There are a number of prerequisites, the most important of which is getting a nationwide network of test and trace teams in place in order that new cases can be quickly detected and isolated.
It’s a good idea to get people who volunteered as NHS helpers to do this, but perhaps managed by someone from Sandhurst rather than PHE.
Concise public communications is also going to be vital. Telling everyone to stay put is one thing, a more nuanced message quite another.
But this is not the same as treating us like fools....
At least its ahowing a lot more sense than the Daily Jackboot.
What the fuck is the "Daily Jackboot"? And what kind of twat uses that term?
Hurrah for the Blackshirts
It has always intrigued me that the Daily Mail is never allowed to forget its brief flirtation with Mosley while nobody ever mentions that the Daily Mirror was far more enthusiastic about them for far longer.
This story in The Times probably is having more influence on the PM
The government’s chief scientific adviser has cautioned against banking on a Covid-19 jab, warning that new vaccines are “long shots”.
Oxford University researchers are planning to begin human trials of a vaccine this week and believe that they could have results showing whether it works as early as September.
However, Sir Patrick Vallance, the chief scientific adviser, has cautioned that even if a vaccine shows signs of protecting against the virus, ensuring that it is safe could take much longer.
“All new vaccines that come into development are long shots. Only some end up being successful,” he said yesterday. “Coronavirus will be no different and presents new challenges for vaccine development. This will take time.”
The Oxford researchers are looking at whether emergency legislation could allow high-risk groups, such as healthcare workers, to receive their jab before it is fully licensed.
Sarah Gilbert, head of the Oxford effort, admitted yesterday that success could not be guaranteed. “I think the prospects are very good, but it’s clearly not completely certain,” she told the BBC.
Her team are acutely aware that a vaccine may alter the immune system in a way that makes contracting Covid-19 more dangerous. Public Health England has been running “challenge trials” to try to assess the risks, using animals at the Porton Down research site. This involves giving ferrets and macaques the vaccine and then infecting them with Covid-19.
Any bailout to any company should be limited to the amount of tax that they have paid in the last 3 years.
If they are registered in another tax domain, let that place bail them out. If an essential company for some reason, buy up the assets at firesale prices upon liquidation.
Companies need to learn the financial cost of off shoring, as well as the effect on stability of manufacturing chains.
Companies shouldn’t be bailed out at all, unless they’re of national strategic importance to dealing with the crisis. People should be bailed out if they lose their jobs, which is what’s happening in practice.
The crunch will co e when the furlough scheme ends, and a lot of people move from earning £2k a month in support to the more usual unemployment benefit and universal credit.
It’s already not pretty, but it’s going to be really bad when that happens. Furloughed friends are already giving up hope of returning to their old jobs. Unemployment with no hope of work is a terrible place to be.
If the lockdown is to continue, then the furlough scheme will have to. IMO. Telling people that they have to stay home, are now unemployed and can spend the time worrying about bills is not going to work.
Hypothesis - most of the daily figures relate to hospital infections and deaths. The figures are generally “with” CV19 not “caused by” CV19. Does this open up the possibility that the major area of spread is hospitals and the major spreading vector is hospital staff?
And that the progress of the virus (in published numbers terms) is not actually closely aligned with lockdown measures (which could have initially made things worse due to increasing close intra family member contact) but is aligned with the numbers of hospital staff who are carriers?
So the progress has been: 1) people admitted to hospital with COVID 2) staff catch it 3) staff spread it amongst themselves and to other patients 4) staff groups begin to build up immunity and cease becoming carriers 5) people infected in hospital begins to drop 6) case numbers begin to drop
There are a number of prerequisites, the most important of which is getting a nationwide network of test and trace teams in place in order that new cases can be quickly detected and isolated.
It’s a good idea to get people who volunteered as NHS helpers to do this, but perhaps managed by someone from Sandhurst rather than PHE.
Concise public communications is also going to be vital. Telling everyone to stay put is one thing, a more nuanced message quite another.
But this is not the same as treating us like fools....
At least its ahowing a lot more sense than the Daily Jackboot.
What the fuck is the "Daily Jackboot"? And what kind of twat uses that term?
Any bailout to any company should be limited to the amount of tax that they have paid in the last 3 years.
If they are registered in another tax domain, let that place bail them out. If an essential company for some reason, buy up the assets at firesale prices upon liquidation.
Companies need to learn the financial cost of off shoring, as well as the effect on stability of manufacturing chains.
What about the employees of such companies? Are they going to be refused help as well?
Has Johnson's near death experience turned him into a virus dove, who does not want to unlock until vaccine/sure the plague has passed? Before he became ill we were told his libertarian instincts were to the fore and kept the pubs open. Discuss?
QTWAIN.
Before he became ill he'd already closed the pubs and all indications were the lockdown would be for ~12 weeks from the moment it was announced anyway.
The idea this was ever going to be lifted after 3 weeks is a total fallacy. But nor will it last forever.
There are a number of prerequisites, the most important of which is getting a nationwide network of test and trace teams in place in order that new cases can be quickly detected and isolated.
It’s a good idea to get people who volunteered as NHS helpers to do this, but perhaps managed by someone from Sandhurst rather than PHE.
Concise public communications is also going to be vital. Telling everyone to stay put is one thing, a more nuanced message quite another.
But this is not the same as treating us like fools....
At least its ahowing a lot more sense than the Daily Jackboot.
What the fuck is the "Daily Jackboot"? And what kind of twat uses that term?
Hurrah for the Blackshirts
It has always intrigued me that the Daily Mail is never allowed to forget its brief flirtation with Mosley while nobody ever mentions that the Daily Mirror was far more enthusiastic about them for far longer.
There are a number of prerequisites, the most important of which is getting a nationwide network of test and trace teams in place in order that new cases can be quickly detected and isolated.
It’s a good idea to get people who volunteered as NHS helpers to do this, but perhaps managed by someone from Sandhurst rather than PHE.
Concise public communications is also going to be vital. Telling everyone to stay put is one thing, a more nuanced message quite another.
But this is not the same as treating us like fools....
At least its ahowing a lot more sense than the Daily Jackboot.
What the fuck is the "Daily Jackboot"? And what kind of twat uses that term?
Hurrah for the Blackshirts
It has always intrigued me that the Daily Mail is never allowed to forget its brief flirtation with Mosley while nobody ever mentions that the Daily Mirror was far more enthusiastic about them for far longer.
Try reading it every day..
Who would want to read the Daily Mirror every day?
"What have five weeks (I started early) of social isolation taught me? First, that hot-desking is dead, thank God. The idea that you should be forced to spend today at the desk where yesterday Eunice from Chemistry was hacking up her lungs (“Some sort of 24 hour thing”) will be illegal by the end of next year. Everyone who was part of the “abolish private office space” movement should be forced to march through the streets — at two metres separation — with a placard round their necks saying “Sorry for our unwarranted attack on human dignity”."
Ha - more like "Welcome to your new office - and you pay for it! WFH! Trebles All Round!"
A lot of people will be surprised by their new, improved, WFH electricity bills.
They’ll be insignificant, compared to their old commuting bills.
Hardly anyone who applied for a commuting refund from a major rail company has yet got one.
True, but I’m fairly confident they’ll come eventually. I have less confidence about getting refunds eventually for lost plane flights.
Even Ryanair emailed me offering a refund on my May Bank Holiday trip. I applied last week although it hasn't hit my credit card account yet.
Lucky you. I can’t get Ryanair to reply to my emails. I’m now pursuing alternative routes.
Not a company known for their customer service, even in the best of times. After the flight date, the credit card chargeback route should elicit a timely response, they won’t want to end up blacklisted by the banks.
To add, what the airlines will be praying for is just enough of an easing of the lockdown and formal travel advice by the summer, to allow them to actually fly the plane on the day you booked. That way it’s your disinclination to travel, not their failure to deliver the flight - so no refund.
Good morning pb-ers. Mournful thought from my wife and myself last night; will we ever get to hug our grandchildren again?
I don't blame you: an awful lot of people will have been having thoughts along precisely the same lines. We have similar concerns about my husband's 80-year-old Mother, who lives on her own several hundred miles away. We would have been going on a visit next month but needless to say that's already been canned.
There are regular reports/speculation in the newspapers to the effect that older and medically vulnerable people will be made to lock themselves away for a year/eighteen months/until there's a vaccine/for the rest of their lives. None of this is realistic. Once this disaster has been ongoing for long enough, and the numbers of deaths and hospitalisations has been squashed down to a sufficiently low level, then I'm quite sure that people will venture out to make more visits to family and friends (regardless of whatever regulations are still in force at the time.)
