politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The boys who cried sheep. The politics of the end of lockdown

First and I actually read Alastair's piece!

Isn't the bigger issue getting people to start going out and spending money again? Plenty of people are still working (allegedly), but as long as consumption is much reduced, the impact on the economy will be severe.

fpt

Richard_Tyndall said:

Anabobazina said:

Chris said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Enda said:

Foxy said:

https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1262264071132340224?s=09

My thought is that if return is made voluntary (and I think compulsion would result in mass truancy) it is the most deprived children who are least likely to return.

Maybe as simple as poor people feeling that social advancement through education is not on the cards for their children. Interesting though.

I don't know if families with children headed by a single parent could be another factor causing this reluctance? Clearly covid 19 has terrified many people and it's possible this is more pronounced in women? If so, women make-up most single parents and as such won't be influeced by another parent potentially holding a diverging view about going back to school. Families with children headed by a single parent may also be more adverse to taking any risk of bringing covid 19 into their household given they shoulder sole responsibility for looking after everything?

He's getting lost in the detail. By far the most important thing in that chart is how many parents don't want to send their children back to school. Even the figures for the lowest quintile show a lot of resistance to the idea.

And of course other polls have shown large numbers are reluctant to go to pubs, use public transport or even shop for food.

Yes, some people have been scared shitless. Yet it will slowly dawn on people that the risks if you are under 50 and fit and healthy are vanishingly small.

Vanishingly small to you individually. Until you take the virus home and give it to your grandmother.

Go to the pub, kill gran.

Not a great look.

It's analogous to legalising drugs (bear with me). I happen to be a fan of legalising drugs. Drugs are hugely harmful and people should be discouraged as much as possible from using them. However, I'd rather it was all legalised with attendant prohibition, education, guidelines, licenses, perhaps, whatever. In that way an existing harm is mitigated and the associated harms (eg. crime, etc) is reduced.

No one is saying CV-19 is harmless for gran. But it doesn't have to be all or nothing. Being in a low risk group suppose you go to the pub once it opens and don't or do socially distance. You would then be aware enough (with government educational support) not to go straight round to your gran's house to give her a beery kiss and bear hug.

Because you ain't seeing your gran right now whatever the situation so why not go down the pub if you are low risk and not see your gran?

These jokers just refuse to accept that 8th April wasn't the peak

https://twitter.com/pwyowell/status/1262359286228955136?s=21

On returning to work, of the workforce -

48% are working from home (full time)
26% are furloughed
8% are unemployed

which means that 18% of the working population is already working at their place of work, or partly WFH.

So 66% of the workforce are working. Already.

DavidL said:

So we need to be a lot more candid about the price of lockdown. Not so much the economic price (which is massive) but the health price.

Are more people dying of cancer because they are not getting treatment?
Is there a change in the suicide rate?
Are people losing their teeth, their sight and other useful parts of their body?
Would those who we are looking to protect prefer to take their chances and see their grandkids?

Any attempt to point to the completely unsustainable cost will run into the argument of Tories caring more about money than lives. We need to focus on the lives being lost and blighted by this and persuade people that because the NHS is now geared up to cope there are worse things out there. As Alastair says, not easy.

Some of us have tried to be candid about this since the beginning of lockdown.

Others downgraded deaths from cancer and others to second class because they are not newsworthy and are most inconvenient to the the long lockdown argument.

FrancisUrquhart said:

Foxy said:

Dirty sleazy Tories on the slide...

twitter.com/britainelects/status/1262378323105263629?s=19

Who are Redfield and Wilton? Their twitter account has 17 followers and only started in April. Are they some polling company that has renamed themselves?

They look legit, but brand new. Set up in January.

BPC suggests they are run by a Bruno Rodrigues, whose name I do not recognise. Seems to be a 35 year old corporate lawyer by trade.

Anabobazina said:

NerysHughes said:

Its a no win situation, howver I would say that people are getting very used to Furlough or getting 100% pay "working from home" for a Local Authority and have no desire to return to work, especially as the weather is nice.

I often agree with you but putting WFH in inverted commas is a bit silly, to be honest. I think companies have proved beyond any reasonable doubt that WFH is a good model that, erm, works.

Works for some, no doubt.

In other cases, productivity will be down and depression up.

From my perspective, I find being in the shop is more productive for the day to day, mundane tasks, and WFH more productive when I have a focused task to do that involves little interaction with others.

