I’d been intending thanking Alastair for posting A Dream within a Dream and also our colleague who posted the Propaganda setting of the poem. Captured something nothing else had. I’ve been lucky enough to have been touring a very snowy Iceland for the last ten days. Listening to the song while watching an evanescent mist form between icy land and ice cold sea was sublime. Tomorrow back to the new reality. Which does seem more like a dream.
I have been with my daughter, who has been in tears at the prospect of losing the business she has worked so hard to build up, a business which is profitable, which employs 4 permanent members of staff, all of them with bills to pay and families to support, all of whom are the sole breadwinners.
Insurance will not help. Boris advising people to stay away but not coming up with a support package is both frivolous and irresponsible. If the government thinks it important to close sectors for health reasons, then it should do so and provide compensation/support not pass the risk of government decisions to those least able to bear it.
And in the meanwhile a plea: if you can, support your local pub, bar, restaurant, club, theatre or other business. If you want these to be there in future they need your support now. If you don’t want unemployment to soar - with all the misery that entails - remember that it is our children, our friends, colleagues, us who will face this prospect - then support your businesses.
We have to be all in it together if we are going to survive this.
(Apologies for the emotional nature of this post. It is heart-breaking to see the prospect of my daughter’s hard work disappear - and through no fault of her own. She is an example of what many many people in this country will be feeling and going through tonight.)
Not meant to be frivolous but offering home delivery and take away if it is a food business would be a good alternative.
To think, this week marks the eighth anniversary of another event that, at the time, seemed to shake politics, society and economics to their very foundations. George Osborne's Pasty Tax:
I have been with my daughter, who has been in tears at the prospect of losing the business she has worked so hard to build up, a business which is profitable, which employs 4 permanent members of staff, all of them with bills to pay and families to support, all of whom are the sole breadwinners.
Insurance will not help. Boris advising people to stay away but not coming up with a support package is both frivolous and irresponsible. If the government thinks it important to close sectors for health reasons, then it should do so and provide compensation/support not pass the risk of government decisions to those least able to bear it.
And in the meanwhile a plea: if you can, support your local pub, bar, restaurant, club, theatre or other business. If you want these to be there in future they need your support now. If you don’t want unemployment to soar - with all the misery that entails - remember that it is our children, our friends, colleagues, us who will face this prospect - then support your businesses.
We have to be all in it together if we are going to survive this.
(Apologies for the emotional nature of this post. It is heart-breaking to see the prospect of my daughter’s hard work disappear - and through no fault of her own. She is an example of what many many people in this country will be feeling and going through tonight.)
Yeah, there needs to be a lot more said about what is going to happen to these businesses. If only we could "pause" the global economy for 3-6 months.
This is all TSE's fault of course - he was the one who first raised the proscpet of LFC being robbed of their Premiership title by some black swan event.
This is all TSE's fault of course - he was the one who first raised the proscpet of LFC being robbed of their Premiership title by some black swan event.
God knows how this generation would have coped with the War.
Everyone seems to know exactly how to deal with a once-in-a-century pandemic.
Whatever Boris is doing, then the correct answer is the opposite.
Imagine Jezza, Seamus and Diane in charge of this national crisis!
Tbh watching Boris today I think T May would have been better in this situation - on top of the facts and clear, rather than the hesitant wiffle-waffle of Boris.
Much better still, Blair would have been the best of recent PMs for this crisis.
Nevertheless, we have to make do with Boris, so there it is.
I am not the greatest fan of Boris, and was a huge critic of his Brexit policy and rabble-rousing last year, but I'm not sure that I agree with this. He wasn't typically Presidential or Prime Ministerial today, but carefully flanked by two experts, he looked like the person who was providing human reassurance. This sort of situation and its warnings can be very alienating, and sometimes some more unpredictable humanity in the middle of it, in a more unusual way, can act a different sort of relief for people.
I have been with my daughter, who has been in tears at the prospect of losing the business she has worked so hard to build up, a business which is profitable, which employs 4 permanent members of staff, all of them with bills to pay and families to support, all of whom are the sole breadwinners.
Insurance will not help. Boris advising people to stay away but not coming up with a support package is both frivolous and irresponsible. If the government thinks it important to close sectors for health reasons, then it should do so and provide compensation/support not pass the risk of government decisions to those least able to bear it.
And in the meanwhile a plea: if you can, support your local pub, bar, restaurant, club, theatre or other business. If you want these to be there in future they need your support now. If you don’t want unemployment to soar - with all the misery that entails - remember that it is our children, our friends, colleagues, us who will face this prospect - then support your businesses.
We have to be all in it together if we are going to survive this.
(Apologies for the emotional nature of this post. It is heart-breaking to see the prospect of my daughter’s hard work disappear - and through no fault of her own. She is an example of what many many people in this country will be feeling and going through tonight.)
Why can't the UK copy Macron's commitment to France which, if the BBC is to be believed, is that "No business, regardless of size, will be allowed to fail"?
I found it reassuring -- though not quite the right word -- that they were changing course after a projection of 260k deaths. That must mean that the new course projects significantly less than 260k deaths. Having said that, the projections assumed all were treated who needed it.
Such scary times. Let's all be generous to one another.
--AS
Thanks AS! I think the numbers in this round will likely be very similar to those seen in Italy. We are behaving in essentially the same way, are three weeks behind them, so will impose a strict lockdown this weekend or sooner. Together with some warnings of this being an issue beforehand (e.g., 'wash your hands' and the lack of a massive local cluster, although London is a worry) it's reasonable to assume a similar epidemic to theirs.
We can then get ready to manage the next one much better without such draconian national measures by learning what works best (cf Korea and Hong Kong) and taking advantage of new science, which is coming along remarkably quickly.
And, yes, it is a bit scary, but we will get through it and, ultimately, make it okay.
Italy is the result of different circumstances though.
This is all TSE's fault of course - he was the one who first raised the proscpet of LFC being robbed of their Premiership title by some black swan event.
I remain hopeful that a whole load of stuff gets capped off at the start of March and declared to be done. And as a Manchester United fan that includes Liverpool de-crowning Citeh.
But park the football. Look at the End of Days when it comes down to anyone reliant on a job. Never mind HYUFD, look at the real world. We need a MASSIVE cash injection and quickly. Or we're all eating grass.
I’m not arguing whether the experts are wrong, but the way the information is being presented is poor, and causing unnecessary confusion.
Watch Macron simply tell people how it is. Watch Boris and Trump waffle.
I don't think they're waffling, I think that's harsh, they're saying it as it is.
What do you think is waffling?
Macron: “This is what we’re doing, these are the steps taken to mitigate the damage.”
Johnson: “oh umm, maybe don’t socialise” “what about businesses that will go bust?” “🤷♂️“
You do yourself no favours, as the advice was far stronger than that. You are correct that more needs to be said about what will be done to help businesses.
Well its clearly the message is not getting through as no-one I have spoken to offline knows what the hell they are supposed to be doing or not doing.
Did they watch it? It was pretty clear they want you to reduce social interaction. They aren't banning you from doing it, primarily because people should be responsible, and second it would be a huge drain on resources to enforce it.
What the hell does “reduce social interaction” mean?
To be honest I cannot see how anyone has a problem understanding that
Well answer my question then:
Does it mean reduce, or does it mean zero social interaction outside those who live within your home?
It means reduce, its not a ban. Avoid unnecessary social interactions but treating the public as sentient thinking grown ups.
What is a “necessary” social interaction?
Going down the pub isn’t. Visiting your parent to provide essential care is.
Draw your own line somewhere between those two,
What normal person describes “providing essential care” as a “social interaction”?
For the purposes of passing on an infection, it is a social interaction.
Yes, I understand that. My point is that the Government and the press could be much clearer.
In France they have been clear - do not leave your home unless going to work or x or y.
Given that they probably don't want people to stop providing essential care it is not an issue! I imagine people think a social interaction is doing stuff together, which is what the government is advising against unless it is necessary.
So why didn’t they just f*cking say that then??
“Do not leave your home unless you have to.” “All museums, galleries, cinemas, bars, pubs, etc are to be closed.”
If that is the aim, just say it. Anything else is just beating around the bush, or inviting people to interpret how they want.
It must be incredibly sad to have such a poor view of your fellow man.
Look at the Stereophonics last night in Cardiff.....
God knows how this generation would have coped with the War.
Everyone seems to know exactly how to deal with a once-in-a-century pandemic.
Whatever Boris is doing, then the correct answer is the opposite.
Imagine Jezza, Seamus and Diane in charge of this national crisis!
Tbh watching Boris today I think T May would have been better in this situation - on top of the facts and clear, rather than the hesitant wiffle-waffle of Boris.
Much better still, Blair would have been the best of recent PMs for this crisis.
To think, this week marks the eighth anniversary of another event that, at the time, seemed to shake politics, society and economics to their very foundations. George Osborne's Pasty Tax:
I’m not arguing whether the experts are wrong, but the way the information is being presented is poor, and causing unnecessary confusion.
Watch Macron simply tell people how it is. Watch Boris and Trump waffle.
I don't think they're waffling, I think that's harsh, they're saying it as it is.
What do you think is waffling?
Macron: “This is what we’re doing, these are the steps taken to mitigate the damage.”
Johnson: “oh umm, maybe don’t socialise” “what about businesses that will go bust?” “🤷♂️“
You do yourself no favours, as the advice was far stronger than that. You are correct that more needs to be said about what will be done to help businesses.
Well its clearly the message is not getting through as no-one I have spoken to offline knows what the hell they are supposed to be doing or not doing.
Did they watch it? It was pretty clear they want you to reduce social interaction. They aren't banning you from doing it, primarily because people should be responsible, and second it would be a huge drain on resources to enforce it.
What the hell does “reduce social interaction” mean?