Firstly there is an issue here of quality as well as quantity of life; secondly, to be blunt, there will come a point when a lot of people who are very old and/or in ill health reason that their chances of dying of something other than the virus whilst still observing lockdown are probably greater than those of dying prematurely of the virus itself, and that they might as well therefore roll the dice and enjoy being with people they love again.
As with the health versus economy dilemma, so there is also a health versus quality of life dilemma. There's clearly going to be no magic bullet solution to this disease in the next few weeks, so absent that governments and individuals will find their way towards a compromise that they can tolerate. Shielding for twelve weeks is going to knock the stuffing out of people as it is: they're not going to keep doing it indefinitely.
Excellent post. People will not tolerate purgatory.
Is it really better to put others at risk than suffer in purgatory?
I fear those complaining about the pains of the lockdown haven’t experienced the pains of illness, hospitalisation or death and thereby are lucky enough to have an incomplete view of the situation.
Too many self seeking callous gits on here, only interests are their own petty lives and pockets and care not a jot for the rest, it is a very Tory centric view.
Everything bad is the fault of the tories eh?
Remind me who that tory was in Scotland who commented that this virus running rampant through old people would at least clear out the bed blockers?
I can think of some of your posts that were pretty horrible too
There are a number of prerequisites, the most important of which is getting a nationwide network of test and trace teams in place in order that new cases can be quickly detected and isolated.
It’s a good idea to get people who volunteered as NHS helpers to do this, but perhaps managed by someone from Sandhurst rather than PHE.
Concise public communications is also going to be vital. Telling everyone to stay put is one thing, a more nuanced message quite another.
But this is not the same as treating us like fools....
At least its ahowing a lot more sense than the Daily Jackboot.
What the fuck is the "Daily Jackboot"? And what kind of twat uses that term?
Hurrah for the Blackshirts
It has always intrigued me that the Daily Mail is never allowed to forget its brief flirtation with Mosley while nobody ever mentions that the Daily Mirror was far more enthusiastic about them for far longer.
Try reading it every day..
Who would want to read the Daily Mirror every day?
The Daily Mail is just full of bile designed to press people buttons. There is only one quality paper left...
Good morning pb-ers. Mournful thought from my wife and myself last night; will we ever get to hug our grandchildren again?
I don't blame you: an awful lot of people will have been having thoughts along precisely the same lines. We have similar concerns about my husband's 80-year-old Mother, who lives on her own several hundred miles away. We would have been going on a visit next month but needless to say that's already been canned.
There are regular reports/speculation in the newspapers to the effect that older and medically vulnerable people will be made to lock themselves away for a year/eighteen months/until there's a vaccine/for the rest of their lives. None of this is realistic. Once this disaster has been ongoing for long enough, and the numbers of deaths and hospitalisations has been squashed down to a sufficiently low level, then I'm quite sure that people will venture out to make more visits to family and friends (regardless of whatever regulations are still in force at the time.)
Firstly there is an issue here of quality as well as quantity of life; secondly, to be blunt, there will come a point when a lot of people who are very old and/or in ill health reason that their chances of dying of something other than the virus whilst still observing lockdown are probably greater than those of dying prematurely of the virus itself, and that they might as well therefore roll the dice and enjoy being with people they love again.
As with the health versus economy dilemma, so there is also a health versus quality of life dilemma. There's clearly going to be no magic bullet solution to this disease in the next few weeks, so absent that governments and individuals will find their way towards a compromise that they can tolerate. Shielding for twelve weeks is going to knock the stuffing out of people as it is: they're not going to keep doing it indefinitely.
Excellent post. People will not tolerate purgatory.
Is it really better to put others at risk than suffer in purgatory?
I fear those complaining about the pains of the lockdown haven’t experienced the pains of illness, hospitalisation or death and thereby are lucky enough to have an incomplete view of the situation.
Too many self seeking callous gits on here, only interests are their own petty lives and pockets and care not a jot for the rest, it is a very Tory centric view.
Everything bad is the fault of the tories eh?
Remind me who that tory was in Scotland who commented that this virus running rampant through old people would at least clear out the bed blockers?
I can think of some of your posts that were pretty horrible too
You a tory now Malc?
Enlighten me on the Tory you mention re bed blockers, I am not au fait with the gutter press. I doubt you will find any posts where I denigrate old or poor people and given I am in possession of a heart and a conscience I will never be able to be a Tory.
Hypothesis - most of the daily figures relate to hospital infections and deaths. The figures are generally “with” CV19 not “caused by” CV19. Does this open up the possibility that the major area of spread is hospitals and the major spreading vector is hospital staff?
And that the progress of the virus (in published numbers terms) is not actually closely aligned with lockdown measures (which could have initially made things worse due to increasing close intra family member contact) but is aligned with the numbers of hospital staff who are carriers?
So the progress has been: 1) people admitted to hospital with COVID 2) staff catch it 3) staff spread it amongst themselves and to other patients 4) staff groups begin to build up immunity and cease becoming carriers 5) people infected in hospital begins to drop 6) case numbers begin to drop
I think that hospitals were cleared of non-Covid patients as much as possible and only patients who are really quite ill with it are admitted, so hospital admissions for Covid will reflect transmission of the virus outside of hospital.
There are a number of prerequisites, the most important of which is getting a nationwide network of test and trace teams in place in order that new cases can be quickly detected and isolated.
It’s a good idea to get people who volunteered as NHS helpers to do this, but perhaps managed by someone from Sandhurst rather than PHE.
Concise public communications is also going to be vital. Telling everyone to stay put is one thing, a more nuanced message quite another.
But this is not the same as treating us like fools....
At least its ahowing a lot more sense than the Daily Jackboot.
What the fuck is the "Daily Jackboot"? And what kind of twat uses that term?
Same kind of person who uses “Keith Stormer”. But the DM does at least have a verifiable history of supporting fascism.
What do you say about other papers who had a verifiable history of supporting fascism?
"What have five weeks (I started early) of social isolation taught me? First, that hot-desking is dead, thank God. The idea that you should be forced to spend today at the desk where yesterday Eunice from Chemistry was hacking up her lungs (“Some sort of 24 hour thing”) will be illegal by the end of next year. Everyone who was part of the “abolish private office space” movement should be forced to march through the streets — at two metres separation — with a placard round their necks saying “Sorry for our unwarranted attack on human dignity”."
There are a number of prerequisites, the most important of which is getting a nationwide network of test and trace teams in place in order that new cases can be quickly detected and isolated.
It’s a good idea to get people who volunteered as NHS helpers to do this, but perhaps managed by someone from Sandhurst rather than PHE.
Concise public communications is also going to be vital. Telling everyone to stay put is one thing, a more nuanced message quite another.
But this is not the same as treating us like fools....
At least its ahowing a lot more sense than the Daily Jackboot.
What the fuck is the "Daily Jackboot"? And what kind of twat uses that term?
Hurrah for the Blackshirts
It has always intrigued me that the Daily Mail is never allowed to forget its brief flirtation with Mosley while nobody ever mentions that the Daily Mirror was far more enthusiastic about them for far longer.
Try reading it every day..
Who would want to read the Daily Mirror every day?
The Daily Mail is just full of bile designed to press people buttons. There is only one quality paper left...
Good morning pb-ers. Mournful thought from my wife and myself last night; will we ever get to hug our grandchildren again?
I don't blame you: an awful lot of people will have been having thoughts along precisely the same lines. We have similar concerns about my husband's 80-year-old Mother, who lives on her own several hundred miles away. We would have been going on a visit next month but needless to say that's already been canned.
There are regular reports/speculation in the newspapers to the effect that older and medically vulnerable people will be made to lock themselves away for a year/eighteen months/until there's a vaccine/for the rest of their lives. None of this is realistic. Once this disaster has been ongoing for long enough, and the numbers of deaths and hospitalisations has been squashed down to a sufficiently low level, then I'm quite sure that people will venture out to make more visits to family and friends (regardless of whatever regulations are still in force at the time.)
Firstly there is an issue here of quality as well as quantity of life; secondly, to be blunt, there will come a point when a lot of people who are very old and/or in ill health reason that their chances of dying of something other than the virus whilst still observing lockdown are probably greater than those of dying prematurely of the virus itself, and that they might as well therefore roll the dice and enjoy being with people they love again.