Its interesting that 700 people die from falling down stairs every year, because that is still a lot more than the number of healthy people between 0 and 60 that Coronavirus has killed.

NerysHughes said:

Anabobazina said:

NerysHughes said:

Its a no win situation, howver I would say that people are getting very used to Furlough or getting 100% pay "working from home" for a Local Authority and have no desire to return to work, especially as the weather is nice.

I often agree with you but putting WFH in inverted commas is a bit silly, to be honest. I think companies have proved beyond any reasonable doubt that WFH is a good model that, erm, works.

There are lots of people working from home and it works great and I am sure that is the future for many people, but in the currently working stats there will be many getting 100% pay who are either not working or only working in a limited way. As an example I am friends with an electrical engineer for a Local Authority. He is working from home, but is only allowed to log in to their server once a week and currently has nothing to do.

My neighbour works for the council and has been working from home. On full salary of course. She reckons she does two hours per week and thinks it`s a hoot.

TOPPING said:

Good header. Yes; it has to be the Prime Minister.

But he needs to put the good of the country before himself.

Which I simply don't think he will be able to do.

I think he will because he will realise that the two things are actually aligned.

(FPT)

FrancisUrquhart said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TimT said:

Was this shared already?

Moderna’s closely watched early-stage human trial for a coronavirus vaccine produced Covid-19 antibodies in all 45 participants.
Each participant received a 25 microgram, 100 mcg or 250 mcg dose, with 15 people in each dose group.
At day 43, or two weeks following the second dose, levels of binding antibodies in the 25 mcg group were at the levels generally seen in blood samples from people who recovered from the disease

Richard_Nabavi said:

From the Guardian live finance blog:

Travel company shares are now soaring in London, on hopes that a vaccine breakthrough [Moderna] could, perhaps, help the global economy to emerge from the Covid-19 lockdown sooner than previously feared.

A bit premature, methinks!

All reports say that even if this is a home run, it will only be available for limited emergency use this year.

A limited emergency use would be better than nothing.

I would guess limited emergency use IN THE US. Unless they are willing to share early and have other people start the mass production of it.

Edit:

Moderna aims for a billion COVID-19 shots a year with Lonza manufacturing tie-up

• Technology transfer expected to begin in June 2020

• First batches of mRNA-1273 expected to be manufactured at Lonza U.S. in July 2020

https://www.fiercepharma.com/manufacturing/moderna-aims-for-a-billion-covid-19-shots-a-year-lonza-manufacturing-tie-up

If the Moderna vaccine is truly effective, that is excellent news, as it is probably the most easily scalable technology for mass production.

Interestingly it showed a dose dependent response (they tried both 25 and 100 mcg doses). Finers crossed for this one, too.

Stocky said:

NerysHughes said:

Anabobazina said:

NerysHughes said:

Its a no win situation, howver I would say that people are getting very used to Furlough or getting 100% pay "working from home" for a Local Authority and have no desire to return to work, especially as the weather is nice.

I often agree with you but putting WFH in inverted commas is a bit silly, to be honest. I think companies have proved beyond any reasonable doubt that WFH is a good model that, erm, works.

There are lots of people working from home and it works great and I am sure that is the future for many people, but in the currently working stats there will be many getting 100% pay who are either not working or only working in a limited way. As an example I am friends with an electrical engineer for a Local Authority. He is working from home, but is only allowed to log in to their server once a week and currently has nothing to do.

My neighbour works for the council and has been working from home. On full salary of course. She reckons she does two hours per week and thinks it`s a hoot.

My daughter and I both work for (different) companies that supply news, data and information the financial markets

Neither of us has ever been busier.

FrancisUrquhart said:

Foxy said:

twitter.com/britainelects/status/1262378323105263629?s=19

On Wednesday Starmer owns another donkey?

Do we have any idea who these people are? When I look at their twitter account they have 17 followers and looks like only set up in April. Are they a rebrand on an existing polling company?

To be honest I see no reason to doubt the figures

The government and Boris are not going to find 'getting back to normal' easy

There are just too many comfortable with lockdown, shielded by furlough, and just plain scared to mix and go back to work

DavidL said:

So we need to be a lot more candid about the price of lockdown. Not so much the economic price (which is massive) but the health price.