To be honest I cannot see how anyone has a problem understanding that
Well answer my question then:
Does it mean reduce, or does it mean zero social interaction outside those who live within your home?
It means reduce, its not a ban. Avoid unnecessary social interactions but treating the public as sentient thinking grown ups.
What is a “necessary” social interaction?
Does the government have to tell you exactly how to run your life or something? You have to make a judgement yourself on this. A necessary interaction might be buying groceries, or visiting someone who is on their deathbed. It's not going for a piss up down the pub.
I’m not arguing whether the experts are wrong, but the way the information is being presented is poor, and causing unnecessary confusion.
Watch Macron simply tell people how it is. Watch Boris and Trump waffle.
I don't think they're waffling, I think that's harsh, they're saying it as it is.
What do you think is waffling?
Macron: “This is what we’re doing, these are the steps taken to mitigate the damage.”
Johnson: “oh umm, maybe don’t socialise” “what about businesses that will go bust?” “🤷♂️“
You do yourself no favours, as the advice was far stronger than that. You are correct that more needs to be said about what will be done to help businesses.
Well its clearly the message is not getting through as no-one I have spoken to offline knows what the hell they are supposed to be doing or not doing.
Did they watch it? It was pretty clear they want you to reduce social interaction. They aren't banning you from doing it, primarily because people should be responsible, and second it would be a huge drain on resources to enforce it.
What the hell does “reduce social interaction” mean?
To be honest I cannot see how anyone has a problem understanding that
Well answer my question then:
Does it mean reduce, or does it mean zero social interaction outside those who live within your home?
It means reduce, its not a ban. Avoid unnecessary social interactions but treating the public as sentient thinking grown ups.
What is a “necessary” social interaction?
Does the government have to tell you exactly how to run your life or something? You have to make a judgement yourself on this. A necessary interaction might be buying groceries, or visiting someone who is on their deathbed. It's not going for a piss up down the pub.
I’m sorry but you’re living in an idealistic dreamworld if you think people will not just interpret it as they want, unless explicitly told.
This apologism for the government’s shirking of responsibility is ridiculous. It’s their job to tell us what to do in times of trouble, not to pass the buck.
“You went round to somebody else’s house for tea so it’s your fault your dead.”
Do you want Boris to tell you when to go to the toilet ?
The Chancellor now needs to think about what needs to be done to save the economy. I think:
(1) That the government or the BoE is going to have to provide open ended credit to all existing businesses for the next 6 months at least, probably longer. The amount of credit should be determined by their turnover as established by HMRC and should be pro rata.
(2) The quid pro quo for such largess is that those businesses who receive it have to keep all of their current employees (and gig workers that they regularly use) on full wages, whether there is any work for them to do right now or not.
(3) This way these businesses prevent mass unemployment, the complete swamping of our benefits system, the avoidance of mass arrears of mortgages threatening the banks, the closure of those businesses who can actually still trade such as food shops and give us a base on which we can rebuild.
I really cannot see any other way that we can avoid total meltdown. The amount of new debt that this would create would be truly massive but the tax base would then still exist and longer term the outgoings of the government would be less.
I have been with my daughter, who has been in tears at the prospect of losing the business she has worked so hard to build up, a business which is profitable, which employs 4 permanent members of staff, all of them with bills to pay and families to support, all of whom are the sole breadwinners.
Insurance will not help. Boris advising people to stay away but not coming up with a support package is both frivolous and irresponsible. If the government thinks it important to close sectors for health reasons, then it should do so and provide compensation/support not pass the risk of government decisions to those least able to bear it.
And in the meanwhile a plea: if you can, support your local pub, bar, restaurant, club, theatre or other business. If you want these to be there in future they need your support now. If you don’t want unemployment to soar - with all the misery that entails - remember that it is our children, our friends, colleagues, us who will face this prospect - then support your businesses.
We have to be all in it together if we are going to survive this.
(Apologies for the emotional nature of this post. It is heart-breaking to see the prospect of my daughter’s hard work disappear - and through no fault of her own. She is an example of what many many people in this country will be feeling and going through tonight.)
The compulsory closure will likely come in a week or two.
And will itself be only for a limited time.
Businesses have to deal with bad times as well as good in the same way employees do.
Over a 50 year working life it is sadly inevitable that there will be difficulties of various types.
The Chancellor now needs to think about what needs to be done to save the economy. I think:
(1) That the government or the BoE is going to have to provide open ended credit to all existing businesses for the next 6 months at least, probably longer. The amount of credit should be determined by their turnover as established by HMRC and should be pro rata.
(2) The quid pro quo for such largess is that those businesses who receive it have to keep all of their current employees (and gig workers that they regularly use) on full wages, whether there is any work for them to do right now or not.
(3) This way these businesses prevent mass unemployment, the complete swamping of our benefits system, the avoidance of mass arrears of mortgages threatening the banks, the closure of those businesses who can actually still trade such as food shops and give us a base on which we can rebuild.
I really cannot see any other way that we can avoid total meltdown. The amount of new debt that this would create would be truly massive but the tax base would then still exist and longer term the outgoings of the government would be less.
Nailed it. This or similar must happen in the next few days
The Chancellor now needs to think about what needs to be done to save the economy. I think:
(1) That the government or the BoE is going to have to provide open ended credit to all existing businesses for the next 6 months at least, probably longer. The amount of credit should be determined by their turnover as established by HMRC and should be pro rata.
(2) The quid pro quo for such largess is that those businesses who receive it have to keep all of their current employees (and gig workers that they regularly use) on full wages, whether there is any work for them to do right now or not.
(3) This way these businesses prevent mass unemployment, the complete swamping of our benefits system, the avoidance of mass arrears of mortgages threatening the banks, the closure of those businesses who can actually still trade such as food shops and give us a base on which we can rebuild.
I really cannot see any other way that we can avoid total meltdown. The amount of new debt that this would create would be truly massive but the tax base would then still exist and longer term the outgoings of the government would be less.
Why not force the banks to give everyone a loan holiday for several months, and extend full credit on top ?
I’m not arguing whether the experts are wrong, but the way the information is being presented is poor, and causing unnecessary confusion.
Watch Macron simply tell people how it is. Watch Boris and Trump waffle.
I don't think they're waffling, I think that's harsh, they're saying it as it is.
What do you think is waffling?
Macron: “This is what we’re doing, these are the steps taken to mitigate the damage.”
Johnson: “oh umm, maybe don’t socialise” “what about businesses that will go bust?” “🤷♂️“
You do yourself no favours, as the advice was far stronger than that. You are correct that more needs to be said about what will be done to help businesses.
Well its clearly the message is not getting through as no-one I have spoken to offline knows what the hell they are supposed to be doing or not doing.
Did they watch it? It was pretty clear they want you to reduce social interaction. They aren't banning you from doing it, primarily because people should be responsible, and second it would be a huge drain on resources to enforce it.
What the hell does “reduce social interaction” mean?
To be honest I cannot see how anyone has a problem understanding that
Well answer my question then:
Does it mean reduce, or does it mean zero social interaction outside those who live within your home?
It means reduce, its not a ban. Avoid unnecessary social interactions but treating the public as sentient thinking grown ups.
What is a “necessary” social interaction?
Does the government have to tell you exactly how to run your life or something? You have to make a judgement yourself on this. A necessary interaction might be buying groceries, or visiting someone who is on their deathbed. It's not going for a piss up down the pub.
I’m not arguing whether the experts are wrong, but the way the information is being presented is poor, and causing unnecessary confusion.
Watch Macron simply tell people how it is. Watch Boris and Trump waffle.
I don't think they're waffling, I think that's harsh, they're saying it as it is.
What do you think is waffling?
Macron: “This is what we’re doing, these are the steps taken to mitigate the damage.”
Johnson: “oh umm, maybe don’t socialise” “what about businesses that will go bust?” “🤷♂️“
You do yourself no favours, as the advice was far stronger than that. You are correct that more needs to be said about what will be done to help businesses.
Well its clearly the message is not getting through as no-one I have spoken to offline knows what the hell they are supposed to be doing or not doing.
Did they watch it? It was pretty clear they want you to reduce social interaction. They aren't banning you from doing it, primarily because people should be responsible, and second it would be a huge drain on resources to enforce it.
What the hell does “reduce social interaction” mean?
To be honest I cannot see how anyone has a problem understanding that
Well answer my question then:
Does it mean reduce, or does it mean zero social interaction outside those who live within your home?
It means reduce, its not a ban. Avoid unnecessary social interactions but treating the public as sentient thinking grown ups.
What is a “necessary” social interaction?
Does the government have to tell you exactly how to run your life or something? You have to make a judgement yourself on this. A necessary interaction might be buying groceries, or visiting someone who is on their deathbed. It's not going for a piss up down the pub.
I’m sorry but you’re living in an idealistic dreamworld if you think people will not just interpret it as they want, unless explicitly told.
This apologism for the government’s shirking of responsibility is ridiculous. It’s their job to tell us what to do in times of trouble, not to pass the buck.
“You went round to somebody else’s house for tea so it’s your fault your dead.”
Do you want Boris to tell you when to go to the toilet ?
I’m not arguing whether the experts are wrong, but the way the information is being presented is poor, and causing unnecessary confusion.
Watch Macron simply tell people how it is. Watch Boris and Trump waffle.
I don't think they're waffling, I think that's harsh, they're saying it as it is.
What do you think is waffling?
Macron: “This is what we’re doing, these are the steps taken to mitigate the damage.”
Johnson: “oh umm, maybe don’t socialise” “what about businesses that will go bust?” “🤷♂️“
You do yourself no favours, as the advice was far stronger than that. You are correct that more needs to be said about what will be done to help businesses.
Well its clearly the message is not getting through as no-one I have spoken to offline knows what the hell they are supposed to be doing or not doing.
