Coronavirus (COVID-19)

[Todd_is_God]

449 UK deaths added today.

I am aware totals are under reported at the weekend, but these numbers are significantly lower than last weekend.

Edited April 20, 2020 by Todd_is_God

[Guest]

It will be interesting to see what figures constitute an "acceptable" level of deaths and infections.

I've no doubt at all that four weeks from now the "lockdown" will look very different, although much will depend on what happens in the likes of Germany to see if their relaxation is manageable and whether or not infections dramatically rise again.

Edited April 20, 2020 by WATTOO

[Todd_is_God]

Just now, WATTOO said:

It will be interesting to see what figures constitute an "acceptable" level of deaths and infections.

1,500 people die in the UK each day on average.

Given there appears to be a not insignificant cross-over with heart disease deaths, anything around an average of 150 - 200 per day would probably be considered acceptable if it got the economy moving again.

[jagfox]

 

[Savage Henry]

It will be interesting to see what figures constitute an "acceptable" level of deaths and infections.
I've no doubt at all that four weeks from now the "lockdown" will look very different, although much will depend on what happens in the likes of Germany to see if their relaxation is manageable and whether or not infections dramatically rise again.

Trouble is, nobody will ever give a reasoned figure for that. What they might say is that at no point did the NHS get overstretched... to which folk will needless second guess them by asking what the point of all the social distancing was.

If we are now on the downturn, I think we ought to be saying it could be much, much worse. And then watch the USA for an example of how bad it could have been.

[Theroadlesstravelled]

Who is still out and spreading this shit around?

Get them leathered.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

1,500 people die in the UK each day on average.

Given there appears to be a not insignificant cross-over with heart disease deaths, anything around an average of 150 - 200 per day would probably be considered acceptable if it got the economy moving again.

Yes, that would probably do it, especially if they keep it under control within the NHS, which of course is the while rationale behind the lockdown.

[GordonS]

1 hour ago, yoda said:

 

Don't believe the politically motivated "the government runs like your household!" slogans, which are backed by pretty flimsy supporting evidence. 

One of the many ways a national economy is nothing like a household budget is insurance, which was brought to mind recently when Wimbledon said they had pandemic insurance and eejits claimed that means they are smarter than the government.

The government doesn't get insurance for anything. Its buildings, contents, cars, third party liability, nothing. It's not worth the premiums, because they will never not be able to pay for the loss out of pocket. A school building goes on fire? There's money to rebuild. If the event is massive enough and widespread enough to put a meaningful strain on public finances, like we're experiencing now, then the premiums for that insurance would be higher than the costs of borrowing to cover the loss. Besides, no company could ever be big enough to insure a government for a half-trillion cost.

Running a country is nothing like running a household, a company or even a local authority. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Savage Henry said:

 

Trouble is, nobody will ever give a reasoned figure for that. What they might say is that at no point did the NHS get overstretched... to which folk will needless second guess them by asking what the point of all the social distancing was.

If we are now on the downturn, I think we ought to be saying it could be much, much worse. And then watch the USA for an example of how bad it could have been.
 

 

Yes, I wouldn't disagree with that. It's all about balancing risk control and the economy. 

[GordonS]

1 minute ago, Theroadlesstravelled said:

Who is still out and spreading this shit around?

Get them leathered.

You want to leather those working in healthcare, social care, food supply, shops, transport, emergency services and utilities?

You want to stop everyone from going out to buy food?

[Todd_is_God]

6 minutes ago, Savage Henry said:

If we are now on the downturn, I think we ought to be saying it could be much, much worse. And then watch the USA for an example of how bad it could have been.

 

Partly true. The USA has a huge population.

That they have such high absolute numbers shouldn't be a surprise.

[D.A.F.C]

Turkish ppe went missing.

[GordonS]

21 minutes ago, DiegoDiego said:

36 minutes ago, Snafu said:

Something that hasn't been mentioned yet in the media is the effect that the lockdown has had on the Charity Shops around the country.
With all shops shut there will be no donations of items, so very little income.

At my old job we were allowed to exchange a day of regular work for a day of volunteering (I was paid as normal). I ended up in British Heart Foundation and in the training .pdf they said that only about 10% of their income came from the shops.

A high proportion of charity income is from wills. For example, in 2018/19 the British Heart Foundation received £83.4m from legacies. So if more people are dying... 

The effect on charity shops might be more on the shop owners than the charity. My sister-in-law used to run a charity shop, and it was basically a franchise. She was self-employed, and she operated under an agreement to pay the charity a flat sum each month plus a percentage of takings. If those shops have no income then the charity might not lose much, but the owners are stuffed.

In my sister-in-law's case she ended up better off running it as a second-hand shop, even with the taxes, than as a charity shop. 

[Detournement]

The other thing to think about is the current account overdraft at the BoE. The government is massively overdrawn but has an unlimited faculty to issue as much Sterling as they need to. The normal expectation is that the government will eventually issue bonds and uses the sale proceeds to clear the overdraft.

However the only reason the government will be able to borrow that huge amount of money at a low rate is because they have already pumped that exact amount of money into the market they are borrowing from. If they had to borrow before they could spend no one would lend or only at a high rate.

From this we can see that the government can create any amount of money at the central bank and borrow it at zero percent interest. There is no need to issue bonds other than that is how things have always been done and it's vital in the reproduction of inequalities. The BoE will never unwind QE and there is no reason for this Corina overdraft spending to be paid back either.

 

 

[jagfox]

56 minutes ago, Cornishman said:

Interesting. Particularly, the interview halfway through.

 

https://21stcenturywire.com/2020/04/15/herd-immunity-expert-explains-why-covid-19-lockdown-social-distancing-doesnt-actually-work/

The Rockefeller University releases statement concerning Knut Wittkowski - Knut by name?

[doulikefish]

8 minutes ago, D.A.F.C said:

Turkish ppe went missing.

Must be using the aircraft carrier planes...they havenae left yet 

[Jambomo]

“Are you ashamed as a government” ha ha ha ha - doesn’t he realise he’s talking to a Tory? They have no fucking shame.

[stu20vt]

9 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

Partly true. The USA has a huge population.

That they have such high absolute numbers shouldn't be a surprise.

USA has about 4 times the population of Germany...yet deaths in Germany linked to CV about 4500,  USA about at 41000. 

[Jambomo]

Robert Peston looks like he has grey haired ear-plugs. Bizarre.

[Father Ted]

4 hours ago, beefybake said:

What do you do ?

Self employed gardener