politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Andrew Neil’s right – Starmer’s first PMQs showed that the Gov
Options
Comments
-
What then of the future? Chris Whitty's sobering assessment is troubling. Of course, we have lived with influenza forever but it's only when a significant new strain or a marked variant on an existing strain emerges that it's time to panic as most people will be vulnerable and existing treatments and vaccines will be ineffective.
We could develop a vaccine or treatment for Covid-19 but the existing virus has already mutated and who's to say the next "wave" will be the same virus or a new mutation? That's the worry because all those who have had Covid-19 and may think they are immune might not be if the virus mutates significantly.
Until we get that vaccine, significant numbers of the population will be at risk, indeed considerable risk, and that will curtail economic life.
I note Ireland has banned all gatherings of more than 5000 people until September - that seems arbitrary. You are either happy with large gatherings and the risk or you are not.
I do think we need urgently to get non-Covid patients back into hospitals (temporary or otherwise) and get those surgeries which were understandably cancelled re-scheduled. However, re-opening the NHS doesn't mean re-opening the economy in its entirety.
I can understand people's fear - I share it - but if you have a medical condition which needs urgent treatment, we need to see the Government getting the message across that the NHS is back open for business.
That to me is more important than re-opening schools, hairdressers and other businesses.0 -
So they won't be able to survive the fall out of lifting the lockdown to find the economy 30% down, and definitely won't be able to survive it when the c.20% of the workforce falling sick and everyone retreats to de facto their lockdown state.Anabobazina said:
The fact that you have significant cash reserves gives you away. Most people don’t.Mortimer said:
As a small business owner with significant cash reserves, currently functioning on 70% drop in sales (and I think we'll be in this sort of position till December) with only about 1/3 of my staff furloughed, I'd much prefer one longer lockdown and fewer deaths.Richard_Tyndall said:So, a question for those considering an early lifting of the lockdown. Which is the worse outcome? I mean for the country and the population rather than politically for the Government.
1. The lockdown is maintained for another 3 or 4 months in its current form.
2. The lockdown is lifted, either slowly or rapidly and then people start to die again so it has to be re-imposed.
I am thinking of consequences:
For the economy
For people who, in the second case, catch the disease because the lockdown has been lifted
For people who, in the first case, die because they miss treatment, commit suicide or are victims of domestic abuse
For the long term moral of the people and business confidence if there is a short lifting followed by re-imposition.
Also what happens if the Government start to lift the lockdown and the majority of people decide it is not safe and stay away? I assume that could actually be worse for businesses than if the lockdown had stayed in place.
Edit to add - and I agree with your last sentence. Lifting the lockdown isn't going to revive the economy anyway. Its simplistic, wishful thinking to assume otherwise.
The sad reality is that there are going to be an awful lot of businesses that will never reopen if the lockdown is lifted or if it remains. I don't think it is worth the death toll of lifting it....0 -
Not good comparisons because the word 'exponential' doesn't apply to them.Andy_JS said:Tens of thousands of lives could be saved every year if we (a) banned smoking, (b) banned driving, (c) banned fatty and sugary foods. The government doesn't ban them because they believe that liberty is more important.
1 -
-
Ok, you're Chris Whitty for a day.Anabobazina said:
You are falling into the all or nothing trap.Mortimer said:
This is rubbish.Anabobazina said:
No. It’s the fault of the lockdown. That’s a government choice. As Andy says, at some point soon the government will have to allow the economy to operate while protecting vulnerable groups with continued isolation.Mortimer said:
The really worrying issue isn't the virus, its the virus rampant plus healthcare collapse.Andy_JS said:
The lockdown can't continue for more than a few more weeks without ruining the economy, especially when it hardly affects younger people in good health. The government has to trust the people to do the right thing and not keep everyone locked down for months.Black_Rook said:
Just one of the many catastrophic consequences of the lockdown. The BBC is also reporting on the vast numbers of cancelled cancer treatments, screenings and referrals, which in turn will only be a fraction of the total number of urgent medical cases that are failing to be diagnosed or treated because of the scramble to stick a lid on Covid-19. And then there's the business failures, the layings off, the poverty and the consequent tsunami of mental illness that we've got heading our way.Cyclefree said:
I agree. At the moment the government is giving false hope: businesses like my daughter’s are trying to do what business they can so as to keep going and have a business for when the lockdown is lifted, in whole or in part. But if that is not going to happen - as implied by Whitty’s comments - then she (and many others like hers) may as well pack up now and close their businesses. Surviving on 30% of previous revenues simply isn’t tenable for a year or more.noneoftheabove said:
The reason it was done is the alternative of doing nothing was worse. We could scale it back a bit, reduce the govt subsidy, start to tighten which companies are eligible, but it will need to be very substantial for as long as we have a lockdown similar to the current one.Cyclefree said:
For a year or more? How realistic is that?Mortimer said:
Or the furlough scheme will be extended.Sandpit said:
That’s going to be the difficult bit. There’s eventually going to be a limit to how much government can keep the exceptional support flowing, and when it ends there’s going to be a lot of people moving onto the much-less-generous standard unemployment benefit and universal credit systems.Cyclefree said:
If that is the case what on earth is going to happen when the furlough scheme ends at the end of June? Mass unemployment, businesses closed for good, fall in tax revenue.....?CarlottaVance said:
As was made clear at the press conference today by Dr Whitty, while the initial lockdown strategy was very much science-driven, the next phases become much more political in terms of the timing and decisions made.
I feel despairing about it all.
I'm worried that the Government will have us in lockdown all Summer because the population is terrified of the virus and ministers themselves are terrified of being accused of failing to crush it. About ten or twenty times as many people will then end up perishing from the effects of the lockdown as have died or will die from the disease itself.
That is the alternative to a lockdown. And why any restriction easing will be slow and low...
The economy being ruined isn't the fault of the lockdown. Its the fault of the virus.
Its not just death that stalks the economy. It's fear of infection. It's concern for loved ones. It's realisation that 20% of the economy are going to be ill in bed at any one time if the lockdown is lifted.
The economy isn't going to function out of a lockdown, so why risk it?
Which restrictions do you ease and keep the R under 1?
A few small shops. The garden centres. What else?0 -
If the 8th was a peak, that doesn't mean infections will continue to decline regardless of what we do after that.isam said:Everyone knew the peak was the 8th ages ago, but...
0 -
In an out of character development, I am drinking red wine.
Under £5 from the Coop, bought the last time we had visitors but nobody wanted any.
It is actually quite pleasant.
Beer arrives on Friday.0 -
Sorry to hear that Stodge - didn't Hancock say that the NHS is open for business already?stodge said:What then of the future? Chris Whitty's sobering assessment is troubling. Of course, we have lived with influenza forever but it's only when a significant new strain or a marked variant on an existing strain emerges that it's time to panic as most people will be vulnerable and existing treatments and vaccines will be ineffective.
We could develop a vaccine or treatment for Covid-19 but the existing virus has already mutated and who's to say the next "wave" will be the same virus or a new mutation? That's the worry because all those who have had Covid-19 and may think they are immune might not be if the virus mutates significantly.
Until we get that vaccine, significant numbers of the population will be at risk, indeed considerable risk, and that will curtail economic life.
I note Ireland has banned all gatherings of more than 5000 people until September - that seems arbitrary. You are either happy with large gatherings and the risk or you are not.
I do think we need urgently to get non-Covid patients back into hospitals (temporary or otherwise) and get those surgeries which were understandably cancelled re-scheduled. However, re-opening the NHS doesn't mean re-opening the economy in its entirety.
I can understand people's fear - I share it - but if you have a medical condition which needs urgent treatment, we need to see the Government getting the message across that the NHS is back open for business.
That to me is more important than re-opening schools, hairdressers and other businesses.
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/nhs-open-business-usual-ready-180766860 -
I completely agree with that. Disappointing not to have heard more about that, some progress today with the tracking app going into testing. Why arent we getting guidelines for what an acceptable office layout might look like, how we can ration peak rush hour public transport, how we can test/quarantine arrivals to the country (not needed now but will be if we get infections down faster than elsewhere).Anabobazina said:
Of course, but as I keep saying it shouldn’t be all or nothing. There needs to be creative thinking on how we can ease it without causing catastrophe.noneoftheabove said:
But what would happen economically without a lockdown? Best guesses were 20% of the workforce off sick and people petrified, not a normal functioning economy either.Anabobazina said:
No. It’s the fault of the lockdown. That’s a government choice. As Andy says, at some point soon the government will have to allow the economy to operate while protecting vulnerable groups with continued isolation.Mortimer said:
The really worrying issue isn't the virus, its the virus rampant plus healthcare collapse.Andy_JS said:
The lockdown can't continue for more than a few more weeks without ruining the economy, especially when it hardly affects younger people in good health. The government has to trust the people to do the right thing and not keep everyone locked down for months.Black_Rook said:
Just one of the many catastrophic consequences of the lockdown. The BBC is also reporting on the vast numbers of cancelled cancer treatments, screenings and referrals, which in turn will only be a fraction of the total number of urgent medical cases that are failing to be diagnosed or treated because of the scramble to stick a lid on Covid-19. And then there's the business failures, the layings off, the poverty and the consequent tsunami of mental illness that we've got heading our way.Cyclefree said:
I agree. At the moment the government is giving false hope: businesses like my daughter’s are trying to do what business they can so as to keep going and have a business for when the lockdown is lifted, in whole or in part. But if that is not going to happen - as implied by Whitty’s comments - then she (and many others like hers) may as well pack up now and close their businesses. Surviving on 30% of previous revenues simply isn’t tenable for a year or more.noneoftheabove said:
The reason it was done is the alternative of doing nothing was worse. We could scale it back a bit, reduce the govt subsidy, start to tighten which companies are eligible, but it will need to be very substantial for as long as we have a lockdown similar to the current one.Cyclefree said:
For a year or more? How realistic is that?Mortimer said:
Or the furlough scheme will be extended.Sandpit said:
That’s going to be the difficult bit. There’s eventually going to be a limit to how much government can keep the exceptional support flowing, and when it ends there’s going to be a lot of people moving onto the much-less-generous standard unemployment benefit and universal credit systems.Cyclefree said:
If that is the case what on earth is going to happen when the furlough scheme ends at the end of June? Mass unemployment, businesses closed for good, fall in tax revenue.....?CarlottaVance said:
As was made clear at the press conference today by Dr Whitty, while the initial lockdown strategy was very much science-driven, the next phases become much more political in terms of the timing and decisions made.
I feel despairing about it all.
I'm worried that the Government will have us in lockdown all Summer because the population is terrified of the virus and ministers themselves are terrified of being accused of failing to crush it. About ten or twenty times as many people will then end up perishing from the effects of the lockdown as have died or will die from the disease itself.
That is the alternative to a lockdown. And why any restriction easing will be slow and low...
The economy being ruined isn't the fault of the lockdown. Its the fault of the virus.0 -
I’m not Chris Whitty on this day or any day. But the plan should be to find those solutions.Mortimer said:
Ok, you're Chris Whitty for a day.Anabobazina said:
You are falling into the all or nothing trap.Mortimer said:
This is rubbish.Anabobazina said:
No. It’s the fault of the lockdown. That’s a government choice. As Andy says, at some point soon the government will have to allow the economy to operate while protecting vulnerable groups with continued isolation.Mortimer said:
The really worrying issue isn't the virus, its the virus rampant plus healthcare collapse.Andy_JS said:
The lockdown can't continue for more than a few more weeks without ruining the economy, especially when it hardly affects younger people in good health. The government has to trust the people to do the right thing and not keep everyone locked down for months.Black_Rook said:
Just one of the many catastrophic consequences of the lockdown. The BBC is also reporting on the vast numbers of cancelled cancer treatments, screenings and referrals, which in turn will only be a fraction of the total number of urgent medical cases that are failing to be diagnosed or treated because of the scramble to stick a lid on Covid-19. And then there's the business failures, the layings off, the poverty and the consequent tsunami of mental illness that we've got heading our way.Cyclefree said:
I agree. At the moment the government is giving false hope: businesses like my daughter’s are trying to do what business they can so as to keep going and have a business for when the lockdown is lifted, in whole or in part. But if that is not going to happen - as implied by Whitty’s comments - then she (and many others like hers) may as well pack up now and close their businesses. Surviving on 30% of previous revenues simply isn’t tenable for a year or more.noneoftheabove said:
The reason it was done is the alternative of doing nothing was worse. We could scale it back a bit, reduce the govt subsidy, start to tighten which companies are eligible, but it will need to be very substantial for as long as we have a lockdown similar to the current one.Cyclefree said:
For a year or more? How realistic is that?Mortimer said:
Or the furlough scheme will be extended.Sandpit said:
That’s going to be the difficult bit. There’s eventually going to be a limit to how much government can keep the exceptional support flowing, and when it ends there’s going to be a lot of people moving onto the much-less-generous standard unemployment benefit and universal credit systems.Cyclefree said:
If that is the case what on earth is going to happen when the furlough scheme ends at the end of June? Mass unemployment, businesses closed for good, fall in tax revenue.....?CarlottaVance said:
As was made clear at the press conference today by Dr Whitty, while the initial lockdown strategy was very much science-driven, the next phases become much more political in terms of the timing and decisions made.
I feel despairing about it all.
I'm worried that the Government will have us in lockdown all Summer because the population is terrified of the virus and ministers themselves are terrified of being accused of failing to crush it. About ten or twenty times as many people will then end up perishing from the effects of the lockdown as have died or will die from the disease itself.
That is the alternative to a lockdown. And why any restriction easing will be slow and low...
The economy being ruined isn't the fault of the lockdown. Its the fault of the virus.
Its not just death that stalks the economy. It's fear of infection. It's concern for loved ones. It's realisation that 20% of the economy are going to be ill in bed at any one time if the lockdown is lifted.
The economy isn't going to function out of a lockdown, so why risk it?
Which restrictions do you ease and keep the R under 1?
A few small shops. The garden centres. What else?