Did they watch it? It was pretty clear they want you to reduce social interaction. They aren't banning you from doing it, primarily because people should be responsible, and second it would be a huge drain on resources to enforce it.
What the hell does “reduce social interaction” mean?
To be honest I cannot see how anyone has a problem understanding that
Well answer my question then:
Does it mean reduce, or does it mean zero social interaction outside those who live within your home?
It means reduce, its not a ban. Avoid unnecessary social interactions but treating the public as sentient thinking grown ups.
What is a “necessary” social interaction?
Does the government have to tell you exactly how to run your life or something? You have to make a judgement yourself on this. A necessary interaction might be buying groceries, or visiting someone who is on their deathbed. It's not going for a piss up down the pub.
I’m not arguing whether the experts are wrong, but the way the information is being presented is poor, and causing unnecessary confusion.
Watch Macron simply tell people how it is. Watch Boris and Trump waffle.
I don't think they're waffling, I think that's harsh, they're saying it as it is.
What do you think is waffling?
Macron: “This is what we’re doing, these are the steps taken to mitigate the damage.”
Johnson: “oh umm, maybe don’t socialise” “what about businesses that will go bust?” “🤷♂️“
You do yourself no favours, as the advice was far stronger than that. You are correct that more needs to be said about what will be done to help businesses.
Well its clearly the message is not getting through as no-one I have spoken to offline knows what the hell they are supposed to be doing or not doing.
Did they watch it? It was pretty clear they want you to reduce social interaction. They aren't banning you from doing it, primarily because people should be responsible, and second it would be a huge drain on resources to enforce it.
What the hell does “reduce social interaction” mean?
To be honest I cannot see how anyone has a problem understanding that
Well answer my question then:
Does it mean reduce, or does it mean zero social interaction outside those who live within your home?
It means reduce, its not a ban. Avoid unnecessary social interactions but treating the public as sentient thinking grown ups.
What is a “necessary” social interaction?
Does the government have to tell you exactly how to run your life or something? You have to make a judgement yourself on this. A necessary interaction might be buying groceries, or visiting someone who is on their deathbed. It's not going for a piss up down the pub.
I’m sorry but you’re living in an idealistic dreamworld if you think people will not just interpret it as they want, unless explicitly told.
This apologism for the government’s shirking of responsibility is ridiculous. It’s their job to tell us what to do in times of trouble, not to pass the buck.
“You went round to somebody else’s house for tea so it’s your fault your dead.”
Do you want Boris to tell you when to go to the toilet ?
That's why he needs 10,000 rolls of toilet paper. No idea when the phone might ring with orders to run to the khazi *NOW*!
God knows how this generation would have coped with the War.
Everyone seems to know exactly how to deal with a once-in-a-century pandemic.
Whatever Boris is doing, then the correct answer is the opposite.
Imagine Jezza, Seamus and Diane in charge of this national crisis!
Tbh watching Boris today I think T May would have been better in this situation - on top of the facts and clear, rather than the hesitant wiffle-waffle of Boris.
Much better still, Blair would have been the best of recent PMs for this crisis.
Nevertheless, we have to make do with Boris, so there it is.
I am not the greatest fan of Boris, and was a huge critic of his Brexit policy and rabble-rousing last year, but I'm not sure that I agree with this. He wasn't typically Presidential or Prime Ministerial today, but carefully flanked by two experts, he looked like the person who was providing human reassurance. This sort of situation and its warnings can be very alienating, and sometimes some more unpredictable humanity in the middle of it, in a more unusual way, can act a different sort of relief for people.
No fan of his but I think he’s grown up a lot and now avoids the sort of juvenile grandstanding that defined the last year or two. He was once seen as the British Trump; he’s nothing like him, thankfully.
The Chancellor now needs to think about what needs to be done to save the economy. I think:
(1) That the government or the BoE is going to have to provide open ended credit to all existing businesses for the next 6 months at least, probably longer. The amount of credit should be determined by their turnover as established by HMRC and should be pro rata.
(2) The quid pro quo for such largess is that those businesses who receive it have to keep all of their current employees (and gig workers that they regularly use) on full wages, whether there is any work for them to do right now or not.
(3) This way these businesses prevent mass unemployment, the complete swamping of our benefits system, the avoidance of mass arrears of mortgages threatening the banks, the closure of those businesses who can actually still trade such as food shops and give us a base on which we can rebuild.
I really cannot see any other way that we can avoid total meltdown. The amount of new debt that this would create would be truly massive but the tax base would then still exist and longer term the outgoings of the government would be less.
Why not force the banks to give everyone a loan holiday for several months, and extend full credit on top ?
They can afford it.
It's not just existing loans though is it? Running expenses and wages have to be paid while no income is coming in.
God knows how this generation would have coped with the War.
Everyone seems to know exactly how to deal with a once-in-a-century pandemic.
Whatever Boris is doing, then the correct answer is the opposite.
Imagine Jezza, Seamus and Diane in charge of this national crisis!
Tbh watching Boris today I think T May would have been better in this situation - on top of the facts and clear, rather than the hesitant wiffle-waffle of Boris.
Much better still, Blair would have been the best of recent PMs for this crisis.
.
Yep. Impossible to disagree.
I'll disagree. May would have been totally robotic and unable to answer a single question.
She would also have made a habit of hibernating in Downing Street for days on end, with not a squeak emerging, when people were desperate for reassurance and leadership.
The Chancellor now needs to think about what needs to be done to save the economy. I think:
(1) That the government or the BoE is going to have to provide open ended credit to all existing businesses for the next 6 months at least, probably longer. The amount of credit should be determined by their turnover as established by HMRC and should be pro rata.
(2) The quid pro quo for such largess is that those businesses who receive it have to keep all of their current employees (and gig workers that they regularly use) on full wages, whether there is any work for them to do right now or not.
(3) This way these businesses prevent mass unemployment, the complete swamping of our benefits system, the avoidance of mass arrears of mortgages threatening the banks, the closure of those businesses who can actually still trade such as food shops and give us a base on which we can rebuild.
I really cannot see any other way that we can avoid total meltdown. The amount of new debt that this would create would be truly massive but the tax base would then still exist and longer term the outgoings of the government would be less.
Agree with all of that. Yet Bozo says nothing, and HYUFD things said nothing is enough. So must be true.
The Chancellor now needs to think about what needs to be done to save the economy. I think:
(1) That the government or the BoE is going to have to provide open ended credit to all existing businesses for the next 6 months at least, probably longer. The amount of credit should be determined by their turnover as established by HMRC and should be pro rata.
(2) The quid pro quo for such largess is that those businesses who receive it have to keep all of their current employees (and gig workers that they regularly use) on full wages, whether there is any work for them to do right now or not.
(3) This way these businesses prevent mass unemployment, the complete swamping of our benefits system, the avoidance of mass arrears of mortgages threatening the banks, the closure of those businesses who can actually still trade such as food shops and give us a base on which we can rebuild.
I really cannot see any other way that we can avoid total meltdown. The amount of new debt that this would create would be truly massive but the tax base would then still exist and longer term the outgoings of the government would be less.
Nailed it. This or similar must happen in the next few days
And weld them into a network to deliver food and medicines to those locked down.
I have been with my daughter, who has been in tears at the prospect of losing the business she has worked so hard to build up, a business which is profitable, which employs 4 permanent members of staff, all of them with bills to pay and families to support, all of whom are the sole breadwinners.
Insurance will not help. Boris advising people to stay away but not coming up with a support package is both frivolous and irresponsible. If the government thinks it important to close sectors for health reasons, then it should do so and provide compensation/support not pass the risk of government decisions to those least able to bear it.
And in the meanwhile a plea: if you can, support your local pub, bar, restaurant, club, theatre or other business. If you want these to be there in future they need your support now. If you don’t want unemployment to soar - with all the misery that entails - remember that it is our children, our friends, colleagues, us who will face this prospect - then support your businesses.
We have to be all in it together if we are going to survive this.
(Apologies for the emotional nature of this post. It is heart-breaking to see the prospect of my daughter’s hard work disappear - and through no fault of her own. She is an example of what many many people in this country will be feeling and going through tonight.)
Why can't the UK copy Macron's commitment to France which, if the BBC is to be believed, is that "No business, regardless of size, will be allowed to fail"?
I think it will come to that, and businesses protected throughout the G7 for the next three quarters. The detail of how that will work will be ferociously complex though.
I have been with my daughter, who has been in tears at the prospect of losing the business she has worked so hard to build up, a business which is profitable, which employs 4 permanent members of staff, all of them with bills to pay and families to support, all of whom are the sole breadwinners.
Insurance will not help. Boris advising people to stay away but not coming up with a support package is both frivolous and irresponsible. If the government thinks it important to close sectors for health reasons, then it should do so and provide compensation/support not pass the risk of government decisions to those least able to bear it.
And in the meanwhile a plea: if you can, support your local pub, bar, restaurant, club, theatre or other business. If you want these to be there in future they need your support now. If you don’t want unemployment to soar - with all the misery that entails - remember that it is our children, our friends, colleagues, us who will face this prospect - then support your businesses.
We have to be all in it together if we are going to survive this.
(Apologies for the emotional nature of this post. It is heart-breaking to see the prospect of my daughter’s hard work disappear - and through no fault of her own. She is an example of what many many people in this country will be feeling and going through tonight.)
Not meant to be frivolous but offering home delivery and take away if it is a food business would be a good alternative.
I have been with my daughter, who has been in tears at the prospect of losing the business she has worked so hard to build up, a business which is profitable, which employs 4 permanent members of staff, all of them with bills to pay and families to support, all of whom are the sole breadwinners.
