politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » CO-19: It won’t be long before the global total tops the milli

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/TomTugendhat/status/1244022430508728321

Richard_Tyndall said:

A question which I hope is not morbid but is driven by a genuine interest.

Are the deaths amongst the older generation in places like Italy and Spain going to have a noticeable impact on demographics in those countries? Or are the numbers of deaths - terrible as they are at a personal level - simply not enough to really change the ratios between the various ages in any way that will impact on the official figures?

steve_garner said:

Those PBers looking for some good TV should try Babylon Berlin, starting with series 1. Sensational atmospheric TV and bound to be of interest to politicos.

rcs1000 said:

eadric said:

Benpointer said:

Andy_JS said:

Since the lockdown I've eaten less but drunk more. Anyone else with the same experience?

I'm afraid to say I have drunk more and eaten more. But on the plus side I have exercised more - I have treated the going out once for daily exercise as a requirement rather than a limit.

Need to curtail the eating and drinking though, having read all these reports of BMI being an indicator of Covid-19 survival!

I’m eating loads and drinking loads, but also walking many miles by the sea, every day, and using an exercise bike, and sauna

I’m more physically active than I was pre-lockdown

The lockdown has done wonders for my lovelife.

Andy_JS said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

I am not sure if this has been posted yet.

A good message to pass along. I would say Not Suitable For Work but since most people are supposedly working from home I will revise that to Not Suitable if You Have Kids In Earshot.

Someone described this as Tom Lehrer for the Coronavirus Era.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGOZ9eN_rpA

Is that Stanley Kubrick?

Andy_JS said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

I am not sure if this has been posted yet.

A good message to pass along. I would say Not Suitable For Work but since most people are supposedly working from home I will revise that to Not Suitable if You Have Kids In Earshot.

Someone described this as Tom Lehrer for the Coronavirus Era.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGOZ9eN_rpA

Is that Stanley Kubrick?

FF43 said:

FF43 said:

TGOHF666 said:

https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1244017642601619459?s=21

Trump calls Boris and ..

It seems this was briefed by Downing Street. Normally you would spin something like this to deflect attention, but as far as I know the government is basking in positives at the moment.

I'm sure the Chinese government have lied, but why raise it now in a very non specific but aggressive way?

Combined with the UK governments own lie yesterday when it pretended it was excluded from the EU procurement programme through an admin error, the claims made by Trump that Johnson was begging for ventilators, and now Johnson's letter, I'm getting a bad feeling that the government knows that things are worse than they are letting on.

I hope not. ..

eristdoof said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

A question which I hope is not morbid but is driven by a genuine interest.

Are the deaths amongst the older generation in places like Italy and Spain going to have a noticeable impact on demographics in those countries? Or are the numbers of deaths - terrible as they are at a personal level - simply not enough to really change the ratios between the various ages in any way that will impact on the official figures?

So far they're not noteworthy on a grand scheme of things basis. Worth remembering that in Italy 17,000 Italians die from influenza annually - without affecting the demographics in any meaningful way, that's their baseline.

So far 10,000 coronavirus patients have died - and there's likely to be some overlap between those and those who would have died within the 17,000.

If we get to the hundreds of thousand some people quote then it could be meaningful demographically but that seems unlikely even in Italy.

The key here is "annually", and "so far" meaning since early February.

TGOHF666 said:

Scottish story looks interesting..

https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1244030607975383040?s=21

rcs1000 said:

kyf_100 said:

rcs1000 said:

kyf_100 said:

Too big to fail?

Let them go bankrupt, the stadiums will still exist and the demand for football will still be there. The best players will get jobs with the new clubs once normality resumes.

That is the argument some on here are making for the rest of the economy, for the small business owner and the high street shop. So why not football as well.

I make that argument about Virgin Atlantic.

And I make that argument because if you can't ever go bankrupt, because the government will bail you out, then it is an optimal strategy to lever up as much as possible.

The reason why wealth inequality has increased in the last ten years is because of wealthy people being able to engage in a massive carry trade: borrow at 3%, invest at 5%. Free money. Oodles of free money. The more you leverage yourself, the richer you become.

If Virgin Atlantic go bust, it is shit for people who have loads of Virgin miles, like me. It's shit for Richard Branson. It's shit for the CEO, and various other people who own shares.