Even the measures you suggest would make a worthwhile difference as a first step.0 -
Exactly right.noneoftheabove said:
I completely agree with that. Disappointing not to have heard more about that, some progress today with the tracking app going into testing. Why arent we getting guidelines for what an acceptable office layout might look like, how we can ration peak rush hour public transport, how we can test/quarantine arrivals to the country (not needed now but will be if we get infections down faster than elsewhere).Anabobazina said:
Of course, but as I keep saying it shouldn’t be all or nothing. There needs to be creative thinking on how we can ease it without causing catastrophe.noneoftheabove said:
But what would happen economically without a lockdown? Best guesses were 20% of the workforce off sick and people petrified, not a normal functioning economy either.Anabobazina said:
No. It’s the fault of the lockdown. That’s a government choice. As Andy says, at some point soon the government will have to allow the economy to operate while protecting vulnerable groups with continued isolation.Mortimer said:
The really worrying issue isn't the virus, its the virus rampant plus healthcare collapse.Andy_JS said:
The lockdown can't continue for more than a few more weeks without ruining the economy, especially when it hardly affects younger people in good health. The government has to trust the people to do the right thing and not keep everyone locked down for months.Black_Rook said:
Just one of the many catastrophic consequences of the lockdown. The BBC is also reporting on the vast numbers of cancelled cancer treatments, screenings and referrals, which in turn will only be a fraction of the total number of urgent medical cases that are failing to be diagnosed or treated because of the scramble to stick a lid on Covid-19. And then there's the business failures, the layings off, the poverty and the consequent tsunami of mental illness that we've got heading our way.Cyclefree said:
I agree. At the moment the government is giving false hope: businesses like my daughter’s are trying to do what business they can so as to keep going and have a business for when the lockdown is lifted, in whole or in part. But if that is not going to happen - as implied by Whitty’s comments - then she (and many others like hers) may as well pack up now and close their businesses. Surviving on 30% of previous revenues simply isn’t tenable for a year or more.noneoftheabove said:
The reason it was done is the alternative of doing nothing was worse. We could scale it back a bit, reduce the govt subsidy, start to tighten which companies are eligible, but it will need to be very substantial for as long as we have a lockdown similar to the current one.Cyclefree said:
For a year or more? How realistic is that?Mortimer said:
Or the furlough scheme will be extended.Sandpit said:
That’s going to be the difficult bit. There’s eventually going to be a limit to how much government can keep the exceptional support flowing, and when it ends there’s going to be a lot of people moving onto the much-less-generous standard unemployment benefit and universal credit systems.Cyclefree said:
If that is the case what on earth is going to happen when the furlough scheme ends at the end of June? Mass unemployment, businesses closed for good, fall in tax revenue.....?CarlottaVance said:
As was made clear at the press conference today by Dr Whitty, while the initial lockdown strategy was very much science-driven, the next phases become much more political in terms of the timing and decisions made.
I feel despairing about it all.
I'm worried that the Government will have us in lockdown all Summer because the population is terrified of the virus and ministers themselves are terrified of being accused of failing to crush it. About ten or twenty times as many people will then end up perishing from the effects of the lockdown as have died or will die from the disease itself.
That is the alternative to a lockdown. And why any restriction easing will be slow and low...
The economy being ruined isn't the fault of the lockdown. Its the fault of the virus.0 -
I have been surprised to find I am remaining quite upbeat. For some reason the lockdown has spurred me to get on with a number of projects that have been on my wish-list.Mortimer said:
I've struggled with depression and anxiety for most of my life. Apart from some occasional OCD reoccurrance, I'm more relaxed than I've been for years. Its weird - I'm sleeping wonderfully, eating well, drinking only moderately. But we don't have any kids, and have an income and savings, and a garden. And we live near the coast. I recognise how lucky we are, and that many others won't have any of those and be struggling.eadric said:
Same here. Days of being actually quite happy - sunshine, wine, pretty young wife - then I will have a black day, out of nowhere.BluestBlue said:
I've had a few of those. Recently I've found that getting stuck in to something creative you enjoy helps a lot.Jonathan said:Hard lockdown day today. No major issues, just heartily sick of it. I count myself lucky, but 😱.
Thinking ahead makes it worse. Live in the moment. Is best.
It is an awful, awful choice to stay locked down - but I think its a worse one to lift it in any way other than superficially.
I feel I am being creative, the weather is fantastic, we're keeping in touch with friends and family via zoom, I am doing one day a week for Citizens Advice helping people by phone, we have a garden and I am getting out every day for exercise.
On the downside various holiday and other event plans have obviously gone to pot and I am drinking and eating too much.
But overall, could be worse.
I do feel for those more adversely affected though.0 -
If it’s bad for you, still on holiday, just think how it is for everyone else, staying at home.eadric said:
Same here. Days of being actually quite happy - sunshine, wine, pretty young wife - then I will have a black day, out of nowhere.BluestBlue said:
I've had a few of those. Recently I've found that getting stuck in to something creative you enjoy helps a lot.Jonathan said:Hard lockdown day today. No major issues, just heartily sick of it. I count myself lucky, but 😱.
Thinking ahead makes it worse. Live in the moment. Is best.0 -
Because of Coronavirus, significantly more people have tragically had to die than otherwise would.Richard_Tyndall said:So, a question for those considering an early lifting of the lockdown. Which is the worse outcome? I mean for the country and the population rather than politically for the Government.
1. The lockdown is maintained for another 3 or 4 months in its current form.
2. The lockdown is lifted, either slowly or rapidly and then people start to die again so it has to be re-imposed.
I am thinking of consequences:
For the economy
For people who, in the second case, catch the disease because the lockdown has been lifted
For people who, in the first case, die because they miss treatment, commit suicide or are victims of domestic abuse
For the long term moral of the people and business confidence if there is a short lifting followed by re-imposition.
Also what happens if the Government start to lift the lockdown and the majority of people decide it is not safe and stay away? I assume that could actually be worse for businesses than if the lockdown had stayed in place.
The governments choice was a horrible one - how they died.
They could either let the economy keep running and risk many thousands dying of Coronavirus, or throw enormous resources at stopping Coronavirus and risk many thousands dying of other curable diseases the NHS has almost given up treating, as well as many thousands dying from the poverty and austerity the ensuing unparalleled recession would bring.
I think they have unquestionably and catastrophically made the wrong choice.
They chose saving high profile deaths today over far, far more low profile deaths down the line in which Piers Morgan and his ilk have no interest. They have furthermore left a a mountain of misery, debt,poverty and unemployment for for those who remain.
It is the worst policy decision by any British government ever.1 -
OK. Have a go at me. We decided to take the car out for a spin round the block as it has been stationary on the drive for three weeks and we wanted to check it was running OK. We ended up driving for over half an hour round the countryside. The South Downs looked lovely, we saw the first bluebells we have seen this year plus there were lambs gambolling in the fields. Was our journey essential? No. Did it do our mental health any good? Undoubtedly.
0 -
Under £5? Don't tell @eadric !SandyRentool said:In an out of character development, I am drinking red wine.
Under £5 from the Coop, bought the last time we had visitors but nobody wanted any.
It is actually quite pleasant.
Beer arrives on Friday.0 -
Not an economic one, but a social one. People living on their own should be completely free to socialise with one other person living on their own.Mortimer said:
Ok, you're Chris Whitty for a day.Anabobazina said:
You are falling into the all or nothing trap.Mortimer said:
This is rubbish.Anabobazina said:
No. It’s the fault of the lockdown. That’s a government choice. As Andy says, at some point soon the government will have to allow the economy to operate while protecting vulnerable groups with continued isolation.Mortimer said:
The really worrying issue isn't the virus, its the virus rampant plus healthcare collapse.Andy_JS said:
The lockdown can't continue for more than a few more weeks without ruining the economy, especially when it hardly affects younger people in good health. The government has to trust the people to do the right thing and not keep everyone locked down for months.Black_Rook said:
Just one of the many catastrophic consequences of the lockdown. The BBC is also reporting on the vast numbers of cancelled cancer treatments, screenings and referrals, which in turn will only be a fraction of the total number of urgent medical cases that are failing to be diagnosed or treated because of the scramble to stick a lid on Covid-19. And then there's the business failures, the layings off, the poverty and the consequent tsunami of mental illness that we've got heading our way.Cyclefree said:
I agree. At the moment the government is giving false hope: businesses like my daughter’s are trying to do what business they can so as to keep going and have a business for when the lockdown is lifted, in whole or in part. But if that is not going to happen - as implied by Whitty’s comments - then she (and many others like hers) may as well pack up now and close their businesses. Surviving on 30% of previous revenues simply isn’t tenable for a year or more.noneoftheabove said:
The reason it was done is the alternative of doing nothing was worse. We could scale it back a bit, reduce the govt subsidy, start to tighten which companies are eligible, but it will need to be very substantial for as long as we have a lockdown similar to the current one.Cyclefree said:
For a year or more? How realistic is that?Mortimer said:
Or the furlough scheme will be extended.Sandpit said:
That’s going to be the difficult bit. There’s eventually going to be a limit to how much government can keep the exceptional support flowing, and when it ends there’s going to be a lot of people moving onto the much-less-generous standard unemployment benefit and universal credit systems.Cyclefree said:
If that is the case what on earth is going to happen when the furlough scheme ends at the end of June? Mass unemployment, businesses closed for good, fall in tax revenue.....?CarlottaVance said:
As was made clear at the press conference today by Dr Whitty, while the initial lockdown strategy was very much science-driven, the next phases become much more political in terms of the timing and decisions made.
I feel despairing about it all.
I'm worried that the Government will have us in lockdown all Summer because the population is terrified of the virus and ministers themselves are terrified of being accused of failing to crush it. About ten or twenty times as many people will then end up perishing from the effects of the lockdown as have died or will die from the disease itself.
That is the alternative to a lockdown. And why any restriction easing will be slow and low...
The economy being ruined isn't the fault of the lockdown. Its the fault of the virus.
Its not just death that stalks the economy. It's fear of infection. It's concern for loved ones. It's realisation that 20% of the economy are going to be ill in bed at any one time if the lockdown is lifted.
The economy isn't going to function out of a lockdown, so why risk it?
Which restrictions do you ease and keep the R under 1?
A few small shops. The garden centres. What else?
They will still have far fewer contacts than the "average" person, but it will make a big difference to their mental health to have some contact.0 -
The problem with fear is that it's a powerful weapon. Make someone frightened enough and they'll sell their soul for safety and security.
Make someone frightened enough and they'll sign away their democratic rights for the illusion of safety.
Centralising political parties of both Right and Left have used terrorism and the fear of terrorism as an excuse to impose stringent security and surveillance protocols on modern life and society which we accept because we want to feel safe.
I'd have a lot more sympathy with those arguing for an end to lock down on the basis of freedom if they were campaigning to repeal the Prevention of Terrorism Act, Hate Crime legislation and even the Official Secrets Act.
It seems the freedom to have your haircut is more important than freedom of speech.0 -
Because it would increase the R far above 1....noneoftheabove said:
I completely agree with that. Disappointing not to have heard more about that, some progress today with the tracking app going into testing. Why arent we getting guidelines for what an acceptable office layout might look like, how we can ration peak rush hour public transport, how we can test/quarantine arrivals to the country (not needed now but will be if we get infections down faster than elsewhere).Anabobazina said:
Of course, but as I keep saying it shouldn’t be all or nothing. There needs to be creative thinking on how we can ease it without causing catastrophe.noneoftheabove said:
But what would happen economically without a lockdown? Best guesses were 20% of the workforce off sick and people petrified, not a normal functioning economy either.Anabobazina said:
No. It’s the fault of the lockdown. That’s a government choice. As Andy says, at some point soon the government will have to allow the economy to operate while protecting vulnerable groups with continued isolation.Mortimer said:
The really worrying issue isn't the virus, its the virus rampant plus healthcare collapse.Andy_JS said:
The lockdown can't continue for more than a few more weeks without ruining the economy, especially when it hardly affects younger people in good health. The government has to trust the people to do the right thing and not keep everyone locked down for months.Black_Rook said:
Just one of the many catastrophic consequences of the lockdown. The BBC is also reporting on the vast numbers of cancelled cancer treatments, screenings and referrals, which in turn will only be a fraction of the total number of urgent medical cases that are failing to be diagnosed or treated because of the scramble to stick a lid on Covid-19. And then there's the business failures, the layings off, the poverty and the consequent tsunami of mental illness that we've got heading our way.Cyclefree said:
I agree. At the moment the government is giving false hope: businesses like my daughter’s are trying to do what business they can so as to keep going and have a business for when the lockdown is lifted, in whole or in part. But if that is not going to happen - as implied by Whitty’s comments - then she (and many others like hers) may as well pack up now and close their businesses. Surviving on 30% of previous revenues simply isn’t tenable for a year or more.noneoftheabove said:
The reason it was done is the alternative of doing nothing was worse. We could scale it back a bit, reduce the govt subsidy, start to tighten which companies are eligible, but it will need to be very substantial for as long as we have a lockdown similar to the current one.Cyclefree said:
For a year or more? How realistic is that?Mortimer said:
Or the furlough scheme will be extended.Sandpit said:
That’s going to be the difficult bit. There’s eventually going to be a limit to how much government can keep the exceptional support flowing, and when it ends there’s going to be a lot of people moving onto the much-less-generous standard unemployment benefit and universal credit systems.Cyclefree said:
If that is the case what on earth is going to happen when the furlough scheme ends at the end of June? Mass unemployment, businesses closed for good, fall in tax revenue.....?CarlottaVance said:
As was made clear at the press conference today by Dr Whitty, while the initial lockdown strategy was very much science-driven, the next phases become much more political in terms of the timing and decisions made.
I feel despairing about it all.
I'm worried that the Government will have us in lockdown all Summer because the population is terrified of the virus and ministers themselves are terrified of being accused of failing to crush it. About ten or twenty times as many people will then end up perishing from the effects of the lockdown as have died or will die from the disease itself.
That is the alternative to a lockdown. And why any restriction easing will be slow and low...
The economy being ruined isn't the fault of the lockdown. Its the fault of the virus.0 -
Utter rot. I had gone into personal lockdown the week before it was mandated. Restaurants and pubs were beginning to close through lack of business.contrarian said:
Because of Coronavirus, significantly more people have tragically had to die than otherwise would.Richard_Tyndall said:So, a question for those considering an early lifting of the lockdown. Which is the worse outcome? I mean for the country and the population rather than politically for the Government.
1. The lockdown is maintained for another 3 or 4 months in its current form.
2. The lockdown is lifted, either slowly or rapidly and then people start to die again so it has to be re-imposed.
I am thinking of consequences:
For the economy
For people who, in the second case, catch the disease because the lockdown has been lifted
For people who, in the first case, die because they miss treatment, commit suicide or are victims of domestic abuse
For the long term moral of the people and business confidence if there is a short lifting followed by re-imposition.
Also what happens if the Government start to lift the lockdown and the majority of people decide it is not safe and stay away? I assume that could actually be worse for businesses than if the lockdown had stayed in place.
The governments choice was a horrible one - how they died.
They could either let the economy keep running and risk many thousands dying of Coronavirus, or throw enormous resources at stopping Coronavirus and risk many thousands dying of other curable diseases the NHS has almost given up treating, as well as many thousands dying from the poverty and austerity the ensuing unparalleled recession would bring.
I think they have unquestionably and catastrophically made the wrong choice.
They chose saving high profile deaths today over far, far more low profile deaths down the line in which Piers Morgan and his ilk have no interest. They have furthermore left a a mountain of misery, debt,poverty and unemployment for for those who remain.
It is the worst policy decision by any British government ever.
The choice was never the economy or saving lives from Covid 19.