Insurance will not help. Boris advising people to stay away but not coming up with a support package is both frivolous and irresponsible. If the government thinks it important to close sectors for health reasons, then it should do so and provide compensation/support not pass the risk of government decisions to those least able to bear it.
And in the meanwhile a plea: if you can, support your local pub, bar, restaurant, club, theatre or other business. If you want these to be there in future they need your support now. If you don’t want unemployment to soar - with all the misery that entails - remember that it is our children, our friends, colleagues, us who will face this prospect - then support your businesses.
We have to be all in it together if we are going to survive this.
(Apologies for the emotional nature of this post. It is heart-breaking to see the prospect of my daughter’s hard work disappear - and through no fault of her own. She is an example of what many many people in this country will be feeling and going through tonight.)
Not meant to be frivolous but offering home delivery and take away if it is a food business would be a good alternative.
She is already doing this. But if demand is suppressed by the government, it won’t help. The government has to back its words with cash. Otherwise it’s simply destroying industries. With voters - who aren’t going to thank Boris for making them unemployed - no matter how many bridges he promises them.
You filthy meat eaters have got us into this mess.
As a usually live-and-let-live non-preachy vegetarian, there is a part of me that thinks "gahhh, why did everyone else not feel the same way as me?" Similarly MERS seems to have come from eating camel meat.
Mind you, The Big One could still have come from elsewhere even if we were all vegetarian. There have been Nipah virus outbreaks where fruit bats have urinated on or had a nibble on fruit that made it into the human food chain, or just infested people's wells.
This Vox piece was interesting even though I don't usually like them as a news source. Although wet markets have a long history in Asia, it suggests that it's only due to explicit Chinese policy decisions over the last few decades that such a big industry has grown around wildlife and exotic animal farming; even though a traditional wet market would have had a large mix of species, a modern one has a radically wider and more global selection of animals on offer and the Chinese government has encouraged this.
In this report, they say they are following standard procedure for this type of condition and it doesn't work. I wonder what they did in China and are doing in Germany?
That's an extremely powerful and disturbing video.
I just had an email from my hospital care team reminding me that I am in a high-risk category despite being under-70 and need to follow government advice for vulnerable people. After seeing that, I think I really am going to go into lockdown!!
The Chancellor now needs to think about what needs to be done to save the economy. I think:
(1) That the government or the BoE is going to have to provide open ended credit to all existing businesses for the next 6 months at least, probably longer. The amount of credit should be determined by their turnover as established by HMRC and should be pro rata.
(2) The quid pro quo for such largess is that those businesses who receive it have to keep all of their current employees (and gig workers that they regularly use) on full wages, whether there is any work for them to do right now or not.
(3) This way these businesses prevent mass unemployment, the complete swamping of our benefits system, the avoidance of mass arrears of mortgages threatening the banks, the closure of those businesses who can actually still trade such as food shops and give us a base on which we can rebuild.
I really cannot see any other way that we can avoid total meltdown. The amount of new debt that this would create would be truly massive but the tax base would then still exist and longer term the outgoings of the government would be less.
Why not force the banks to give everyone a loan holiday for several months, and extend full credit on top ?
They can afford it.
It's not just existing loans though is it? Running expenses and wages have to be paid while no income is coming in.
Interest free massive cash advance. Just pump it in.
I have been with my daughter, who has been in tears at the prospect of losing the business she has worked so hard to build up, a business which is profitable, which employs 4 permanent members of staff, all of them with bills to pay and families to support, all of whom are the sole breadwinners.
Insurance will not help. Boris advising people to stay away but not coming up with a support package is both frivolous and irresponsible. If the government thinks it important to close sectors for health reasons, then it should do so and provide compensation/support not pass the risk of government decisions to those least able to bear it.
And in the meanwhile a plea: if you can, support your local pub, bar, restaurant, club, theatre or other business. If you want these to be there in future they need your support now. If you don’t want unemployment to soar - with all the misery that entails - remember that it is our children, our friends, colleagues, us who will face this prospect - then support your businesses.
We have to be all in it together if we are going to survive this.
(Apologies for the emotional nature of this post. It is heart-breaking to see the prospect of my daughter’s hard work disappear - and through no fault of her own. She is an example of what many many people in this country will be feeling and going through tonight.)
Not meant to be frivolous but offering home delivery and take away if it is a food business would be a good alternative.
I have been with my daughter, who has been in tears at the prospect of losing the business she has worked so hard to build up, a business which is profitable, which employs 4 permanent members of staff, all of them with bills to pay and families to support, all of whom are the sole breadwinners.
Insurance will not help. Boris advising people to stay away but not coming up with a support package is both frivolous and irresponsible. If the government thinks it important to close sectors for health reasons, then it should do so and provide compensation/support not pass the risk of government decisions to those least able to bear it.
And in the meanwhile a plea: if you can, support your local pub, bar, restaurant, club, theatre or other business. If you want these to be there in future they need your support now. If you don’t want unemployment to soar - with all the misery that entails - remember that it is our children, our friends, colleagues, us who will face this prospect - then support your businesses.
We have to be all in it together if we are going to survive this.
(Apologies for the emotional nature of this post. It is heart-breaking to see the prospect of my daughter’s hard work disappear - and through no fault of her own. She is an example of what many many people in this country will be feeling and going through tonight.)
Not meant to be frivolous but offering home delivery and take away if it is a food business would be a good alternative.
She is already doing this. But if demand is suppressed by the government, it won’t help. The government has to back its words with cash. Otherwise it’s simply destroying industries. With voters - who aren’t going to thank Boris for making them unemployed - no matter how many bridges he promises them.
Sorry to hear of your daughter's troubles. For many of us this will be a world turned upside down.
The Chancellor now needs to think about what needs to be done to save the economy. I think:
(1) That the government or the BoE is going to have to provide open ended credit to all existing businesses for the next 6 months at least, probably longer. The amount of credit should be determined by their turnover as established by HMRC and should be pro rata.
(2) The quid pro quo for such largess is that those businesses who receive it have to keep all of their current employees (and gig workers that they regularly use) on full wages, whether there is any work for them to do right now or not.
(3) This way these businesses prevent mass unemployment, the complete swamping of our benefits system, the avoidance of mass arrears of mortgages threatening the banks, the closure of those businesses who can actually still trade such as food shops and give us a base on which we can rebuild.
I really cannot see any other way that we can avoid total meltdown. The amount of new debt that this would create would be truly massive but the tax base would then still exist and longer term the outgoings of the government would be less.
Why not force the banks to give everyone a loan holiday for several months, and extend full credit on top ?
They can afford it.
Firstly they can't. Secondly that distributes incomes according to the amount of debt people have which seems a bizarre way of doing it. Thirdly, I don't see how that maintains demand which is absolutely critical.
Is HMG still sticking to the 'no Brexit Trasition Extension' line by the way?
I don't think so, I think they're currently saying that no decision has been made at the minute and that the health emergency is their number one priority.
I have been with my daughter, who has been in tears at the prospect of losing the business she has worked so hard to build up, a business which is profitable, which employs 4 permanent members of staff, all of them with bills to pay and families to support, all of whom are the sole breadwinners.
Insurance will not help. Boris advising people to stay away but not coming up with a support package is both frivolous and irresponsible. If the government thinks it important to close sectors for health reasons, then it should do so and provide compensation/support not pass the risk of government decisions to those least able to bear it.
And in the meanwhile a plea: if you can, support your local pub, bar, restaurant, club, theatre or other business. If you want these to be there in future they need your support now. If you don’t want unemployment to soar - with all the misery that entails - remember that it is our children, our friends, colleagues, us who will face this prospect - then support your businesses.
We have to be all in it together if we are going to survive this.
(Apologies for the emotional nature of this post. It is heart-breaking to see the prospect of my daughter’s hard work disappear - and through no fault of her own. She is an example of what many many people in this country will be feeling and going through tonight.)
Why can't the UK copy Macron's commitment to France which, if the BBC is to be believed, is that "No business, regardless of size, will be allowed to fail"?
I think it will come to that, and businesses protected throughout the G7 for the next three quarters. The detail of how that will work will be ferociously complex though.
Thinking about it, what happened at the outbreak of WW2? A lot of activity was curtailed, many businesses were repurposed or brought under government control one way or another. Is there not some form of a precedent we could learn from?
The Chancellor now needs to think about what needs to be done to save the economy. I think:
(1) That the government or the BoE is going to have to provide open ended credit to all existing businesses for the next 6 months at least, probably longer. The amount of credit should be determined by their turnover as established by HMRC and should be pro rata.
(2) The quid pro quo for such largess is that those businesses who receive it have to keep all of their current employees (and gig workers that they regularly use) on full wages, whether there is any work for them to do right now or not.
(3) This way these businesses prevent mass unemployment, the complete swamping of our benefits system, the avoidance of mass arrears of mortgages threatening the banks, the closure of those businesses who can actually still trade such as food shops and give us a base on which we can rebuild.
I really cannot see any other way that we can avoid total meltdown. The amount of new debt that this would create would be truly massive but the tax base would then still exist and longer term the outgoings of the government would be less.
Nailed it. This or similar must happen in the next few days
And weld them into a network to deliver food and medicines to those locked down.
Yes, that too. If we can find useful things for them to do without spreading this virus even further so much the better.
God knows how this generation would have coped with the War.
Everyone seems to know exactly how to deal with a once-in-a-century pandemic.
Whatever Boris is doing, then the correct answer is the opposite.
Imagine Jezza, Seamus and Diane in charge of this national crisis!
Tbh watching Boris today I think T May would have been better in this situation - on top of the facts and clear, rather than the hesitant wiffle-waffle of Boris.
Much better still, Blair would have been the best of recent PMs for this crisis.
.
Yep. Impossible to disagree.
I'll disagree. May would have been totally robotic and unable to answer a single question.
