Coronavirus (OLD)

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Maggy

I doubt anything will get back to normal..People are already struggling financially and it's only going to get worse. It's not going to be a situation that we can spend our way out of.

When the furlough scheme ends the crap will hit the fan, i see mass unemployment for the foreseeable future

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Taf

More than 1300 mutated forms have been found in the UK alone, with the majority coming from Italy, Spain and France.

Taf,

You seem to be following the mutation aspect. Do your sources say that the mutations have moved towards:

a) Greater resistance to defeat?
b) Greater reproductive efficiency?

[denphone]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

When the furlough scheme ends the crap will hit the fan, i see mass unemployment for the foreseeable future

On that papa l concur fully with you.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

When the furlough scheme ends the crap will hit the fan, i see mass unemployment for the foreseeable future

And that's the thing - Government pays either way. Ending furlough isn't a magic bullet for the public purse.

It's a choice between paying more, for a shorter period of time and getting the virus under control. Or paying out less over a longer period of time with a later and slower economic recovery as by then the factors causing the economic downturn become entrenched.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jfman

And that's the thing - Government pays either way. Ending furlough isn't a magic bullet for the public purse.

It's a choice between paying more, for a shorter period of time and getting the virus under control. Or paying out less over a longer period of time with a later and slower economic recovery as by then the factors causing the economic downturn become entrenched.

A crisp analysis. Makes a change from the Brexit debate!

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

You are assuming that a mutation makes the virus worse.

I'm not necessarily saying it will make the virus worse, although of course, it could do. What I was getting at was that it may make any vaccine ineffective, and so the prospect of future lockdowns would go on and on.

---------- Post added at 09:32 ---------- Previous post was at 09:31 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

What do you base this on, please?

Science.

---------- Post added at 09:37 ---------- Previous post was at 09:32 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

It's far from fairlytale evidence pip. It stands to reason - countries that can operate their economies normally will get close to pre-Covid levels, quicker.

It's taken 4-5 months to get to antibody levels about 14% in the population. Getting to herd immunity levels o 60-80% means managing the flow for something in the region of 20 months. 20 months of less people going out, less tourism, more working from home - all of which increases unemployment from reduced demand in the economy.

The fairytale is the idea we ease restrictions and everything returns no normal. It's flawed classical economics - "if you build it they will come". Demand needs to be stimulated from somewhere - during a pandemic the question is where from?

No, you are fixated on the need for a lockdown. This is indeed wrecking economies.

A much more sensible approach is to protect the vulnerable and at risk groups, and let the virus run free through the rest of the population. That's what we should have done in the first place, and I think with hindsight, politicians have started to grasp this - the sensible, thinking ones, that is.

---------- Post added at 09:40 ---------- Previous post was at 09:37 ----------

Originally Posted by papa smurf

When the furlough scheme ends the crap will hit the fan, i see mass unemployment for the foreseeable future

It will. It is hard to believe that there are people out there wanting to continue the lockdown for weeks on end because it gets them off work with the money still coming in. They don't seem to be giving any thought to whether they will still have a job if this continues.

---------- Post added at 09:43 ---------- Previous post was at 09:40 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

And that's the thing - Government pays either way. Ending furlough isn't a magic bullet for the public purse.

It's a choice between paying more, for a shorter period of time and getting the virus under control. Or paying out less over a longer period of time with a later and slower economic recovery as by then the factors causing the economic downturn become entrenched.

That balance sheet of yours appears to be most unbalanced! Thank God you are not our Chancellor of the Exchequer!

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

<SNIP>

No, you are fixated on the need for a lockdown. This is indeed wrecking economies.

A much more sensible approach is to protect the vulnerable and at risk groups, and let the virus run free through the rest of the population. That's what we should have done in the first place, and I think with hindsight, politicians have started to grasp this - the sensible, thinking ones, that is.

---------- Post added at 09:40 ---------- Previous post was at 09:37 ----------



It will. It is hard to believe that there are people out there wanting to continue the lockdown for weeks on end because it gets them off work with the money still coming in. They don't seem to be giving any thought to whether they will still have a job if this continues.

A much more sensible approach is to protect the vulnerable and at risk groups, and let the virus run free through the rest of the population. That's what we should have done in the first place, and I think with hindsight, politicians have started to grasp this - the sensible, thinking ones, that is.

Your suggestion needs more debate having regard for human psychology. If it is put to the population "let the virus run free", might they not opt for lock down? If at the same time they're told that lock down is buggering the economy, what will they choose?

jfman is right - government pays either way and that money has to be repaid to the lenders. The people who need to earn that wealth also need to believe in whatever is the right course of action - and they're in the rock/hard place situation.

It will. It is hard to believe that there are people out there wanting to continue the lockdown for weeks on end because it gets them off work with the money still coming in. They don't seem to be giving any thought to whether they will still have a job if this continues.

I disagree to some extent. People are shitting themselves as to whether or not they still have a job when we emerge from lock-down. Millions won't have a job foir well understood reasons. It's going to be very tough.

[tweetiepooh]

It may not be common but we have contacts earning more on furlough than normal because it's based on last years income and this year (before lockdown) was lower (that is 80% of last year is higher that 100% of this year). But it is true, we can't keep paying people for doing nothing.