It was saving lives from Covid 19 or not saving lives. The economy was shot either way....0 -
The UK workforce is about 33m. You are expecting the thick end of 7m people ringing in sick?Mortimer said:
So they won't be able to survive the fall out of lifting the lockdown to find the economy 30% down, and definitely won't be able to survive it when the c.20% of the workforce falling sick and everyone retreats to de facto their lockdown state.Anabobazina said:
The fact that you have significant cash reserves gives you away. Most people don’t.Mortimer said:
As a small business owner with significant cash reserves, currently functioning on 70% drop in sales (and I think we'll be in this sort of position till December) with only about 1/3 of my staff furloughed, I'd much prefer one longer lockdown and fewer deaths.Richard_Tyndall said:So, a question for those considering an early lifting of the lockdown. Which is the worse outcome? I mean for the country and the population rather than politically for the Government.
1. The lockdown is maintained for another 3 or 4 months in its current form.
2. The lockdown is lifted, either slowly or rapidly and then people start to die again so it has to be re-imposed.
I am thinking of consequences:
For the economy
For people who, in the second case, catch the disease because the lockdown has been lifted
For people who, in the first case, die because they miss treatment, commit suicide or are victims of domestic abuse
For the long term moral of the people and business confidence if there is a short lifting followed by re-imposition.
Also what happens if the Government start to lift the lockdown and the majority of people decide it is not safe and stay away? I assume that could actually be worse for businesses than if the lockdown had stayed in place.
Edit to add - and I agree with your last sentence. Lifting the lockdown isn't going to revive the economy anyway. Its simplistic, wishful thinking to assume otherwise.
The sad reality is that there are going to be an awful lot of businesses that will never reopen if the lockdown is lifted or if it remains. I don't think it is worth the death toll of lifting it....0 -
How does discussing things and creating thinking move the R far above 1?Mortimer said:
Because it would increase the R far above 1....noneoftheabove said:
I completely agree with that. Disappointing not to have heard more about that, some progress today with the tracking app going into testing. Why arent we getting guidelines for what an acceptable office layout might look like, how we can ration peak rush hour public transport, how we can test/quarantine arrivals to the country (not needed now but will be if we get infections down faster than elsewhere).Anabobazina said:
Of course, but as I keep saying it shouldn’t be all or nothing. There needs to be creative thinking on how we can ease it without causing catastrophe.noneoftheabove said:
But what would happen economically without a lockdown? Best guesses were 20% of the workforce off sick and people petrified, not a normal functioning economy either.Anabobazina said:
No. It’s the fault of the lockdown. That’s a government choice. As Andy says, at some point soon the government will have to allow the economy to operate while protecting vulnerable groups with continued isolation.Mortimer said:
The really worrying issue isn't the virus, its the virus rampant plus healthcare collapse.Andy_JS said:
The lockdown can't continue for more than a few more weeks without ruining the economy, especially when it hardly affects younger people in good health. The government has to trust the people to do the right thing and not keep everyone locked down for months.Black_Rook said:
Just one of the many catastrophic consequences of the lockdown. The BBC is also reporting on the vast numbers of cancelled cancer treatments, screenings and referrals, which in turn will only be a fraction of the total number of urgent medical cases that are failing to be diagnosed or treated because of the scramble to stick a lid on Covid-19. And then there's the business failures, the layings off, the poverty and the consequent tsunami of mental illness that we've got heading our way.Cyclefree said:
I agree. At the moment the government is giving false hope: businesses like my daughter’s are trying to do what business they can so as to keep going and have a business for when the lockdown is lifted, in whole or in part. But if that is not going to happen - as implied by Whitty’s comments - then she (and many others like hers) may as well pack up now and close their businesses. Surviving on 30% of previous revenues simply isn’t tenable for a year or more.noneoftheabove said:
The reason it was done is the alternative of doing nothing was worse. We could scale it back a bit, reduce the govt subsidy, start to tighten which companies are eligible, but it will need to be very substantial for as long as we have a lockdown similar to the current one.Cyclefree said:
For a year or more? How realistic is that?Mortimer said:
Or the furlough scheme will be extended.Sandpit said:
That’s going to be the difficult bit. There’s eventually going to be a limit to how much government can keep the exceptional support flowing, and when it ends there’s going to be a lot of people moving onto the much-less-generous standard unemployment benefit and universal credit systems.Cyclefree said:
If that is the case what on earth is going to happen when the furlough scheme ends at the end of June? Mass unemployment, businesses closed for good, fall in tax revenue.....?CarlottaVance said:
As was made clear at the press conference today by Dr Whitty, while the initial lockdown strategy was very much science-driven, the next phases become much more political in terms of the timing and decisions made.
I feel despairing about it all.
I'm worried that the Government will have us in lockdown all Summer because the population is terrified of the virus and ministers themselves are terrified of being accused of failing to crush it. About ten or twenty times as many people will then end up perishing from the effects of the lockdown as have died or will die from the disease itself.
That is the alternative to a lockdown. And why any restriction easing will be slow and low...
The economy being ruined isn't the fault of the lockdown. Its the fault of the virus.0 -
A better way of doing it could be to lift restictions for a time, then impose a short lockdown. E.g. Two months off, one month locked down. Have everybody who wants to going wild, out to the pub or to dinner or a concert, or stay at home if you want. Then a month to slow things down again.Mortimer said:
Ok, you're Chris Whitty for a day.Anabobazina said:
You are falling into the all or nothing trap.Mortimer said:
This is rubbish.Anabobazina said:
No. It’s the fault of the lockdown. That’s a government choice. As Andy says, at some point soon the government will have to allow the economy to operate while protecting vulnerable groups with continued isolation.Mortimer said:
The really worrying issue isn't the virus, its the virus rampant plus healthcare collapse.Andy_JS said:
The lockdown can't continue for more than a few more weeks without ruining the economy, especially when it hardly affects younger people in good health. The government has to trust the people to do the right thing and not keep everyone locked down for months.Black_Rook said:
Just one of the many catastrophic consequences of the lockdown. The BBC is also reporting on the vast numbers of cancelled cancer treatments, screenings and referrals, which in turn will only be a fraction of the total number of urgent medical cases that are failing to be diagnosed or treated because of the scramble to stick a lid on Covid-19. And then there's the business failures, the layings off, the poverty and the consequent tsunami of mental illness that we've got heading our way.Cyclefree said:
I agree. At the moment the government is giving false hope: businesses like my daughter’s are trying to do what business they can so as to keep going and have a business for when the lockdown is lifted, in whole or in part. But if that is not going to happen - as implied by Whitty’s comments - then she (and many others like hers) may as well pack up now and close their businesses. Surviving on 30% of previous revenues simply isn’t tenable for a year or more.noneoftheabove said:
The reason it was done is the alternative of doing nothing was worse. We could scale it back a bit, reduce the govt subsidy, start to tighten which companies are eligible, but it will need to be very substantial for as long as we have a lockdown similar to the current one.Cyclefree said:
For a year or more? How realistic is that?Mortimer said:
Or the furlough scheme will be extended.Sandpit said:
That’s going to be the difficult bit. There’s eventually going to be a limit to how much government can keep the exceptional support flowing, and when it ends there’s going to be a lot of people moving onto the much-less-generous standard unemployment benefit and universal credit systems.Cyclefree said:
If that is the case what on earth is going to happen when the furlough scheme ends at the end of June? Mass unemployment, businesses closed for good, fall in tax revenue.....?CarlottaVance said:
As was made clear at the press conference today by Dr Whitty, while the initial lockdown strategy was very much science-driven, the next phases become much more political in terms of the timing and decisions made.
I feel despairing about it all.
I'm worried that the Government will have us in lockdown all Summer because the population is terrified of the virus and ministers themselves are terrified of being accused of failing to crush it. About ten or twenty times as many people will then end up perishing from the effects of the lockdown as have died or will die from the disease itself.
That is the alternative to a lockdown. And why any restriction easing will be slow and low...
The economy being ruined isn't the fault of the lockdown. Its the fault of the virus.
Its not just death that stalks the economy. It's fear of infection. It's concern for loved ones. It's realisation that 20% of the economy are going to be ill in bed at any one time if the lockdown is lifted.
The economy isn't going to function out of a lockdown, so why risk it?
Which restrictions do you ease and keep the R under 1?
A few small shops. The garden centres. What else?
Meanwhile we keep building NHS capacity until we can support x10 the number of patients we can at present at any one time. And allow the young and healthy to go about their business. Making each successive lockdown lighter.
What is killing businesses now is there is no end in sight. There are bills, fixed costs etc, stacking up, with nothing coming in. That makes it impossible to adapt. You just close down.
Allowing businesses and individuals to work and go about their lives for two months out of every three for the next year would allow a semblance of normality to return to daily life and give businesses the chance to survive, albeit at a reduced level.
It is a better strategy than just keeping people under house arrest until the economy goes belly up or the civil unrest starts.0 -
The problem is 71% of the British public are terrified they will catch the virus and I suspect hospitals are seen as the best place to catch the aforementioned.Mortimer said:
Sorry to hear that Stodge - didn't Hancock say that the NHS is open for business already?
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/nhs-open-business-usual-ready-18076686
I wouldn't go near a hospital at the moment - no offense, Dr Fox - and I would need a deal of convincing they are safe and virus free.
The biggest enemy now isn't the virus - it's the fear. @Contrarian has made his position clear on lock down but I've never heard him come up with anything to counteract the fear.
0 -
I genuinely don't know how i feel about things. I dont find living in lockdown very hard and the thought of going out at the moment is very scary (not helped by the one time i left, i was exposed to somebody with CV symptoms)...but it isn't much of a life if you are telling me this is it for another 6-12 months.0
-
Letting people back to office work or commuting increases the R above 1noneoftheabove said:
How does discussing things and creating thinking move the R far above 1?Mortimer said:
Because it would increase the R far above 1....noneoftheabove said:
I completely agree with that. Disappointing not to have heard more about that, some progress today with the tracking app going into testing. Why arent we getting guidelines for what an acceptable office layout might look like, how we can ration peak rush hour public transport, how we can test/quarantine arrivals to the country (not needed now but will be if we get infections down faster than elsewhere).Anabobazina said:
Of course, but as I keep saying it shouldn’t be all or nothing. There needs to be creative thinking on how we can ease it without causing catastrophe.noneoftheabove said:
But what would happen economically without a lockdown? Best guesses were 20% of the workforce off sick and people petrified, not a normal functioning economy either.Anabobazina said:
No. It’s the fault of the lockdown. That’s a government choice. As Andy says, at some point soon the government will have to allow the economy to operate while protecting vulnerable groups with continued isolation.Mortimer said:
The really worrying issue isn't the virus, its the virus rampant plus healthcare collapse.Andy_JS said:
The lockdown can't continue for more than a few more weeks without ruining the economy, especially when it hardly affects younger people in good health. The government has to trust the people to do the right thing and not keep everyone locked down for months.Black_Rook said:
Just one of the many catastrophic consequences of the lockdown. The BBC is also reporting on the vast numbers of cancelled cancer treatments, screenings and referrals, which in turn will only be a fraction of the total number of urgent medical cases that are failing to be diagnosed or treated because of the scramble to stick a lid on Covid-19. And then there's the business failures, the layings off, the poverty and the consequent tsunami of mental illness that we've got heading our way.Cyclefree said:
I agree. At the moment the government is giving false hope: businesses like my daughter’s are trying to do what business they can so as to keep going and have a business for when the lockdown is lifted, in whole or in part. But if that is not going to happen - as implied by Whitty’s comments - then she (and many others like hers) may as well pack up now and close their businesses. Surviving on 30% of previous revenues simply isn’t tenable for a year or more.noneoftheabove said:
The reason it was done is the alternative of doing nothing was worse. We could scale it back a bit, reduce the govt subsidy, start to tighten which companies are eligible, but it will need to be very substantial for as long as we have a lockdown similar to the current one.Cyclefree said:
For a year or more? How realistic is that?Mortimer said:
Or the furlough scheme will be extended.Sandpit said:
That’s going to be the difficult bit. There’s eventually going to be a limit to how much government can keep the exceptional support flowing, and when it ends there’s going to be a lot of people moving onto the much-less-generous standard unemployment benefit and universal credit systems.Cyclefree said:
If that is the case what on earth is going to happen when the furlough scheme ends at the end of June? Mass unemployment, businesses closed for good, fall in tax revenue.....?CarlottaVance said:
As was made clear at the press conference today by Dr Whitty, while the initial lockdown strategy was very much science-driven, the next phases become much more political in terms of the timing and decisions made.
I feel despairing about it all.
I'm worried that the Government will have us in lockdown all Summer because the population is terrified of the virus and ministers themselves are terrified of being accused of failing to crush it. About ten or twenty times as many people will then end up perishing from the effects of the lockdown as have died or will die from the disease itself.
That is the alternative to a lockdown. And why any restriction easing will be slow and low...
The economy being ruined isn't the fault of the lockdown. Its the fault of the virus.0 -
When Chris Whitty said the chances of having a vaccine "any time in the next calendar year" were incredibly small, presumably he didn't really mean the next calendar year - 2021? Presumably he meant "in less than a year from now"?0
-
I'd be interested to know if you run a business? Not only would most people not take notice of the two months 'on', the rigmorole would be a nightmare.kyf_100 said:
A better way of doing it could be to lift restictions for a time, then impose a short lockdown. E.g. Two months off, one month locked down. Have everybody who wants to going wild, out to the pub or to dinner or a concert, or stay at home if you want. Then a month to slow things down again.Mortimer said:
Ok, you're Chris Whitty for a day.Anabobazina said:
You are falling into the all or nothing trap.Mortimer said:
This is rubbish.Anabobazina said:
No. It’s the fault of the lockdown. That’s a government choice. As Andy says, at some point soon the government will have to allow the economy to operate while protecting vulnerable groups with continued isolation.Mortimer said:
The really worrying issue isn't the virus, its the virus rampant plus healthcare collapse.Andy_JS said:
The lockdown can't continue for more than a few more weeks without ruining the economy, especially when it hardly affects younger people in good health. The government has to trust the people to do the right thing and not keep everyone locked down for months.Black_Rook said:
Just one of the many catastrophic consequences of the lockdown. The BBC is also reporting on the vast numbers of cancelled cancer treatments, screenings and referrals, which in turn will only be a fraction of the total number of urgent medical cases that are failing to be diagnosed or treated because of the scramble to stick a lid on Covid-19. And then there's the business failures, the layings off, the poverty and the consequent tsunami of mental illness that we've got heading our way.Cyclefree said:
I agree. At the moment the government is giving false hope: businesses like my daughter’s are trying to do what business they can so as to keep going and have a business for when the lockdown is lifted, in whole or in part. But if that is not going to happen - as implied by Whitty’s comments - then she (and many others like hers) may as well pack up now and close their businesses. Surviving on 30% of previous revenues simply isn’t tenable for a year or more.noneoftheabove said:
The reason it was done is the alternative of doing nothing was worse. We could scale it back a bit, reduce the govt subsidy, start to tighten which companies are eligible, but it will need to be very substantial for as long as we have a lockdown similar to the current one.Cyclefree said:
For a year or more? How realistic is that?Mortimer said:
Or the furlough scheme will be extended.Sandpit said:
That’s going to be the difficult bit. There’s eventually going to be a limit to how much government can keep the exceptional support flowing, and when it ends there’s going to be a lot of people moving onto the much-less-generous standard unemployment benefit and universal credit systems.Cyclefree said:
If that is the case what on earth is going to happen when the furlough scheme ends at the end of June? Mass unemployment, businesses closed for good, fall in tax revenue.....?CarlottaVance said:
As was made clear at the press conference today by Dr Whitty, while the initial lockdown strategy was very much science-driven, the next phases become much more political in terms of the timing and decisions made.