As with the health versus economy dilemma, so there is also a health versus quality of life dilemma. There's clearly going to be no magic bullet solution to this disease in the next few weeks, so absent that governments and individuals will find their way towards a compromise that they can tolerate. Shielding for twelve weeks is going to knock the stuffing out of people as it is: they're not going to keep doing it indefinitely.
Excellent post. People will not tolerate purgatory.
Is it really better to put others at risk than suffer in purgatory?
I fear those complaining about the pains of the lockdown haven’t experienced the pains of illness, hospitalisation or death and thereby are lucky enough to have an incomplete view of the situation.
Too many self seeking callous gits on here, only interests are their own petty lives and pockets and care not a jot for the rest, it is a very Tory centric view.
Everything bad is the fault of the tories eh?
Remind me who that tory was in Scotland who commented that this virus running rampant through old people would at least clear out the bed blockers?
I can think of some of your posts that were pretty horrible too
You a tory now Malc?
Enlighten me on the Tory you mention re bed blockers, I am not au fait with the gutter press. I doubt you will find any posts where I denigrate old or poor people and given I am in possession of a heart and a conscience I will never be able to be a Tory.
As I say some of your posts showed a clear lack of heart - so i'm sure the tories will be glad to have you on board
There are a number of prerequisites, the most important of which is getting a nationwide network of test and trace teams in place in order that new cases can be quickly detected and isolated.
It’s a good idea to get people who volunteered as NHS helpers to do this, but perhaps managed by someone from Sandhurst rather than PHE.
Concise public communications is also going to be vital. Telling everyone to stay put is one thing, a more nuanced message quite another.
But this is not the same as treating us like fools....
At least its ahowing a lot more sense than the Daily Jackboot.
What the fuck is the "Daily Jackboot"? And what kind of twat uses that term?
Hurrah for the Blackshirts
It has always intrigued me that the Daily Mail is never allowed to forget its brief flirtation with Mosley while nobody ever mentions that the Daily Mirror was far more enthusiastic about them for far longer.
Try reading it every day..
Who would want to read the Daily Mirror every day?
The Daily Mail is just full of bile designed to press people buttons. There is only one quality paper left...
Good morning pb-ers. Mournful thought from my wife and myself last night; will we ever get to hug our grandchildren again?
I don't blame you: an awful lot of people will have been having thoughts along precisely the same lines. We have similar concerns about my husband's 80-year-old Mother, who lives on her own several hundred miles away. We would have been going on a visit next month but needless to say that's already been canned.
There are regular reports/speculation in the newspapers to the effect that older and medically vulnerable people will be made to lock themselves away for a year/eighteen months/until there's a vaccine/for the rest of their lives. None of this is realistic. Once this disaster has been ongoing for long enough, and the numbers of deaths and hospitalisations has been squashed down to a sufficiently low level, then I'm quite sure that people will venture out to make more visits to family and friends (regardless of whatever regulations are still in force at the time.)
Firstly there is an issue here of quality as well as quantity of life; secondly, to be blunt, there will come a point when a lot of people who are very old and/or in ill health reason that their chances of dying of something other than the virus whilst still observing lockdown are probably greater than those of dying prematurely of the virus itself, and that they might as well therefore roll the dice and enjoy being with people they love again.
As with the health versus economy dilemma, so there is also a health versus quality of life dilemma. There's clearly going to be no magic bullet solution to this disease in the next few weeks, so absent that governments and individuals will find their way towards a compromise that they can tolerate. Shielding for twelve weeks is going to knock the stuffing out of people as it is: they're not going to keep doing it indefinitely.
Excellent post. People will not tolerate purgatory.
Is it really better to put others at risk than suffer in purgatory?
I fear those complaining about the pains of the lockdown haven’t experienced the pains of illness, hospitalisation or death and thereby are lucky enough to have an incomplete view of the situation.
There are some fates worse than death which comes to all eventually.
There are pros and cons and only a fool looks at one side of the coin.
Who are you prepared to lose?
I don't want to lose anyone but eventually will lose everyone, its a fact of life.
Its what we do in between that matters.
If you are advocating a rise in death stats to free up the economy then you must have some people in mind. Who are you prepared to lose to get things moving again?
I'm not advocating that.
Even forgetting the economy it is worth remembering that the lockdown causes both direct and indirect deaths too. There will come a point when stopping things from moving will cause more deaths than it saves.
Who are you prepared to sacrifice to prevent others from dying due to a virus?
Indeed, such emotive language is helpful.
It certainly isn’t the case with Jonathan but I think some just enjoy judging and denouncing others to make themselves feel better.
Any bailout to any company should be limited to the amount of tax that they have paid in the last 3 years.
If they are registered in another tax domain, let that place bail them out. If an essential company for some reason, buy up the assets at firesale prices upon liquidation.
Companies need to learn the financial cost of off shoring, as well as the effect on stability of manufacturing chains.
What about the employees of such companies? Are they going to be refused help as well?
Tax cheats and those avoiding tax deserve no payout from the taxpayer. Employees can still get access to other benefits. Any sane person would see it as a great idea, why pay out to people who cheat the system.
Any bailout to any company should be limited to the amount of tax that they have paid in the last 3 years.
If they are registered in another tax domain, let that place bail them out. If an essential company for some reason, buy up the assets at firesale prices upon liquidation.
Companies need to learn the financial cost of off shoring, as well as the effect on stability of manufacturing chains.
Companies shouldn’t be bailed out at all, unless they’re of national strategic importance to dealing with the crisis. People should be bailed out if they lose their jobs, which is what’s happening in practice.
The crunch will co e when the furlough scheme ends, and a lot of people move from earning £2k a month in support to the more usual unemployment benefit and universal credit.
It’s already not pretty, but it’s going to be really bad when that happens. Furloughed friends are already giving up hope of returning to their old jobs. Unemployment with no hope of work is a terrible place to be.
If the lockdown is to continue, then the furlough scheme will have to. IMO. Telling people that they have to stay home, are now unemployed and can spend the time worrying about bills is not going to work.
If there is no realistic prospect of a return to work then essentially what you have a middle class fig leaf, high paid unemployment benefit.
There are a number of prerequisites, the most important of which is getting a nationwide network of test and trace teams in place in order that new cases can be quickly detected and isolated.
It’s a good idea to get people who volunteered as NHS helpers to do this, but perhaps managed by someone from Sandhurst rather than PHE.
Concise public communications is also going to be vital. Telling everyone to stay put is one thing, a more nuanced message quite another.
But this is not the same as treating us like fools....
At least its ahowing a lot more sense than the Daily Jackboot.
What the fuck is the "Daily Jackboot"? And what kind of twat uses that term?
This story in The Times probably is having more influence on the PM
The government’s chief scientific adviser has cautioned against banking on a Covid-19 jab, warning that new vaccines are “long shots”.
Oxford University researchers are planning to begin human trials of a vaccine this week and believe that they could have results showing whether it works as early as September.
However, Sir Patrick Vallance, the chief scientific adviser, has cautioned that even if a vaccine shows signs of protecting against the virus, ensuring that it is safe could take much longer.
“All new vaccines that come into development are long shots. Only some end up being successful,” he said yesterday. “Coronavirus will be no different and presents new challenges for vaccine development. This will take time.”
The Oxford researchers are looking at whether emergency legislation could allow high-risk groups, such as healthcare workers, to receive their jab before it is fully licensed.
Sarah Gilbert, head of the Oxford effort, admitted yesterday that success could not be guaranteed. “I think the prospects are very good, but it’s clearly not completely certain,” she told the BBC.
Her team are acutely aware that a vaccine may alter the immune system in a way that makes contracting Covid-19 more dangerous. Public Health England has been running “challenge trials” to try to assess the risks, using animals at the Porton Down research site. This involves giving ferrets and macaques the vaccine and then infecting them with Covid-19.
The whole thing is saving me quite a lot of money (most on my petrol bill, and not buying lunch out), so despite my being furloughed and on 80% of wages, I'm ending up with a modist extra monthly surplus, but it's a miserable experience non-the-less.
Apart perhaps for a small minority of very introverted or misanthropic types, this isn't much fun for anybody. About the best that can be said is at least we've had a pretty consistent run of fine weather: you can imagine how much worse this experience would've been if our rationed outdoor time was spoilt by constant pissing rain, to say nothing of being made to stand in agonizingly slow-moving queues outside shops whilst getting saturated by it.
I dare say that, given that I'm spending nothing on going out, new clothes and other treats anymore, my bank balance is gradually getting fatter. So long as my job is safe that may continue to be the case for a long time: after all, our incarceration may last for so long that few outlets will have survived in which to make discretionary spending by the time the restrictions finally begin to be lifted.
