. When the K-pop superstar group BTS acknowledged the shared sacrifice of Americans and Koreans as they received the Korea Society’s James A. Van Fleet Award, named after a U.S. general during the Korean War, Chinese social media roiled with outrage, perceiving BTS’s message to be a slight against Chinese soldiers in the war. The Global Times, China’s state-owned tabloid, blasted the group for its “one-sided attitude” that “negate[d] history.” Online stores began pulling BTS-related product, anticipating the kind of nationalist frenzy that has cost giant franchises like the NBA and the South Korean supermarket store Lotte hundreds of millions of dollars in the past.

    But China’s media offensive against the kings of K-pop barely lasted two days...
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,164
    This seems to have been the conclusion of the Belfast and Cardiff administrations, who have both introduced stricter lockdowns. Scotland is considering a similar move. They’re not doing that for fun.

    So we should expect the present government approach in England will fail.


    The tiered approach in England may not work and eventually everyone will be in Tier 3 (or, perhaps Tier 3+), but I don't think that what's right for Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland (though, aren't they going for tiers too?) is necessarily right for England giving the differences in size.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172

    The article perhaps underestimates the real trouble that a vaccine could bring.

    "A vaccine doesn't have to be 100 per cent effective, but it doesn't need to be to bring the disease under control."

    If the vaccine is even slightly dangerous -- in the sense that there are some unforeseen side effects for some people, or it does not protect everyone or some unfortunate people go on to develop COVID -- then the take-up is going to be modest.

    I think it is likely that the vaccine will have some serious long-term side-effects for some people, and it will fail to protect some people -- especially if it is rolled out to many millions.

    It will just take a few stories of people who were "killed by the vaccine" in the Daily Mail, and Piers Morgan ranting furiously about incompetent scientists & pharma companies, for there to be panic & thence poor take-up.

    Bluntly, many people will perceive that it is not in their interests to take such a vaccine -- although it is the wider interest of the nation. It is the classic prisoner's dilemma.

    They may well prefer to trust their own cautiousness rather than a vaccine.

    It didn't, after all, take much to cause panic about MMR, which is a much better tested vaccine.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,840
    edited October 2020
    I have never, ever, ever heard of the flu affecting (very) healthy individuals in my personal experience the way Covid has. The virus I believe is a danger to anyone's long term health yet this gets lost in the talk of the balance between deaths and the economy. This is the best argument for living a quietish life till we have a vaccine which should bolster people's immune systems sufficiently to turn it more or less into "just the flu" at which point I'll be quite happy to get on with my life as it was pre-covid.
    Well that's the view I'm taking anyway.

    Edit: Obviously this wouldn't apply to the spanish flu of '18 or possibly HK flu in '68 but the strains that go round most years are way way way less dangerous than those.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    All those saying "it's only £60m" aren't the chancellor.

    He is a bright guy with some kind of political radar and, as chancellor, is privy to any number of economic forecasts of this spending plan vs that spending plan.

    The amount of money given out in the last few months has been extraordinary (witness the latest borrowing figures) and at some point, someone has to say "enough".

    So was the scheme too generous to start with (not so politically savvy, maybe); and was Manchester's £5m the place to draw the line? Perhaps.

    But the straw has to come at some point and I'm sure national destabilisation was not portrayed as a tail event in many of his forecasts.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,861

    The flu pandemic of 1968 affected millions and killed thousands but there was no suggestion that the country should be placed in a deep freeze while it was suppressed. Looking through the parliamentary archives in Hansard, I have struggled to find the outbreak mentioned at all beyond a few questions about NHS preparedness. Even as recently as January 2000, the year of the last serious flu epidemic, no-one suggested lockdowns, tiered or otherwise.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/10/20/tyranny-data-has-put-us-mercy-new-covid-priesthood/

    Do you think honestly think from a medical point of view that flu is similar to Covid-19?

    What do you think the death toll would have been like if the country hadn't gone into a de facto and de jure lockdown in March?
    I wasn't saying it was like the flu but it's worth reflecting on the differences of response. The piece also talks about the '68 pandemic. Again we didn't lockdown.

    For the record the I think the lockdown in March was on balance the right thing to do because the virus was novel and we didn't know what was going to hit. We do now. And we should learn from Sweden.
    Yes, in that every country should learn from all other countries. But you are implying that Sweden is the country to copy. That is simply not bourne out by the facts. The number of deaths per capita is not much lower than in the UK, despite having a much lower population density. On most metrics Sweden is way behind their comparable neighbouring countries.
  • Roy_G_BivRoy_G_Biv Posts: 998
    Pulpstar said:

    I have never, ever, ever heard of the flu affecting (very) healthy individuals in my personal experience the way Covid has. The virus I believe is a danger to anyone's long term health yet this gets lost in the talk of the balance between deaths and the economy. This is the best argument for living a quietish life till we have a vaccine which should bolster people's immune systems sufficiently to turn it more or less into "just the flu" at which point I'll be quite happy to get on with my life as it was pre-covid.
    Well that's the view I'm taking anyway.