Are more people dying of cancer because they are not getting treatment?
Is there a change in the suicide rate?
Are people losing their teeth, their sight and other useful parts of their body?
Would those who we are looking to protect prefer to take their chances and see their grandkids?

Any attempt to point to the completely unsustainable cost will run into the argument of Tories caring more about money than lives. We need to focus on the lives being lost and blighted by this and persuade people that because the NHS is now geared up to cope there are worse things out there. As Alastair says, not easy.

The 'cost' of this Lock down is a very human thing. to mention just some known to me.

My Mum, a C of E vicar had to phone up 5 braids and tell them that there weddings will be delayed,

A colleague at work, was unable to go to the funeral of his grandmother, because of the 12 person.

A friend of mine who was hoping to have started IVF, has not been able to start that.

The Pro-Lockdown side seem are keen to accuse us of putting the economy before people lives. while the economy is not irreverent, this is fundamentally about freedom, the quality of people lives matters, the ability to do things that you what to. the ability to make your own disitions including about how much risk you are prepared to take.

"Almost four in ten English care homes have had coronavirus outbreaks, No 10 admits"

https://www.itv.com/news/2020-05-18/coronavirus-four-in-ten-care-homes-have-had-outbreaks-no-10-admits/

Anabobazina said:

Stocky said:

Anabobazina said:

Stocky said:

Alastair - that`s a superb header. The best from you I think. So well written.

I`d query: "To date, all the people advocating an end to the lockdown were initially arguing that Covid-19 was all a fuss about nothing". I don`t think that`s fair. I don`t know anyone who thought it was a fuss about nothing - other than the loudmouth-geezer-in-the-pub type.

Quite. See my post at 1429hrs. Unlike Alastair to fall into the all-or-nothing trap, but it seems even the brightest among us are not immune to it!

I was following your to-and-fro with Philip in the last thread. I am very much on your side. We`re still in the minority, sadly. There is an elephant in the room, which I think you see but, like me, are shying away from saying it. I`m surprised by Philip`s position, actually. I generally side with him on most things.

Nigelb said:

(FPT)

FrancisUrquhart said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TimT said:

Was this shared already?

Moderna’s closely watched early-stage human trial for a coronavirus vaccine produced Covid-19 antibodies in all 45 participants.
Each participant received a 25 microgram, 100 mcg or 250 mcg dose, with 15 people in each dose group.
At day 43, or two weeks following the second dose, levels of binding antibodies in the 25 mcg group were at the levels generally seen in blood samples from people who recovered from the disease

Richard_Nabavi said:

From the Guardian live finance blog:

Travel company shares are now soaring in London, on hopes that a vaccine breakthrough [Moderna] could, perhaps, help the global economy to emerge from the Covid-19 lockdown sooner than previously feared.

A bit premature, methinks!

All reports say that even if this is a home run, it will only be available for limited emergency use this year.

A limited emergency use would be better than nothing.

I would guess limited emergency use IN THE US. Unless they are willing to share early and have other people start the mass production of it.

Edit:

Moderna aims for a billion COVID-19 shots a year with Lonza manufacturing tie-up

• Technology transfer expected to begin in June 2020

• First batches of mRNA-1273 expected to be manufactured at Lonza U.S. in July 2020

https://www.fiercepharma.com/manufacturing/moderna-aims-for-a-billion-covid-19-shots-a-year-lonza-manufacturing-tie-up

If the Moderna vaccine is truly effective, that is excellent news, as it is probably the most easily scalable technology for mass production.

Interestingly it showed a dose dependent response (they tried both 25 and 100 mcg doses). Finers crossed for this one, too.

I don’t know anything at all about vaccine production, but instinctively I find it hard to countenance the idea that if a vaccine is found we won’t ramp up global production to such an intense degree we’d have it available well ahead of normal production timetables. Money is no object.

You can only ramp up production if the vaccine can be manufactured. If it needs to be grown how do you speed things up.

Stocky said:

contrarian said:

Stocky said:

NerysHughes said:

Anabobazina said:

NerysHughes said:

Its a no win situation, howver I would say that people are getting very used to Furlough or getting 100% pay "working from home" for a Local Authority and have no desire to return to work, especially as the weather is nice.

I often agree with you but putting WFH in inverted commas is a bit silly, to be honest. I think companies have proved beyond any reasonable doubt that WFH is a good model that, erm, works.