Wouldn't surprise me if we're all supertaxed as a one-off in the next budget so the Government can recoup £20-30bn.
It would surprise me. The economy is on the floor and interest rates are near-zero. Why recoup anything in year one?
To soak up excess income that many have squirreled away that would otherwise go into savings, as people can’t spend it now. So the economy can’t be boosted anyway.
It would only be clawing back c.10% of what the Government had spent on the crisis though.
But that's frankly pointless.
There are some who are squirrelling away excess and some who are desperate and struggling more than normal. Identifying and taxing either group without catching the other is going to be impossible.
After this ends we will need those who are squirrelling away to be spending in the economy some of what they've squirrelled away more than we will need the Treasury to replenish its funds.
Short term the government should be looking at what taxes it can cut to get the economy rebooted not which it can increase. Long term tax rises may be necessary but that's tomorrow's problem not today's.
I hope I’m wrong but it wouldn’t surprise me if some mandarins in the Treasury cook it up. They will target excess income and savings.
If the Government is going to take unpopular financial decisions it makes sense to do so 3-4 years away from the next election.
What excess income? Many of us will have reduced or zero income this year.
There are a number of prerequisites, the most important of which is getting a nationwide network of test and trace teams in place in order that new cases can be quickly detected and isolated.
It’s a good idea to get people who volunteered as NHS helpers to do this, but perhaps managed by someone from Sandhurst rather than PHE.
Concise public communications is also going to be vital. Telling everyone to stay put is one thing, a more nuanced message quite another.
But this is not the same as treating us like fools....
At least its ahowing a lot more sense than the Daily Jackboot.
What the fuck is the "Daily Jackboot"? And what kind of twat uses that term?
Hurrah for the Blackshirts
It has always intrigued me that the Daily Mail is never allowed to forget its brief flirtation with Mosley while nobody ever mentions that the Daily Mirror was far more enthusiastic about them for far longer.
Maybe it's the suspicion that the DM would still be supporting the black shirts if they were around now?
Let’s hypothesise that the virus arose as was thought, via strange eating habits in Wuhan, and the local government hushed up the figures for fear of the reaction from the central government. This is the key point. The whistle blowers appeared and spoilt things, but the official figures remained (the numbers jumped by 50% last week for some reason). In January, the Chinese government had allowed some of the facts about the virus out, but not the full casualty figures in Wuhan. Too embarrassing Imperial College modelled the official data (based on China) and calculated an R (infection rate) that was low. Hence the light precautions in the UK initially. Only when the horrific Italian date began to trickle out, did they smell a large Chinese rat. Trump has already accused the Chinese government of duplicity and he might be right for a change. The UK government can’t, or won’t follow suit without solid and direct evidence which is probably lacking. In the meantime, the Central Chinese government had for some time imposed a full belt and braces lockdown on Wuhan. When Imperial tweaked their graphs with the new Italian data, they had a nasty shock. Lockdown in late March resulted. The UK government can claim they followed the science. Imperial can claim they took the only available data at face value, and their models would have been accurate had China told the truth. Next year, when the enquiry begins, it will be established that the local Chinese bosses were, as is likely, ‘economical with the truth’. And by then the Wuhan data might even be accurate. The main criticism will be that the British government and Imperial were gullible. But they will claim they followed the scientific evidence. Yes, there was a delay after the Italian numbers started to appear, but the UK scientists had to wait for more data in case it was only a blip.
Has anyone ever provided any detail to this narrative? What were the numbers that were used for the initial modelling that allegedly misled the British (but somehow hardly any other country)?
Good morning pb-ers. Mournful thought from my wife and myself last night; will we ever get to hug our grandchildren again?
I don't blame you: an awful lot of people will have been having thoughts along precisely the same lines. We have similar concerns about my husband's 80-year-old Mother, who lives on her own several hundred miles away. We would have been going on a visit next month but needless to say that's already been canned.
There are regular reports/speculation in the newspapers to the effect that older and medically vulnerable people will be made to lock themselves away for a year/eighteen months/until there's a vaccine/for the rest of their lives. None of this is realistic. Once this disaster has been ongoing for long enough, and the numbers of deaths and hospitalisations has been squashed down to a sufficiently low level, then I'm quite sure that people will venture out to make more visits to family and friends (regardless of whatever regulations are still in force at the time.)
Firstly there is an issue here of quality as well as quantity of life; secondly, to be blunt, there will come a point when a lot of people who are very old and/or in ill health reason that their chances of dying of something other than the virus whilst still observing lockdown are probably greater than those of dying prematurely of the virus itself, and that they might as well therefore roll the dice and enjoy being with people they love again.
As with the health versus economy dilemma, so there is also a health versus quality of life dilemma. There's clearly going to be no magic bullet solution to this disease in the next few weeks, so absent that governments and individuals will find their way towards a compromise that they can tolerate. Shielding for twelve weeks is going to knock the stuffing out of people as it is: they're not going to keep doing it indefinitely.
Excellent post. People will not tolerate purgatory.
Is it really better to put others at risk than suffer in purgatory?
I fear those complaining about the pains of the lockdown haven’t experienced the pains of illness, hospitalisation or death and thereby are lucky enough to have an incomplete view of the situation.
Too many self seeking callous gits on here, only interests are their own petty lives and pockets and care not a jot for the rest, it is a very Tory centric view.
Everything bad is the fault of the tories eh?
Remind me who that tory was in Scotland who commented that this virus running rampant through old people would at least clear out the bed blockers?
I can think of some of your posts that were pretty horrible too
You a tory now Malc?
Enlighten me on the Tory you mention re bed blockers, I am not au fait with the gutter press. I doubt you will find any posts where I denigrate old or poor people and given I am in possession of a heart and a conscience I will never be able to be a Tory.
As I say some of your posts showed a clear lack of heart - so i'm sure the tories will be glad to have you on board
This story in The Times probably is having more influence on the PM
The government’s chief scientific adviser has cautioned against banking on a Covid-19 jab, warning that new vaccines are “long shots”.
Oxford University researchers are planning to begin human trials of a vaccine this week and believe that they could have results showing whether it works as early as September.
However, Sir Patrick Vallance, the chief scientific adviser, has cautioned that even if a vaccine shows signs of protecting against the virus, ensuring that it is safe could take much longer.
“All new vaccines that come into development are long shots. Only some end up being successful,” he said yesterday. “Coronavirus will be no different and presents new challenges for vaccine development. This will take time.”
The Oxford researchers are looking at whether emergency legislation could allow high-risk groups, such as healthcare workers, to receive their jab before it is fully licensed.
Sarah Gilbert, head of the Oxford effort, admitted yesterday that success could not be guaranteed. “I think the prospects are very good, but it’s clearly not completely certain,” she told the BBC.
Her team are acutely aware that a vaccine may alter the immune system in a way that makes contracting Covid-19 more dangerous. Public Health England has been running “challenge trials” to try to assess the risks, using animals at the Porton Down research site. This involves giving ferrets and macaques the vaccine and then infecting them with Covid-19.
The whole thing is saving me quite a lot of money (most on my petrol bill, and not buying lunch out), so despite my being furloughed and on 80% of wages, I'm ending up with a modist extra monthly surplus, but it's a miserable experience non-the-less.
Apart perhaps for a small minority of very introverted or misanthropic types, this isn't much fun for anybody. About the best that can be said is at least we've had a pretty consistent run of fine weather: you can imagine how much worse this experience would've been if our rationed outdoor time was spoilt by constant pissing rain, to say nothing of being made to stand in agonizingly slow-moving queues outside shops whilst getting saturated by it.
I dare say that, given that I'm spending nothing on going out, new clothes and other treats anymore, my bank balance is gradually getting fatter. So long as my job is safe that may continue to be the case for a long time: after all, our incarceration may last for so long that few outlets will have survived in which to make discretionary spending by the time the restrictions finally begin to be lifted.
Wouldn't surprise me if we're all supertaxed as a one-off in the next budget so the Government can recoup £20-30bn.
It would surprise me. The economy is on the floor and interest rates are near-zero. Why recoup anything in year one?
To soak up excess income that many have squirreled away that would otherwise go into savings, as people can’t spend it now. So the economy can’t be boosted anyway.
It would only be clawing back c.10% of what the Government had spent on the crisis though.
But that's frankly pointless.
There are some who are squirrelling away excess and some who are desperate and struggling more than normal. Identifying and taxing either group without catching the other is going to be impossible.