    It would be fascinating and potentially very beneficial to the debate if there were some kind of QALY-style calculation to use in place of deaths. But my guess is that we simply don't have enough information yet about the effects of long covid.
  • TOPPING said:

    All those saying "it's only £60m" aren't the chancellor.

    He is a bright guy with some kind of political radar and, as chancellor, is privy to any number of economic forecasts of this spending plan vs that spending plan.

    The amount of money given out in the last few months has been extraordinary (witness the latest borrowing figures) and at some point, someone has to say "enough".

    So was the scheme too generous to start with (not so politically savvy, maybe); and was Manchester's £5m the place to draw the line? Perhaps.

    But the straw has to come at some point and I'm sure national destabilisation was not portrayed as a tail event in many of his forecasts.

    Odd hill for Sunak to die on though?

    Yes to £12 billion for Dido's failing track and trace, £45 million to help Dirty Desmond, £25 million for the shithole that is Newark, and coincidentally Robert Jenrick's seat, but no to extra £5 million for poor Mancs?
  • Did BoJo win PMQs?

    Yes, absolutely. Not knowing the criteria to exit Tier 3, not knowing how adding works when it comes to TfL finances. Top performance as always. People in Greater Manchester will be literally queuing up to vote Tory next time, I guarantee it or my name isn't HYUFD
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603

    Bars and restaurants in Scotland's central belt are to remain closed for another week after short-term Covid-19 restrictions were extended.

    So not a two week circuit breaker then?

    The dishonesty about that policy is absolutely disgusting and the media have done such an awful job of scrutinising a policy that is being presented as a short term temporary measure and will end up becoming the new normal for a very long time.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670

    The flu pandemic of 1968 affected millions and killed thousands but there was no suggestion that the country should be placed in a deep freeze while it was suppressed. Looking through the parliamentary archives in Hansard, I have struggled to find the outbreak mentioned at all beyond a few questions about NHS preparedness. Even as recently as January 2000, the year of the last serious flu epidemic, no-one suggested lockdowns, tiered or otherwise.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/10/20/tyranny-data-has-put-us-mercy-new-covid-priesthood/

    The '68 pandemic killed 30,000 in the UK with no restrictions at all.

    Covid has killed way more with the country locked down.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,861

    I fear that now lockdowns have become part of a politicians toolkit, they will be used every winter there is a bad flu season.

    That's your paranoia talking. We have vaccines for flu.
    It's not his paranoia talking. He's attempting to use it as an Anti-Lockdown argument.
  • PB Tories don't seem to be talking about PMQs so I will assume Johnson lost
  • StockyStocky Posts: 9,653
    Very good summary of the situation by Meeks.

    He says "the public are still by and large putting public health ahead of economics" - yes but is that because they understand health but not economics?

    Basically, all routes amount to "muddling through" until a vaccine rescues us. There are no good options.
  • kicorsekicorse Posts: 431

    kicorse said:

    On the article, it's a good read but it does perpetuate the myth that circuit breakers are about buying time for some mythical action. They are not. They are about saving lives in the way that minimises harm to the economy, mental health, and community solidarity.

    And no, they are not forever. We don't even have an effective test-and-trace yet, so it's far too early to talk in those terms.

    If you think once we start down a national circuit breaker it will only be for two weeks, then I have a bridge to sell you.

    Yes the schools will go back after an extra week or two of half term. No one else will be allowed to.
    Then you must have an extremely low opinion of the government's ability to do anything.

    It would not be remotely difficult, with Opposition support, to communicate fixed period lockdowns - no ifs no buts - to a public that is already receptive to the idea.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080
    The Swedish case figures are stunningly good. When even places that seemed to be doing well, such as Germany, are slowly seeing a second wave.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,840
    If people don't want the vaccine when it's out, those of us that recognise the risk-balance reward but are much further down any sort of natural "queue" (lower risk for death etc) will be happy to take their place.
  • TOPPING said:

    All those saying "it's only £60m" aren't the chancellor.

    He is a bright guy with some kind of political radar and, as chancellor, is privy to any number of economic forecasts of this spending plan vs that spending plan.

    The amount of money given out in the last few months has been extraordinary (witness the latest borrowing figures) and at some point, someone has to say "enough".

    So was the scheme too generous to start with (not so politically savvy, maybe); and was Manchester's £5m the place to draw the line? Perhaps.

    But the straw has to come at some point and I'm sure national destabilisation was not portrayed as a tail event in many of his forecasts.