She would also have made a habit of hibernating in Downing Street for days on end, with not a squeak emerging, when people were desperate for reassurance and leadership.
This really isn't the time for bickering in inane generalities. Time enough for that tomorrow.
Tbh watching Boris today I think T May would have been better in this situation
I'm not certain, at least Boris can u-turn on the drop of a hat, May might have stuck out the daft herd immunity plan way longer.
It is sad that you are too thick to understand what is going on. I assume when you watch these news conferences you just switch the sound off and make up your own words for what they are saying.
14 13 alleged incidents from 10 9 complainants, some in public and not one bit of direct contemporaneous corroboration offered by the prosecution. The one prosecution witness listed who could have put these into some overall pattern of behaviour (Ian McCann, SNP Head of Conduct) was strangely not called. This is beginning to look like a half-hearted attempt. Perhaps it was never intended to reach the courts, just used as a means to prevent AS making a political comeback?
The Chancellor now needs to think about what needs to be done to save the economy. I think:
(1) That the government or the BoE is going to have to provide open ended credit to all existing businesses for the next 6 months at least, probably longer. The amount of credit should be determined by their turnover as established by HMRC and should be pro rata.
(2) The quid pro quo for such largess is that those businesses who receive it have to keep all of their current employees (and gig workers that they regularly use) on full wages, whether there is any work for them to do right now or not.
(3) This way these businesses prevent mass unemployment, the complete swamping of our benefits system, the avoidance of mass arrears of mortgages threatening the banks, the closure of those businesses who can actually still trade such as food shops and give us a base on which we can rebuild.
I really cannot see any other way that we can avoid total meltdown. The amount of new debt that this would create would be truly massive but the tax base would then still exist and longer term the outgoings of the government would be less.
Why not force the banks to give everyone a loan holiday for several months, and extend full credit on top ?
They can afford it.
Firstly they can't. Secondly that distributes incomes according to the amount of debt people have which seems a bizarre way of doing it. Thirdly, I don't see how that maintains demand which is absolutely critical.
Yes. Demand measures and has to be governmentally-led, preferably including guaranteed incomes. This will require a fundamental change of Tory ideology, possibly confusingly so for some followers, but fortunately we may have just the ideologically footloose person to do it.
Is HMG still sticking to the 'no Brexit Trasition Extension' line by the way?
I don't think so, I think they're currently saying that no decision has been made at the minute and that the health emergency is their number one priority.
Fair enough. It was probably a silly point to raise on my part.
Nothing much matter this year apart from surviving it now.
I'm taking a short break from PB for various reasons, and this decision has been reinforced by the coronavirus event (I don't know what will happen, I don't have the knowledge base to comment sensibly, and any comment by me on such a factual matter may count against me professionally). I will hopefully return in a few weeks/months depending.
However, there is one way I can usefuly contribute and that is by providing links. You may have noted the earlier comment about a briefing from Imperial. I have found what I believe to be the report being briefed. I am on the tablet and so cannot provide a link but if you Google "impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to reduce Covid-19 mortality and healthcare demand" you should find it. It is a report from the MRC Centre For Global Infectious Disease Analysis, which is part of imperial.ac.uk
Oh, while I'm here, major sympathies to @Charles, @Cyclefree, and all the others who have afflicted family and other loved ones. My very best hopes to you
I have been with my daughter, who has been in tears at the prospect of losing the business she has worked so hard to build up, a business which is profitable, which employs 4 permanent members of staff, all of them with bills to pay and families to support, all of whom are the sole breadwinners.
Insurance will not help. Boris advising people to stay away but not coming up with a support package is both frivolous and irresponsible. If the government thinks it important to close sectors for health reasons, then it should do so and provide compensation/support not pass the risk of government decisions to those least able to bear it.
And in the meanwhile a plea: if you can, support your local pub, bar, restaurant, club, theatre or other business. If you want these to be there in future they need your support now. If you don’t want unemployment to soar - with all the misery that entails - remember that it is our children, our friends, colleagues, us who will face this prospect - then support your businesses.
We have to be all in it together if we are going to survive this.
(Apologies for the emotional nature of this post. It is heart-breaking to see the prospect of my daughter’s hard work disappear - and through no fault of her own. She is an example of what many many people in this country will be feeling and going through tonight.)
Not meant to be frivolous but offering home delivery and take away if it is a food business would be a good alternative.
I have been with my daughter, who has been in tears at the prospect of losing the business she has worked so hard to build up, a business which is profitable, which employs 4 permanent members of staff, all of them with bills to pay and families to support, all of whom are the sole breadwinners.
Insurance will not help. Boris advising people to stay away but not coming up with a support package is both frivolous and irresponsible. If the government thinks it important to close sectors for health reasons, then it should do so and provide compensation/support not pass the risk of government decisions to those least able to bear it.
And in the meanwhile a plea: if you can, support your local pub, bar, restaurant, club, theatre or other business. If you want these to be there in future they need your support now. If you don’t want unemployment to soar - with all the misery that entails - remember that it is our children, our friends, colleagues, us who will face this prospect - then support your businesses.
We have to be all in it together if we are going to survive this.
(Apologies for the emotional nature of this post. It is heart-breaking to see the prospect of my daughter’s hard work disappear - and through no fault of her own. She is an example of what many many people in this country will be feeling and going through tonight.)
Not meant to be frivolous but offering home delivery and take away if it is a food business would be a good alternative.
She is already doing this. But if demand is suppressed by the government, it won’t help. The government has to back its words with cash. Otherwise it’s simply destroying industries. With voters - who aren’t going to thank Boris for making them unemployed - no matter how many bridges he promises them.
Sorry to hear of your daughter's troubles. For many of us this will be a world turned upside down.
There is talk on Twitter that the government is deliberately advising customers to stay away from pubs et al, and not ordering them to stay away, in order to protect its friends in the insurance industry from liability. I could not possibly comment.
14 13 alleged incidents from 10 9 complainants, some in public and not one bit of direct contemporaneous corroboration offered by the prosecution. The one prosecution witness listed who could have put these into some overall pattern of behaviour (Ian McCann, SNP Head of Conduct) was strangely not called. This is beginning to look like a half-hearted attempt. Perhaps it was never intended to reach the courts, just used as a means to prevent AS making a political comeback?
Edit: I should add that they have had so many applications over the last 48 hours they are having to bring extra servers online so you may not immediately start working. But be patient. It is worth it.
I fired up an old bitcoin rig last week and it's idle now with no units to download
For those talking about a change of plan, the government always said a lockdown was coming "when the time was right". Saying that the time is now right is not a total shock or u-turn.
Edit: I should add that they have had so many applications over the last 48 hours they are having to bring extra servers online so you may not immediately start working. But be patient. It is worth it.
I fired up an old bitcoin rig last week and it's idle now with no units to download
The Chancellor now needs to think about what needs to be done to save the economy. I think:
(1) That the government or the BoE is going to have to provide open ended credit to all existing businesses for the next 6 months at least, probably longer. The amount of credit should be determined by their turnover as established by HMRC and should be pro rata.
(2) The quid pro quo for such largess is that those businesses who receive it have to keep all of their current employees (and gig workers that they regularly use) on full wages, whether there is any work for them to do right now or not.
(3) This way these businesses prevent mass unemployment, the complete swamping of our benefits system, the avoidance of mass arrears of mortgages threatening the banks, the closure of those businesses who can actually still trade such as food shops and give us a base on which we can rebuild.
I really cannot see any other way that we can avoid total meltdown. The amount of new debt that this would create would be truly massive but the tax base would then still exist and longer term the outgoings of the government would be less.
Why not force the banks to give everyone a loan holiday for several months, and extend full credit on top ?
They can afford it.
That would be a very good measure. And it might happen.
The Chancellor now needs to think about what needs to be done to save the economy. I think:
(1) That the government or the BoE is going to have to provide open ended credit to all existing businesses for the next 6 months at least, probably longer. The amount of credit should be determined by their turnover as established by HMRC and should be pro rata.
(2) The quid pro quo for such largess is that those businesses who receive it have to keep all of their current employees (and gig workers that they regularly use) on full wages, whether there is any work for them to do right now or not.
(3) This way these businesses prevent mass unemployment, the complete swamping of our benefits system, the avoidance of mass arrears of mortgages threatening the banks, the closure of those businesses who can actually still trade such as food shops and give us a base on which we can rebuild.
I really cannot see any other way that we can avoid total meltdown. The amount of new debt that this would create would be truly massive but the tax base would then still exist and longer term the outgoings of the government would be less.
Why not force the banks to give everyone a loan holiday for several months, and extend full credit on top ?
They can afford it.
That would be a very good measure. And it might happen.
I'm taking a short break from PB for various reasons, and this decision has been reinforced by the coronavirus event (I don't know what will happen, I don't have the knowledge base to comment sensibly, and any comment by me on such a factual matter may count against me professionally). I will hopefully return in a few weeks/months depending.
However, there is one way I can usefuly contribute and that is by providing links. You may have noted the earlier comment about a briefing from Imperial. I have found what I believe to be the report being briefed. I am on the tablet and so cannot provide a link but if you Google "impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to reduce Covid-19 mortality and healthcare demand" you should find it. It is a report from the MRC Centre For Global Infectious Disease Analysis, which is part of imperial.ac.uk
Oh, while I'm here, major sympathies to @Charles, @Cyclefree, and all the others who have afflicted family and other loved ones. My very best hopes to you
Tbh watching Boris today I think T May would have been better in this situation
I'm not certain, at least Boris can u-turn on the drop of a hat, May might have stuck out the daft herd immunity plan way longer.
It is sad that you are too thick to understand what is going on. I assume when you watch these news conferences you just switch the sound off and make up your own words for what they are saying.