After this ends we will need those who are squirrelling away to be spending in the economy some of what they've squirrelled away more than we will need the Treasury to replenish its funds.
Short term the government should be looking at what taxes it can cut to get the economy rebooted not which it can increase. Long term tax rises may be necessary but that's tomorrow's problem not today's.
I hope I’m wrong but it wouldn’t surprise me if some mandarins in the Treasury cook it up. They will target excess income and savings.
If the Government is going to take unpopular financial decisions it makes sense to do so 3-4 years away from the next election.
What excess income? Many of us will have reduced or zero income this year.
"What have five weeks (I started early) of social isolation taught me? First, that hot-desking is dead, thank God. The idea that you should be forced to spend today at the desk where yesterday Eunice from Chemistry was hacking up her lungs (“Some sort of 24 hour thing”) will be illegal by the end of next year. Everyone who was part of the “abolish private office space” movement should be forced to march through the streets — at two metres separation — with a placard round their necks saying “Sorry for our unwarranted attack on human dignity”."
Seriously, "national battle" isn't a helpful metaphor for dealing with a virus, which is fundamentally about discipline. Johnson probably got struck down because he didn't follow his own guidance.
"National battle" is however a very useful metaphor politically, which is why Johnson is using it, including in his YouTube speech when he came out of intensive care.
The problem with masks is that if they work, stopping people from inhaling all the droplets, the droplets don’t disappear they just build up in the mask ready to be touched or inhaled later. Everyone needs lots of masks.
But if everyone wears them, then far fewer droplets will be exhaled any distance.
It’s not new. Poland has done the same, as did the US with the cruise industry.
The reaction of the US cruise industry was rather amusing. They seriously expected Uncle Sam to hand them a massive cheque, when their boats are registered in Panama and the staff are mostly from the Philippines.
Notable for its distinct lack of denials of many of the substantive claims. The general tone is "we were taking it very seriously so of course the Prime Minister had nothing to do with it." I'm not sure that helps the government's defence.
I suspect that a lot of people are ending the lockdown of their accord.
Friday bank holiday looks so nailed on for that.
Any relaxation in the lockdown will lead to additional covid deaths - I think the government are both painfully aware of this and also scared of those headlines. The Press and Team Mouth Breather will be all over the story.
The problem with masks is that if they work, stopping people from inhaling all the droplets, the droplets don’t disappear they just build up in the mask ready to be touched or inhaled later. Everyone needs lots of masks.
But if everyone wears them, then far fewer droplets will be exhaled any distance.
Serious question. If you leave a mask for a week or so will any virus die on it ?
seeing the comment about how well South Korea is doing: isn't their problem now that they have effectively bricked themselves into a prison? How can they ever open up to the wider world?
There are a number of prerequisites, the most important of which is getting a nationwide network of test and trace teams in place in order that new cases can be quickly detected and isolated.
It’s a good idea to get people who volunteered as NHS helpers to do this, but perhaps managed by someone from Sandhurst rather than PHE.
Concise public communications is also going to be vital. Telling everyone to stay put is one thing, a more nuanced message quite another.
But this is not the same as treating us like fools....
At least its ahowing a lot more sense than the Daily Jackboot.
What the fuck is the "Daily Jackboot"? And what kind of twat uses that term?
Hurrah for the Blackshirts
It has always intrigued me that the Daily Mail is never allowed to forget its brief flirtation with Mosley while nobody ever mentions that the Daily Mirror was far more enthusiastic about them for far longer.
Maybe it's the suspicion that the DM would still be supporting the black shirts if they were around now?
Hypothesis - most of the daily figures relate to hospital infections and deaths. The figures are generally “with” CV19 not “caused by” CV19. Does this open up the possibility that the major area of spread is hospitals and the major spreading vector is hospital staff?
And that the progress of the virus (in published numbers terms) is not actually closely aligned with lockdown measures (which could have initially made things worse due to increasing close intra family member contact) but is aligned with the numbers of hospital staff who are carriers?
So the progress has been: 1) people admitted to hospital with COVID 2) staff catch it 3) staff spread it amongst themselves and to other patients 4) staff groups begin to build up immunity and cease becoming carriers 5) people infected in hospital begins to drop 6) case numbers begin to drop
It certainly relates to why you'd go and build massive isolation wards on the outskirts of major cities.
It’s not new. Poland has done the same, as did the US with the cruise industry.
The reaction of the US cruise industry was rather amusing. They seriously expected Uncle Sam to hand them a massive cheque, when their boats are registered in Panama and the staff are mostly from the Philippines.
Hopefully the likes of Branson , Dyson , Burberry , Barbour etc get diddly squat but highly unlikely the Tories will upset their biggest donors.
The general tone is "we were taking it very seriously so of course the Prime Minister had nothing to do with it." I'm not sure that helps the government's defence.
I disagree, the PM's job is not to micromanage.
He needs to be able to trust his ministers to handle things, and only get him involved when needed.
Good morning pb-ers. Mournful thought from my wife and myself last night; will we ever get to hug our grandchildren again?
I don't blame you: an awful lot of people will have been having thoughts along precisely the same lines. We have similar concerns about my husband's 80-year-old Mother, who lives on her own several hundred miles away. We would have been going on a visit next month but needless to say that's already been canned.
There are regular reports/speculation in the newspapers to the effect that older and medically vulnerable people will be made to lock themselves away for a year/eighteen months/until there's a vaccine/for the rest of their lives. None of this is realistic. Once this disaster has been ongoing for long enough, and the numbers of deaths and hospitalisations has been squashed down to a sufficiently low level, then I'm quite sure that people will venture out to make more visits to family and friends (regardless of whatever regulations are still in force at the time.)
Firstly there is an issue here of quality as well as quantity of life; secondly, to be blunt, there will come a point when a lot of people who are very old and/or in ill health reason that their chances of dying of something other than the virus whilst still observing lockdown are probably greater than those of dying prematurely of the virus itself, and that they might as well therefore roll the dice and enjoy being with people they love again.
As with the health versus economy dilemma, so there is also a health versus quality of life dilemma. There's clearly going to be no magic bullet solution to this disease in the next few weeks, so absent that governments and individuals will find their way towards a compromise that they can tolerate. Shielding for twelve weeks is going to knock the stuffing out of people as it is: they're not going to keep doing it indefinitely.
Excellent post. People will not tolerate purgatory.
Is it really better to put others at risk than suffer in purgatory?
I fear those complaining about the pains of the lockdown haven’t experienced the pains of illness, hospitalisation or death and thereby are lucky enough to have an incomplete view of the situation.
I think it was a general point not personal. I have very little social life (surprising I know) and while wfh is annoying it means I could handle a very long lockdown pretty easily and dont have urgent financial worry. But I still agree with the point that society generally will not put up with measures beyond a certain point despite the costs.
The Government could do with some detailed (telephone) polls on how people are actually coping - Casino and others are suggesting rampant depression, but is there evidence for this? Anecdotally in my circle, people see it as a nuisance but infrequently more than that in terms of mental distress, and are far more worried about the lockdown being released too soon. Financial worries may change that in due course.
We do have one advantage from having entered lockdown late - we get to see what happens in countries that relax it in different ways - small shops in Austria, schools in Denmark, etc.
This story in The Times probably is having more influence on the PM
The government’s chief scientific adviser has cautioned against banking on a Covid-19 jab, warning that new vaccines are “long shots”.
Oxford University researchers are planning to begin human trials of a vaccine this week and believe that they could have results showing whether it works as early as September.
However, Sir Patrick Vallance, the chief scientific adviser, has cautioned that even if a vaccine shows signs of protecting against the virus, ensuring that it is safe could take much longer.
“All new vaccines that come into development are long shots. Only some end up being successful,” he said yesterday. “Coronavirus will be no different and presents new challenges for vaccine development. This will take time.”
The Oxford researchers are looking at whether emergency legislation could allow high-risk groups, such as healthcare workers, to receive their jab before it is fully licensed.
Sarah Gilbert, head of the Oxford effort, admitted yesterday that success could not be guaranteed. “I think the prospects are very good, but it’s clearly not completely certain,” she told the BBC.
Her team are acutely aware that a vaccine may alter the immune system in a way that makes contracting Covid-19 more dangerous. Public Health England has been running “challenge trials” to try to assess the risks, using animals at the Porton Down research site. This involves giving ferrets and macaques the vaccine and then infecting them with Covid-19.
Another bit you should have highlighted was "I think the prospects are very good".