    Odd hill for Sunak to die on though?

    Yes to £12 billion for Dido's failing track and trace, £45 million to help Dirty Desmond, £25 million for the shithole that is Newark, and coincidentally Robert Jenrick's seat, but no to extra £5 million for poor Mancs?
    Surely there is a simple out for the government - set the standards nationally and apply equally. Yet they have not. Which rather shows that (a) they know the amount of £ on offer isn't anywhere near enough and (b) they want to dump the blame for local cash catastrophes on local councils - as they have for years following the gutting of local government funding.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    edited October 2020

    TOPPING said:

    All those saying "it's only £60m" aren't the chancellor.

    He is a bright guy with some kind of political radar and, as chancellor, is privy to any number of economic forecasts of this spending plan vs that spending plan.

    The amount of money given out in the last few months has been extraordinary (witness the latest borrowing figures) and at some point, someone has to say "enough".

    So was the scheme too generous to start with (not so politically savvy, maybe); and was Manchester's £5m the place to draw the line? Perhaps.

    But the straw has to come at some point and I'm sure national destabilisation was not portrayed as a tail event in many of his forecasts.

    Odd hill for Sunak to die on though?

    Yes to £12 billion for Dido's failing track and trace, £45 million to help Dirty Desmond, £25 million for the shithole that is Newark, and coincidentally Robert Jenrick's seat, but no to extra £5 million for poor Mancs?
    Don't disagree. Perhaps he felt that direct fiscal transfers to the regions were the one area he actually had some control over and was putting up a sign.
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 4,793
    FPT:
    Alistair said:

    He's using lagged fucking data.

    DISHONEST FUCKING C**T.
    It's the entire desperation to believe in something.
    "Following the science" isn't really about data, tables, graphs, and figures, despite that being what the public perceive it to be (mainly because the scientifically illiterate members of the media who are the loudest on the subject perceive it to be that).

    It's about using a functioning bullshit detector so that you can't fool yourself with either wishful thinking or adhering to a favourite hypothesis (or being fooled by feeling 'ownership' of a concept and wanting to 'defend' it - or by perceiving that holding to a single position shows 'strength'*)

    *Because science involves genuinely attempting to disprove hypotheses and refusing to be too attached, when someone says that 'they've always believed/known this', I tend to think, "Okay - but you COULD still be right, I guess"

    When people post that they've 'researched' something online, I do wonder:

    1 - Did you carry out a detailed literature search, uncover the breadth of studies indicating various possible answers, compare them for confounding factors, assess each one for what could or could not have been missed or incorrectly added and derive an outcome?
    or
    2 - Did you look around online until you found a number or graph that said what you wanted it to say, refuse to question it in any way, and present it as gospel truth?

    (Three guesses as to which of them has near-100% outcomes. And the first two don't count)

    Neil is one of the Narnia believers who want for it to have been possible that if we'd ignored it, it would have all gone away - and thus Sweden MUST have had virtually no restrictions and had life go on as normal and MUST have been all but unaffected by the virus, PROVING that if we'd done the same, we'd have all been fine.

    When written down like that, it's obviously all mince, and Toby Youngite True Believers will insist that's not what they mean at all, but every time they bring it up, it's with exactly that subtext.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603
    TOPPING said:

    All those saying "it's only £60m" aren't the chancellor.

    He is a bright guy with some kind of political radar and, as chancellor, is privy to any number of economic forecasts of this spending plan vs that spending plan.

    The amount of money given out in the last few months has been extraordinary (witness the latest borrowing figures) and at some point, someone has to say "enough".

    So was the scheme too generous to start with (not so politically savvy, maybe); and was Manchester's £5m the place to draw the line? Perhaps.

    But the straw has to come at some point and I'm sure national destabilisation was not portrayed as a tail event in many of his forecasts.

    We borrowed £37bn in September. I'm honestly not sure what difference £5m extra would really make. It's such a nothing amount of money.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 10,456

    I like the comment on the last thread that Marcus Rashford is "pretty well off"

    He earns a million quid a month.

    And his career is quite short, and could be even shorter if Jordan Pickford launches another potential career assault again him.

    Plus in your head Marcus Rashford pays no tax I'm guessing.
    He will have his money funnelled through a company so he only pays Capital Gains Tax.

    Over his career of 15 years he will earn over £100 million. Do you think he will have to have a testimonial so that he can buy a pub?

    They should report his earnings in units of childrens' meals from now on.

    Rashford who earns approximately 200,000 childrens' meals a month, demands the government does more to help those worse off than himself.
    What is wrong with you guys; I thought you approved of free market capitalism?
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,164
    Stocky said:

    Very good summary of the situation by Meeks.

    He says "the public are still by and large putting public health ahead of economics" - yes but is that because they understand health but not economics?