I feel despairing about it all.
I'm worried that the Government will have us in lockdown all Summer because the population is terrified of the virus and ministers themselves are terrified of being accused of failing to crush it. About ten or twenty times as many people will then end up perishing from the effects of the lockdown as have died or will die from the disease itself.
That is the alternative to a lockdown. And why any restriction easing will be slow and low...
The economy being ruined isn't the fault of the lockdown. Its the fault of the virus.
Its not just death that stalks the economy. It's fear of infection. It's concern for loved ones. It's realisation that 20% of the economy are going to be ill in bed at any one time if the lockdown is lifted.
The economy isn't going to function out of a lockdown, so why risk it?
Which restrictions do you ease and keep the R under 1?
A few small shops. The garden centres. What else?
Meanwhile we keep building NHS capacity until we can support x10 the number of patients we can at present at any one time. And allow the young and healthy to go about their business. Making each successive lockdown lighter.
What is killing businesses now is there is no end in sight. There are bills, fixed costs etc, stacking up, with nothing coming in. That makes it impossible to adapt. You just close down.
Allowing businesses and individuals to work and go about their lives for two months out of every three for the next year would allow a semblance of normality to return to daily life and give businesses the chance to survive, albeit at a reduced level.
It is a better strategy than just keeping people under house arrest until the economy goes belly up or the civil unrest starts.
And one month locked down wouldn't be enough to reduce NHS problems, as we're seeing now.0 -
I quite like lockdown world too. We can’t just come out of it anyway, we’d see another spike in deaths. So it’s going to be like this for a while I’d say. All I’d change is to be able to have a small group of friends round.NickPalmer said:A friend in Vienna sends this report in 2 emails - just one view but may be a glimpse of Britain in a month or two...
We are in our second week of coming out of lockdown. Small shops and DIY stores opened last week. 200m lines first 3 days. McDonalds drive ups opened this Monday. Traffic jams. Now, for the last 6 weeks you could only buy food in supermarkets and some delivery services. So a burger was a big deal. Don’t know why they closed the Hot Dog/kebab/Chinese walk up places.
Next week hair salons, all shops open. Mid May restaurants open. Of course regulations with all these steps. We must wear masks in stores, on public transport. When restaurants open, servers wear mask, distancing between tables, testing of workers. WFH suggested till at least mid May. Very strange experience going out. Mask is a pain to get used to. It gets hot under there and air temp is not even that warm yet.
Also felt strange to be ‘out in the big world’. Once I got used to it, it has been a really cosy life - walks with dogs, exploring neighborhood, chatting with friends, doing exercising, reading, doing crafts. Just enjoying the day. No place to rush. The neighborhood is my safety zone. Almost felt like a tad of agoraphobia to foray into the rest of Vienna. I plan on keeping a lot of the current lifestyle. I will get used to it. Museums might open In May. Concerts not till September!!! And they are debating on opening swimming pools - that with 40 degrees and no AC would be a bummer.
I still fear we will look back on these days as idyllic. Economic fallout will be globally devastating and then people/countries will go into survival mode which can get ugly. I will go enjoy beautiful weather with dogs while I can.
-------------------
That first foray was a bit depressing - and you know me. I am the eternal optimist. Just thinking that this new normal will last for a long time. The details of the new reality (what do I do if someone sits next to me or reaches back across me in supermarket - will I get fined?) have to be experienced. And the gladness of at least seeing different people turned a bit into - some people are overrated. 😉 Nice to crawl back to cosy “Lockdown” world.0 -
Actual sickness and coronachrondria, yep.Anabobazina said:
The UK workforce is about 33m. You are expecting the thick end of 7m people ringing in sick?Mortimer said:
So they won't be able to survive the fall out of lifting the lockdown to find the economy 30% down, and definitely won't be able to survive it when the c.20% of the workforce falling sick and everyone retreats to de facto their lockdown state.Anabobazina said:
The fact that you have significant cash reserves gives you away. Most people don’t.Mortimer said:
As a small business owner with significant cash reserves, currently functioning on 70% drop in sales (and I think we'll be in this sort of position till December) with only about 1/3 of my staff furloughed, I'd much prefer one longer lockdown and fewer deaths.Richard_Tyndall said:So, a question for those considering an early lifting of the lockdown. Which is the worse outcome? I mean for the country and the population rather than politically for the Government.
1. The lockdown is maintained for another 3 or 4 months in its current form.
2. The lockdown is lifted, either slowly or rapidly and then people start to die again so it has to be re-imposed.
I am thinking of consequences:
For the economy
For people who, in the second case, catch the disease because the lockdown has been lifted
For people who, in the first case, die because they miss treatment, commit suicide or are victims of domestic abuse
For the long term moral of the people and business confidence if there is a short lifting followed by re-imposition.
Also what happens if the Government start to lift the lockdown and the majority of people decide it is not safe and stay away? I assume that could actually be worse for businesses than if the lockdown had stayed in place.
Edit to add - and I agree with your last sentence. Lifting the lockdown isn't going to revive the economy anyway. Its simplistic, wishful thinking to assume otherwise.
The sad reality is that there are going to be an awful lot of businesses that will never reopen if the lockdown is lifted or if it remains. I don't think it is worth the death toll of lifting it....0 -
I will have a go. If you had broken down you would have generated an unnecessary social interaction.SandraMc said:OK. Have a go at me. We decided to take the car out for a spin round the block as it has been stationary on the drive for three weeks and we wanted to check it was running OK. We ended up driving for over half an hour round the countryside. The South Downs looked lovely, we saw the first bluebells we have seen this year plus there were lambs gambolling in the fields. Was our journey essential? No. Did it do our mental health any good? Undoubtedly.
Either we all play by the rules or we are well and truly fecked.
0 -
Karma’s a bitch.TheScreamingEagles said:1 -
Pubs and restaurants? do me a favour. Seriously do me a favour. The economy is forecast to shrink more than 30 per cent in the second quarter.Mortimer said:
Utter rot. I had gone into personal lockdown the week before it was mandated. Restaurants and pubs were beginning to close through lack of business.contrarian said:
Because of Coronavirus, significantly more people have tragically had to die than otherwise would.Richard_Tyndall said:So, a question for those considering an early lifting of the lockdown. Which is the worse outcome? I mean for the country and the population rather than politically for the Government.
1. The lockdown is maintained for another 3 or 4 months in its current form.
2. The lockdown is lifted, either slowly or rapidly and then people start to die again so it has to be re-imposed.
I am thinking of consequences:
For the economy
For people who, in the second case, catch the disease because the lockdown has been lifted
For people who, in the first case, die because they miss treatment, commit suicide or are victims of domestic abuse
For the long term moral of the people and business confidence if there is a short lifting followed by re-imposition.
Also what happens if the Government start to lift the lockdown and the majority of people decide it is not safe and stay away? I assume that could actually be worse for businesses than if the lockdown had stayed in place.
The governments choice was a horrible one - how they died.
They could either let the economy keep running and risk many thousands dying of Coronavirus, or throw enormous resources at stopping Coronavirus and risk many thousands dying of other curable diseases the NHS has almost given up treating, as well as many thousands dying from the poverty and austerity the ensuing unparalleled recession would bring.
I think they have unquestionably and catastrophically made the wrong choice.
They chose saving high profile deaths today over far, far more low profile deaths down the line in which Piers Morgan and his ilk have no interest. They have furthermore left a a mountain of misery, debt,poverty and unemployment for for those who remain.
It is the worst policy decision by any British government ever.
The choice was never the economy or saving lives from Covid 19.
It was saving lives from Covid 19 or not saving lives. The economy was shot either way....
That s a massive amount more than some pubs and restaurants you anecdotally noted being a bit emptier than normal. At the start of lockdown the papers were full of photos of people on the town.
The government had choices. In the end, it chose to do something no British government has ever done, no matter what adversity has befallen its citizens. It chose to destroy its own economy and place its own citizens effectively under house arrest.
0 -
The best post I have seen in ages.noneoftheabove said:
Not an economic one, but a social one. People living on their own should be completely free to socialise with one other person living on their own.Mortimer said:
Ok, you're Chris Whitty for a day.Anabobazina said:
You are falling into the all or nothing trap.Mortimer said:
This is rubbish.Anabobazina said:
No. It’s the fault of the lockdown. That’s a government choice. As Andy says, at some point soon the government will have to allow the economy to operate while protecting vulnerable groups with continued isolation.Mortimer said:
The really worrying issue isn't the virus, its the virus rampant plus healthcare collapse.Andy_JS said:
The lockdown can't continue for more than a few more weeks without ruining the economy, especially when it hardly affects younger people in good health. The government has to trust the people to do the right thing and not keep everyone locked down for months.Black_Rook said:
Just one of the many catastrophic consequences of the lockdown. The BBC is also reporting on the vast numbers of cancelled cancer treatments, screenings and referrals, which in turn will only be a fraction of the total number of urgent medical cases that are failing to be diagnosed or treated because of the scramble to stick a lid on Covid-19. And then there's the business failures, the layings off, the poverty and the consequent tsunami of mental illness that we've got heading our way.Cyclefree said:
I agree. At the moment the government is giving false hope: businesses like my daughter’s are trying to do what business they can so as to keep going and have a business for when the lockdown is lifted, in whole or in part. But if that is not going to happen - as implied by Whitty’s comments - then she (and many others like hers) may as well pack up now and close their businesses. Surviving on 30% of previous revenues simply isn’t tenable for a year or more.noneoftheabove said:
The reason it was done is the alternative of doing nothing was worse. We could scale it back a bit, reduce the govt subsidy, start to tighten which companies are eligible, but it will need to be very substantial for as long as we have a lockdown similar to the current one.Cyclefree said:
For a year or more? How realistic is that?Mortimer said:
Or the furlough scheme will be extended.Sandpit said:
That’s going to be the difficult bit. There’s eventually going to be a limit to how much government can keep the exceptional support flowing, and when it ends there’s going to be a lot of people moving onto the much-less-generous standard unemployment benefit and universal credit systems.Cyclefree said:
If that is the case what on earth is going to happen when the furlough scheme ends at the end of June? Mass unemployment, businesses closed for good, fall in tax revenue.....?CarlottaVance said:
As was made clear at the press conference today by Dr Whitty, while the initial lockdown strategy was very much science-driven, the next phases become much more political in terms of the timing and decisions made.
I feel despairing about it all.
I'm worried that the Government will have us in lockdown all Summer because the population is terrified of the virus and ministers themselves are terrified of being accused of failing to crush it. About ten or twenty times as many people will then end up perishing from the effects of the lockdown as have died or will die from the disease itself.
That is the alternative to a lockdown. And why any restriction easing will be slow and low...
The economy being ruined isn't the fault of the lockdown. Its the fault of the virus.
Its not just death that stalks the economy. It's fear of infection. It's concern for loved ones. It's realisation that 20% of the economy are going to be ill in bed at any one time if the lockdown is lifted.
The economy isn't going to function out of a lockdown, so why risk it?
Which restrictions do you ease and keep the R under 1?
A few small shops. The garden centres. What else?
They will still have far fewer contacts than the "average" person, but it will make a big difference to their mental health to have some contact.
0 -
There must be ways of making that untrue. Currently offices work at something like 5sq m per person, some higher some lower. If it was 10sq m, is that ok, 20 sq m? Once you get to 50sq m per person which is the size of a typical new 2 bed flat I really fail to see what the issue is.Mortimer said:
Letting people back to office work or commuting increases the R above 1noneoftheabove said:
How does discussing things and creating thinking move the R far above 1?Mortimer said:
Because it would increase the R far above 1....noneoftheabove said:
I completely agree with that. Disappointing not to have heard more about that, some progress today with the tracking app going into testing. Why arent we getting guidelines for what an acceptable office layout might look like, how we can ration peak rush hour public transport, how we can test/quarantine arrivals to the country (not needed now but will be if we get infections down faster than elsewhere).Anabobazina said:
Of course, but as I keep saying it shouldn’t be all or nothing. There needs to be creative thinking on how we can ease it without causing catastrophe.noneoftheabove said:
But what would happen economically without a lockdown? Best guesses were 20% of the workforce off sick and people petrified, not a normal functioning economy either.Anabobazina said:
No. It’s the fault of the lockdown. That’s a government choice. As Andy says, at some point soon the government will have to allow the economy to operate while protecting vulnerable groups with continued isolation.Mortimer said:
The really worrying issue isn't the virus, its the virus rampant plus healthcare collapse.Andy_JS said:
The lockdown can't continue for more than a few more weeks without ruining the economy, especially when it hardly affects younger people in good health. The government has to trust the people to do the right thing and not keep everyone locked down for months.Black_Rook said:
Just one of the many catastrophic consequences of the lockdown. The BBC is also reporting on the vast numbers of cancelled cancer treatments, screenings and referrals, which in turn will only be a fraction of the total number of urgent medical cases that are failing to be diagnosed or treated because of the scramble to stick a lid on Covid-19. And then there's the business failures, the layings off, the poverty and the consequent tsunami of mental illness that we've got heading our way.Cyclefree said:
I agree. At the moment the government is giving false hope: businesses like my daughter’s are trying to do what business they can so as to keep going and have a business for when the lockdown is lifted, in whole or in part. But if that is not going to happen - as implied by Whitty’s comments - then she (and many others like hers) may as well pack up now and close their businesses. Surviving on 30% of previous revenues simply isn’t tenable for a year or more.noneoftheabove said:
The reason it was done is the alternative of doing nothing was worse. We could scale it back a bit, reduce the govt subsidy, start to tighten which companies are eligible, but it will need to be very substantial for as long as we have a lockdown similar to the current one.Cyclefree said:
For a year or more? How realistic is that?Mortimer said:
Or the furlough scheme will be extended.Sandpit said:
That’s going to be the difficult bit. There’s eventually going to be a limit to how much government can keep the exceptional support flowing, and when it ends there’s going to be a lot of people moving onto the much-less-generous standard unemployment benefit and universal credit systems.Cyclefree said:
If that is the case what on earth is going to happen when the furlough scheme ends at the end of June? Mass unemployment, businesses closed for good, fall in tax revenue.....?CarlottaVance said:
As was made clear at the press conference today by Dr Whitty, while the initial lockdown strategy was very much science-driven, the next phases become much more political in terms of the timing and decisions made.
I feel despairing about it all.
I'm worried that the Government will have us in lockdown all Summer because the population is terrified of the virus and ministers themselves are terrified of being accused of failing to crush it. About ten or twenty times as many people will then end up perishing from the effects of the lockdown as have died or will die from the disease itself.