All immunologists are aware of the possibility of ADE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibody-dependent_enhancement (which was observed in some animal trials of the earlier SARS virus), but the chances of any vaccine causing this getting through to human trials is very low indeed, and of any such vaccine getting beyond the first small safety trial, much lower still.
Given what we learned from earlier efforts to produce SARS and MERS vaccines, I would also be very confident of the prospect for several effective vaccines to be available by next year. (And it is quite likely that the effective vaccines will produce a stronger antibody response in many people than the disease itself.)
seeing the comment about how well South Korea is doing: isn't their problem now that they have effectively bricked themselves into a prison? How can they ever open up to the wider world?
You mean by suppressing the virus??? China has also chosen the suppression route, likewise Taiwan, to the extent that Japan has a strategy that's probably the goal here too, so if we end up with a grand East-Asia no-internal-quarantine zone then it'll cover a pretty decent chunk of the world economy.
The whole thing is saving me quite a lot of money (most on my petrol bill, and not buying lunch out), so despite my being furloughed and on 80% of wages, I'm ending up with a modist extra monthly surplus, but it's a miserable experience non-the-less.
Apart perhaps for a small minority of very introverted or misanthropic types, this isn't much fun for anybody. About the best that can be said is at least we've had a pretty consistent run of fine weather: you can imagine how much worse this experience would've been if our rationed outdoor time was spoilt by constant pissing rain, to say nothing of being made to stand in agonizingly slow-moving queues outside shops whilst getting saturated by it.
I dare say that, given that I'm spending nothing on going out, new clothes and other treats anymore, my bank balance is gradually getting fatter. So long as my job is safe that may continue to be the case for a long time: after all, our incarceration may last for so long that few outlets will have survived in which to make discretionary spending by the time the restrictions finally begin to be lifted.
Wouldn't surprise me if we're all supertaxed as a one-off in the next budget so the Government can recoup £20-30bn.
That would make a 35% reduction in GDP nearer 45%. The absolutely last thing that the government needs to do is depress demand or consumption. They will be bad enough already.
Not comprehensive, which is a problem for any rebuttal. Unless you fully deal with all points made, you allow those points to stand.
There are probably a couple of valid points in this "rebuttal", but the rest is pedantic, contradictory and in places disingenuous, fluff.
May be useful in keeping supporters onside, however. Doesn't matter what they say. Key thing is they said it.
Yeah, we get it, you were never going to accept it.
If I get time, I'll run through the rebuttal points one by one and explain why they don't actually rebut the original points made. I accept there may some valid complaints but unless you all the original points made you allow those to stand.
There are a number of prerequisites, the most important of which is getting a nationwide network of test and trace teams in place in order that new cases can be quickly detected and isolated.
It’s a good idea to get people who volunteered as NHS helpers to do this, but perhaps managed by someone from Sandhurst rather than PHE.
Concise public communications is also going to be vital. Telling everyone to stay put is one thing, a more nuanced message quite another.
But this is not the same as treating us like fools....
At least its ahowing a lot more sense than the Daily Jackboot.
What the fuck is the "Daily Jackboot"? And what kind of twat uses that term?
Hurrah for the Blackshirts
It has always intrigued me that the Daily Mail is never allowed to forget its brief flirtation with Mosley while nobody ever mentions that the Daily Mirror was far more enthusiastic about them for far longer.
Or indeed all those people who supported Communism and far more recently than fascism in the 1930’s. Look at the lionisation of Eric Hobsbawm for instance.
The problem with masks is that if they work, stopping people from inhaling all the droplets, the droplets don’t disappear they just build up in the mask ready to be touched or inhaled later. Everyone needs lots of masks.
But if everyone wears them, then far fewer droplets will be exhaled any distance.
Serious question. If you leave a mask for a week or so will any virus die on it ?
I think it's quite unlikely there would be any viable virus on it after three days. After a week it ought to be quite safe. (I am not a virologist, but given that several research papers have shown that it seems to be non viable after three days on even the most favourable surfaces, that seems a reasonable conclusion.)
Firstly the UK does not have the highest death toll in Europe but only the 4th highest and second if it was raining today scotgoespop would say that made a powerful new case for independence.
Notable for its distinct lack of denials of many of the substantive claims. The general tone is "we were taking it very seriously so of course the Prime Minister had nothing to do with it." I'm not sure that helps the government's defence.
It looks to me like their defence is weakest on: a) exercise cygnus planning b) PPE stocks and preparation
As an aside - it was really sloppy of the Times writer to say "Imperial’s Ferguson was already working on his own estimate — putting infectivity at 2.6 and possibly as high as 3.5 — which he sent to ministers and officials in a report on the day of the Cobra meeting on January 24. The Spanish flu had an estimated infectivity rate of between 2.0 and 3.0, so Ferguson’s finding was shocking."
Was the question a simple “Should we extend the transition period” or “Should we extend the transition period so government ministers can focus on Coronavirus” or “Should we extend the transition period and send more taxpayer money to bail out the EU”?
The spin when he was sick was that he was completely in charge, even as he was being wheeled into ICU.
The spin now is that he was completely in charge by not attending the meetings and trusting other people.
They are flailing
I don't think you appreciate what the proper role of the person at the top is.
I appreciate that in February, when the country was facing a looming pandemic, the Prime Minister took a fortnight off to spend time at his grace-and-favour residence with his partner.
Any bailout to any company should be limited to the amount of tax that they have paid in the last 3 years.
If they are registered in another tax domain, let that place bail them out. If an essential company for some reason, buy up the assets at firesale prices upon liquidation.
Companies need to learn the financial cost of off shoring, as well as the effect on stability of manufacturing chains.
Companies shouldn’t be bailed out at all, unless they’re of national strategic importance to dealing with the crisis. People should be bailed out if they lose their jobs, which is what’s happening in practice.
The crunch will co e when the furlough scheme ends, and a lot of people move from earning £2k a month in support to the more usual unemployment benefit and universal credit.
Not sure I agree with this. We need a viable working economy. If enough companies fall over even those that might have survived will fall too. Bad debt and supply issues will kill them. These are extraordinary times but I think that the public purse is going to have to take the strain of this so that people remain employed, taxes continue to be paid in the medium turn and life returns to something approaching normalcy. The cost is mind boggling and QE still scares me but the alternatives are worse.
Just as we were slow to enter I suspect we'll be slow to exit.
Most European countries are starting to lift some restrictions now.
Although for many, that is involving returning to a lockdown state that is still no less restrictive than the U.K.
Really? From BBC news:
“ On Monday, in Germany small shops will be allowed to open and schools will resume for those classes that have graduation exams coming up.
Last week Berlin said the infection rate had slowed and that the outbreak was under control - while warning that people had to remain vigilant to avoid a second wave of infections.
Also from Monday, Poland will re-open parks and forests and in Norway, nursery schools will reopen their doors to children. The Czech Republic will allow open-air markets to trade and in Albania, the mining and oil industries can operate again.”
Well, that's mixed. We haven't (mostly) closed parks and forests and my local market is certainly still operating.
The U.K. lockdown is not as strict as measures imposed in many other countries, who are not allowing any leaving of the house except to buy groceries or medicines, and have police and even army on the streets enforcing the measures.
I think it is only Spain in Europe that has even banned outside exercise
That says so much - and not good - about our press, doesn't it!
Watching from afar, I get the distinct impression that the UK press are doing their best to try and undermine public support for the lockdown continuing, irrespective of the scientific advice. It’s not good behaviour.
seeing the comment about how well South Korea is doing: isn't their problem now that they have effectively bricked themselves into a prison? How can they ever open up to the wider world?
I would love to have that problem here. The answer is, of course, that they are waiting for an effective vaccine like the rest of us. The difference is that in the meantime, their economy might be more or less functional, rather than in the deep freeze.
The whole thing is saving me quite a lot of money (most on my petrol bill, and not buying lunch out), so despite my being furloughed and on 80% of wages, I'm ending up with a modist extra monthly surplus, but it's a miserable experience non-the-less.
Apart perhaps for a small minority of very introverted or misanthropic types, this isn't much fun for anybody. About the best that can be said is at least we've had a pretty consistent run of fine weather: you can imagine how much worse this experience would've been if our rationed outdoor time was spoilt by constant pissing rain, to say nothing of being made to stand in agonizingly slow-moving queues outside shops whilst getting saturated by it.
I dare say that, given that I'm spending nothing on going out, new clothes and other treats anymore, my bank balance is gradually getting fatter. So long as my job is safe that may continue to be the case for a long time: after all, our incarceration may last for so long that few outlets will have survived in which to make discretionary spending by the time the restrictions finally begin to be lifted.