But it does not affect the productive power of the economy. Someone will come along, and buy Virgin Atlantic out of the administrators or recievers.

And even if they don't, then someone will lease some planes (they already exist) and setup a new route from LA to London. The amount of work done in the economy will be the same.

What we will have done, though, is make it clear to the wealthy that they cannot engage, at the public's expense, in a massive carry trade that does nothing for the real economy.

Bailing out Virgin Atlantic is corporatism. It stunk in the 1970s. And it stinks now. It doesn't save jobs, it merely encourages the uber-wealthy to borrow, borrow, borrow, borrow.

A fair point.

I don't think the productive power of the economy will be damaged by, say, Man U going to the wall, either.

Surely the biggest swindle is the banks being able to borrow money at nothing or next to nothing, then loaning it out to the likes of you or me at 12% (for a business loan - 40% on an agreed overdraft!). I don't understand why the government doesn't loan or even give people the money directly.

I'm OK with Manchester United going bust too!

What we're all discovering right now is which football clubs did a good job of negotiating their insurance, and which did a poor one.

NickPalmer said:

steve_garner said:

Those PBers looking for some good TV should try Babylon Berlin, starting with series 1. Sensational atmospheric TV and bound to be of interest to politicos.

I tried to watch that on German TV but got the usual "rights reserved" message for popular series. What channel is it on here? And can you watch it in German?

isam said:

twitter.com/erikstownsend/status/1243933991385923584?s=21

rcs1000 said:

I'm off to the store (with a mask).

While I'm away, does anyone know how the herd immunity strategy is working in Sweden and the Netherlands?

RobD said:

isam said:

https://twitter.com/erikstownsend/status/1243933991385923584?s=21

They don't wear masks in China?

NickPalmer said:

FF43 said:

FF43 said:

TGOHF666 said:

https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1244017642601619459?s=21

Trump calls Boris and ..

It seems this was briefed by Downing Street. Normally you would spin something like this to deflect attention, but as far as I know the government is basking in positives at the moment.

I'm sure the Chinese government have lied, but why raise it now in a very non specific but aggressive way?

Combined with the UK governments own lie yesterday when it pretended it was excluded from the EU procurement programme through an admin error, the claims made by Trump that Johnson was begging for ventilators, and now Johnson's letter, I'm getting a bad feeling that the government knows that things are worse than they are letting on.

I hope not. ..

I suspect they're guarding themselves against the argument that China cracked the virus by taking tough action, while the British government vacillated and now face thousands of deaths.

eadric said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/TomTugendhat/status/1244022430508728321

He’s got his numbers wrong. This virus will kill millions and cost trillions. Literally.

Beijing is fucked. The West will turn away.

TheValiant said:

rcs1000 said:

kyf_100 said:

rcs1000 said:

kyf_100 said:

Too big to fail?

Let them go bankrupt, the stadiums will still exist and the demand for football will still be there. The best players will get jobs with the new clubs once normality resumes.

That is the argument some on here are making for the rest of the economy, for the small business owner and the high street shop. So why not football as well.

I make that argument about Virgin Atlantic.

And I make that argument because if you can't ever go bankrupt, because the government will bail you out, then it is an optimal strategy to lever up as much as possible.

The reason why wealth inequality has increased in the last ten years is because of wealthy people being able to engage in a massive carry trade: borrow at 3%, invest at 5%. Free money. Oodles of free money. The more you leverage yourself, the richer you become.

If Virgin Atlantic go bust, it is shit for people who have loads of Virgin miles, like me. It's shit for Richard Branson. It's shit for the CEO, and various other people who own shares.

But it does not affect the productive power of the economy. Someone will come along, and buy Virgin Atlantic out of the administrators or recievers.

And even if they don't, then someone will lease some planes (they already exist) and setup a new route from LA to London. The amount of work done in the economy will be the same.

What we will have done, though, is make it clear to the wealthy that they cannot engage, at the public's expense, in a massive carry trade that does nothing for the real economy.

Bailing out Virgin Atlantic is corporatism. It stunk in the 1970s. And it stinks now. It doesn't save jobs, it merely encourages the uber-wealthy to borrow, borrow, borrow, borrow.

A fair point.

I don't think the productive power of the economy will be damaged by, say, Man U going to the wall, either.