    Basically, all routes amount to "muddling through" until a vaccine rescues us. There are no good options.

    So far the economic consequences are being felt by quite a small number of people.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited October 2020
    MaxPB said:

    Bars and restaurants in Scotland's central belt are to remain closed for another week after short-term Covid-19 restrictions were extended.

    So not a two week circuit breaker then?

    The dishonesty about that policy is absolutely disgusting and the media have done such an awful job of scrutinising a policy that is being presented as a short term temporary measure and will end up becoming the new normal for a very long time.
    Who could have predicted it....

    I haven't heard a single journalist ask the simple obvious questions about the 2 week idea.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 7,518

    The flu pandemic of 1968 affected millions and killed thousands but there was no suggestion that the country should be placed in a deep freeze while it was suppressed. Looking through the parliamentary archives in Hansard, I have struggled to find the outbreak mentioned at all beyond a few questions about NHS preparedness. Even as recently as January 2000, the year of the last serious flu epidemic, no-one suggested lockdowns, tiered or otherwise.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/10/20/tyranny-data-has-put-us-mercy-new-covid-priesthood/

    We've done it because we can. Or thought we could. And i still wonder if we would have done it if it wasn't for China.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080
    eristdoof said:

    The flu pandemic of 1968 affected millions and killed thousands but there was no suggestion that the country should be placed in a deep freeze while it was suppressed. Looking through the parliamentary archives in Hansard, I have struggled to find the outbreak mentioned at all beyond a few questions about NHS preparedness. Even as recently as January 2000, the year of the last serious flu epidemic, no-one suggested lockdowns, tiered or otherwise.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/10/20/tyranny-data-has-put-us-mercy-new-covid-priesthood/

    Do you think honestly think from a medical point of view that flu is similar to Covid-19?

    What do you think the death toll would have been like if the country hadn't gone into a de facto and de jure lockdown in March?
    I wasn't saying it was like the flu but it's worth reflecting on the differences of response. The piece also talks about the '68 pandemic. Again we didn't lockdown.

    For the record the I think the lockdown in March was on balance the right thing to do because the virus was novel and we didn't know what was going to hit. We do now. And we should learn from Sweden.
    Yes, in that every country should learn from all other countries. But you are implying that Sweden is the country to copy. That is simply not bourne out by the facts. The number of deaths per capita is not much lower than in the UK, despite having a much lower population density. On most metrics Sweden is way behind their comparable neighbouring countries.
    Too early to say. If Sweden’s case numbers remain low, their position will slowly improve.
  • kjh said:

    I like the comment on the last thread that Marcus Rashford is "pretty well off"

    He earns a million quid a month.

    And his career is quite short, and could be even shorter if Jordan Pickford launches another potential career assault again him.

    Plus in your head Marcus Rashford pays no tax I'm guessing.
    He will have his money funnelled through a company so he only pays Capital Gains Tax.

    Over his career of 15 years he will earn over £100 million. Do you think he will have to have a testimonial so that he can buy a pub?

    They should report his earnings in units of childrens' meals from now on.

    Rashford who earns approximately 200,000 childrens' meals a month, demands the government does more to help those worse off than himself.
    What is wrong with you guys; I thought you approved of free market capitalism?
    It is a mystery why so many Brexiteers get so upset like Marcus Rashford.
  • MaxPB said:

    TOPPING said:

    All those saying "it's only £60m" aren't the chancellor.

    He is a bright guy with some kind of political radar and, as chancellor, is privy to any number of economic forecasts of this spending plan vs that spending plan.

    The amount of money given out in the last few months has been extraordinary (witness the latest borrowing figures) and at some point, someone has to say "enough".

    So was the scheme too generous to start with (not so politically savvy, maybe); and was Manchester's £5m the place to draw the line? Perhaps.

    But the straw has to come at some point and I'm sure national destabilisation was not portrayed as a tail event in many of his forecasts.

    We borrowed £37bn in September. I'm honestly not sure what difference £5m extra would really make. It's such a nothing amount of money.
    The problem is that assuming we get a vaccine soon, all the eyewatering sums on the furlough scheme and test and trace will disappear. If the Government starts providing free school meals in the school holidays that will then presumably be forever (as they won't be able to take it away at the end of the pandemic without getting horrible headlines)
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    edited October 2020
    "While they’ve hardly given a great account of themselves so far in this crisis, we have no reason to doubt the judgement of Chris Whitty, Chief Medical Officer, and Patrick Vallance, Chief Scientific Adviser, on this, which goes to their area of expertise. "

    Mmm ....

    CW & PV have not given a great account of themselves & I value their judgment accordingly. I trusted them at the beginning, and defended them on pb.com. No more.

    They have done badly. The UK has a great scientific tradition, and we should've been able to do at least as well as Germany.