Wouldn't surprise me if we're all supertaxed as a one-off in the next budget so the Government can recoup £20-30bn.
It would surprise me. The economy is on the floor and interest rates are near-zero. Why recoup anything in year one?
To soak up excess income that many have squirreled away that would otherwise go into savings, as people can’t spend it now. So the economy can’t be boosted anyway.
It would only be clawing back c.10% of what the Government had spent on the crisis though.
But that's frankly pointless.
There are some who are squirrelling away excess and some who are desperate and struggling more than normal. Identifying and taxing either group without catching the other is going to be impossible.
After this ends we will need those who are squirrelling away to be spending in the economy some of what they've squirrelled away more than we will need the Treasury to replenish its funds.
Short term the government should be looking at what taxes it can cut to get the economy rebooted not which it can increase. Long term tax rises may be necessary but that's tomorrow's problem not today's.
I hope I’m wrong but it wouldn’t surprise me if some mandarins in the Treasury cook it up. They will target excess income and savings.
If the Government is going to take unpopular financial decisions it makes sense to do so 3-4 years away from the next election.
What excess income? Many of us will have reduced or zero income this year.
The void between those still being paid with government assistance or not and those who are not grows ever sharper. Weirdly the latter are disproportionately the government's supporters.
Just as we were slow to enter I suspect we'll be slow to exit.
Most European countries are starting to lift some restrictions now.
Although for many, that is involving returning to a lockdown state that is still no less restrictive than the U.K.
Really? From BBC news:
“ On Monday, in Germany small shops will be allowed to open and schools will resume for those classes that have graduation exams coming up.
Last week Berlin said the infection rate had slowed and that the outbreak was under control - while warning that people had to remain vigilant to avoid a second wave of infections.
Also from Monday, Poland will re-open parks and forests and in Norway, nursery schools will reopen their doors to children. The Czech Republic will allow open-air markets to trade and in Albania, the mining and oil industries can operate again.”
Well, that's mixed. We haven't (mostly) closed parks and forests and my local market is certainly still operating.
The U.K. lockdown is not as strict as measures imposed in many other countries, who are not allowing any leaving of the house except to buy groceries or medicines, and have police and even army on the streets enforcing the measures.
Has there been notably better compliance in places with the army out on the streets? Genuine question.
The whole thing is saving me quite a lot of money (most on my petrol bill, and not buying lunch out), so despite my being furloughed and on 80% of wages, I'm ending up with a modist extra monthly surplus, but it's a miserable experience non-the-less.
Apart perhaps for a small minority of very introverted or misanthropic types, this isn't much fun for anybody. About the best that can be said is at least we've had a pretty consistent run of fine weather: you can imagine how much worse this experience would've been if our rationed outdoor time was spoilt by constant pissing rain, to say nothing of being made to stand in agonizingly slow-moving queues outside shops whilst getting saturated by it.
I dare say that, given that I'm spending nothing on going out, new clothes and other treats anymore, my bank balance is gradually getting fatter. So long as my job is safe that may continue to be the case for a long time: after all, our incarceration may last for so long that few outlets will have survived in which to make discretionary spending by the time the restrictions finally begin to be lifted.
Wouldn't surprise me if we're all supertaxed as a one-off in the next budget so the Government can recoup £20-30bn.
That would make a 35% reduction in GDP nearer 45%. The absolutely last thing that the government needs to do is depress demand or consumption. They will be bad enough already.
I agree. And I don't think there is any real appetite in government for massive personal tax rises.
How would you take off a potentially contaminated mask? If you have gloves, how would you take them off without contaminating your hands? There is a way but it's not straightforward.
I once had to oversee an industry video on mask-wearing for safety reasons. For the filming, they produced a man with a straggly black beard. He had a nuisance mask perched on the end of it. "You are joking, I hope." I told them."Find someone who is clean-shaven and has had it fitted to his face." You'd be surprised how badly some people use RPE.
The answer is, of course, that [Korea] are waiting for an effective vaccine like the rest of us. The difference is that in the meantime, their economy might be more or less functional, rather than in the deep freeze.
But can you have have a modern economy and strict isolation?
To an extent they are, but would you have supported them doing otherwise? I think not.
I would absolutely have supported cancelling the Cheltenham Festival. I declined to attend for the first time in years
One specific measure, that is interesting and thank you. But in general terms Youd still have had a dozen tweets up in an instant showing people ranting about the government not listening to experts, about Boris thinking he knows things he doesnt and bluffing his way through, and hoe reckless that was.
And I use Norway as it's a valid example where most other factors will be equal
Now it's possible that in 2 years time we will look back and say Sweden did well but I wouldn't be using it as an example at the moment (those that do don't seem to look at the detail, just what they want their argument to say).
The Spanish plan of easing is moving to allow the regions less affected to ease the lockdown first. My region of Andalucia could well be first but even within the Community - the least affected provinces will move first. I believe my own province will be among those as we have extremely low figures. The key of course will be then to police movement between areas. Spain is a large country and in my own province it is relatively easy to limit ingress and egress. Nevertheless, although easing soon will be welcome we atre all pretty nervous about our future safety. The easing will almost certainly exclude most aspects of tourism until August for sure and probably for the rest of the year. Fascinating times.
The Government could do with some detailed (telephone) polls on how people are actually coping - Casino and others are suggesting rampant depression, but is there evidence for this? Anecdotally in my circle, people see it as a nuisance but infrequently more than that in terms of mental distress, and are far more worried about the lockdown being released too soon. Financial worries may change that in due course.
We do have one advantage from having entered lockdown late - we get to see what happens in countries that relax it in different ways - small shops in Austria, schools in Denmark, etc.
On a personal level in terms of my daily life I am fine. The weather is lovely, I have great views and lots of countryside to walk in and I have close family around to do shopping etc. I have a routine to avoid the slumping in front of the TV issue.
But I worry about:-
(1) finances the longer this goes on; (2) my daughter and her business - this is a very big worry for me; (3) not seeing my sons and their employment prospects and general state of mind. It is very hard for them having to stay in and not be able to see friends etc or do anything worthwhile about employment / travel / other plans etc. One son has a history of serious anxiety disorders and if that were to happen again I would be out of my mind with worry for him - and his brother - and would do whatever it takes to help, even at the risk to my own life. So far he seems to be coping - fingers crossed; (4) the prospect of having to stay shielded for a long while. I like to be up and about and doing stuff. Having an extended quasi-holiday over the spring/summer months is one thing. Doing so for 2 years with no income and no ability to help my children would be intolerable.
Everyone will have their own issues. There are no easy answers. But destroying the future for my children is too much. If I have to retreat and keep myself hidden away to allow my children to have a life and a future then I will do that and take the risk. I appreciate that the balance for others will be different and that what is right for individuals may not be right for the country as a whole.
How would you take off a potentially contaminated mask? If you have gloves, how would you take them off without contaminating your hands? There is a way but it's not straightforward....
The point about everyone wearing masks in their everyday lives is to significantly lower the likelihood of community transmission. It's not to make everyone safe in the same way that hospital grade PPE and procedures do.
The answer is, of course, that [Korea] are waiting for an effective vaccine like the rest of us. The difference is that in the meantime, their economy might be more or less functional, rather than in the deep freeze.
But can you have have a modern economy and strict isolation?
Any bailout to any company should be limited to the amount of tax that they have paid in the last 3 years.
If they are registered in another tax domain, let that place bail them out. If an essential company for some reason, buy up the assets at firesale prices upon liquidation.
Companies need to learn the financial cost of off shoring, as well as the effect on stability of manufacturing chains.
Slight drawback to that first suggestion of yours: any non-monopolistic, non-gouging, non-rent-seeking company would be screwed, no matter how honest they've been.
I was always taught that profit margins of 3% (for manufacturing) and 4% (for services) were about par. Above that, and they're doing something funky (maybe they are incredibly efficient (so why isn't everyone copying them?), or maybe they've got a dedicated band of customers who they can gouge at will, or maybe they're monopolistic, or dodgy). So, say you're at that level and you spend nothing on growth or paying down debt. You pay the full 20% on your profits. After three years, you've paid 1.8%-2.4% of your turnover on tax, so that's the limit of what you'd allow them.
That's 6 to 9 days of turnover.
The richest companies, and the most monopolistic and gouging and rent-seeking - they'd be fine, though. Those who have the least markup for their customers: bye-bye.