That is the alternative to a lockdown. And why any restriction easing will be slow and low...
The economy being ruined isn't the fault of the lockdown. Its the fault of the virus.
So the acceptable level to keep the R below 1 is probably somewhere between 5sq m and 50sq m. If we knew what that level is then as a business we could decide:
1) There is no point renting an office for the next two years, need to invest more in homeworking or maybe close the business
2) We need a bigger unit but it is manageable
3) We can manage in existing unit
0 -
They were closing. I couldn't care less what the media were focusing on.contrarian said:
Pubs and restaurants? do me a favour. Seriously do me a favour. The economy is forecast to shrink more than 30 per cent in the second quarter.Mortimer said:
Utter rot. I had gone into personal lockdown the week before it was mandated. Restaurants and pubs were beginning to close through lack of business.contrarian said:
Because of Coronavirus, significantly more people have tragically had to die than otherwise would.Richard_Tyndall said:So, a question for those considering an early lifting of the lockdown. Which is the worse outcome? I mean for the country and the population rather than politically for the Government.
1. The lockdown is maintained for another 3 or 4 months in its current form.
2. The lockdown is lifted, either slowly or rapidly and then people start to die again so it has to be re-imposed.
I am thinking of consequences:
For the economy
For people who, in the second case, catch the disease because the lockdown has been lifted
For people who, in the first case, die because they miss treatment, commit suicide or are victims of domestic abuse
For the long term moral of the people and business confidence if there is a short lifting followed by re-imposition.
Also what happens if the Government start to lift the lockdown and the majority of people decide it is not safe and stay away? I assume that could actually be worse for businesses than if the lockdown had stayed in place.
The governments choice was a horrible one - how they died.
They could either let the economy keep running and risk many thousands dying of Coronavirus, or throw enormous resources at stopping Coronavirus and risk many thousands dying of other curable diseases the NHS has almost given up treating, as well as many thousands dying from the poverty and austerity the ensuing unparalleled recession would bring.
I think they have unquestionably and catastrophically made the wrong choice.
They chose saving high profile deaths today over far, far more low profile deaths down the line in which Piers Morgan and his ilk have no interest. They have furthermore left a a mountain of misery, debt,poverty and unemployment for for those who remain.
It is the worst policy decision by any British government ever.
The choice was never the economy or saving lives from Covid 19.
It was saving lives from Covid 19 or not saving lives. The economy was shot either way....
That s a massive amount more than some pubs and restaurants you anecdotally noted being a bit emptier than normal. At the start of lockdown the papers were full of photos of people on the town.
The government had choices. In the end, it chose to do something no British government has ever done, no matter what adversity has befallen its citizens. It chose to destroy its own economy and place its own citizens effectively under house arrest.
0 -
I've heard anecdotes about younger people being confronted by angry elderly people for doing their daily walk saying, "You're the reason we have to stay cooped up!" Things could get bitter if there's a differential lockdown based on age.eadric said:
More importantly, I just don’t think young people will obey severe social distancing rules for a year. I know I would not have done, in my 20s.FrancisUrquhart said:I genuinely don't know how i feel about things. I dont find living in lockdown very hard and the thought of going out at the moment is very scary (not helped by the one time i left, i was exposed to somebody with CV symptoms)...but it isn't much of a life if you are telling me this is it for another 6-12 months.
Their job is to go out, have fun, fall in love, have sex. Make babies. That’s how humanity continues, and their hormones will not listen to Chris Whitty
So it’s just not going to work0 -
Yet the US Stock Market is almost back in bull market territory- the loss since the peak is only 20.3% and there's been a more than 30% bounce since the low point.Mortimer said:
Utter rot. I had gone into personal lockdown the week before it was mandated. Restaurants and pubs were beginning to close through lack of business.
The choice was never the economy or saving lives from Covid 19.
It was saving lives from Covid 19 or not saving lives. The economy was shot either way....
I don't get it - are we talking a mild recession or a depression?
The flash Services PMI number for the UK is due out tomorrow morning - the March figure came in at 34.5. The forecast for April is 29.0 which would be far and away an all-time low. Manufacturing PMI is forecast to be 42.0.
0 -
I'd be interested to know how you think running a book shop translates into a working knowledge of any other sector of the economy.Mortimer said:
I'd be interested to know if you run a business? Not only would most people not take notice of the two months 'on', the rigmorole would be a nightmare.kyf_100 said:
A better way of doing it could be to lift restictions for a time, then impose a short lockdown. E.g. Two months off, one month locked down. Have everybody who wants to going wild, out to the pub or to dinner or a concert, or stay at home if you want. Then a month to slow things down again.Mortimer said:
Ok, you're Chris Whitty for a day.Anabobazina said:
You are falling into the all or nothing trap.Mortimer said:
This is rubbish.Anabobazina said:
No. It’s the fault of the lockdown. That’s a government choice. As Andy says, at some point soon the government will have to allow the economy to operate while protecting vulnerable groups with continued isolation.Mortimer said:
The really worrying issue isn't the virus, its the virus rampant plus healthcare collapse.Andy_JS said:
The lockdown can't continue for more than a few more weeks without ruining the economy, especially when it hardly affects younger people in good health. The government has to trust the people to do the right thing and not keep everyone locked down for months.Black_Rook said:
Just one of the many catastrophic consequences of the lockdown. The BBC is also reporting on the vast numbers of cancelled cancer treatments, screenings and referrals, which in turn will only be a fraction of the total number of urgent medical cases that are failing to be diagnosed or treated because of the scramble to stick a lid on Covid-19. And then there's the business failures, the layings off, the poverty and the consequent tsunami of mental illness that we've got heading our way.Cyclefree said:
I agree. At the moment the government is giving false hope: businesses like my daughter’s are trying to do what business they can so as to keep going and have a business for when the lockdown is lifted, in whole or in part. But if that is not going to happen - as implied by Whitty’s comments - then she (and many others like hers) may as well pack up now and close their businesses. Surviving on 30% of previous revenues simply isn’t tenable for a year or more.noneoftheabove said:
The reason it was done is the alternative of doing nothing was worse. We could scale it back a bit, reduce the govt subsidy, start to tighten which companies are eligible, but it will need to be very substantial for as long as we have a lockdown similar to the current one.Cyclefree said:
For a year or more? How realistic is that?Mortimer said:
Or the furlough scheme will be extended.Sandpit said:
That’s going to be the difficult bit. There’s eventually going to be a limit to how much government can keep the exceptional support flowing, and when it ends there’s going to be a lot of people moving onto the much-less-generous standard unemployment benefit and universal credit systems.Cyclefree said:
If that is the case what on earth is going to happen when the furlough scheme ends at the end of June? Mass unemployment, businesses closed for good, fall in tax revenue.....?CarlottaVance said:
As was made clear at the press conference today by Dr Whitty, while the initial lockdown strategy was very much science-driven, the next phases become much more political in terms of the timing and decisions made.
I feel despairing about it all.
I'm worried that the Government will have us in lockdown all Summer because the population is terrified of the virus and ministers themselves are terrified of being accused of failing to crush it. About ten or twenty times as many people will then end up perishing from the effects of the lockdown as have died or will die from the disease itself.
That is the alternative to a lockdown. And why any restriction easing will be slow and low...
The economy being ruined isn't the fault of the lockdown. Its the fault of the virus.
Its not just death that stalks the economy. It's fear of infection. It's concern for loved ones. It's realisation that 20% of the economy are going to be ill in bed at any one time if the lockdown is lifted.
The economy isn't going to function out of a lockdown, so why risk it?
Which restrictions do you ease and keep the R under 1?
A few small shops. The garden centres. What else?
Meanwhile we keep building NHS capacity until we can support x10 the number of patients we can at present at any one time. And allow the young and healthy to go about their business. Making each successive lockdown lighter.
What is killing businesses now is there is no end in sight. There are bills, fixed costs etc, stacking up, with nothing coming in. That makes it impossible to adapt. You just close down.
Allowing businesses and individuals to work and go about their lives for two months out of every three for the next year would allow a semblance of normality to return to daily life and give businesses the chance to survive, albeit at a reduced level.
It is a better strategy than just keeping people under house arrest until the economy goes belly up or the civil unrest starts.
And one month locked down wouldn't be enough to reduce NHS problems, as we're seeing now.
I don't know many people who are desperate to buy a second hand book right now, especially when you can get books on amazon.com, but my friends are already texting me with ideas about where and how we could all meet up for an illicit pint. The pubs will be roaring the second this ends. It'll be like VE day.
Ditto dentists, hairdressers and opticians. Look at the long lines already forming outside such places in countries that have eased their lockdowns.
I'm not saying business will be booming. But best estimates I have seen suggest anywhere between 50% - 70% of customers will return.0 -
It is not Whitty's job to decide. He can provide all sorts of models and predictions but someone above his pay grade, collectively known as the Cabinet, will have to decide what is best for the UK as a whole. And that inciudes the economics of shutting down Britain for month after month.noneoftheabove said:
Not an economic one, but a social one. People living on their own should be completely free to socialise with one other person living on their own.Mortimer said:
Ok, you're Chris Whitty for a day.Anabobazina said:
You are falling into the all or nothing trap.Mortimer said:
This is rubbish.Anabobazina said:
No. It’s the fault of the lockdown. That’s a government choice. As Andy says, at some point soon the government will have to allow the economy to operate while protecting vulnerable groups with continued isolation.Mortimer said:
The really worrying issue isn't the virus, its the virus rampant plus healthcare collapse.Andy_JS said:
The lockdown can't continue for more than a few more weeks without ruining the economy, especially when it hardly affects younger people in good health. The government has to trust the people to do the right thing and not keep everyone locked down for months.Black_Rook said:
Just one of the many catastrophic consequences of the lockdown. The BBC is also reporting on the vast numbers of cancelled cancer treatments, screenings and referrals, which in turn will only be a fraction of the total number of urgent medical cases that are failing to be diagnosed or treated because of the scramble to stick a lid on Covid-19. And then there's the business failures, the layings off, the poverty and the consequent tsunami of mental illness that we've got heading our way.Cyclefree said:
I agree. At the moment the government is giving false hope: businesses like my daughter’s are trying to do what business they can so as to keep going and have a business for when the lockdown is lifted, in whole or in part. But if that is not going to happen - as implied by Whitty’s comments - then she (and many others like hers) may as well pack up now and close their businesses. Surviving on 30% of previous revenues simply isn’t tenable for a year or more.noneoftheabove said:
The reason it was done is the alternative of doing nothing was worse. We could scale it back a bit, reduce the govt subsidy, start to tighten which companies are eligible, but it will need to be very substantial for as long as we have a lockdown similar to the current one.Cyclefree said:
For a year or more? How realistic is that?Mortimer said:
Or the furlough scheme will be extended.Sandpit said:
That’s going to be the difficult bit. There’s eventually going to be a limit to how much government can keep the exceptional support flowing, and when it ends there’s going to be a lot of people moving onto the much-less-generous standard unemployment benefit and universal credit systems.Cyclefree said:
If that is the case what on earth is going to happen when the furlough scheme ends at the end of June? Mass unemployment, businesses closed for good, fall in tax revenue.....?CarlottaVance said:
As was made clear at the press conference today by Dr Whitty, while the initial lockdown strategy was very much science-driven, the next phases become much more political in terms of the timing and decisions made.
I feel despairing about it all.
I'm worried that the Government will have us in lockdown all Summer because the population is terrified of the virus and ministers themselves are terrified of being accused of failing to crush it. About ten or twenty times as many people will then end up perishing from the effects of the lockdown as have died or will die from the disease itself.
That is the alternative to a lockdown. And why any restriction easing will be slow and low...
The economy being ruined isn't the fault of the lockdown. Its the fault of the virus.
Its not just death that stalks the economy. It's fear of infection. It's concern for loved ones. It's realisation that 20% of the economy are going to be ill in bed at any one time if the lockdown is lifted.
The economy isn't going to function out of a lockdown, so why risk it?
Which restrictions do you ease and keep the R under 1?
A few small shops. The garden centres. What else?
They will still have far fewer contacts than the "average" person, but it will make a big difference to their mental health to have some contact.1 -
Coronavirus is less serious for them than seasonal flu AFAIK.eadric said:
More importantly, I just don’t think young people will obey severe social distancing rules for a year. I know I would not have done, in my 20s.FrancisUrquhart said:I genuinely don't know how i feel about things. I dont find living in lockdown very hard and the thought of going out at the moment is very scary (not helped by the one time i left, i was exposed to somebody with CV symptoms)...but it isn't much of a life if you are telling me this is it for another 6-12 months.
Their job is to go out, have fun, fall in love, have sex. Make babies. That’s how humanity continues, and their hormones will not listen to Chris Whitty
So it’s just not going to work0 -
Yes Matt Hancock said it was okay to drive a short distance for a walk.eadric said:
Hasn’t the government explicitly said it’s ok to drive somewhere for a walk?SandyRentool said:
I will have a go. If you had broken down you would have generated an unnecessary social interaction.SandraMc said:OK. Have a go at me. We decided to take the car out for a spin round the block as it has been stationary on the drive for three weeks and we wanted to check it was running OK. We ended up driving for over half an hour round the countryside. The South Downs looked lovely, we saw the first bluebells we have seen this year plus there were lambs gambolling in the fields. Was our journey essential? No. Did it do our mental health any good? Undoubtedly.
Either we all play by the rules or we are well and truly fecked.0 -
If your drive is shorter than your walk.eadric said:
Hasn’t the government explicitly said it’s ok to drive somewhere for a walk?SandyRentool said:
I will have a go. If you had broken down you would have generated an unnecessary social interaction.SandraMc said:OK. Have a go at me. We decided to take the car out for a spin round the block as it has been stationary on the drive for three weeks and we wanted to check it was running OK. We ended up driving for over half an hour round the countryside. The South Downs looked lovely, we saw the first bluebells we have seen this year plus there were lambs gambolling in the fields. Was our journey essential? No. Did it do our mental health any good? Undoubtedly.
Either we all play by the rules or we are well and truly fecked.0 -
How hard would it be in a tower block with a family of four in a small flat and no outside space?FrancisUrquhart said:I genuinely don't know how i feel about things. I dont find living in lockdown very hard and the thought of going out at the moment is very scary (not helped by the one time i left, i was exposed to somebody with CV symptoms)...but it isn't much of a life if you are telling me this is it for another 6-12 months.
The middle class professionals did well out of the credit crunch with house prices booming from QE and are now working from nice homes (or not having to work from nice homes whilst still getting paid).
Whereas those who suffered most from austerity are hit hardest again with this lockdown.0 -
There was some half-arsed wibble about 10 minutes being OK in one of the press conferences. I think Gove just made it up on the spot.eadric said:
Hasn’t the government explicitly said it’s ok to drive somewhere for a walk?SandyRentool said:
I will have a go. If you had broken down you would have generated an unnecessary social interaction.SandraMc said:OK. Have a go at me. We decided to take the car out for a spin round the block as it has been stationary on the drive for three weeks and we wanted to check it was running OK. We ended up driving for over half an hour round the countryside. The South Downs looked lovely, we saw the first bluebells we have seen this year plus there were lambs gambolling in the fields. Was our journey essential? No. Did it do our mental health any good? Undoubtedly.