    Sure, the politicians cop some of the blame, but the scientific advice at the beginning was very poor.

    We should always remember Adern or Iron Erna have done much. much better.

    And they run countries with little of the scientific expertise that the UK can call on.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    PB Tories don't seem to be talking about PMQs so I will assume Johnson lost

    Didn't see it. Johnson is a tosser but unless SKS starts recording some tangible wins then I'm not sure what he's in the seat for. We are all fixated on 2024 but Johnson can call a GE whenever he damn well pleases and he will choose a time of maximum benefit for the Cons.

    It would be a shame (for Lab) if SKS was only 2yrs into his 4yr election strategy when an election was called.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited October 2020

    MaxPB said:

    TOPPING said:

    All those saying "it's only £60m" aren't the chancellor.

    He is a bright guy with some kind of political radar and, as chancellor, is privy to any number of economic forecasts of this spending plan vs that spending plan.

    The amount of money given out in the last few months has been extraordinary (witness the latest borrowing figures) and at some point, someone has to say "enough".

    So was the scheme too generous to start with (not so politically savvy, maybe); and was Manchester's £5m the place to draw the line? Perhaps.

    But the straw has to come at some point and I'm sure national destabilisation was not portrayed as a tail event in many of his forecasts.

    We borrowed £37bn in September. I'm honestly not sure what difference £5m extra would really make. It's such a nothing amount of money.
    The problem is that assuming we get a vaccine soon, all the eyewatering sums on the furlough scheme and test and trace will disappear. If the Government starts providing free school meals in the school holidays that will then presumably be forever (as they won't be able to take it away at the end of the pandemic without getting horrible headlines)
    Also, the campaign is now not just those that currently get it, it is expanding the scheme to millions more.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 9,653
    TOPPING said:

    All those saying "it's only £60m" aren't the chancellor.

    He is a bright guy with some kind of political radar and, as chancellor, is privy to any number of economic forecasts of this spending plan vs that spending plan.

    The amount of money given out in the last few months has been extraordinary (witness the latest borrowing figures) and at some point, someone has to say "enough".

    So was the scheme too generous to start with (not so politically savvy, maybe); and was Manchester's £5m the place to draw the line? Perhaps.

    But the straw has to come at some point and I'm sure national destabilisation was not portrayed as a tail event in many of his forecasts.

    Yes, the scheme was too generous to start with for those that qualified, but you have to feel for those that didn`t.

    The self-employed scheme was pretty extraordinary in that it allowed up to £2500 pm if your business had been affected by covid - even if it was affected only very marginally.

    A member of my family, who really needs the money, qualified for nothing purely because he receives a state pension that is very marginally over his S/E net profit. Result = zero financial support.
  • Does James McClean still play for the Republic?

    https://twitter.com/DanKennett/status/1318894568046297088
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,786
    alex_ said:

    The flu pandemic of 1968 affected millions and killed thousands but there was no suggestion that the country should be placed in a deep freeze while it was suppressed. Looking through the parliamentary archives in Hansard, I have struggled to find the outbreak mentioned at all beyond a few questions about NHS preparedness. Even as recently as January 2000, the year of the last serious flu epidemic, no-one suggested lockdowns, tiered or otherwise.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/10/20/tyranny-data-has-put-us-mercy-new-covid-priesthood/

    We've done it because we can. Or thought we could. And i still wonder if we would have done it if it wasn't for China.
    It's interesting to consider how different the rest of the world's response would have been if China hadn't been able to get it under control.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603

    MaxPB said:

    TOPPING said:

    All those saying "it's only £60m" aren't the chancellor.

    He is a bright guy with some kind of political radar and, as chancellor, is privy to any number of economic forecasts of this spending plan vs that spending plan.

    The amount of money given out in the last few months has been extraordinary (witness the latest borrowing figures) and at some point, someone has to say "enough".

    So was the scheme too generous to start with (not so politically savvy, maybe); and was Manchester's £5m the place to draw the line? Perhaps.

    But the straw has to come at some point and I'm sure national destabilisation was not portrayed as a tail event in many of his forecasts.

    We borrowed £37bn in September. I'm honestly not sure what difference £5m extra would really make. It's such a nothing amount of money.
    The problem is that assuming we get a vaccine soon, all the eyewatering sums on the furlough scheme and test and trace will disappear. If the Government starts providing free school meals in the school holidays that will then presumably be forever (as they won't be able to take it away at the end of the pandemic without getting horrible headlines)
    I just mean the £5m for Manchester. The FSM I'm less convinced by, it absolves parents of responsibility for their children.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited October 2020

    MaxPB said:

    TOPPING said:

    All those saying "it's only £60m" aren't the chancellor.

