Coronavirus (COVID-19)

[DA Baracus]

27 minutes ago, ICTChris said:

Including plenty of P&Bers - 

 

 

Indeed. Harrowing reading from truly filthy fools. Disgusting stuff.

[ayrmad]

1 hour ago, ICTChris said:

Including plenty of P&Bers - 

 

 

Obviously half of respondents lied like f**k, never in a million years do 38% of men wash their hands after going to the toilet. 

[ayrmad]

1 hour ago, madmitch said:

Haven't seen much reference to this. The U.K.'s first instance of community transmission of the virus was March 1.  

Lockdown was announced on March 23rd.  NZ 's first case of community transmission was reported on March 24 the country went into full lockdown on March 27th.  Yet, the UK Govt. claiming that they weren't too slow in responding.  NZ easing lockdown measures next Monday for two weeks then reviewing the alert level at the end of that period. 

Scotland 8187 cases 902 deaths.

NZ  1440 cases 12 deaths.

We had deaths before March 1st.

[welshbairn]

Don't think you can take much from a comparison with New Zealand, there are too many variables, being a bunch of weirdos for one. I've got family there, I know.

Edited April 20, 2020 by welshbairn

[Granny Danger]

54 minutes ago, greendot said:

The government is responding through an official channel to a political attack and you think thats corrupt?  How would you prefer them to the respond?  Through a Civil Servants Facebook site?!?!?!  Surely responding through an official channel is the only way to deal with this??  Doesn't matter what your political bias is respond through an official channel.

It’s a political attack.  They have plenty of ways to respond to it that does not what involve using a tax payer funded mechanism.

Official government platforms are not meant to be used for party political purposes.

[greendot]

2 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

They have plenty of ways to respond to it that does not what involve using a tax payer funded mechanism.

Such as?

[ICTJohnboy]

1 hour ago, coprolite said:

Sounds like someone's got a Tory fetish. I bet you cracked one off to that Thatcher pic a few pages back didn't you?

 

Certainly not, but I might have made an exception for this one.

 

[Granny Danger]

3 minutes ago, greendot said:

Such as?

You’re obviously as thick as shit if you need me to explain how a politician can get a message across without using an official government channel.  They do it all the time.

Therefore I won’t waste my time discussing it with you further.

[greendot]

Just now, Granny Danger said:

You’re obviously as thick as shit if you need me to explain how a politician can get a message across without using an official government channel.  They do it all the time.

Therefore I won’t waste my time discussing it with you further.

 

The government, funded by the tax payer, so any response they give will be off the tax payer's funded mechanism.  So unfortunately i think it's you that's thick as pig shit I'm afraid........

[ICTJohnboy]

4 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

You’re obviously as thick as shit if you need me to explain how a politician can get a message across without using an official government channel.  They do it all the time.

Therefore I won’t waste my time discussing it with you further.

 

Oh Granny, sometimes your posts have a somewhat less than flattering, or respectful quality about them.

[coprolite]

1 hour ago, Granny Danger said:

An official government website being used to respond to a political attack.  That is as corrupt as f**k.

 

 

1 hour ago, greendot said:

The government is responding through an official channel to a political attack and you think thats corrupt?  How would you prefer them to the respond?  Through a Civil Servants Facebook site?!?!?!  Surely responding through an official channel is the only way to deal with this??  Doesn't matter what your political bias is respond through an official channel.

I think that the government is entitled to respond as the government to correct factual inaccuracies if they might pose risks. 

Responding point by point like this in an adversarial manner is really inappropriate. 

It reads like a sevco statement knocked up for the trump administration. 

[ICTJohnboy]

16 minutes ago, coprolite said:

 

It reads like a sevco statement knocked up for the trump administration. 

 

Was that submitted by the Texas Rangers?

[O'Kelly Isley III]

It’s a political attack.  They have plenty of ways to respond to it that does not what involve using a tax payer funded mechanism.
Official government platforms are not meant to be used for party political purposes.

Isn't that what the Daily Telegraph exists for ?

[Granny Danger]

37 minutes ago, greendot said:

 

The government, funded by the tax payer, so any response they give will be off the tax payer's funded mechanism.  So unfortunately i think it's you that's thick as pig shit I'm afraid........

All political parties receive a level of public funding for political appointees.  Using said resources to respond is well within the accepted norms.  Using the mechanism they did isn’t.

[madwullie]

5 hours ago, Jacksgranda said:

What % of black/asians are front line medical staff?

Are Covid-19 deaths broken down by profession and race?