Either we all play by the rules or we are well and truly fecked.0 -
Well, I used to be a management consultant in retail. So I think I have an idea...kyf_100 said:
I'd be interested to know how you think running a book shop translates into a working knowledge of any other sector of the economy.Mortimer said:
I'd be interested to know if you run a business? Not only would most people not take notice of the two months 'on', the rigmorole would be a nightmare.kyf_100 said:
A better way of doing it could be to lift restictions for a time, then impose a short lockdown. E.g. Two months off, one month locked down. Have everybody who wants to going wild, out to the pub or to dinner or a concert, or stay at home if you want. Then a month to slow things down again.Mortimer said:
Ok, you're Chris Whitty for a day.Anabobazina said:
You are falling into the all or nothing trap.Mortimer said:
This is rubbish.Anabobazina said:
No. It’s the fault of the lockdown. That’s a government choice. As Andy says, at some point soon the government will have to allow the economy to operate while protecting vulnerable groups with continued isolation.Mortimer said:
The really worrying issue isn't the virus, its the virus rampant plus healthcare collapse.Andy_JS said:
The lockdown can't continue for more than a few more weeks without ruining the economy, especially when it hardly affects younger people in good health. The government has to trust the people to do the right thing and not keep everyone locked down for months.Black_Rook said:
Just one of the many catastrophic consequences of the lockdown. The BBC is also reporting on the vast numbers of cancelled cancer treatments, screenings and referrals, which in turn will only be a fraction of the total number of urgent medical cases that are failing to be diagnosed or treated because of the scramble to stick a lid on Covid-19. And then there's the business failures, the layings off, the poverty and the consequent tsunami of mental illness that we've got heading our way.Cyclefree said:
I agree. At the moment the government is giving false hope: businesses like my daughter’s are trying to do what business they can so as to keep going and have a business for when the lockdown is lifted, in whole or in part. But if that is not going to happen - as implied by Whitty’s comments - then she (and many others like hers) may as well pack up now and close their businesses. Surviving on 30% of previous revenues simply isn’t tenable for a year or more.noneoftheabove said:
The reason it was done is the alternative of doing nothing was worse. We could scale it back a bit, reduce the govt subsidy, start to tighten which companies are eligible, but it will need to be very substantial for as long as we have a lockdown similar to the current one.Cyclefree said:
For a year or more? How realistic is that?Mortimer said:
Or the furlough scheme will be extended.Sandpit said:
That’s going to be the difficult bit. There’s eventually going to be a limit to how much government can keep the exceptional support flowing, and when it ends there’s going to be a lot of people moving onto the much-less-generous standard unemployment benefit and universal credit systems.Cyclefree said:
If that is the case what on earth is going to happen when the furlough scheme ends at the end of June? Mass unemployment, businesses closed for good, fall in tax revenue.....?CarlottaVance said:
As was made clear at the press conference today by Dr Whitty, while the initial lockdown strategy was very much science-driven, the next phases become much more political in terms of the timing and decisions made.
I feel despairing about it all.
I'm worried that the Government will have us in lockdown all Summer because the population is terrified of the virus and ministers themselves are terrified of being accused of failing to crush it. About ten or twenty times as many people will then end up perishing from the effects of the lockdown as have died or will die from the disease itself.
That is the alternative to a lockdown. And why any restriction easing will be slow and low...
The economy being ruined isn't the fault of the lockdown. Its the fault of the virus.
Its not just death that stalks the economy. It's fear of infection. It's concern for loved ones. It's realisation that 20% of the economy are going to be ill in bed at any one time if the lockdown is lifted.
The economy isn't going to function out of a lockdown, so why risk it?
Which restrictions do you ease and keep the R under 1?
A few small shops. The garden centres. What else?
Meanwhile we keep building NHS capacity until we can support x10 the number of patients we can at present at any one time. And allow the young and healthy to go about their business. Making each successive lockdown lighter.
What is killing businesses now is there is no end in sight. There are bills, fixed costs etc, stacking up, with nothing coming in. That makes it impossible to adapt. You just close down.
Allowing businesses and individuals to work and go about their lives for two months out of every three for the next year would allow a semblance of normality to return to daily life and give businesses the chance to survive, albeit at a reduced level.
It is a better strategy than just keeping people under house arrest until the economy goes belly up or the civil unrest starts.
And one month locked down wouldn't be enough to reduce NHS problems, as we're seeing now.
I don't know many people who are desperate to buy a second hand book right now, especially when you can get books on amazon.com, but my friends are already texting me with ideas about where and how we could all meet up for an illicit pint. The pubs will be roaring the second this ends. It'll be like VE day.
Ditto dentists, hairdressers and opticians. Look at the long lines already forming outside such places in countries that have eased their lockdowns.
I'm not saying business will be booming. But best estimates I have seen suggest anywhere between 50% - 70% of customers will return.
I suspect most businesses won't be viable at 50% custom, especially when it is coupled with massive spikes in infection rates.
0 -
YOung people already had a bit of a gripe with home owning boomers before Corona.
When they see the devastation that will be left for them to clear up over, well....
I think bitterness is an understatement.1 -
There's no karma. The people who received the big payoffs will remain obscenely wealthyydoethur said:
Karma’s a bitch.TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
Of course.FrancisUrquhart said:
I presume if something like that is the miracle cure, the likes of Gilead will be more than willing to allow it to be made under licence, for a healthy fee of course.Nigelb said:
Sorry, misunderstood the question first time round; you’re talking about stuff like Remdesivir.FrancisUrquhart said:
Same with the medical trials. What are we doing in preparation if one of them work? All this stuff is really important and things the government should be planning.MaxPB said:I wish someone would ask about vaccine manufacturing capacity. The last thing we need is for the Oxford team to come up with a valid vaccine in 6 months and have nowhere in the country to make it in mass quantities. Relying on the international market has proved to be unreliable. We need to be in charge of this step at home, even if it means giving GSK and Astra a massive load of cash to build vaccine production.
Going to be a disaster if they find something really trivial drug combo works and we find we don't have any, no way of making it, etc.
In the current climate, nobody really cares if the government wastes millions on moonshots.
For new drugs like that, I’m not sure how much we could do, as the manufacturing is both in foreign ownership, and proprietary. Details from Gilead’s website...
https://www.gilead.com/purpose/advancing-global-health/covid-19/working-to-supply-remdesivir-for-covid-19
We could fund expanded contract manufacturing capacity both for pharmaceuticals and biologicals, though. Wouldn’t be a bad idea at all.
Setting up even existing contract manufacturing plant for a particular drug isn’t something that can be done overnight, though. @Charles might have some idea of what’s involved ?
0 -
In terms of minutes or miles? What happens if I get unexpectedly stuck in traffic on the way back? Do I have to stop and walk some more?Freggles said:
If your drive is shorter than your walk.eadric said:
Hasn’t the government explicitly said it’s ok to drive somewhere for a walk?SandyRentool said:
I will have a go. If you had broken down you would have generated an unnecessary social interaction.SandraMc said:OK. Have a go at me. We decided to take the car out for a spin round the block as it has been stationary on the drive for three weeks and we wanted to check it was running OK. We ended up driving for over half an hour round the countryside. The South Downs looked lovely, we saw the first bluebells we have seen this year plus there were lambs gambolling in the fields. Was our journey essential? No. Did it do our mental health any good? Undoubtedly.
Either we all play by the rules or we are well and truly fecked.0 -
I would be surprised if the econony dropped 30%. (It is possible, of course.)contrarian said:
Pubs and restaurants? do me a favour. Seriously do me a favour. The economy is forecast to shrink more than 30 per cent in the second quarter.Mortimer said:
Utter rot. I had gone into personal lockdown the week before it was mandated. Restaurants and pubs were beginning to close through lack of business.contrarian said:
Because of Coronavirus, significantly more people have tragically had to die than otherwise would.Richard_Tyndall said:So, a question for those considering an early lifting of the lockdown. Which is the worse outcome? I mean for the country and the population rather than politically for the Government.
1. The lockdown is maintained for another 3 or 4 months in its current form.
2. The lockdown is lifted, either slowly or rapidly and then people start to die again so it has to be re-imposed.
I am thinking of consequences:
For the economy
For people who, in the second case, catch the disease because the lockdown has been lifted
For people who, in the first case, die because they miss treatment, commit suicide or are victims of domestic abuse
For the long term moral of the people and business confidence if there is a short lifting followed by re-imposition.
Also what happens if the Government start to lift the lockdown and the majority of people decide it is not safe and stay away? I assume that could actually be worse for businesses than if the lockdown had stayed in place.
The governments choice was a horrible one - how they died.
They could either let the economy keep running and risk many thousands dying of Coronavirus, or throw enormous resources at stopping Coronavirus and risk many thousands dying of other curable diseases the NHS has almost given up treating, as well as many thousands dying from the poverty and austerity the ensuing unparalleled recession would bring.
I think they have unquestionably and catastrophically made the wrong choice.
They chose saving high profile deaths today over far, far more low profile deaths down the line in which Piers Morgan and his ilk have no interest. They have furthermore left a a mountain of misery, debt,poverty and unemployment for for those who remain.
It is the worst policy decision by any British government ever.
The choice was never the economy or saving lives from Covid 19.
It was saving lives from Covid 19 or not saving lives. The economy was shot either way....
That s a massive amount more than some pubs and restaurants you anecdotally noted being a bit emptier than normal. At the start of lockdown the papers were full of photos of people on the town.
The government had choices. In the end, it chose to do something no British government has ever done, no matter what adversity has befallen its citizens. It chose to destroy its own economy and place its own citizens effectively under house arrest.
Why?
Because 40% of the UK economy is the government. So a 30% drop in the UK economy is a 50% drop in private sector.
Possible? Yes.
But while there are whole sectors of the UK economy that are almost completely shut down (like hospitality), there are others that are broadly unaffected.
I would reckon that a 30% drop in private sector activity in Q2 is about right, but I'd also reckon government spending will be up 10% (or maybe more). So, the overall drop in economic activity is likely to be in the 15% range.2 -
Even if say 10% of the workforce was off at any one time, it'd be bad but most businesses would find a way to muddle through.
I fail to see how the economy could be WORSE in that situation than in a lockdown situation where entire sectors simply stop entirely.
I accept that in terms of saving the healthcare system lockdown is the best solution, but it most definitely is a choice between that and saving the economy. They have become mutually exclusive.0 -
https://www.college.police.uk/What-we-do/COVID-19/Documents/What-constitutes-a-reasonable-excuse.pdfnoneoftheabove said:
In terms of minutes or miles? What happens if I get unexpectedly stuck in traffic on the way back? Do I have to stop and walk some more?Freggles said:
If your drive is shorter than your walk.eadric said:
Hasn’t the government explicitly said it’s ok to drive somewhere for a walk?SandyRentool said:
I will have a go. If you had broken down you would have generated an unnecessary social interaction.SandraMc said:OK. Have a go at me. We decided to take the car out for a spin round the block as it has been stationary on the drive for three weeks and we wanted to check it was running OK. We ended up driving for over half an hour round the countryside. The South Downs looked lovely, we saw the first bluebells we have seen this year plus there were lambs gambolling in the fields. Was our journey essential? No. Did it do our mental health any good? Undoubtedly.
Either we all play by the rules or we are well and truly fecked.
0 -
Are the Swedish cases Of Covid-19 per age group much different to countries who’ve locked down?
24% 80 or older
27% 60-79
30% 50-69
19% 49 or under
Deaths
63% 80 or older
32% aged 60-79
2.9% 50-69
2.1% 49 or under
0 -
I wonder what the average absenteeism is during normal winter, combination of illness and people taking holidays?solarflare said:ven if say 10% of the workforce was off at any one time, it'd be bad but most businesses would find a way to muddle through.
I fail to see how the economy could be WORSE in that situation than in a lockdown situation where entire sectors simply stop entirely.
I accept that in terms of saving the healthcare system lockdown is the best solution, but it most definitely is a choice between that and saving the economy. They have become mutually exclusive.0 -
I just cannot get my head around those people who want to find loopholes in the lockdown rules so that they can increase their chances of catching the virus.0
-
If it's that bad already, imagine just how much worse it will get when, as part of an enormous and all too essential cost-cutting exercise, all their audit and tax clients insist on a 20% reduction it Deloitte's annual fees. The good times are well and truly over. The same thing probably applies to a greater or lesser extent with the fees charged by the big legal firmsTheScreamingEagles said:0 -
Probably. But it may be the only solution to this that's workable.williamglenn said:
I've heard anecdotes about younger people being confronted by angry elderly people for doing their daily walk saying, "You're the reason we have to stay cooped up!" Things could get bitter if there's a differential lockdown based on age.eadric said:
More importantly, I just don’t think young people will obey severe social distancing rules for a year. I know I would not have done, in my 20s.FrancisUrquhart said:I genuinely don't know how i feel about things. I dont find living in lockdown very hard and the thought of going out at the moment is very scary (not helped by the one time i left, i was exposed to somebody with CV symptoms)...but it isn't much of a life if you are telling me this is it for another 6-12 months.
Their job is to go out, have fun, fall in love, have sex. Make babies. That’s how humanity continues, and their hormones will not listen to Chris Whitty
So it’s just not going to work
We're told that the whole aim of staying at home is to protect the NHS and save lives, right? Well, you can't run the NHS if the state has no money left because the economy has been destroyed, and there's no point in saving people from Covid-19 if they freeze or starve to death next Winter because they've no fuel and nothing to eat.
So, if the inexorable logic of the position demands that we find a way both to keep the economy running and to prevent Covid cases from swamping the NHS at the same time, then only an age-based system of lockdown will work. You ease most of the social distancing restrictions on people under 60, the vast majority of whom will not be in danger of perishing from this virus and who also constitute the productive portion of the population, and you incarcerate all of the over 60s, who constitute nearly all of the casualties of the epidemic and who are reliant on the pension payments (for we would need to drop the state retirement age to 60 to cover them) and health and social care services paid for by the taxes of the young.
It's bloody horrible, but has anyone any alternative suggestions besides "let the Plague run rampant" or "let the economy die?" The adherents of the former position seem resigned to the mass casualties; those of the latter appear convinced that even the most trivial moves towards ending the lockdown will result in the Pale Horseman riding roughshod over the land. If we try to split the population insofar as possible into two completely separate populations then maybe we can avoid both of these extremes in the process?1 -
+1eadric said:
Let those who have the fear stay home, let those who don’t, go out?stodge said:
The problem is 71% of the British public are terrified they will catch the virus and I suspect hospitals are seen as the best place to catch the aforementioned.Mortimer said:
Sorry to hear that Stodge - didn't Hancock say that the NHS is open for business already?