    He is a bright guy with some kind of political radar and, as chancellor, is privy to any number of economic forecasts of this spending plan vs that spending plan.

    The amount of money given out in the last few months has been extraordinary (witness the latest borrowing figures) and at some point, someone has to say "enough".

    So was the scheme too generous to start with (not so politically savvy, maybe); and was Manchester's £5m the place to draw the line? Perhaps.

    But the straw has to come at some point and I'm sure national destabilisation was not portrayed as a tail event in many of his forecasts.

    We borrowed £37bn in September. I'm honestly not sure what difference £5m extra would really make. It's such a nothing amount of money.
    The problem is that assuming we get a vaccine soon, all the eyewatering sums on the furlough scheme and test and trace will disappear. If the Government starts providing free school meals in the school holidays that will then presumably be forever (as they won't be able to take it away at the end of the pandemic without getting horrible headlines)
    One of the biggest mistakes the government (I think driven by behavioural experts) is to keep promising the sunny uplands are only a few months away, like the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

    I know Witty said at the beginning this could be for years, but then all the focus of announcements was just wait a few weeks we will get antibody testing, we will get the app, we will get a vaccine etc etc etc.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    MaxPB said:

    TOPPING said:

    All those saying "it's only £60m" aren't the chancellor.

    He is a bright guy with some kind of political radar and, as chancellor, is privy to any number of economic forecasts of this spending plan vs that spending plan.

    The amount of money given out in the last few months has been extraordinary (witness the latest borrowing figures) and at some point, someone has to say "enough".

    So was the scheme too generous to start with (not so politically savvy, maybe); and was Manchester's £5m the place to draw the line? Perhaps.

    But the straw has to come at some point and I'm sure national destabilisation was not portrayed as a tail event in many of his forecasts.

    We borrowed £37bn in September. I'm honestly not sure what difference £5m extra would really make. It's such a nothing amount of money.
    Of course not - but perhaps he was signaling to (the rest of) govt that this can't go on and, as mentioned to @TSE, direct fiscal transfers are perhaps one of the few levers he is in complete control of.
  • NerysHughesNerysHughes Posts: 3,346
    edited October 2020

    Nigelb said:

    I like the comment on the last thread that Marcus Rashford is "pretty well off"

    He earns a million quid a month.

    The rhetorical device of understatement is a new one on you, then ?
    Wait until NerysHughes finds out that Rashford advocates mask wearing.
    Any logiical person would see that I have been proved right on mask wearing, it has not helped at all.

    In regards to Marcus Rashford I have no idea why he was given an MBE . If he managed to persuade his fellow premiership footballers to give up 1% of their salaries to feed children then he would deserve it.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 7,518

    I fear that now lockdowns have become part of a politicians toolkit, they will be used every winter there is a bad flu season.

    That's your paranoia talking. We have vaccines for flu.
    Although sometimes we guess wrong and vaccinate against the wrong strain.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578

    I like the comment on the last thread that Marcus Rashford is "pretty well off"

    He earns a million quid a month.

    And his career is quite short, and could be even shorter if Jordan Pickford launches another potential career assault again him.

    Plus in your head Marcus Rashford pays no tax I'm guessing.
    He will have his money funnelled through a company so he only pays Capital Gains Tax.

    Over his career of 15 years he will earn over £100 million. Do you think he will have to have a testimonial so that he can buy a pub?

    They should report his earnings in units of childrens' meals from now on.

    Rashford who earns approximately 200,000 childrens' meals a month, demands the government does more to help those worse off than himself.
    If he is demanding the Government does more to help people worse off than himself, then it will be everyone in the country bar the Queen and a couple of thousand others.
  • Roy_G_BivRoy_G_Biv Posts: 998
    MrEd said:

    I like the comment on the last thread that Marcus Rashford is "pretty well off"

    He earns a million quid a month.

    And his career is quite short, and could be even shorter if Jordan Pickford launches another potential career assault again him.

    Plus in your head Marcus Rashford pays no tax I'm guessing.
    He will have his money funnelled through a company so he only pays Capital Gains Tax.

    Over his career of 15 years he will earn over £100 million. Do you think he will have to have a testimonial so that he can buy a pub?

    They should report his earnings in units of childrens' meals from now on.

    Rashford who earns approximately 200,000 childrens' meals a month, demands the government does more to help those worse off than himself.
    If he is demanding the Government does more to help people worse off than himself, then it will be everyone in the country bar the Queen and a couple of thousand others.
    Did you stop to think about whether that's what Rashford was actually advocating?
  • StockyStocky Posts: 9,653

    Nigelb said:

    I like the comment on the last thread that Marcus Rashford is "pretty well off"

    He earns a million quid a month.

    The rhetorical device of understatement is a new one on you, then ?
    Wait until NerysHughes finds out that Rashford advocates mask wearing.
    Any logiical person would see that I have been proved right on mask wearing, it has not helped at all.