Yes I’ve been wondering if they show different press conferences in different regions. I saw the one that made perfect sense and emphasised this was an evolving situation with an evolving plan.
We do need a Treasury/BEIS set of measures for business though, ASAP. I can understand why we don’t want insurance companies to go under though. We’d then have to take over all the other risks they’ve been insuring.
The Chancellor now needs to think about what needs to be done to save the economy. I think:
(1) That the government or the BoE is going to have to provide open ended credit to all existing businesses for the next 6 months at least, probably longer. The amount of credit should be determined by their turnover as established by HMRC and should be pro rata.
(2) The quid pro quo for such largess is that those businesses who receive it have to keep all of their current employees (and gig workers that they regularly use) on full wages, whether there is any work for them to do right now or not.
(3) This way these businesses prevent mass unemployment, the complete swamping of our benefits system, the avoidance of mass arrears of mortgages threatening the banks, the closure of those businesses who can actually still trade such as food shops and give us a base on which we can rebuild.
I really cannot see any other way that we can avoid total meltdown. The amount of new debt that this would create would be truly massive but the tax base would then still exist and longer term the outgoings of the government would be less.
Why not force the banks to give everyone a loan holiday for several months, and extend full credit on top ?
They can afford it.
That would be a very good measure. And it might happen.
Boris and Sunak are soon going to be borrowing enough to make Corbyn and McDonnell blush.
I’m beginning to think semi-ignorance is bliss. Discussing the worst case scenarios in minute detail is too depressing. We have to play the hand we are dealt - life is going to change drastically for a lot of people. I spent a great deal of time alone and quite isolated 2012-2018, after a while you get used to it, it’s actually more tricky when you come out of it.
It is. My brother in law has just been laid off from his shopfitting job today. ...
I had to re-read that. I thought it said his "... his shoplifting job ...". I guess the reports of panic buying are having an effect.
My nephew is also in media and wondering how to hold his business together. A decade of hard work looks to be on the edge of collapse.
My lad has only been in it since he finished Uni last year. He had really started getting contacts, getting his name passed on and was really buzzing. This has hit him hard.
All we can do is sit tight. It is just so frustrating
The Chancellor now needs to think about what needs to be done to save the economy. I think:
(1) That the government or the BoE is going to have to provide open ended credit to all existing businesses for the next 6 months at least, probably longer. The amount of credit should be determined by their turnover as established by HMRC and should be pro rata.
(2) The quid pro quo for such largess is that those businesses who receive it have to keep all of their current employees (and gig workers that they regularly use) on full wages, whether there is any work for them to do right now or not.
(3) This way these businesses prevent mass unemployment, the complete swamping of our benefits system, the avoidance of mass arrears of mortgages threatening the banks, the closure of those businesses who can actually still trade such as food shops and give us a base on which we can rebuild.
I really cannot see any other way that we can avoid total meltdown. The amount of new debt that this would create would be truly massive but the tax base would then still exist and longer term the outgoings of the government would be less.
Agree with all of that. Yet Bozo says nothing, and HYUFD things said nothing is enough. So must be true.
They have to have a Treasury announcement tomorrow, you’d think. If they do that, then I can see the attraction of having removed it from the public health messages today. But it can’t wait days.
I'm taking a short break from PB for various reasons, and this decision has been reinforced by the coronavirus event (I don't know what will happen, I don't have the knowledge base to comment sensibly, and any comment by me on such a factual matter may count against me professionally). I will hopefully return in a few weeks/months depending.
However, there is one way I can usefuly contribute and that is by providing links. You may have noted the earlier comment about a briefing from Imperial. I have found what I believe to be the report being briefed. I am on the tablet and so cannot provide a link but if you Google "impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to reduce Covid-19 mortality and healthcare demand" you should find it. It is a report from the MRC Centre For Global Infectious Disease Analysis, which is part of imperial.ac.uk
Oh, while I'm here, major sympathies to @Charles, @Cyclefree, and all the others who have afflicted family and other loved ones. My very best hopes to you
The Chancellor now needs to think about what needs to be done to save the economy. I think:
(1) That the government or the BoE is going to have to provide open ended credit to all existing businesses for the next 6 months at least, probably longer. The amount of credit should be determined by their turnover as established by HMRC and should be pro rata.
(2) The quid pro quo for such largess is that those businesses who receive it have to keep all of their current employees (and gig workers that they regularly use) on full wages, whether there is any work for them to do right now or not.
(3) This way these businesses prevent mass unemployment, the complete swamping of our benefits system, the avoidance of mass arrears of mortgages threatening the banks, the closure of those businesses who can actually still trade such as food shops and give us a base on which we can rebuild.
I really cannot see any other way that we can avoid total meltdown. The amount of new debt that this would create would be truly massive but the tax base would then still exist and longer term the outgoings of the government would be less.
Why not force the banks to give everyone a loan holiday for several months, and extend full credit on top ?
They can afford it.
Firstly they can't. Secondly that distributes incomes according to the amount of debt people have which seems a bizarre way of doing it. Thirdly, I don't see how that maintains demand which is absolutely critical.
They can. They are all very well capitalised and passing all stress tests for all scenarios the BoE set them, and the Government can quantatively ease in top. Most businesses do have debt. Those that don't will need to eat into cash reserves a bit.
I accept demand has gone. This is about survival for 3-4 months.
The Chancellor now needs to think about what needs to be done to save the economy. I think:
(1) That the government or the BoE is going to have to provide open ended credit to all existing businesses for the next 6 months at least, probably longer. The amount of credit should be determined by their turnover as established by HMRC and should be pro rata.
(2) The quid pro quo for such largess is that those businesses who receive it have to keep all of their current employees (and gig workers that they regularly use) on full wages, whether there is any work for them to do right now or not.
(3) This way these businesses prevent mass unemployment, the complete swamping of our benefits system, the avoidance of mass arrears of mortgages threatening the banks, the closure of those businesses who can actually still trade such as food shops and give us a base on which we can rebuild.
I really cannot see any other way that we can avoid total meltdown. The amount of new debt that this would create would be truly massive but the tax base would then still exist and longer term the outgoings of the government would be less.
Why not force the banks to give everyone a loan holiday for several months, and extend full credit on top ?
They can afford it.
It's not just existing loans though is it? Running expenses and wages have to be paid while no income is coming in.
True but mortgage and loan holidays free up huge amounts of liquidity for those who can get some sort of income, so some cash should flow.
If the government are thinking about mortgage holidays then I hope they're going to do something about people who rent.
I would be annoyed if they pay my landlord's mortgage, but I have to pay the rent as usual.
The mortgage holiday is a bit of a con, though, because although you don’t pay now, your loan stays the same and interest is added. So it is really just allowing people to pay later.
Why is it terrifying??? It's what happens in science - you adjust the model when you get new data. We are going to have to adopt the lockdown model as we can't manage this epidemic in as controlled a way as we would have liked. After this we will then adapt how we handle the next wave, which will be much less costly (due to better therapy / diagnostics / equipment). The use of 'terrifying' and 'jaw dropping' is sensationalist and un-scientific drivel.
Indeed, some of us have been saying this for weeks...
The Chancellor now needs to think about what needs to be done to save the economy. I think:
(1) That the government or the BoE is going to have to provide open ended credit to all existing businesses for the next 6 months at least, probably longer. The amount of credit should be determined by their turnover as established by HMRC and should be pro rata.
(2) The quid pro quo for such largess is that those businesses who receive it have to keep all of their current employees (and gig workers that they regularly use) on full wages, whether there is any work for them to do right now or not.
(3) This way these businesses prevent mass unemployment, the complete swamping of our benefits system, the avoidance of mass arrears of mortgages threatening the banks, the closure of those businesses who can actually still trade such as food shops and give us a base on which we can rebuild.
I really cannot see any other way that we can avoid total meltdown. The amount of new debt that this would create would be truly massive but the tax base would then still exist and longer term the outgoings of the government would be less.
Why not force the banks to give everyone a loan holiday for several months, and extend full credit on top ?
They can afford it.
Firstly they can't. Secondly that distributes incomes according to the amount of debt people have which seems a bizarre way of doing it. Thirdly, I don't see how that maintains demand which is absolutely critical.
If the government are thinking about mortgage holidays then I hope they're going to do something about people who rent.
I would be annoyed if they pay my landlord's mortgage, but I have to pay the rent as usual.
The mortgage holiday is a bit of a con, though, because although you don’t pay now, your loan stays the same and interest is added. So it is really just allowing people to pay later.
Which is fine given the pandemic won’t (we hope!) last forever.
The Chancellor now needs to think about what needs to be done to save the economy. I think:
(1) That the government or the BoE is going to have to provide open ended credit to all existing businesses for the next 6 months at least, probably longer. The amount of credit should be determined by their turnover as established by HMRC and should be pro rata.
(2) The quid pro quo for such largess is that those businesses who receive it have to keep all of their current employees (and gig workers that they regularly use) on full wages, whether there is any work for them to do right now or not.
(3) This way these businesses prevent mass unemployment, the complete swamping of our benefits system, the avoidance of mass arrears of mortgages threatening the banks, the closure of those businesses who can actually still trade such as food shops and give us a base on which we can rebuild.
I really cannot see any other way that we can avoid total meltdown. The amount of new debt that this would create would be truly massive but the tax base would then still exist and longer term the outgoings of the government would be less.
Its also time for the rich to get their cheque books out.
14 13 alleged incidents from 10 9 complainants, some in public and not one bit of direct contemporaneous corroboration offered by the prosecution. The one prosecution witness listed who could have put these into some overall pattern of behaviour (Ian McCann, SNP Head of Conduct) was strangely not called. This is beginning to look like a half-hearted attempt. Perhaps it was never intended to reach the courts, just used as a means to prevent AS making a political comeback?