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/nhs-open-business-usual-ready-18076686
I wouldn't go near a hospital at the moment - no offense, Dr Fox - and I would need a deal of convincing they are safe and virus free.
The biggest enemy now isn't the virus - it's the fear. @Contrarian has made his position clear on lock down but I've never heard him come up with anything to counteract the fear.
Maybe that’s the only answer. A looser version of the Swedish model.1 -
When we exit lockdown, it’s just going to start again anyway, so it’s the only option isn’t it?eadric said:
Let those who have the fear stay home, let those who don’t, go out?stodge said:
The problem is 71% of the British public are terrified they will catch the virus and I suspect hospitals are seen as the best place to catch the aforementioned.Mortimer said:
Sorry to hear that Stodge - didn't Hancock say that the NHS is open for business already?
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/nhs-open-business-usual-ready-18076686
I wouldn't go near a hospital at the moment - no offense, Dr Fox - and I would need a deal of convincing they are safe and virus free.
The biggest enemy now isn't the virus - it's the fear. @Contrarian has made his position clear on lock down but I've never heard him come up with anything to counteract the fear.
Maybe that’s the only answer. A looser version of the Swedish model.0 -
Are they more viable with zero customers? With fixed outgoings stacking up?Mortimer said:
Well, I used to be a management consultant in retail. So I think I have an idea...kyf_100 said:
I'd be interested to know how you think running a book shop translates into a working knowledge of any other sector of the economy.Mortimer said:
I'd be interested to know if you run a business? Not only would most people not take notice of the two months 'on', the rigmorole would be a nightmare.kyf_100 said:
A better way of doing it could be to lift restictions for a time, then impose a short lockdown. E.g. Two months off, one month locked down. Have everybody who wants to going wild, out to the pub or to dinner or a concert, or stay at home if you want. Then a month to slow things down again.Mortimer said:
Ok, you're Chris Whitty for a day.Anabobazina said:
You are falling into the all or nothing trap.Mortimer said:
This is rubbish.Anabobazina said:
No. It’s the fault of the lockdown. That’s a government choice. As Andy says, at some point soon the government will have to allow the economy to operate while protecting vulnerable groups with continued isolation.Mortimer said:
The really worrying issue isn't the virus, its the virus rampant plus healthcare collapse.Andy_JS said:
The lockdown can't continue for more than a few more weeks without ruining the economy, especially when it hardly affects younger people in good health. The government has to trust the people to do the right thing and not keep everyone locked down for months.Black_Rook said:
Just one of the many catastrophic consequences of the lockdown. The BBC is also reporting on the vast numbers of cancelled cancer treatments, screenings and referrals, which in turn will only be a fraction of the total number of urgent medical cases that are failing to be diagnosed or treated because of the scramble to stick a lid on Covid-19. And then there's the business failures, the layings off, the poverty and the consequent tsunami of mental illness that we've got heading our way.Cyclefree said:
I agree. At the moment the government is giving false hope: businesses like my daughter’s are trying to do what business they can so as to keep going and have a business for when the lockdown is lifted, in whole or in part. But if that is not going to happen - as implied by Whitty’s comments - then she (and many others like hers) may as well pack up now and close their businesses. Surviving on 30% of previous revenues simply isn’t tenable for a year or more.noneoftheabove said:
The reason it was done is the alternative of doing nothing was worse. We could scale it back a bit, reduce the govt subsidy, start to tighten which companies are eligible, but it will need to be very substantial for as long as we have a lockdown similar to the current one.Cyclefree said:
For a year or more? How realistic is that?Mortimer said:
Or the furlough scheme will be extended.Sandpit said:
That’s going to be the difficult bit. There’s eventually going to be a limit to how much government can keep the exceptional support flowing, and when it ends there’s going to be a lot of people moving onto the much-less-generous standard unemployment benefit and universal credit systems.Cyclefree said:
If that is the case what on earth is going to happen when the furlough scheme ends at the end of June? Mass unemployment, businesses closed for good, fall in tax revenue.....?CarlottaVance said:
As was made clear at the press conference today by Dr Whitty, while the initial lockdown strategy was very much science-driven, the next phases become much more political in terms of the timing and decisions made.
I feel despairing about it all.
I'm worried that the Government will have us in lockdown all Summer because the population is terrified of the virus and ministers themselves are terrified of being accused of failing to crush it. About ten or twenty times as many people will then end up perishing from the effects of the lockdown as have died or will die from the disease itself.
That is the alternative to a lockdown. And why any restriction easing will be slow and low...
The economy being ruined isn't the fault of the lockdown. Its the fault of the virus.
Its not just death that stalks the economy. It's fear of infection. It's concern for loved ones. It's realisation that 20% of the economy are going to be ill in bed at any one time if the lockdown is lifted.
The economy isn't going to function out of a lockdown, so why risk it?
Which restrictions do you ease and keep the R under 1?
A few small shops. The garden centres. What else?
Meanwhile we keep building NHS capacity until we can support x10 the number of patients we can at present at any one time. And allow the young and healthy to go about their business. Making each successive lockdown lighter.
What is killing businesses now is there is no end in sight. There are bills, fixed costs etc, stacking up, with nothing coming in. That makes it impossible to adapt. You just close down.
Allowing businesses and individuals to work and go about their lives for two months out of every three for the next year would allow a semblance of normality to return to daily life and give businesses the chance to survive, albeit at a reduced level.
It is a better strategy than just keeping people under house arrest until the economy goes belly up or the civil unrest starts.
And one month locked down wouldn't be enough to reduce NHS problems, as we're seeing now.
I don't know many people who are desperate to buy a second hand book right now, especially when you can get books on amazon.com, but my friends are already texting me with ideas about where and how we could all meet up for an illicit pint. The pubs will be roaring the second this ends. It'll be like VE day.
Ditto dentists, hairdressers and opticians. Look at the long lines already forming outside such places in countries that have eased their lockdowns.
I'm not saying business will be booming. But best estimates I have seen suggest anywhere between 50% - 70% of customers will return.
I suspect most businesses won't be viable at 50% custom, especially when it is coupled with massive spikes in infection rates.
The system we have at the moment - house arrest - is the worst. At least with my plan, more businesses would stand a chance. Even if only 50% of them were viable, it is better than sitting on our hands and waiting to go to the wall.
As I said before, what is absolutely killing businesses is the uncertainty. Tell us when the lockdown will end so we can get on with it.
Other countries are either re-opening doors with social distancing and mask wearing etc, or telling their people exactly when that will happen. Giving them a light at the end of the tunnel.
Our incompetent masters are driving the economy needlessly further into the dirt.0 -
Most recent reported death figures from Italy:isam said:Are the Swedish cases Of Covid-19 per age group much different to countries who’ve locked down?
24% 80 or older
27% 60-79
30% 50-69
19% 49 or under
Deaths
63% 80 or older
32% aged 60-79
2.9% 50-69
2.1% 49 or under
0-9 years: 0.2%
10-19 years: nil
20-29 years: 0.1%
30-39 years: 0.4%
40-49 years: 0.9%
50-59 years: 2.6%
60-69 years: 9.9%
70-79 years: 24.7%
80-89 years: 30.8%
90 years+: 25.9%
Unknown: 1.8%
Given what we also know about the prevalence of comorbidities amongst those dying of Covid-19, the chances of a healthy person below the age of 60, and especially under 50, actually succumbing to this illness would appear to be remote.1 -
The younger could with equal or more justice say that to the old.williamglenn said:
I've heard anecdotes about younger people being confronted by angry elderly people for doing their daily walk saying, "You're the reason we have to stay cooped up!" Things could get bitter if there's a differential lockdown based on age.eadric said:
More importantly, I just don’t think young people will obey severe social distancing rules for a year. I know I would not have done, in my 20s.FrancisUrquhart said:I genuinely don't know how i feel about things. I dont find living in lockdown very hard and the thought of going out at the moment is very scary (not helped by the one time i left, i was exposed to somebody with CV symptoms)...but it isn't much of a life if you are telling me this is it for another 6-12 months.
Their job is to go out, have fun, fall in love, have sex. Make babies. That’s how humanity continues, and their hormones will not listen to Chris Whitty
So it’s just not going to work
0 -
Sir Richard Branson's co-investor in Virgin Atlantic has ruled out injecting cash into the struggling airline - and indicated he expects it to go into administration.
Ed Bastian, chief executive of Delta Air Lines, said his focus was currently on protecting his own business as the aviation industry grapples with the worst trading environment in living memory.
Delta owns 49% of Virgin Atlantic while Sir Richard's Virgin Group owns the other 51%.
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-delta-rules-out-cash-lifeline-for-struggling-virgin-atlantic-119772160 -
-
-
I asked that downthread. I think he must mean in next 12 months - though I suspect by end 2021 is equally true.Chris said:When Chris Whitty said the chances of having a vaccine "any time in the next calendar year" were incredibly small, presumably he didn't really mean the next calendar year - 2021? Presumably he meant "in less than a year from now"?
0 -
To the extent that money is just an abstraction of economic power, the government ultimately has a monopoly.Black_Rook said:We're told that the whole aim of staying at home is to protect the NHS and save lives, right? Well, you can't run the NHS if the state has no money left because the economy has been destroyed...
0 -
The least that can be done at the end of all this is the abandonment of the triple lock and a mechanism for extracting some of the wealth locked up in well-to-do oldies' homes to pay for their social care.contrarian said:YOung people already had a bit of a gripe with home owning boomers before Corona.
When they see the devastation that will be left for them to clear up over, well....
I think bitterness is an understatement.
If the Tories won't do it this time around then eventually the average age of a pauper in this country will pass the point at which the have-nots outnumber the haves, and at that point Labour will be back and the vengeance of the have-nots will be terrible.2 -
Yes, for anyone under 50 this lockdown is very much a sacrifice to protect the old, they have very little risk of dying from Covid 19 themselves but could spread it to their eldersBlack_Rook said:
Most recent reported death figures from Italy:isam said:Are the Swedish cases Of Covid-19 per age group much different to countries who’ve locked down?
24% 80 or older
27% 60-79
30% 50-69
19% 49 or under
Deaths
63% 80 or older
32% aged 60-79
2.9% 50-69
2.1% 49 or under
0-9 years: 0.2%
10-19 years: nil
20-29 years: 0.1%
30-39 years: 0.4%
40-49 years: 0.9%
50-59 years: 2.6%
60-69 years: 9.9%
70-79 years: 24.7%
80-89 years: 30.8%
90 years+: 25.9%
Unknown: 1.8%
Given what we also know about the prevalence of comorbidities amongst those dying of Covid-19, the chances of a healthy person below the age of 60, and especially under 50, actually succumbing to this illness would appear to be remote.0 -
SRB has a good chance to rebalance his shareholding here, if he wants to put some cash in?TheScreamingEagles said:Sir Richard Branson's co-investor in Virgin Atlantic has ruled out injecting cash into the struggling airline - and indicated he expects it to go into administration.
Ed Bastian, chief executive of Delta Air Lines, said his focus was currently on protecting his own business as the aviation industry grapples with the worst trading environment in living memory.
Delta owns 49% of Virgin Atlantic while Sir Richard's Virgin Group owns the other 51%.
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-delta-rules-out-cash-lifeline-for-struggling-virgin-atlantic-11977216
Alternatively, he can watch his flagship business go to the wall and leave 8,000 lost jobs and a worthless brand as his legacy?0 -
100% that. Why would I risk catching a potentially fatal virus for the sake of going to a restaurant or the cinema?TheScreamingEagles said:
Your latter point is what I expect to happen, backed up with polling, so the government lifts the lockdown, removes the business support, and people still act as if there is a lockdown as they don't want to risk their health, and the health of their families.Richard_Tyndall said:So, a question for those considering an early lifting of the lockdown. Which is the worse outcome? I mean for the country and the population rather than politically for the Government.
1. The lockdown is maintained for another 3 or 4 months in its current form.
2. The lockdown is lifted, either slowly or rapidly and then people start to die again so it has to be re-imposed.
I am thinking of consequences:
For the economy
For people who, in the second case, catch the disease because the lockdown has been lifted
For people who, in the first case, die because they miss treatment, commit suicide or are victims of domestic abuse
For the long term moral of the people and business confidence if there is a short lifting followed by re-imposition.
Also what happens if the Government start to lift the lockdown and the majority of people decide it is not safe and stay away? I assume that could actually be worse for businesses than if the lockdown had stayed in place.
https://twitter.com/benatipsosmori/status/1252476096735580160
If the virus is nearly eradicated and I'm confident the government is tracking and tracing remaining infections then I'd feel more confident about coming out.0 -
Yes and once everyone's had their pint and their haircut and their eyes tested, what then?kyf_100 said:
I don't know many people who are desperate to buy a second hand book right now, especially when you can get books on amazon.com, but my friends are already texting me with ideas about where and how we could all meet up for an illicit pint. The pubs will be roaring the second this ends. It'll be like VE day.
Ditto dentists, hairdressers and opticians. Look at the long lines already forming outside such places in countries that have eased their lockdowns.
I'm not saying business will be booming. But best estimates I have seen suggest anywhere between 50% - 70% of customers will return.
Can business survive on 50-70% of normal? Some numpty claimed there would be 20% unemployment so that's 6 million people with less money to spend on beer, haircuts and specs. Will that help business survive?
Even in the countries which are partially re-opening there are strict rules on social distancing and mask wearing. It isn't a "return to normal" but an easing of restrictions.
A restaurant with 70 covers might have just 30 available - will they be viable?
What if the pessimists are right and all this does is kick the virus off again - lock down mark 2? I'd prefer to walk down this road only once.
0 -
I hope your granddaughter makes a good recovery.Duderooster said:Bristol Airport testing is definitely open - my granddaughter, a care worker in Weston S Mare - was tested positive at it 2 days ago
1 -
Peace?HYUFD said:
Lenin?
Fuck me, where do they get these idiots from? Lenin was a firm believer in violence and terrorism. A case could be made that he is the fourth worst mass murderer of all time. He launched a war that caused around 13 million deaths, and McCauley described him as ‘bloodthirsty as a vampire.’
He just happened to oppose the war between the Russian and German Empires.5 -
I see SpaceX are getting really good at landing the rockets on that barge.1
-
I don’t think there’s any perceived chance of smoking deaths or fatty food deaths escalating exponentially.Andy_JS said:Tens of thousands of lives could be saved every year if we (a) banned smoking, (b) banned driving, (c) banned fatty and sugary foods. The government doesn't ban them because they believe that liberty is more important.
(Driving deaths per year in the UK is about 1750, IIRC, so not comparable, anyway. And we restrict liberty significantly in cars to push the deaths down that low).
0 -
The extreme Left are always on about false consciousness. But they are the ones who can't see the history right in front of their eyes.ydoethur said:
Peace?HYUFD said:
Lenin?
Fuck me, where do they get this idiots from? Lenin was a firm believer in violence and terrorism. A case could be made that he is the fourth worst mass murderer of all time. He launched a war that caused around 13 million deaths, and McCauley described him as ‘bloodthirsty as a vampire.’