    In regards to Marcus Rashford I have no idea why he was given an MBE . If he managed to persuade his fellow premiership footballers to give up 1% of their salaries to feed children then he would deserve it.
    He was given an MBE because it makes the government seem all touchy-feely. It`s outrageous but I dislike the whole honours thing so ...
  • NerysHughesNerysHughes Posts: 3,346

    I fear that now lockdowns have become part of a politicians toolkit, they will be used every winter there is a bad flu season.

    That's your paranoia talking. We have vaccines for flu.
    Yet tens of thousands die each winter from it
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,835
    Top tip.
    Having difficulties with the North?
    Deflect it by drawing attention to a heavily subsidised, nationalised, frequent, shockingly cheap transport system that is completely free for all not aged between 18 and 60.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603
    TOPPING said:

    MaxPB said:

    TOPPING said:

    All those saying "it's only £60m" aren't the chancellor.

    He is a bright guy with some kind of political radar and, as chancellor, is privy to any number of economic forecasts of this spending plan vs that spending plan.

    The amount of money given out in the last few months has been extraordinary (witness the latest borrowing figures) and at some point, someone has to say "enough".

    So was the scheme too generous to start with (not so politically savvy, maybe); and was Manchester's £5m the place to draw the line? Perhaps.

    But the straw has to come at some point and I'm sure national destabilisation was not portrayed as a tail event in many of his forecasts.

    We borrowed £37bn in September. I'm honestly not sure what difference £5m extra would really make. It's such a nothing amount of money.
    Of course not - but perhaps he was signaling to (the rest of) govt that this can't go on and, as mentioned to @TSE, direct fiscal transfers are perhaps one of the few levers he is in complete control of.
    It seems like an odd hill to die on, in that case.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,879
    "A lockdown or circuit breaker isn’t going to achieve anything in the long term unless there is a better system in place once the lockdown or circuit breaker is over"

    We don't necessarily need a better system (although obviously that's the main prize), we also would benefit from just having lower case numbers to avoid overwhelming the current system.

    But it's a fair question - and here are the things that should be in place post-circuit breaker (most of which Lab have suggested):

    1) 500 quid payment for those self-isolating on low incomes. This I believe has not started in all local authorities but is being rolled out. IMO this should be for everyone, not means-tested (Labour proposal). Just because someone is not on benefits does not mean they can 'afford' to lose their income for a week.
    2) Better enforcement of those supposed to isolate (govt is starting this it seems).
    3) Shift to local public health teams doing the contact tracing by default. They are clearly better at this than Dido Harding & her call centers (Labour proposal).
    4) Scale-up of rapid diagnostic tests which could become the default over the next 6 months. Govt hasn't ordered the WHO approved SD Biosensor or Abbott tests, I suppose because they are hoping a better one will come along.

    Other benefits:
    We desperately need to get levels as low as possible before Christmas when families are likely to gather.

  • Nigelb said:

    I like the comment on the last thread that Marcus Rashford is "pretty well off"

    He earns a million quid a month.

    The rhetorical device of understatement is a new one on you, then ?
    Wait until NerysHughes finds out that Rashford advocates mask wearing.
    Any logiical person would see that I have been proved right on mask wearing, it has not helped at all.

    In regards to Marcus Rashford I have no idea why he was given an MBE . If he managed to persuade his fellow premiership footballers to give up 1% of their salaries to feed children then he would deserve it.
    Correlation doesn't mean causation.
  • Awks...

    Sky said Darren Lumsden's face inking of the number 88 was in memory of the year his late father Trevor lost his life - and nothing to do with a code, fashioned around the numerical order of letters in the alphabet, meaning Heil Hitler.

    But today his 66-year-old parent revealed he was very much alive - and living in a smart three-storey house in Bristol, not far from his carpenter son.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8863181/Father-death-used-Sky-explain-contestants-Nazi-style-tattoo-alive.html
  • StockyStocky Posts: 9,653

    Nigelb said:

    I like the comment on the last thread that Marcus Rashford is "pretty well off"

    He earns a million quid a month.

    The rhetorical device of understatement is a new one on you, then ?
    Wait until NerysHughes finds out that Rashford advocates mask wearing.
    Any logiical person would see that I have been proved right on mask wearing, it has not helped at all.

    In regards to Marcus Rashford I have no idea why he was given an MBE . If he managed to persuade his fellow premiership footballers to give up 1% of their salaries to feed children then he would deserve it.
    You still pursuing with the mask thing I see. I`ve gone the other way, I used to think that it protected other people rather than the wearer, but I now think it does both. I don`t mind wearing a mask, seems the smallest evil in the scheme of things, and if it gets people to be slightly less fearful then goodo.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,840

    The left need to accept responsibility for this chaos, of which I include myself.