The Chancellor now needs to think about what needs to be done to save the economy. I think:
(1) That the government or the BoE is going to have to provide open ended credit to all existing businesses for the next 6 months at least, probably longer. The amount of credit should be determined by their turnover as established by HMRC and should be pro rata.
(2) The quid pro quo for such largess is that those businesses who receive it have to keep all of their current employees (and gig workers that they regularly use) on full wages, whether there is any work for them to do right now or not.
(3) This way these businesses prevent mass unemployment, the complete swamping of our benefits system, the avoidance of mass arrears of mortgages threatening the banks, the closure of those businesses who can actually still trade such as food shops and give us a base on which we can rebuild.
I really cannot see any other way that we can avoid total meltdown. The amount of new debt that this would create would be truly massive but the tax base would then still exist and longer term the outgoings of the government would be less.
Its also time for the rich to get their cheque books out.
Starting with Richard Branson.
Who do you think is going to be paying for it out of taxation on the other side?
The Chancellor now needs to think about what needs to be done to save the economy. I think:
(1) That the government or the BoE is going to have to provide open ended credit to all existing businesses for the next 6 months at least, probably longer. The amount of credit should be determined by their turnover as established by HMRC and should be pro rata.
(2) The quid pro quo for such largess is that those businesses who receive it have to keep all of their current employees (and gig workers that they regularly use) on full wages, whether there is any work for them to do right now or not.
(3) This way these businesses prevent mass unemployment, the complete swamping of our benefits system, the avoidance of mass arrears of mortgages threatening the banks, the closure of those businesses who can actually still trade such as food shops and give us a base on which we can rebuild.
I really cannot see any other way that we can avoid total meltdown. The amount of new debt that this would create would be truly massive but the tax base would then still exist and longer term the outgoings of the government would be less.
Why not force the banks to give everyone a loan holiday for several months, and extend full credit on top ?
They can afford it.
Firstly they can't. Secondly that distributes incomes according to the amount of debt people have which seems a bizarre way of doing it. Thirdly, I don't see how that maintains demand which is absolutely critical.
It’s effectively a giant cash injection.
It may just be pushing on a piece of string. People can spend on Netflix and home gaming, but how could it help restraunts, pubs and theatres?
The Chancellor now needs to think about what needs to be done to save the economy. I think:
(1) That the government or the BoE is going to have to provide open ended credit to all existing businesses for the next 6 months at least, probably longer. The amount of credit should be determined by their turnover as established by HMRC and should be pro rata.
(2) The quid pro quo for such largess is that those businesses who receive it have to keep all of their current employees (and gig workers that they regularly use) on full wages, whether there is any work for them to do right now or not.
(3) This way these businesses prevent mass unemployment, the complete swamping of our benefits system, the avoidance of mass arrears of mortgages threatening the banks, the closure of those businesses who can actually still trade such as food shops and give us a base on which we can rebuild.
I really cannot see any other way that we can avoid total meltdown. The amount of new debt that this would create would be truly massive but the tax base would then still exist and longer term the outgoings of the government would be less.
Why not force the banks to give everyone a loan holiday for several months, and extend full credit on top ?
They can afford it.
That would be a very good measure. And it might happen.
Boris and Sunak are soon going to be borrowing enough to make Corbyn and McDonnell blush.
I don't want to get all heavy and platitudinous with everyone here, and I know it's 'only' a message board, I can take or leave, but in the coming days and weeks I think it is increasingly important (so far as you can) to take every day as it comes. Freaking oneself out over the worse case scenarios will add mental problems to the physical.
I know that's easy to say, though. I'm an employment lawyer so I'm seeing already how this is impacting a huge number of people (perhaps I'm jaded and numbed given how many people I've both helped and harmed in the labour market) and everyone who is facing hardship as a result of this has my utmost sympathy and no amount of platitudes from me will help. But for the rest of us, if we can, just play the space immediately in front of us and we will pull through sooner or later - hopefully sooner.
The Chancellor now needs to think about what needs to be done to save the economy. I think:
(1) That the government or the BoE is going to have to provide open ended credit to all existing businesses for the next 6 months at least, probably longer. The amount of credit should be determined by their turnover as established by HMRC and should be pro rata.
(2) The quid pro quo for such largess is that those businesses who receive it have to keep all of their current employees (and gig workers that they regularly use) on full wages, whether there is any work for them to do right now or not.
(3) This way these businesses prevent mass unemployment, the complete swamping of our benefits system, the avoidance of mass arrears of mortgages threatening the banks, the closure of those businesses who can actually still trade such as food shops and give us a base on which we can rebuild.
I really cannot see any other way that we can avoid total meltdown. The amount of new debt that this would create would be truly massive but the tax base would then still exist and longer term the outgoings of the government would be less.
Why not force the banks to give everyone a loan holiday for several months, and extend full credit on top ?
They can afford it.
That would be a very good measure. And it might happen.
Boris and Sunak are soon going to be borrowing enough to make Corbyn and McDonnell blush.
The Chancellor now needs to think about what needs to be done to save the economy. I think:
(1) That the government or the BoE is going to have to provide open ended credit to all existing businesses for the next 6 months at least, probably longer. The amount of credit should be determined by their turnover as established by HMRC and should be pro rata.
(2) The quid pro quo for such largess is that those businesses who receive it have to keep all of their current employees (and gig workers that they regularly use) on full wages, whether there is any work for them to do right now or not.
(3) This way these businesses prevent mass unemployment, the complete swamping of our benefits system, the avoidance of mass arrears of mortgages threatening the banks, the closure of those businesses who can actually still trade such as food shops and give us a base on which we can rebuild.
I really cannot see any other way that we can avoid total meltdown. The amount of new debt that this would create would be truly massive but the tax base would then still exist and longer term the outgoings of the government would be less.
Why not force the banks to give everyone a loan holiday for several months, and extend full credit on top ?
They can afford it.
Firstly they can't. Secondly that distributes incomes according to the amount of debt people have which seems a bizarre way of doing it. Thirdly, I don't see how that maintains demand which is absolutely critical.
It’s effectively a giant cash injection.
Yes but if people have lost their jobs because the business they work for has collapsed they will not spend any money they have even if they are not having to pay interest. It just won't work.
'He also tells MPs that measures on shielding will be for those who have "significant health conditions”.They will be contacted by the NHS, he says.
But he adds the measures were not aimed at the "generality of over 70s who are healthy".
He says the guidance for those over 70 is the same as for people of working age, except that the government strongly advises social distancing measures.'
So is this a blanket measure for the over 70s or not?
Eh?
Sandy doesn't seem to have had a reply to this (except for Rottenborough's "Eh?"), and as far as I'm concerned as a just-70 it's important. At all ages, we're advised to minimise social contact. But in Johnson's presentation with the associated boffins, 70+ers were bracketed with people with serious conditions as needing extra care:
"Johnson raised the likelihood of those over 70 and more vulnerable people, such as those with prior health conditions, soon needing to be “largely shielded from social contact for around 12 weeks”...
People aged over 70 and those with underlying medical conditions who would normally have a flu inoculation should take particular care, Whitty said."
But Hancock says we're just the same as people of working age, except that social distancing measures are strongly advised.
So people of working age are advised to minimise social contact, and healthy people over 70 are just the same, except they need social distancing measures. What exactly should we do or not do? For instance, should I do a weekly shop, or not? I work with 90 colleagues. Is my situation "just the same", or is it different?
I know one of the authors personally, and he's very good at his stuff. I know a lot of the rest by reputation and having read their prior work and these are top-of-the-field guys.
Why is it terrifying??? It's what happens in science - you adjust the model when you get new data. We are going to have to adopt the lockdown model as we can't manage this epidemic in as controlled a way as we would have liked. After this we will then adapt how we handle the next wave, which will be much less costly (due to better therapy / diagnostics / equipment). The use of 'terrifying' and 'jaw dropping' is sensationalist and un-scientific drivel.
Why showing the journalists all the info isn't a great idea, because this is how they react.
Tbh watching Boris today I think T May would have been better in this situation
I'm not certain, at least Boris can u-turn on the drop of a hat, May might have stuck out the daft herd immunity plan way longer.
May would have taken until the end of the month just to get to the first plan.
I don't think the word daft is appropriate. If it (herd immunity) could have been achieved with the same number of deaths as the lockdown plan it would have been great. Sadly, this is not possible, but the scientists have adjusted their thinking and we have the ability to change course in time.
But using words like daft here don't help as the public health professionals / epidemiologists are working without much data and having to make assumptions about parameters that are extremely challenging (cf @TimT downthread).
Sorry but that the NHS would be completely overwhelmed before anything near herd immunity is achieved was completely forseeable even whilst the virus was barely out of Wuhan province. The other part is that the Gov't could surely forsee it would have to u-turn if our death rate was going higher than other countries with the obvious political pressure it would bring ?
Guardian: A more experienced PM would never have announced closure of parts of the economy without rescue plan for losers
“Johnson made a reasonably good fist of explaining what his proposals were, and why he thought they were necessary, but there was an enormous gap in the statement that a more experienced or strategic prime minister would have addressed. Johnson announced measures that could close down parts of the economy, particularly in the hospitality sector, and pitch hundreds of thousands of people into worklessness, but he had almost nothing to say about what the government might to to help. The fact he seemed to think the national living wage might make a difference was indicative of how little thought he had given to this, and his prediction about the economy “roaring back” came over as naive utopianism. Some sort of correction seems likely, probably quite soon.”
I wonder, if we asked the EU nicely, whether they'd let us delay Brexit. I mean, is there really any point right now? A tedious distraction for all concerned at best.
The Chancellor now needs to think about what needs to be done to save the economy. I think:
(1) That the government or the BoE is going to have to provide open ended credit to all existing businesses for the next 6 months at least, probably longer. The amount of credit should be determined by their turnover as established by HMRC and should be pro rata.