Surely the biggest swindle is the banks being able to borrow money at nothing or next to nothing, then loaning it out to the likes of you or me at 12% (for a business loan - 40% on an agreed overdraft!). I don't understand why the government doesn't loan or even give people the money directly.

I'm OK with Manchester United going bust too!

What we're all discovering right now is which football clubs did a good job of negotiating their insurance, and which did a poor one.

I don't think there is enough insurance in the world to cover the shitstorm coming.

I've a client who has engaged with their insurers over the current mess. Without putting too fine a point on it, their insurer has said they aren't covered. And if they are, then they won't be able to pay out anyway as everyone would be covered so they're going under and won't be paying out.

TheValiant said:

rcs1000 said:

kyf_100 said:

rcs1000 said:

kyf_100 said:

Too big to fail?

Let them go bankrupt, the stadiums will still exist and the demand for football will still be there. The best players will get jobs with the new clubs once normality resumes.

That is the argument some on here are making for the rest of the economy, for the small business owner and the high street shop. So why not football as well.

I make that argument about Virgin Atlantic.

And I make that argument because if you can't ever go bankrupt, because the government will bail you out, then it is an optimal strategy to lever up as much as possible.

The reason why wealth inequality has increased in the last ten years is because of wealthy people being able to engage in a massive carry trade: borrow at 3%, invest at 5%. Free money. Oodles of free money. The more you leverage yourself, the richer you become.

If Virgin Atlantic go bust, it is shit for people who have loads of Virgin miles, like me. It's shit for Richard Branson. It's shit for the CEO, and various other people who own shares.

But it does not affect the productive power of the economy. Someone will come along, and buy Virgin Atlantic out of the administrators or recievers.

And even if they don't, then someone will lease some planes (they already exist) and setup a new route from LA to London. The amount of work done in the economy will be the same.

What we will have done, though, is make it clear to the wealthy that they cannot engage, at the public's expense, in a massive carry trade that does nothing for the real economy.

Bailing out Virgin Atlantic is corporatism. It stunk in the 1970s. And it stinks now. It doesn't save jobs, it merely encourages the uber-wealthy to borrow, borrow, borrow, borrow.

A fair point.

I don't think the productive power of the economy will be damaged by, say, Man U going to the wall, either.

Surely the biggest swindle is the banks being able to borrow money at nothing or next to nothing, then loaning it out to the likes of you or me at 12% (for a business loan - 40% on an agreed overdraft!). I don't understand why the government doesn't loan or even give people the money directly.

I'm OK with Manchester United going bust too!

What we're all discovering right now is which football clubs did a good job of negotiating their insurance, and which did a poor one.

I don't think there is enough insurance in the world to cover the shitstorm coming.

I've a client who has engaged with their insurers over the current mess. Without putting too fine a point on it, their insurer has said they aren't covered. And if they are, then they won't be able to pay out anyway as everyone would be covered so they're going under and won't be paying out.

Andy_JS said:

Useless fact: I haven't watched any TV series that have been produced since the X Files in the 1990s, so maybe this is my big chance to catch up on what everyone says has been a golden age for TV dramas.

Jonathan said:

Why on earth is Downing St raising tensions? It is surely the last thing we need right now. Is this a quid pro quo for American aid?

Cyclefree said:

Cyclefree said:

CYCLEFREE GARDENING CORNER

FPT for @MattW So you should have a support at each end of a row of canes and maybe one in the middle depending on how long the row is.

The wire should be tied to the supports horizontally - at 3 levels near the bottom, middle and top. The raspberry plants you then train laterally along these wires.

Some time in late spring you should thin out your raspberry canes (in the case of summer fruiting ones) so that you have about 6, no more than 8 per plant and these as they grow will be tied to the wires.

For autumn fruiting raspberries cut the canes down to the ground in February and as they grow do the same.

Essentially you are creating a sort of supporting grid for the canes allowing the plants to grow from the new wood and horizontally - because the flowers and fruit will come from the horizontal stems - and making sure that the plants are not too congested, particularly at the base, so as to allow light and air in.

Hope this helps!

For @MattW

And looking at your photo you have some pretty good supports there already so concentrate on the lateral wires.

Philip_Thompson said:

eadric said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/TomTugendhat/status/1244022430508728321

He’s got his numbers wrong. This virus will kill millions and cost trillions. Literally.

Beijing is fucked. The West will turn away.