Johnson knows he was asleep at the start of this and acted too late. He will be feeling guilty about this. He will be wondering how many lives his dilatory response has cost. His tendency now, therefore, will be to err on the side of caution. This is only natural and I for one would not criticize it for a moment. Indeed I applaud it. Remember that there is no such thing as THE right decision here, or following THE science. We are bound to end up erring one way or another. The key thing is to ensure that the errors made are not catastrophic. Having already done that, I judge Johnson to be probably a good bet now. Only very stupid people do not learn from their mistakes and our PM is far from stupid.
Until we get mass testing expanded sufficiently then ending the lockdown is not an option
It's not going to be up to your beloved government soon. People have had enough. My mother (aged 81¼) has said, and I use her exact words, 'balls to it.'
Until we get mass testing expanded sufficiently then ending the lockdown is not an option
It's not going to be up to your beloved government soon. People have had enough. My mother (aged 81¼) has said, and I use her exact words, 'balls to it.'
Comments
The government’s chief scientific adviser has cautioned against banking on a Covid-19 jab, warning that new vaccines are “long shots”.
Oxford University researchers are planning to begin human trials of a vaccine this week and believe that they could have results showing whether it works as early as September.
However, Sir Patrick Vallance, the chief scientific adviser, has cautioned that even if a vaccine shows signs of protecting against the virus, ensuring that it is safe could take much longer.
“All new vaccines that come into development are long shots. Only some end up being successful,” he said yesterday. “Coronavirus will be no different and presents new challenges for vaccine development. This will take time.”
The Oxford researchers are looking at whether emergency legislation could allow high-risk groups, such as healthcare workers, to receive their jab before it is fully licensed.
Sarah Gilbert, head of the Oxford effort, admitted yesterday that success could not be guaranteed. “I think the prospects are very good, but it’s clearly not completely certain,” she told the BBC.
Her team are acutely aware that a vaccine may alter the immune system in a way that makes contracting Covid-19 more dangerous. Public Health England has been running “challenge trials” to try to assess the risks, using animals at the Porton Down research site. This involves giving ferrets and macaques the vaccine and then infecting them with Covid-19.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/dont-bank-on-a-coronavirus-vaccine-says-sir-patrick-vallance-rzs2pthcj
And that the progress of the virus (in published numbers terms) is not actually closely aligned with lockdown measures (which could have initially made things worse due to increasing close intra family member contact) but is aligned with the numbers of hospital staff who are carriers?
So the progress has been: 1) people admitted to hospital with COVID 2) staff catch it 3) staff spread it amongst themselves and to other patients 4) staff groups begin to build up immunity and cease becoming carriers 5) people infected in hospital begins to drop 6) case numbers begin to drop
Before he became ill he'd already closed the pubs and all indications were the lockdown would be for ~12 weeks from the moment it was announced anyway.
The idea this was ever going to be lifted after 3 weeks is a total fallacy. But nor will it last forever.
Remind me who that tory was in Scotland who commented that this virus running rampant through old people would at least clear out the bed blockers?
I can think of some of your posts that were pretty horrible too
You a tory now Malc?
Or is it just the Daily Mail you have it in for?
It certainly isn’t the case with Jonathan but I think some just enjoy judging and denouncing others to make themselves feel better.
It’s a very negative form of relative feel-good.
Sadly, that probably means higher death rates in Western societies for the next 2-3 years.
Making up for earlier errors.
"National battle" is however a very useful metaphor politically, which is why Johnson is using it, including in his YouTube speech when he came out of intensive care.
New blogpost: The "British family coming together" has directly led to Scotland being part of (probably) the worst death toll in Europe - and that in itself makes a powerful new case for independence:
https://scotgoespop.blogspot.com/2020/04/the-british-family-coming-together-has.html #indyref2
https://healthmedia.blog.gov.uk/2020/04/19/response-to-sunday-times-insight-article/
Any relaxation in the lockdown will lead to additional covid deaths - I think the government are both painfully aware of this and also scared of those headlines. The Press and Team Mouth Breather will be all over the story.
https://twitter.com/aljwhite/status/1252098903262072833
There are probably a couple of valid points in this "rebuttal", but the rest is pedantic, contradictory and in places disingenuous, fluff.
May be useful in keeping supporters onside, however. Doesn't matter what they say. Key thing is they said it.
He needs to be able to trust his ministers to handle things, and only get him involved when needed.
We do have one advantage from having entered lockdown late - we get to see what happens in countries that relax it in different ways - small shops in Austria, schools in Denmark, etc.
The spin now is that he was completely in charge by not attending the meetings and trusting other people.
They are flailing
All immunologists are aware of the possibility of ADE
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibody-dependent_enhancement
(which was observed in some animal trials of the earlier SARS virus), but the chances of any vaccine causing this getting through to human trials is very low indeed, and of any such vaccine getting beyond the first small safety trial, much lower still.
Given what we learned from earlier efforts to produce SARS and MERS vaccines, I would also be very confident of the prospect for several effective vaccines to be available by next year.
(And it is quite likely that the effective vaccines will produce a stronger antibody response in many people than the disease itself.)
(I am not a virologist, but given that several research papers have shown that it seems to be non viable after three days on even the most favourable surfaces, that seems a reasonable conclusion.)
a) exercise cygnus planning
b) PPE stocks and preparation
As an aside - it was really sloppy of the Times writer to say "Imperial’s Ferguson was already working on his own estimate — putting infectivity at 2.6 and possibly as high as 3.5 — which he sent to ministers and officials in a report on the day of the Cobra meeting on January 24. The Spanish flu had an estimated infectivity rate of between 2.0 and 3.0, so Ferguson’s finding was shocking."
Was the question a simple “Should we extend the transition period” or “Should we extend the transition period so government ministers can focus on Coronavirus” or “Should we extend the transition period and send more taxpayer money to bail out the EU”?
I’m pretty sure it wasn’t the last.
If it wasn’t the first, colour me sceptical.
The answer is, of course, that they are waiting for an effective vaccine like the rest of us. The difference is that in the meantime, their economy might be more or less functional, rather than in the deep freeze.
"Mr Johnson is concerned that relatively little is known about the effect that easing individual restrictions could have on the transmission rate."
Er, Sweden?
How would you take off a potentially contaminated mask? If you have gloves, how would you take them off without contaminating your hands? There is a way but it's not straightforward.
I once had to oversee an industry video on mask-wearing for safety reasons. For the filming, they produced a man with a straggly black beard. He had a nuisance mask perched on the end of it.
"You are joking, I hope." I told them."Find someone who is clean-shaven and has had it fitted to his face." You'd be surprised how badly some people use RPE.
Edit: That could be the day I became cynical.
We may just find that out soon.
And I use Norway as it's a valid example where most other factors will be equal
Now it's possible that in 2 years time we will look back and say Sweden did well but I wouldn't be using it as an example at the moment (those that do don't seem to look at the detail, just what they want their argument to say).
But I worry about:-
(1) finances the longer this goes on;
(2) my daughter and her business - this is a very big worry for me;
(3) not seeing my sons and their employment prospects and general state of mind. It is very hard for them having to stay in and not be able to see friends etc or do anything worthwhile about employment / travel / other plans etc. One son has a history of serious anxiety disorders and if that were to happen again I would be out of my mind with worry for him - and his brother - and would do whatever it takes to help, even at the risk to my own life. So far he seems to be coping - fingers crossed;
(4) the prospect of having to stay shielded for a long while. I like to be up and about and doing stuff. Having an extended quasi-holiday over the spring/summer months is one thing. Doing so for 2 years with no income and no ability to help my children would be intolerable.
Everyone will have their own issues. There are no easy answers. But destroying the future for my children is too much. If I have to retreat and keep myself hidden away to allow my children to have a life and a future then I will do that and take the risk. I appreciate that the balance for others will be different and that what is right for individuals may not be right for the country as a whole.
I was always taught that profit margins of 3% (for manufacturing) and 4% (for services) were about par. Above that, and they're doing something funky (maybe they are incredibly efficient (so why isn't everyone copying them?), or maybe they've got a dedicated band of customers who they can gouge at will, or maybe they're monopolistic, or dodgy). So, say you're at that level and you spend nothing on growth or paying down debt. You pay the full 20% on your profits. After three years, you've paid 1.8%-2.4% of your turnover on tax, so that's the limit of what you'd allow them.
That's 6 to 9 days of turnover.
The richest companies, and the most monopolistic and gouging and rent-seeking - they'd be fine, though. Those who have the least markup for their customers: bye-bye.
of those who support an extension, 64% want to be be "indefinite"