(2) The quid pro quo for such largess is that those businesses who receive it have to keep all of their current employees (and gig workers that they regularly use) on full wages, whether there is any work for them to do right now or not.
(3) This way these businesses prevent mass unemployment, the complete swamping of our benefits system, the avoidance of mass arrears of mortgages threatening the banks, the closure of those businesses who can actually still trade such as food shops and give us a base on which we can rebuild.
I really cannot see any other way that we can avoid total meltdown. The amount of new debt that this would create would be truly massive but the tax base would then still exist and longer term the outgoings of the government would be less.
Why not force the banks to give everyone a loan holiday for several months, and extend full credit on top ?
They can afford it.
Firstly they can't. Secondly that distributes incomes according to the amount of debt people have which seems a bizarre way of doing it. Thirdly, I don't see how that maintains demand which is absolutely critical.
It’s effectively a giant cash injection.
It may just be pushing on a piece of string. People can spend on Netflix and home gaming, but how could it help restraunts, pubs and theatres?
If restaurants offer take away, they can satisfy lots of demand there.
There is going to have to be a separate package for pubs - we cannot emerge from this with the backbone of Britain broken. They might have to temporarily nationalise them to keep them breathing.
Why is it terrifying??? It's what happens in science - you adjust the model when you get new data. We are going to have to adopt the lockdown model as we can't manage this epidemic in as controlled a way as we would have liked. After this we will then adapt how we handle the next wave, which will be much less costly (due to better therapy / diagnostics / equipment). The use of 'terrifying' and 'jaw dropping' is sensationalist and un-scientific drivel.
What is clear today is that things are moving faster than was anticipated. We are not as far behind Italy as we thought. London in particular is moving to the point that breaks need to be applied to the increase in infection if the NHS is going to cope. Because of the lag time between infection and a positive test this really needs to start happening now.
I really don't get how that is not consistent with the original plan or is anything other than an evolution of it. I find the scientists completely credible. Not completely sure about the guy in the middle but I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for now.
I wonder, if we asked the EU nicely, whether they'd let us delay Brexit. I mean, is there really any point right now? A tedious distraction for all concerned at best.
'He also tells MPs that measures on shielding will be for those who have "significant health conditions”.They will be contacted by the NHS, he says.
But he adds the measures were not aimed at the "generality of over 70s who are healthy".
He says the guidance for those over 70 is the same as for people of working age, except that the government strongly advises social distancing measures.'
So is this a blanket measure for the over 70s or not?
Eh?
Sandy doesn't seem to have had a reply to this (except for Rottenborough's "Eh?"), and as far as I'm concerned as a just-70 it's important. At all ages, we're advised to minimise social contact. But in Johnson's presentation with the associated boffins, 70+ers were bracketed with people with serious conditions as needing extra care:
"Johnson raised the likelihood of those over 70 and more vulnerable people, such as those with prior health conditions, soon needing to be “largely shielded from social contact for around 12 weeks”...
People aged over 70 and those with underlying medical conditions who would normally have a flu inoculation should take particular care, Whitty said."
But Hancock says we're just the same as people of working age, except that social distancing measures are strongly advised.
So people of working age are advised to minimise social contact, and healthy people over 70 are just the same, except they need social distancing measures. What exactly should we do or not do? For instance, should I do a weekly shop, or not? I work with 90 colleagues. Is my situation "just the same", or is it different?
I'm not trying to be difficult. I'd like to know.
Being practical I might suggest you go to the shops at off peak times.
Comments
Good book.
Thank you, Alastair.
What times. But still at least one thing remains constant: Boris Johnson is a complete berk and utterly unfit to be Prime Minister.
I'm beginning to think Boris is thick as shit.
But park the football. Look at the End of Days when it comes down to anyone reliant on a job. Never mind HYUFD, look at the real world. We need a MASSIVE cash injection and quickly. Or we're all eating grass.
Maybe the Queen could just decide who she rates best of the living PMs... and ask Blair to come back?
(1) That the government or the BoE is going to have to provide open ended credit to all existing businesses for the next 6 months at least, probably longer. The amount of credit should be determined by their turnover as established by HMRC and should be pro rata.
(2) The quid pro quo for such largess is that those businesses who receive it have to keep all of their current employees (and gig workers that they regularly use) on full wages, whether there is any work for them to do right now or not.
(3) This way these businesses prevent mass unemployment, the complete swamping of our benefits system, the avoidance of mass arrears of mortgages threatening the banks, the closure of those businesses who can actually still trade such as food shops and give us a base on which we can rebuild.
I really cannot see any other way that we can avoid total meltdown. The amount of new debt that this would create would be truly massive but the tax base would then still exist and longer term the outgoings of the government would be less.
Some of the stuff that goes down in China would make anyone's hair stand on end.
And will itself be only for a limited time.
Businesses have to deal with bad times as well as good in the same way employees do.
Over a 50 year working life it is sadly inevitable that there will be difficulties of various types.
They can afford it.
She would also have made a habit of hibernating in Downing Street for days on end, with not a squeak emerging, when people were desperate for reassurance and leadership.
I'm signing off for the night - my coronavirus news curfew has kicked in!
--AS
Mind you, The Big One could still have come from elsewhere even if we were all vegetarian. There have been Nipah virus outbreaks where fruit bats have urinated on or had a nibble on fruit that made it into the human food chain, or just infested people's wells.
This Vox piece was interesting even though I don't usually like them as a news source. Although wet markets have a long history in Asia, it suggests that it's only due to explicit Chinese policy decisions over the last few decades that such a big industry has grown around wildlife and exotic animal farming; even though a traditional wet market would have had a large mix of species, a modern one has a radically wider and more global selection of animals on offer and the Chinese government has encouraged this.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=TPpoJGYlW54 That's an extremely powerful and disturbing video.
I just had an email from my hospital care team reminding me that I am in a high-risk category despite being under-70 and need to follow government advice for vulnerable people. After seeing that, I think I really am going to go into lockdown!!
109 complainants, some in public and not one bit of direct contemporaneous corroboration offered by the prosecution. The one prosecution witness listed who could have put these into some overall pattern of behaviour (Ian McCann, SNP Head of Conduct) was strangely not called. This is beginning to look like a half-hearted attempt. Perhaps it was never intended to reach the courts, just used as a means to prevent AS making a political comeback?Nothing much matter this year apart from surviving it now.
However, there is one way I can usefuly contribute and that is by providing links. You may have noted the earlier comment about a briefing from Imperial. I have found what I believe to be the report being briefed. I am on the tablet and so cannot provide a link but if you Google "impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to reduce Covid-19 mortality and healthcare demand" you should find it. It is a report from the MRC Centre For Global Infectious Disease Analysis, which is part of imperial.ac.uk
Oh, while I'm here, major sympathies to @Charles, @Cyclefree, and all the others who have afflicted family and other loved ones. My very best hopes to you
(Oh, lastly, @eristdoof, @AndreaParma_82 , etc keep up the good work, it is noted)
I would be annoyed if they pay my landlord's mortgage, but I have to pay the rent as usual.
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf
We do need a Treasury/BEIS set of measures for business though, ASAP. I can understand why we don’t want insurance companies to go under though. We’d then have to take over all the other risks they’ve been insuring.
First world problems is no longer a punchline.
And half of my fractured tooth has come out!
I accept demand has gone. This is about survival for 3-4 months.
Starting with Richard Branson.
I know that's easy to say, though. I'm an employment lawyer so I'm seeing already how this is impacting a huge number of people (perhaps I'm jaded and numbed given how many people I've both helped and harmed in the labour market) and everyone who is facing hardship as a result of this has my utmost sympathy and no amount of platitudes from me will help. But for the rest of us, if we can, just play the space immediately in front of us and we will pull through sooner or later - hopefully sooner.
"Johnson raised the likelihood of those over 70 and more vulnerable people, such as those with prior health conditions, soon needing to be “largely shielded from social contact for around 12 weeks”...
People aged over 70 and those with underlying medical conditions who would normally have a flu inoculation should take particular care, Whitty said."
But Hancock says we're just the same as people of working age, except that social distancing measures are strongly advised.
So people of working age are advised to minimise social contact, and healthy people over 70 are just the same, except they need social distancing measures. What exactly should we do or not do? For instance, should I do a weekly shop, or not? I work with 90 colleagues. Is my situation "just the same", or is it different?
I'm not trying to be difficult. I'd like to know.
The Imperial report is really worth reading and very accessible to the non-technical.
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf
I know one of the authors personally, and he's very good at his stuff. I know a lot of the rest by reputation and having read their prior work and these are top-of-the-field guys.
Take this stuff seriously, it's powerful.
https://twitter.com/whippletom/status/1239619001522761728
Anyone know if this press conference was televised/webcasted somewhere?
The other part is that the Gov't could surely forsee it would have to u-turn if our death rate was going higher than other countries with the obvious political pressure it would bring ?
“Johnson made a reasonably good fist of explaining what his proposals were, and why he thought they were necessary, but there was an enormous gap in the statement that a more experienced or strategic prime minister would have addressed. Johnson announced measures that could close down parts of the economy, particularly in the hospitality sector, and pitch hundreds of thousands of people into worklessness, but he had almost nothing to say about what the government might to to help. The fact he seemed to think the national living wage might make a difference was indicative of how little thought he had given to this, and his prediction about the economy “roaring back” came over as naive utopianism. Some sort of correction seems likely, probably quite soon.”
There is going to have to be a separate package for pubs - we cannot emerge from this with the backbone of Britain broken. They might have to temporarily nationalise them to keep them breathing.
I really don't get how that is not consistent with the original plan or is anything other than an evolution of it. I find the scientists completely credible. Not completely sure about the guy in the middle but I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for now.