There are lots of people working from home and it works great and I am sure that is the future for many people, but in the currently working stats there will be many getting 100% pay who are either not working or only working in a limited way. As an example I am friends with an electrical engineer for a Local Authority. He is working from home, but is only allowed to log in to their server once a week and currently has nothing to do.

My neighbour works for the council and has been working from home. On full salary of course. She reckons she does two hours per week and thinks it`s a hoot.

My daughter and I both work for (different) companies that supply news, data and information the financial markets

Neither of us has ever been busier.

Private sector v public sector?

Dunno its partly the markets.

Bond issuance has exploded as big companies look to finance themselves through this tough period. Interest in investment management performance has also jumped as people try to assess the winners and losers from the carnage.

Reliable information for this sort of thing is suddenly v. useful.

Stocky said:

NerysHughes said:

Anabobazina said:

NerysHughes said:

Its a no win situation, howver I would say that people are getting very used to Furlough or getting 100% pay "working from home" for a Local Authority and have no desire to return to work, especially as the weather is nice.

I often agree with you but putting WFH in inverted commas is a bit silly, to be honest. I think companies have proved beyond any reasonable doubt that WFH is a good model that, erm, works.

There are lots of people working from home and it works great and I am sure that is the future for many people, but in the currently working stats there will be many getting 100% pay who are either not working or only working in a limited way. As an example I am friends with an electrical engineer for a Local Authority. He is working from home, but is only allowed to log in to their server once a week and currently has nothing to do.

My neighbour works for the council and has been working from home. On full salary of course. She reckons she does two hours per week and thinks it`s a hoot.

based on how long it can take to get a council to actual do anything: Its also possible that she only does 2 hours of productive work in normal times at her office, and the rest is:

Drinking coffee,
Going to meetings,
Having a brake,
Compiling abort the boss to the trade union rep.

Andy_JS said:

"Almost four in ten English care homes have had coronavirus outbreaks, No 10 admits"

https://www.itv.com/news/2020-05-18/coronavirus-four-in-ten-care-homes-have-had-outbreaks-no-10-admits/

As Big G said in last thread, public perception is that they all have it. I think the truth of this matter can be added to the litany other facts in Boris`s broadcast to the nation that we eagerly await following Alastair`s intervention.

SouthamObserver said:

NerysHughes said:

Its a no win situation, howver I would say that people are getting very used to Furlough or getting 100% pay "working from home" for a Local Authority and have no desire to return to work, especially as the weather is nice.

Companies claim the furlough, it is not paid to individual workers. That, in theory, means the issue is one for businesses. Do they want those on furlough back? When the government starts asking them to make that decision, things are going to get very real indeed.

I think the point that was made, the other day about employers rotating the furlough to see who is actually doing useful work, should be food for thought.....

Good thread header, very fair and sensible.

I think the government could find a way of easing the lockdown faster on younger people. Again very hard to message right, but the risk to under 50s and certainly under 40s is low.

Philip_Thompson said:

RobD said:

Andy_JS said:

"Almost four in ten English care homes have had coronavirus outbreaks, No 10 admits"

https://www.itv.com/news/2020-05-18/coronavirus-four-in-ten-care-homes-have-had-outbreaks-no-10-admits/

The number in the last week is staggering. How are they still getting new cases? You thought these places would be locked down tighter than fort knox by now.

How many visitors daily from staff members, nurses, NHS staff etc do you think they're getting?

An asymptomatic NHS district nurse could unfortunately seed an outbreak in multiple homes, it only takes one carrier to get in to start it off.

Yes indeed - yet they stop me - clean as a whistle from seven weeks in isolation - from seeing my own dear mother.

RobD said:

Andy_JS said:

"Almost four in ten English care homes have had coronavirus outbreaks, No 10 admits"

https://www.itv.com/news/2020-05-18/coronavirus-four-in-ten-care-homes-have-had-outbreaks-no-10-admits/

The number in the last week is staggering. How are they still getting new cases? You thought these places would be locked down tighter than fort knox by now.

Poorly paid workers living in house shares?

Brom said:

Foxy said:

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1262378323105263629?s=19

On Wednesday Starmer owns another donkey?

Starmer is the donkey judging by the polls. Still only on 35% despite the media barrage.

It will take a while for the less politically interested to realise we have a donkey for PM who has surrounded himself by other donkeys. You, on the other hand don't have that excuse, and yet you still believe your idol "Boris", an absolute joke of a man, is PM material.