    If we had not offered Corbyn again this would have all been prevented.

    Self flagellating can be healthy but this is not true. A different Labour leader would have done better on Dec 12th but that "Boris Will Get Brexit Done!" election was hard-coded to produce a Tory majority government.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,122
    Excellent - honest, cogent and persuasive header. Not something I ever expected to write about Meeks but there it is>
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080

    MaxPB said:

    TOPPING said:

    All those saying "it's only £60m" aren't the chancellor.

    He is a bright guy with some kind of political radar and, as chancellor, is privy to any number of economic forecasts of this spending plan vs that spending plan.

    The amount of money given out in the last few months has been extraordinary (witness the latest borrowing figures) and at some point, someone has to say "enough".

    So was the scheme too generous to start with (not so politically savvy, maybe); and was Manchester's £5m the place to draw the line? Perhaps.

    But the straw has to come at some point and I'm sure national destabilisation was not portrayed as a tail event in many of his forecasts.

    We borrowed £37bn in September. I'm honestly not sure what difference £5m extra would really make. It's such a nothing amount of money.
    The problem is that assuming we get a vaccine soon, all the eyewatering sums on the furlough scheme and test and trace will disappear. If the Government starts providing free school meals in the school holidays that will then presumably be forever (as they won't be able to take it away at the end of the pandemic without getting horrible headlines)
    One of the biggest mistakes the government (I think driven by behavioural experts) is to keep promising the sunny uplands are only a few months away, like the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

    I know Witty said at the beginning this could be for years, but then all the focus of announcements was just wait a few weeks we will get antibody testing, we will get the app, we will get a vaccine etc etc etc.
    All the evidence - from the generosity of the original furlough scheme (compared both with other countries and what they feel sensible to offer now), through the cessation of widescale testing early in the first wave, the alacrity with which people were encouraged to go back to work and book their holidays - suggests that the mistake our government made was to believe this would indeed be a short lived pandemic.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,786

    I fear that now lockdowns have become part of a politicians toolkit, they will be used every winter there is a bad flu season.

    That's your paranoia talking. We have vaccines for flu.
    Yet tens of thousands die each winter from it
    If we can reduce the risk from Covid to those levels through policy interventions this winter, we will be doing very well.
  • kjh said:

    I like the comment on the last thread that Marcus Rashford is "pretty well off"

    He earns a million quid a month.

    And his career is quite short, and could be even shorter if Jordan Pickford launches another potential career assault again him.

    Plus in your head Marcus Rashford pays no tax I'm guessing.
    He will have his money funnelled through a company so he only pays Capital Gains Tax.

    Over his career of 15 years he will earn over £100 million. Do you think he will have to have a testimonial so that he can buy a pub?

    They should report his earnings in units of childrens' meals from now on.

    Rashford who earns approximately 200,000 childrens' meals a month, demands the government does more to help those worse off than himself.
    What is wrong with you guys; I thought you approved of free market capitalism?
    It is a mystery why so many Brexiteers get so upset like Marcus Rashford.
    People earning that kind of money are supposed to either be city financier types (Tory) or stupid footballers (Labour). When you get an intelligent footballer its a threat. Especially Rashford who (a) grew up in Tory squalor and (b) is determined to use his role as a public figure and role model to speak out for the kids still living in Tory squalor.

    The key words are Tory squalor. Because to the right, they can't have this truth held up for examination. Because they *like* squalor. Because they couldn't give a rat fuck about kids growing up dirt poor like Rashford did. After all, kids have been going hungry for years, so why should they have to do anything about it now?

    https://twitter.com/Haggis_UK/status/1318884900620193792
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 7,518
    IanB2 said:

    The Swedish case figures are stunningly good. When even places that seemed to be doing well, such as Germany, are slowly seeing a second wave.

    Have Sweden actually changed their general level of restrictions at all? Or at least did they ever open up from their originally imposed level (i'm aware that they've been tightening in some areas? Most of their deaths were because they screwed up Care Homes.

    Maybe they've simply managed to successfully target the most dangerous vectors of spread, rather than clamping down on everything.

    Of course it's not only Sweden who have taken this approach. Places like Japan have done likewise.

    The trouble with the "lockdown" (lite) policies is that they notionally aim for zero Covid whilst leaving huge holes. If you are going to leave huge holes then it makes no sense to have very harsh restrictions, including of things which will only have a peripheral impact.

    The health/economy trade off won't be the same in every pub. But we are effectively treating all pubs as the same. Similarly why close all "non-essential" shops under eg. Welsh lockdown rules. Non essential shops can function without being remotely dangerous spreading vectors, if they take reasonable precautions. Why shut them down then?
This discussion has been closed.