The virus will not kill millions. Except maybe in third world countries like Iran.

kamski said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

I am not sure people are taking this seriously yet....

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8163613/Britons-ignore-orders-shoppers-leave-home-buy-paint-garden-tools-LAVA-LAMP.html

The Range is open? Had no idea... If they're allowed to be open, they sell paint and lamps. If paint and lamps shouldn't be bought perhaps the government should instruct them to close.

I imagine it could make sense to have DIY stores open as it gives people something to do while at home. Get some paint etc and start a DIY project that could keep you busy and occupied (and not going to the beach etc) for the coming weeks.

Since I'm stuck at home I've started some DIY projects but got my bits and pieces from Amazon.

Went to B&Q last weekend. Have various projects underway or materials bought for. You take my point though. People shopping. At a store allowed to be open by the government. Is not some opportunity to shame people doing what they are allowed to do.

My wife went around the corner a week ago to pick up a prescription. Today several neighbours are saying "we saw you on the local news!". Apparently there was an item about people ignoring the lock down which used week-old footage of people walking down the street. Some of the coverage is pretty silly, surely they can find some real examples of people actually behaving irresponsibly?

eadric said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

eadric said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/TomTugendhat/status/1244022430508728321

He’s got his numbers wrong. This virus will kill millions and cost trillions. Literally.

Beijing is fucked. The West will turn away.

Not sure I would go that far. But I can certainly see Western nations putting the thumbs on the scales to ensure more "essential" industries aren't allowed to become Chinese monopolies e.g. loads of base chemicals production essential for so many things is now a near monopoly Chinese operation.

I would go that far

I reckon - I’ve had wine - coronavirus is going to kick off a new Cold War. There will be two competing worlds, western capitalism (more individualistic, but sobered by corona) centred around a somewhat humbled America, and Asian state-directed capitalism, centred around a disliked China, with very uncomfortable satellite states in Japan, Korea, Taiwan. Etc.

The West is sufficient unto itself. It can feed itself and make what it needs.

The breakdown between the two worlds will be very painful, but there won’t be all out war.

Basically every hunch I’ve had about corona has come true, so far, so I’m backing this one, too, despite my ingestion of a bottle and a half of Rioja Gran Reserva Cune 2010

FrancisUrquhart said:

Foxy said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

NickPalmer said:

FF43 said:

FF43 said:

TGOHF666 said:

https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1244017642601619459?s=21

Trump calls Boris and ..

It seems this was briefed by Downing Street. Normally you would spin something like this to deflect attention, but as far as I know the government is basking in positives at the moment.

I'm sure the Chinese government have lied, but why raise it now in a very non specific but aggressive way?

Combined with the UK governments own lie yesterday when it pretended it was excluded from the EU procurement programme through an admin error, the claims made by Trump that Johnson was begging for ventilators, and now Johnson's letter, I'm getting a bad feeling that the government knows that things are worse than they are letting on.

I hope not. ..

I suspect they're guarding themselves against the argument that China cracked the virus by taking tough action, while the British government vacillated and now face thousands of deaths.

Well there is the small issue of because China lied about the numbers, the original models that the UK used them to measure their response were horseshit....it was only when the data from Italy started to be added in that it was clear this was a totally different level of shitstorm.

I don't buy that excuse.

The original report of the first 41 cases cited 31% needing ICU on 24th Jan, published in the Lancet. Anyone who didn't realise that a pandemic means a lot of ventilators wasn't paying attention.

That's what the minutes from those minutes say. Not China lying about the scale, but what the models said when the data was inputted.

The issue was not that 31% needed ICU, but because the scale was officially small, the chances of it becoming a global pandemic were estimated to be very very small.

edmundintokyo said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eadric said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/TomTugendhat/status/1244022430508728321

He’s got his numbers wrong. This virus will kill millions and cost trillions. Literally.

Beijing is fucked. The West will turn away.

The virus will not kill millions. Except maybe in third world countries like Iran.

wtf

eadric said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eadric said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/TomTugendhat/status/1244022430508728321

He’s got his numbers wrong. This virus will kill millions and cost trillions. Literally.

Beijing is fucked. The West will turn away.

The virus will not kill millions. Except maybe in third world countries like Iran.

There are 7 billion people in the world. Before this virus has burned out it will definitely kill millions. As does normal flu.