Stocky said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RobD said:

Andy_JS said:

"Almost four in ten English care homes have had coronavirus outbreaks, No 10 admits"

https://www.itv.com/news/2020-05-18/coronavirus-four-in-ten-care-homes-have-had-outbreaks-no-10-admits/

The number in the last week is staggering. How are they still getting new cases? You thought these places would be locked down tighter than fort knox by now.

How many visitors daily from staff members, nurses, NHS staff etc do you think they're getting?

An asymptomatic NHS district nurse could unfortunately seed an outbreak in multiple homes, it only takes one carrier to get in to start it off.

Yes indeed - yet they stop me - clean as a whistle from seven weeks in isolation - from seeing my own dear mother.

Because your visit isn't necessary but the nurses is. Tragically.

And it goes the other way. If you asymptomatically bring it in you risk infecting not just your own mother but everyone else's relatives in the home, and the staff, and a nurse who can then take it to another home.

This is why the only way to stop the care home outbreaks is to stop all community transmission. Completely.

Otherwise just write off the care homes as a price worth paying for lifting lockdown prematurely. I'm not prepared to do that when it looks like we have a viable safer alternative.

Some years ago Jeremy Corbyn's brother had his offices in the same building as my company, in fact right in the next door rooms. He was a nutjob even then, selling weather long-term 'forecasts', arrived at using some method known only to him, to gullible companies such as retailers. I got to know him reasonably well, and, shall we say, was not impressed. He seems to have got a lot nuttier still since.

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Stocky said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RobD said:

Andy_JS said:

"Almost four in ten English care homes have had coronavirus outbreaks, No 10 admits"

https://www.itv.com/news/2020-05-18/coronavirus-four-in-ten-care-homes-have-had-outbreaks-no-10-admits/

The number in the last week is staggering. How are they still getting new cases? You thought these places would be locked down tighter than fort knox by now.

How many visitors daily from staff members, nurses, NHS staff etc do you think they're getting?

An asymptomatic NHS district nurse could unfortunately seed an outbreak in multiple homes, it only takes one carrier to get in to start it off.

Yes indeed - yet they stop me - clean as a whistle from seven weeks in isolation - from seeing my own dear mother.

Because your visit isn't necessary but the nurses is. Tragically.

And it goes the other way. If you asymptomatically bring it in you risk infecting not just your own mother but everyone else's relatives in the home, and the staff, and a nurse who can then take it to another home.

This is why the only way to stop the care home outbreaks is to stop all community transmission. Completely.

Otherwise just write off the care homes as a price worth paying for lifting lockdown prematurely. I'm not prepared to do that when it looks like we have a viable safer alternative.

It’s impossible to stop all community transmission...

Why?

It's already down over 80%. Many other nations have eliminated it, why can't we do what they've done?

We've got the testing capabilities now, we've got the base load massively down. Why can't we eliminate the final 20%?

And if we can confidence will soar. It's a gamble worth taking for me.

Andy_JS said:

...
Interesting quote from this article:

"China borrows from the World Bank at one per cent (that’s your money) and loans it on at up to six per cent."

Far be it for me to defend China, but that's hardly a scandal even if it is true - China is taking the credit risk, which must be very high.

Philip_Thompson said:

Stocky said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RobD said:

Andy_JS said:

"Almost four in ten English care homes have had coronavirus outbreaks, No 10 admits"

https://www.itv.com/news/2020-05-18/coronavirus-four-in-ten-care-homes-have-had-outbreaks-no-10-admits/

The number in the last week is staggering. How are they still getting new cases? You thought these places would be locked down tighter than fort knox by now.

How many visitors daily from staff members, nurses, NHS staff etc do you think they're getting?

An asymptomatic NHS district nurse could unfortunately seed an outbreak in multiple homes, it only takes one carrier to get in to start it off.

Yes indeed - yet they stop me - clean as a whistle from seven weeks in isolation - from seeing my own dear mother.

Because your visit isn't necessary but the nurses is. Tragically.

And it goes the other way. If you asymptomatically bring it in you risk infecting not just your own mother but everyone else's relatives in the home, and the staff, and a nurse who can then take it to another home.

This is why the only way to stop the care home outbreaks is to stop all community transmission. Completely.

Otherwise just write off the care homes as a price worth paying for lifting lockdown prematurely. I'm not prepared to do that when it looks like we have a viable safer alternative.