That absolute fanny piers Morgan posted this earlier

 

I appreciate this is a bit looks a bit muslimy 

Edited April 20, 2020 by madwullie

[DrewDon]

Fair play to my next door neighbours' daughter, who arrived with shopping for her elderly, high-risk parents about two hours ago and has since decided to join them for a coffee and a chat in their back garden. It's not the first time since lockdown, either. Maybe she's after the inheritance. 

[Mark Connolly]

Read a good line earlier, saying that the spread of covid19 was down to how dense the population is, and to take that however you like.

[madwullie]

2 hours ago, greendot said:

The government is responding through an official channel to a political attack and you think thats corrupt?  How would you prefer them to the respond?  Through a Civil Servants Facebook site?!?!?!  Surely responding through an official channel is the only way to deal with this??  Doesn't matter what your political bias is respond through an official channel.

.gov.uk is not a platform for the government of the day to be political on. It is set up to provide information to UK citizens, nit defend or attack any particular political party that happens to be in charge at that time. 

It is a serious misuse of that domain. 

[yoda]

15 hours ago, pandarilla said:

I'd like to see this discussion play out a bit more (along with the nurses pics).

Every instinct i have says they're has to be long term and very damaging consequences to this. But I'm generally pretty clueless on economics so I'm happy to be persuaded.

What are the main reasons that we can't keep borrowing /printing money? And why do you guys (and a couple of others) think that doesn't need to apply?

 

14 hours ago, Todd_is_God said:

You end up with hyperinflation. The money people have becomes worth much less and prices sky rocket.

Following WW1 Germany printed money to pay off its war debts. In the end, children played with huge bundles of banknotes worth trillions of Marks as they were absolutely worthless.

See also Zimbabwe.

The "hyperinflation" argument, when applied to a modern advanced economy doesn't really hold. The context in which Weimar Germany and Mugabe's Zimbabwe operated is totally different to the current environment the UK operates in. It's a red herring and should be ignored. 

 

13 hours ago, GordonS said:

From what I've read by people who ought to know on the left and right, if we don't borrow and spend our way through this we won't have an economy to come back to. There's little point in the country having less debt if we have 30% unemployment by July and catastrophically less money in the system.

Exactly. 

 

13 hours ago, JTS98 said:

Printing money is a risk, but it's not correct to be as black and white as 'printing money = catastrophe'. For example, the Japanese economy has done fine out of the central bank using money out of thin air to buy up government bonds. There are a lot of factors involved in that, but it's not the case that printing money always leads to disaster. America's current approach is similar to the Japanese model, for example.

As for borrowing, interest rates are extremely low just now, meaning, in simple terms, that it's a great time to borrow money. This will obviously lead to a huge spike in national debt, but governments may reasonably come to the conclusion that that's better than dealing with the economic and social consequences of a large percentage of the public losing their jobs: How can the public help a recovery when they have no job and no savings?

Huge debt levels can be handled. It just relies on smart policy. The approach to debt in the west after World War 2 was largely very different to post-WW1, and much more successful. Generally speaking, austerity (such as post WW1 Britain) to deal with this kind of thing proved to be a bad idea as it simply slowed output and made the problem worse. The whole point is that you borrow to prop up the economy and then accept that it's a shit situation and we need to wait quite a while to bring the debt back down to levels we are happy with. Governments could also implement financial repression, where they force banks etc to lend to them on terms that favour the government. 

Handled well, a massive increase in debt needn't be much of a problem. If that debt has ensured the public come out of this with disposable income, then they are ready to go shopping once it's over and get the economy moving again. It may cause a rise in inflation if governments choose some version of printing money to accompany borrowing, but short-term that's not going to lead to a Zimbabwe situation.

So, I think the government will continue to borrow their way out of this. Certain newspapers will bang on about rising national debt, but it's not really something to panic about, especially when compared to the alternative.

A good post.

 

A spike in the national debt is largely irrelevant for us normal people. Japan hasn't turned into a failed state despite having a debt ratio of more than 230%. It can still borrow and it still has a functioning economy (albeit one which operates in a slow growth, low inflation, zero-percent interest rates environment). Don't believe the politically motivated "the government runs like your household!" slogans, which are backed by pretty flimsy supporting evidence. The best way to "reduce" the debt is by running a surplus with a thriving economy, rather than hacking away at essential public services and reducing growth (not that the Cameron government succeeded in that objective...)

Obviously the government funding wages and businesses - essentially being consumer and employer of last resort - is not a sustainable policy option in the long-term. But we're not talking long-term. We're talking short-term; and given the alternative is mass unemployment and business failures, ratcheting up the debt doesn't seem like such a bad idea.

[DiegoDiego]

Read a good line earlier, saying that the spread of covid19 was down to how dense the population is, and to take that however you like.

I will take it as nonsense, as I've shown using data earlier on this thread.