Malmesbury said:

Philip_Thompson said:

edmundintokyo said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eadric said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/TomTugendhat/status/1244022430508728321

He’s got his numbers wrong. This virus will kill millions and cost trillions. Literally.

Beijing is fucked. The West will turn away.

The virus will not kill millions. Except maybe in third world countries like Iran.

wtf

Total deaths to date are 29k with thoughts we may be entering the peak in Europe. I don't see it getting to millions.

Africa?

rcs1000 said:

eadric said:

Benpointer said:

Andy_JS said:

Since the lockdown I've eaten less but drunk more. Anyone else with the same experience?

I'm afraid to say I have drunk more and eaten more. But on the plus side I have exercised more - I have treated the going out once for daily exercise as a requirement rather than a limit.

Need to curtail the eating and drinking though, having read all these reports of BMI being an indicator of Covid-19 survival!

I’m eating loads and drinking loads, but also walking many miles by the sea, every day, and using an exercise bike, and sauna

I’m more physically active than I was pre-lockdown

The lockdown has done wonders for my lovelife.

rottenborough said:

Andy_JS said:

Useless fact: I haven't watched any TV series that have been produced since the X Files in the 1990s, so maybe this is my big chance to catch up on what everyone says has been a golden age for TV dramas.

The Wire.

FrancisUrquhart said:

eadric said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

eadric said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/TomTugendhat/status/1244022430508728321

He’s got his numbers wrong. This virus will kill millions and cost trillions. Literally.

Beijing is fucked. The West will turn away.

Not sure I would go that far. But I can certainly see Western nations putting the thumbs on the scales to ensure more "essential" industries aren't allowed to become Chinese monopolies e.g. loads of base chemicals production essential for so many things is now a near monopoly Chinese operation.

I would go that far

I reckon - I’ve had wine - coronavirus is going to kick off a new Cold War. There will be two competing worlds, western capitalism (more individualistic, but sobered by corona) centred around a somewhat humbled America, and Asian state-directed capitalism, centred around a disliked China, with very uncomfortable satellite states in Japan, Korea, Taiwan. Etc.

The West is sufficient unto itself. It can feed itself and make what it needs.

The breakdown between the two worlds will be very painful, but there won’t be all out war.

Basically every hunch I’ve had about corona has come true, so far, so I’m backing this one, too, despite my ingestion of a bottle and a half of Rioja Gran Reserva Cune 2010

I can't see the West becoming totally unhooked from cheap Chinese imports...and the cost different would be so large, it would send so many people's living standards thrown the floor.

But I don't think western government will want to repeat the experience of shit kicking off and finding lots of essential things at their core require some Chinese operation to the start of the supply / build process.

Philip_Thompson said:

TheValiant said:

rcs1000 said:

kyf_100 said:

rcs1000 said:

kyf_100 said:

Too big to fail?

Let them go bankrupt, the stadiums will still exist and the demand for football will still be there. The best players will get jobs with the new clubs once normality resumes.

That is the argument some on here are making for the rest of the economy, for the small business owner and the high street shop. So why not football as well.

I make that argument about Virgin Atlantic.

And I make that argument because if you can't ever go bankrupt, because the government will bail you out, then it is an optimal strategy to lever up as much as possible.

The reason why wealth inequality has increased in the last ten years is because of wealthy people being able to engage in a massive carry trade: borrow at 3%, invest at 5%. Free money. Oodles of free money. The more you leverage yourself, the richer you become.

If Virgin Atlantic go bust, it is shit for people who have loads of Virgin miles, like me. It's shit for Richard Branson. It's shit for the CEO, and various other people who own shares.

But it does not affect the productive power of the economy. Someone will come along, and buy Virgin Atlantic out of the administrators or recievers.

And even if they don't, then someone will lease some planes (they already exist) and setup a new route from LA to London. The amount of work done in the economy will be the same.

What we will have done, though, is make it clear to the wealthy that they cannot engage, at the public's expense, in a massive carry trade that does nothing for the real economy.

Bailing out Virgin Atlantic is corporatism. It stunk in the 1970s. And it stinks now. It doesn't save jobs, it merely encourages the uber-wealthy to borrow, borrow, borrow, borrow.

A fair point.

I don't think the productive power of the economy will be damaged by, say, Man U going to the wall, either.