What if the residents of the care home would rather die than live their current existence. No visitors, only seeing staff bring meals wearing masks, as my mother currently experiences. We are farming old folk, completely prioritisng quantity of life over quality.

My mother is appalled that other residents are being denied seeing their own loved ones to protect herself (my mother). She`s never asked for this protection, has never sought it and disagrees with it.

FPT @Nigel_foremain

Nigel_Foremain said:

» show previous quotes
Malcolmg is the Nat equivalent of HYUFD. Nicola could tell him the moon was made of cheese an he would ask her what variety. I always find it very odd that someone who is so critical of everyone else could be so gullible when it comes to messages from their own side.

You really are a totally thick numpty. You do not obviously read my posts , jog on you sad thicko.

contrarian said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Stocky said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RobD said:

Andy_JS said:

"Almost four in ten English care homes have had coronavirus outbreaks, No 10 admits"

https://www.itv.com/news/2020-05-18/coronavirus-four-in-ten-care-homes-have-had-outbreaks-no-10-admits/

The number in the last week is staggering. How are they still getting new cases? You thought these places would be locked down tighter than fort knox by now.

How many visitors daily from staff members, nurses, NHS staff etc do you think they're getting?

An asymptomatic NHS district nurse could unfortunately seed an outbreak in multiple homes, it only takes one carrier to get in to start it off.

Yes indeed - yet they stop me - clean as a whistle from seven weeks in isolation - from seeing my own dear mother.

Because your visit isn't necessary but the nurses is. Tragically.

And it goes the other way. If you asymptomatically bring it in you risk infecting not just your own mother but everyone else's relatives in the home, and the staff, and a nurse who can then take it to another home.

This is why the only way to stop the care home outbreaks is to stop all community transmission. Completely.

Otherwise just write off the care homes as a price worth paying for lifting lockdown prematurely. I'm not prepared to do that when it looks like we have a viable safer alternative.

It’s impossible to stop all community transmission...

Absolutely. It is also becoming obvious the attempt to achieve the impossible isn't viable. It just has to end. We can't afford to keep it going.

And I daresay we also can't afford the milder form of attempt to achieve the impossible we have now. As millions are about to find out.

It is viable. It's down over 80% so far and that data is lagging so probably more than that so far.

Stocky said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Stocky said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RobD said:

Andy_JS said:

"Almost four in ten English care homes have had coronavirus outbreaks, No 10 admits"

https://www.itv.com/news/2020-05-18/coronavirus-four-in-ten-care-homes-have-had-outbreaks-no-10-admits/

The number in the last week is staggering. How are they still getting new cases? You thought these places would be locked down tighter than fort knox by now.

How many visitors daily from staff members, nurses, NHS staff etc do you think they're getting?

An asymptomatic NHS district nurse could unfortunately seed an outbreak in multiple homes, it only takes one carrier to get in to start it off.

Yes indeed - yet they stop me - clean as a whistle from seven weeks in isolation - from seeing my own dear mother.

Because your visit isn't necessary but the nurses is. Tragically.

And it goes the other way. If you asymptomatically bring it in you risk infecting not just your own mother but everyone else's relatives in the home, and the staff, and a nurse who can then take it to another home.

This is why the only way to stop the care home outbreaks is to stop all community transmission. Completely.

Otherwise just write off the care homes as a price worth paying for lifting lockdown prematurely. I'm not prepared to do that when it looks like we have a viable safer alternative.

What if the residents of the care home would rather die than live their current existence. No visitors, only seeing staff bring meals wearing masks, as my mother currently experiences. We are farming old folk, completely prioritisng quantity of life over quality.

My mother is appalled that other residents are being denied seeing their own loved ones to protect herself (my mother). She`s never asked for this protection, has never sought it and disagrees with it.

And does she speak for every resident? And all their children? And all grandchildren?

I don't think we can or should lockdown for long but I think we have already squished this over 80% and just a couple more weeks would make containment a viable strategy. At which point you should be able to see your mother.

The coalition government, led by the Socialist Party (PSOE) with junior partner Unidas Podemos, is planning to introduce a scheme that will seek to benefit around a million households – some three million people – and will be means tested according to the type of family, the number of children in the household, and the family unit’s level of poverty.