He just happened to oppose the war between the Russian and German Empires.
Deluded.
5 -
Young Labour did back Long Baileyydoethur said:
Peace?HYUFD said:
Lenin?
Fuck me, where do they get these idiots from? Lenin was a firm believer in violence and terrorism. A case could be made that he is the fourth worst mass murderer of all time. He launched a war that caused around 13 million deaths, and McCauley described him as ‘bloodthirsty as a vampire.’
He just happened to oppose the war between the Russian and German Empires.0 -
Goodbye. Goodbye.HYUFD said:
Wipe the tear, baby dear, from your eye.0 -
Unlike London Young Labour I've been to Chopwell.HYUFD said:1 -
Not clear therefore why they should be in lock-down. The lock-down should be focussed on the oldies who would be released from it when herd immunity is reached or the vaccine comes on stream.HYUFD said:
Yes, for anyone under 50 this lockdown is very much a sacrifice to protect the old, they have very little risk of dying from Covid 19 themselves but could spread it to their eldersBlack_Rook said:
Most recent reported death figures from Italy:isam said:Are the Swedish cases Of Covid-19 per age group much different to countries who’ve locked down?
24% 80 or older
27% 60-79
30% 50-69
19% 49 or under
Deaths
63% 80 or older
32% aged 60-79
2.9% 50-69
2.1% 49 or under
0-9 years: 0.2%
10-19 years: nil
20-29 years: 0.1%
30-39 years: 0.4%
40-49 years: 0.9%
50-59 years: 2.6%
60-69 years: 9.9%
70-79 years: 24.7%
80-89 years: 30.8%
90 years+: 25.9%
Unknown: 1.8%
Given what we also know about the prevalence of comorbidities amongst those dying of Covid-19, the chances of a healthy person below the age of 60, and especially under 50, actually succumbing to this illness would appear to be remote.
1 -
I have a plan.peter_from_putney said:
If it's that bad already, imagine just how much worse it will get when, as part of an enormous and all too essential cost-cutting exercise, all their audit and tax clients insist on a 20% reduction it Deloitte's annual fees. The good times are well and truly over. The same thing probably applies to a greater or lesser extent with the fees charged by the big legal firmsTheScreamingEagles said:
I will go in with a crack team of consultants (of my choosing).
We will charge £3k per day per head to prepare a report.
The contract will require that we get paid in front of any other creditors.
Fuck 'em if they can't take their own joke.1 -
Under 50s seem happy to go out post lockdown, over 50s less so.LostPassword said:
100% that. Why would I risk catching a potentially fatal virus for the sake of going to a restaurant or the cinema?TheScreamingEagles said:
Your latter point is what I expect to happen, backed up with polling, so the government lifts the lockdown, removes the business support, and people still act as if there is a lockdown as they don't want to risk their health, and the health of their families.Richard_Tyndall said:So, a question for those considering an early lifting of the lockdown. Which is the worse outcome? I mean for the country and the population rather than politically for the Government.
1. The lockdown is maintained for another 3 or 4 months in its current form.
2. The lockdown is lifted, either slowly or rapidly and then people start to die again so it has to be re-imposed.
I am thinking of consequences:
For the economy
For people who, in the second case, catch the disease because the lockdown has been lifted
For people who, in the first case, die because they miss treatment, commit suicide or are victims of domestic abuse
For the long term moral of the people and business confidence if there is a short lifting followed by re-imposition.
Also what happens if the Government start to lift the lockdown and the majority of people decide it is not safe and stay away? I assume that could actually be worse for businesses than if the lockdown had stayed in place.
https://twitter.com/benatipsosmori/status/1252476096735580160
If the virus is nearly eradicated and I'm confident the government is tracking and tracing remaining infections then I'd feel more confident about coming out.
Hairdressers and clothing stores look to be OK, restaurants, pubs and gyms less so
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1252937718620979200?s=19
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1252937722894974978?s=190 -
It is ironic that a banner commemorating Lenin refers to ‘Chopwell.’SandyRentool said:
Unlike London Young Labour I've been to Chopwell.HYUFD said:
Dzerzhinsky would approve.0 -
I would be interested to see the reaction to a package that includes disconnecting the offshore, expensive "service providers" from their feast...Sandpit said:
SRB has a good chance to rebalance his shareholding here, if he wants to put some cash in?TheScreamingEagles said:Sir Richard Branson's co-investor in Virgin Atlantic has ruled out injecting cash into the struggling airline - and indicated he expects it to go into administration.
Ed Bastian, chief executive of Delta Air Lines, said his focus was currently on protecting his own business as the aviation industry grapples with the worst trading environment in living memory.
Delta owns 49% of Virgin Atlantic while Sir Richard's Virgin Group owns the other 51%.
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-delta-rules-out-cash-lifeline-for-struggling-virgin-atlantic-11977216
Alternatively, he can watch his flagship business go to the wall and leave 8,000 lost jobs and a worthless brand as his legacy?0 -
These are still absolutely astonishing to watch, they've something over 90% hit rate on the barges in the last year, only missed a couple. How much the state of technology has been moved on in the last few years is astounding. Manned mission up next for SpaceX.FrancisUrquhart said:I see SpaceX are getting really good at landing the rockets on that barge.
0 -
There is also pretty strong evidence that men are at significantly greater risk - in terms of fatalities - to this virus than women. Would it,therefore, be logical to focus efforts on the incarceration of older men?Black_Rook said:
Probably. But it may be the only solution to this that's workable.williamglenn said:
I've heard anecdotes about younger people being confronted by angry elderly people for doing their daily walk saying, "You're the reason we have to stay cooped up!" Things could get bitter if there's a differential lockdown based on age.eadric said:
More importantly, I just don’t think young people will obey severe social distancing rules for a year. I know I would not have done, in my 20s.FrancisUrquhart said:I genuinely don't know how i feel about things. I dont find living in lockdown very hard and the thought of going out at the moment is very scary (not helped by the one time i left, i was exposed to somebody with CV symptoms)...but it isn't much of a life if you are telling me this is it for another 6-12 months.
Their job is to go out, have fun, fall in love, have sex. Make babies. That’s how humanity continues, and their hormones will not listen to Chris Whitty
So it’s just not going to work
We're told that the whole aim of staying at home is to protect the NHS and save lives, right? Well, you can't run the NHS if the state has no money left because the economy has been destroyed, and there's no point in saving people from Covid-19 if they freeze or starve to death next Winter because they've no fuel and nothing to eat.
So, if the inexorable logic of the position demands that we find a way both to keep the economy running and to prevent Covid cases from swamping the NHS at the same time, then only an age-based system of lockdown will work. You ease most of the social distancing restrictions on people under 60, the vast majority of whom will not be in danger of perishing from this virus and who also constitute the productive portion of the population, and you incarcerate all of the over 60s, who constitute nearly all of the casualties of the epidemic and who are reliant on the pension payments (for we would need to drop the state retirement age to 60 to cover them) and health and social care services paid for by the taxes of the young.
It's bloody horrible, but has anyone any alternative suggestions besides "let the Plague run rampant" or "let the economy die?" The adherents of the former position seem resigned to the mass casualties; those of the latter appear convinced that even the most trivial moves towards ending the lockdown will result in the Pale Horseman riding roughshod over the land. If we try to split the population insofar as possible into two completely separate populations then maybe we can avoid both of these extremes in the process?1 -
Did he wield the axe?ydoethur said:
It is ironic that a banner commemorating Lenin refers to ‘Chopwell.’SandyRentool said:
Unlike London Young Labour I've been to Chopwell.HYUFD said:
Dzerzhinsky would approve.
0 -
Seems fair to meFrancisUrquhart said:1 -
I read a medical theory earlier in the week that this is because the virus can reside in the testicals. No idea whether there is any truth in it, or maybe it was all balls.justin124 said:
There is also pretty strong evidence that men are at significantly greater risk - in terms of fatalities - to this virus than women. Would it,therefore, be logical to focus efforts on the incarceration of older men?Black_Rook said:
Probably. But it may be the only solution to this that's workable.williamglenn said:
I've heard anecdotes about younger people being confronted by angry elderly people for doing their daily walk saying, "You're the reason we have to stay cooped up!" Things could get bitter if there's a differential lockdown based on age.eadric said:
More importantly, I just don’t think young people will obey severe social distancing rules for a year. I know I would not have done, in my 20s.FrancisUrquhart said:I genuinely don't know how i feel about things. I dont find living in lockdown very hard and the thought of going out at the moment is very scary (not helped by the one time i left, i was exposed to somebody with CV symptoms)...but it isn't much of a life if you are telling me this is it for another 6-12 months.
Their job is to go out, have fun, fall in love, have sex. Make babies. That’s how humanity continues, and their hormones will not listen to Chris Whitty
So it’s just not going to work
We're told that the whole aim of staying at home is to protect the NHS and save lives, right? Well, you can't run the NHS if the state has no money left because the economy has been destroyed, and there's no point in saving people from Covid-19 if they freeze or starve to death next Winter because they've no fuel and nothing to eat.
So, if the inexorable logic of the position demands that we find a way both to keep the economy running and to prevent Covid cases from swamping the NHS at the same time, then only an age-based system of lockdown will work. You ease most of the social distancing restrictions on people under 60, the vast majority of whom will not be in danger of perishing from this virus and who also constitute the productive portion of the population, and you incarcerate all of the over 60s, who constitute nearly all of the casualties of the epidemic and who are reliant on the pension payments (for we would need to drop the state retirement age to 60 to cover them) and health and social care services paid for by the taxes of the young.
It's bloody horrible, but has anyone any alternative suggestions besides "let the Plague run rampant" or "let the economy die?" The adherents of the former position seem resigned to the mass casualties; those of the latter appear convinced that even the most trivial moves towards ending the lockdown will result in the Pale Horseman riding roughshod over the land. If we try to split the population insofar as possible into two completely separate populations then maybe we can avoid both of these extremes in the process?0 -
Have you seen The Liar Tweets Tonight trending on Facebook and Twitterrottenborough said:0 -
I wonder what the reaction in Germany is to this? If the Currant Bun wrote something as forthright as that, i imagine twitter would meltdown over what a racist outburst it was.Floater said:
Seems fair to meFrancisUrquhart said:1 -
The problem with that is Conservatives are desperate to protect if not enhance the notion of inheritance which is the one way of ensuring the pauperised healthy young get something from their frightened diseased-ridden older relatives.Black_Rook said:
The least that can be done at the end of all this is the abandonment of the triple lock and a mechanism for extracting some of the wealth locked up in well-to-do oldies' homes to pay for their social care.
The residential care home sector is going to be in a desperate position after this and once even more comes out about the numbers who have perished in the homes. Who would want their elderly relative to end up there?
The remaining private care homes will have to be nationalised as the providers go out of business and we will have a de facto national residential care service which will need to be funded and the costs will be far beyond current local council provision.
1 -
For fans of The swearing Welsh Health Minister. https://twitter.com/robosborneitv/status/1252984748965797891
Follow the thread then remind yourselves, make sure you know how to mute the microphone..0 -
On checking, it was Ramón Mercader who did for Bronstein aka Trotsky.geoffw said:
Did he wield the axe?ydoethur said:
It is ironic that a banner commemorating Lenin refers to ‘Chopwell.’SandyRentool said:
Unlike London Young Labour I've been to Chopwell.HYUFD said:
Dzerzhinsky would approve.
0 -
How old are you?LostPassword said:
100% that. Why would I risk catching a potentially fatal virus for the sake of going to a restaurant or the cinema?TheScreamingEagles said:
Your latter point is what I expect to happen, backed up with polling, so the government lifts the lockdown, removes the business support, and people still act as if there is a lockdown as they don't want to risk their health, and the health of their families.Richard_Tyndall said:So, a question for those considering an early lifting of the lockdown. Which is the worse outcome? I mean for the country and the population rather than politically for the Government.
1. The lockdown is maintained for another 3 or 4 months in its current form.
2. The lockdown is lifted, either slowly or rapidly and then people start to die again so it has to be re-imposed.
I am thinking of consequences:
For the economy
For people who, in the second case, catch the disease because the lockdown has been lifted
For people who, in the first case, die because they miss treatment, commit suicide or are victims of domestic abuse
For the long term moral of the people and business confidence if there is a short lifting followed by re-imposition.
Also what happens if the Government start to lift the lockdown and the majority of people decide it is not safe and stay away? I assume that could actually be worse for businesses than if the lockdown had stayed in place.
https://twitter.com/benatipsosmori/status/1252476096735580160
If the virus is nearly eradicated and I'm confident the government is tracking and tracing remaining infections then I'd feel more confident about coming out.
In essence, if you're not over 60 (or suffering from one of a range of serious underlying health conditions) then you've probably got more chance, under normal conditions, of being wiped out in a road traffic accident than dying of Covid-induced pneumonia. Does this mean that you will never dare get into a car again?
We will all tailor our approach to this illness according to our circumstances. If the lockdown were eased and I were still single, then I'd probably still be wary about visiting my parents but apart from that I'd be willing to take my chances. As it is my husband is vulnerable so I'd be more inclined to keep steering clear of the gym and other jollies and stick to going to work, grocery shopping and going running (although the odd visit to a restaurant might also end up happening, simply because he is finding being cooped up at home very difficult to bear and might not be dissuaded from going out.)
But, frankly, why shouldn't your typical thirtysomething couple and their kids go out and about and enjoy their lives if they want to? Covid is theoretically lethal to them too, but then again so is being run over by a bus, having an anaphylactic reaction to a wasp sting, being knifed to death by someone high on drugs or having a psychotic episode, getting struck by lightning, simply dropping down dead of a brain haemorrhage, or any number of other things. If we worried about all the things that might kill us every day of our lives then we'd be constantly paralyzed by fear.4 -
According to their own accounts, they've been seven figures unprofitable in each of the past two years. Even ignoring the identity of the shareholders, why would any government throw a penny to such an already-failing business?Malmesbury said:
I would be interested to see the reaction to a package that includes disconnecting the offshore, expensive "service providers" from their feast...Sandpit said:
SRB has a good chance to rebalance his shareholding here, if he wants to put some cash in?TheScreamingEagles said:Sir Richard Branson's co-investor in Virgin Atlantic has ruled out injecting cash into the struggling airline - and indicated he expects it to go into administration.
Ed Bastian, chief executive of Delta Air Lines, said his focus was currently on protecting his own business as the aviation industry grapples with the worst trading environment in living memory.
Delta owns 49% of Virgin Atlantic while Sir Richard's Virgin Group owns the other 51%.
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-delta-rules-out-cash-lifeline-for-struggling-virgin-atlantic-11977216
Alternatively, he can watch his flagship business go to the wall and leave 8,000 lost jobs and a worthless brand as his legacy?
As far as the underlying business is concerned, it's probably viable if they get rid of half the fleet - the old 747s and A330s - and with associated cuts at head office. Administration would be a good opportunity for someone to pick up the new fleet of A350s and 787s for a good price, alongside the valuable LHR slots.0
This discussion has been closed.