Surely the biggest swindle is the banks being able to borrow money at nothing or next to nothing, then loaning it out to the likes of you or me at 12% (for a business loan - 40% on an agreed overdraft!). I don't understand why the government doesn't loan or even give people the money directly.

I'm OK with Manchester United going bust too!

What we're all discovering right now is which football clubs did a good job of negotiating their insurance, and which did a poor one.

I don't think there is enough insurance in the world to cover the shitstorm coming.

I've a client who has engaged with their insurers over the current mess. Without putting too fine a point on it, their insurer has said they aren't covered. And if they are, then they won't be able to pay out anyway as everyone would be covered so they're going under and won't be paying out.

This is why the government needs to be an insurer of last resort.

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/FrankLuntz/status/1244034750186016768?s=20

That picture is pretty crazy even if only for the fact there there's plenty of room for those there to spread out more even if they insisted on going out there in the first place.

Malmesbury said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TheValiant said:

rcs1000 said:

kyf_100 said:

rcs1000 said:

kyf_100 said:

Too big to fail?

Let them go bankrupt, the stadiums will still exist and the demand for football will still be there. The best players will get jobs with the new clubs once normality resumes.

That is the argument some on here are making for the rest of the economy, for the small business owner and the high street shop. So why not football as well.

I make that argument about Virgin Atlantic.

And I make that argument because if you can't ever go bankrupt, because the government will bail you out, then it is an optimal strategy to lever up as much as possible.

The reason why wealth inequality has increased in the last ten years is because of wealthy people being able to engage in a massive carry trade: borrow at 3%, invest at 5%. Free money. Oodles of free money. The more you leverage yourself, the richer you become.

If Virgin Atlantic go bust, it is shit for people who have loads of Virgin miles, like me. It's shit for Richard Branson. It's shit for the CEO, and various other people who own shares.

But it does not affect the productive power of the economy. Someone will come along, and buy Virgin Atlantic out of the administrators or recievers.

And even if they don't, then someone will lease some planes (they already exist) and setup a new route from LA to London. The amount of work done in the economy will be the same.

What we will have done, though, is make it clear to the wealthy that they cannot engage, at the public's expense, in a massive carry trade that does nothing for the real economy.

Bailing out Virgin Atlantic is corporatism. It stunk in the 1970s. And it stinks now. It doesn't save jobs, it merely encourages the uber-wealthy to borrow, borrow, borrow, borrow.

A fair point.

I don't think the productive power of the economy will be damaged by, say, Man U going to the wall, either.

Surely the biggest swindle is the banks being able to borrow money at nothing or next to nothing, then loaning it out to the likes of you or me at 12% (for a business loan - 40% on an agreed overdraft!). I don't understand why the government doesn't loan or even give people the money directly.

I'm OK with Manchester United going bust too!

What we're all discovering right now is which football clubs did a good job of negotiating their insurance, and which did a poor one.

I don't think there is enough insurance in the world to cover the shitstorm coming.

I've a client who has engaged with their insurers over the current mess. Without putting too fine a point on it, their insurer has said they aren't covered. And if they are, then they won't be able to pay out anyway as everyone would be covered so they're going under and won't be paying out.

This is why the government needs to be an insurer of last resort.

Exactly - this was my first thought when people wanted the government to take action in a way that triggered their insurance.

All that would achieve would be a requirement to bail out the insurance industry. Which would be, if nothing else, a lot less in tune with the public mood than the government saving the day directly.

kle4 said:

welshowl said:

rottenborough said:

Andy_JS said:

Useless fact: I haven't watched any TV series that have been produced since the X Files in the 1990s, so maybe this is my big chance to catch up on what everyone says has been a golden age for TV dramas.

The Wire.

+1. The Wire

I really should watch it again. I remember being really into it, yet I've not seen it now in over a decade so it may not be as good as I recall it being.

And yet I found time to watch the utterly ridiculous The Lost World series on Amazon Prime just weeks ago. Funny old world.

TheValiant said:

Isn't some of China's 'tough' action literally welding apartment blocks closed, to reopen in fourteen days? Those left alive- well great. Those not clearly died from starvation and not Covid-19.

Not sure I want to be part of China's 'tough' actions.

kle4 said:

eadric said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/TomTugendhat/status/1244022430508728321

Beijing is fucked. The West will turn away.

How? Is this really going to be the last straw?

In global relations I tend to ask myself - what is the easiest route for nation's to take, even if it means longer term pain?