The total cost of the system is estimated at nearly €5.5 billion a year, an amount equivalent to just over half the monthly cost of Spanish pension payments. This amount will gradually fall over time, as the guaranteed minimum income system absorbs other social benefits.

https://english.elpais.com/economy_and_business/2020-04-19/spains-guaranteed-minimum-income-scheme-will-come-with-55bn-price-tag.html

So about as far from UBI idea as you can get then. Its a mean test benefits like most schemes across the world. Sounds more like universal credit, wrapping a load of other benefits into one payment.

Norm said:

Pretty relevant article from Meeksy - I couldn't believe the residual scale of the lockdown when I ventured into town this morning to visit an optician. Nice in the optician no people plenty of staff including a spare one who filled her time watching me and the optician measuring up etc. Police car in high street , mostly shut up except for food shops. It really is time to end this and get back to work. BoJo needs to get back on that 5pm briefing and tackle the issue head on as AW suggests.

All shops are not supposed to be open yet.

BigRich said:

Stocky said:

NerysHughes said:

Anabobazina said:

NerysHughes said:

Its a no win situation, howver I would say that people are getting very used to Furlough or getting 100% pay "working from home" for a Local Authority and have no desire to return to work, especially as the weather is nice.

I often agree with you but putting WFH in inverted commas is a bit silly, to be honest. I think companies have proved beyond any reasonable doubt that WFH is a good model that, erm, works.

There are lots of people working from home and it works great and I am sure that is the future for many people, but in the currently working stats there will be many getting 100% pay who are either not working or only working in a limited way. As an example I am friends with an electrical engineer for a Local Authority. He is working from home, but is only allowed to log in to their server once a week and currently has nothing to do.

My neighbour works for the council and has been working from home. On full salary of course. She reckons she does two hours per week and thinks it`s a hoot.

based on how long it can take to get a council to actual do anything: Its also possible that she only does 2 hours of productive work in normal times at her office, and the rest is:

Drinking coffee,
Going to meetings,
Having a brake,
Compiling abort the boss to the trade union rep.

I read an amusing article years ago about 'homing from work' – it was based on data that revealed the great extent to which office-based employees spend work time online shopping, paying their gas bill, chatting to friends etc etc.

Philip_Thompson said:

contrarian said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Stocky said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RobD said:

Andy_JS said:

"Almost four in ten English care homes have had coronavirus outbreaks, No 10 admits"

https://www.itv.com/news/2020-05-18/coronavirus-four-in-ten-care-homes-have-had-outbreaks-no-10-admits/

The number in the last week is staggering. How are they still getting new cases? You thought these places would be locked down tighter than fort knox by now.

How many visitors daily from staff members, nurses, NHS staff etc do you think they're getting?

An asymptomatic NHS district nurse could unfortunately seed an outbreak in multiple homes, it only takes one carrier to get in to start it off.

Yes indeed - yet they stop me - clean as a whistle from seven weeks in isolation - from seeing my own dear mother.

Because your visit isn't necessary but the nurses is. Tragically.

And it goes the other way. If you asymptomatically bring it in you risk infecting not just your own mother but everyone else's relatives in the home, and the staff, and a nurse who can then take it to another home.

This is why the only way to stop the care home outbreaks is to stop all community transmission. Completely.

Otherwise just write off the care homes as a price worth paying for lifting lockdown prematurely. I'm not prepared to do that when it looks like we have a viable safer alternative.

It’s impossible to stop all community transmission...

Absolutely. It is also becoming obvious the attempt to achieve the impossible isn't viable. It just has to end. We can't afford to keep it going.

And I daresay we also can't afford the milder form of attempt to achieve the impossible we have now. As millions are about to find out.

It is viable. It's down over 80% so far and that data is lagging so probably more than that so far.

Isn;t it true that one reason Corona got into the homes was the state's response to corona rather than the disease itself.

Contagious patients were sent from NHS hospitals to care homes to free up beds. And this is the same state that we should take 'stop all community transmission' from . The state that was responsible at least in part for the care home outbreak itself.

malcolmg said:

FPT @Nigel_foremain

Nigel_Foremain said:

» show previous quotes
Malcolmg is the Nat equivalent of HYUFD. Nicola could tell him the moon was made of cheese an he would ask her what variety. I always find it very odd that someone who is so critical of everyone else could be so gullible when it comes to messages from their own side.

You really are a totally thick numpty. You do not obviously read my posts , jog on you sad thicko.

Haha, I have read plenty of your posts, all of which would indicate you are not quite in a position to insult anyone with respect to intelligence. Certainly if clarity of argument and ability to articulate said argument are indicators of intelligence then you clearly weren't at the front of the proverbial queue , though the biggest indicator of all is that even by the low bar that is set by people who believe in the backward cretinous ideology of nationalism, you dip well below it. I think I was being very unfair to HYUFD though, comparing you with him was very unkind to the poor chap.

Malmesbury said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Some years ago Jeremy Corbyn's brother had his offices in the same building as my company, in fact right in the next door rooms. He was a nutjob even then, selling weather long-term 'forecasts', arrived at using some method known only to him, to gullible companies such as retailers. I got to know him reasonably well, and, shall we say, was not impressed. He seems to have got a lot nuttier still since.

Who was the guy in long range weather forecasting, who was a bit odd, but actually delivered? Beat some of the big players? Trying to remember the name...

Piers Corbyn's long-range weather forecasts were based on his readings of sunspot cycles. For a long time, Piers was darling of the anti-climate change/AGW brigade because he said it could all be explained by changes in solar activity.

That's two separate journalists that haven't managed to just google this scheme before tw@ttering about UBI.

Fact Checking is so last decade.

Everyone over age of five in the UK with symptoms can now be tested for coronavirus, Health Secretary Matt Hancock has announced.

Matt Hancock says 21,000 people have been recruited to conduct contact-tracing in England, including 7,500 healthcare workers.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52713127

Malmesbury said:

Norm said:

Pretty relevant article from Meeksy - I couldn't believe the residual scale of the lockdown when I ventured into town this morning to visit an optician. Nice in the optician no people plenty of staff including a spare one who filled her time watching me and the optician measuring up etc. Police car in high street , mostly shut up except for food shops. It really is time to end this and get back to work. BoJo needs to get back on that 5pm briefing and tackle the issue head on as AW suggests.

All shops are not supposed to be open yet.

More mixed messaging from HMG perhaps? As an aside, a friend's optician made an appointment for him last week, then cancelled it again after they had another look at what Boris had said.

Stupid question perhaps but how does one go about getting tested for corona antibodies? I might have missed it somewhere!

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Malmesbury said:

Norm said:

Pretty relevant article from Meeksy - I couldn't believe the residual scale of the lockdown when I ventured into town this morning to visit an optician. Nice in the optician no people plenty of staff including a spare one who filled her time watching me and the optician measuring up etc. Police car in high street , mostly shut up except for food shops. It really is time to end this and get back to work. BoJo needs to get back on that 5pm briefing and tackle the issue head on as AW suggests.

All shops are not supposed to be open yet.

More mixed messaging from HMG perhaps? As an aside, a friend's optician made an appointment for him last week, then cancelled it again after they had another look at what Boris had said.

I felt 100% safe frankly. The shop was ultra hygienic, the staff wore masks, the measuring or lining up was done via their clever laptop thingy and there was a screen between me and the optician. I was the only customer.

Anabobazina said:

Stupid question perhaps but how does one go about getting tested for corona antibodies? I might have missed it somewhere!

As a random member of the public, at the moment you don't.

Does Paul Brand from ITV even know what a UBI is? The big clue is in the first word: universal.

FrancisUrquhart said:

Anabobazina said:

Stupid question perhaps but how does one go about getting tested for corona antibodies? I might have missed it somewhere!

As a random member of the public, at the moment you don't.

So how does that square with Hancock's "every person over the age of five..." ?

I try not to give out too many biographical details on PB, but I am willing to reveal that I am over the age of five, as much as that might surprise some PBers.

Anabobazina said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Anabobazina said:

Stupid question perhaps but how does one go about getting tested for corona antibodies? I might have missed it somewhere!

As a random member of the public, at the moment you don't.

So how does that square with Hancock's "every person over the age of five..." ?

I try not to give out too many biographical details on PB, but I am willing to reveal that I am over the age of five, as much as that might surprise some PBers.

He is talking about antigen testing i.e. if you think you might have it at the moment. Until today, it was limited to a select group of people, basically in hospital, work in healthcare or an oldie that needed to go out for work.

Now it is basically anybody who doesn't feel well can ask for a test, to see if they have it.

Antibody testing is for if you think you have had it. They are coming, but will be used on front line healthcare staff first and also population sampling.