It's hard to see any quick way out. Even if government removed all restrictions some public are still too scared to go out (I even saw people wearing masks in own cars). Waitrose has restricted numbers entering because their feedback said it was too crowded.

I like Wagamama and like the way they work on benches, sharing space but can't see that working anytime soon. And if restaurants have to maintain long distances many can't work.

I do agree with the points made earlier that we are moving to a phase to protect the vulnerable and loosen the reins elsewhere. Maybe provide for local/regional variance other than Wales/Scotland/NI so local flareups can be brought under control but a difference in the UK is that we are a small island with large population and a population that won't stand for the measures used in some Asian nations.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh

It may not be common but we have contacts earning more on furlough than normal because it's based on last years income and this year (before lockdown) was lower (that is 80% of last year is higher that 100% of this year). But it is true, we can't keep paying people for doing nothing.

It’s not sustainable forever, however there’s no reason for it not to be sustainable in the shorter term. Someone taken off furlough with no job to go back to goes on benefits still costs the taxpayer, gets council tax benefit, rent/mortgage interest paid and has less money to spend in the economy - impacting the demand side of the economy. If they had a job to go back to they’d remain a net taxpayer in the longer term.

The economy is on life support but removing furlough and other protections is switching off the machine and hoping for a miracle.

It's hard to see any quick way out. Even if government removed all restrictions some public are still too scared to go out (I even saw people wearing masks in own cars). Waitrose has restricted numbers entering because their feedback said it was too crowded.

I like Wagamama and like the way they work on benches, sharing space but can't see that working anytime soon. And if restaurants have to maintain long distances many can't work.

I do agree with the points made earlier that we are moving to a phase to protect the vulnerable and loosen the reins elsewhere. Maybe provide for local/regional variance other than Wales/Scotland/NI so local flareups can be brought under control but a difference in the UK is that we are a small island with large population and a population that won't stand for the measures used in some Asian nations.

Easing restrictions doesn’t necessarily equate to all of these businesses suddenly becoming viable in the absence of consumer confidence. We should focus less on what we perceive as making us different from the rest of the world and recognise that, in the face of the virus, we are all fundamentally the same.

---------- Post added at 11:32 ---------- Previous post was at 11:21 ----------

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Your suggestion needs more debate having regard for human psychology. If it is put to the population "let the virus run free", might they not opt for lock down? If at the same time they're told that lock down is buggering the economy, what will they choose?

jfman is right - government pays either way and that money has to be repaid to the lenders. The people who need to earn that wealth also need to believe in whatever is the right course of action - and they're in the rock/hard place situation.

I disagree to some extent. People are shitting themselves as to whether or not they still have a job when we emerge from lock-down. Millions won't have a job foir well understood reasons. It's going to be very tough.

I can only speak from personal experience I’m working from home on 100% of my salary and saving about two thirds of it each month. Before Covid-19 I was much more active in the economy - going out for meals, after work drinks, cinema, football matches etc. and making more modest savings.

I’m likely to have the ability to work from home well into next year and if the virus is prevalent in my local community (or the city to which I used to regularly commute) I’m unlikely to start spending as much again. There’s likely to be hundreds of thousands, if not millions, working from home in a similar boat - spending less and not going to until they feel it’s safe to do so (either for personal health or job security reasons).

That impacts on every service sector, hospitality, retail, etc. going forward.

Fundamentally the whole economy needs restructured to rebalance the gains of the Amazons of this world with the costs to bread and butter local businesses hit hardest. This is the bitterest pill to swallow for “small c” conservatives who see no role for the state and uninhibited free markets as the answer. If they are the answer - the question most definitely isn’t how to we respond to Coronavirus.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Science.

What science was the quicker a virus moves through a population the less likely it is to mutate? Surely the more it reproduces the faster it can mutate.

[Taf]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Taf,

You seem to be following the mutation aspect. Do your sources say that the mutations have moved towards:

a) Greater resistance to defeat?
b) Greater reproductive efficiency?

The figures came with no real information of changes to the severity of illness each produces, nor does it measure whether each is more, or less, infectious.

But it is common for a virus strain to become more infectious, but less lethal over time. However, the sudden resurgence of one mutation in Beijing is showing it to be more infectious and possibly more lethal. Such details take time to assert, and also depends on the country being willing to publish reliable data.

---------- Post added at 12:56 ---------- Previous post was at 12:44 ----------

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh

(I even saw people wearing masks in own cars).

I was trained NOT to remove a mask unless I could immediately wash my hands afterwards. I was also trained to NOT wear gloves unless in a Nuclear, Bacteriological or Chemical contaminated environment.

To this end I carry a squeezy bottle of diluted soap, and wash my hands and the bottle itself before getting my car keys out for the return journey. I also keep my limbs covered, and remove at least the jacket and place it in the boot with the shopping. The jacket then stays there for several day until I need it again. I also remove my footwear before entering the home, leaving them soles-up to maximise decontamination.

I could do far more, but paranoia isn't that productive at this present time.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jfman

<SNIP>

I can only speak from personal experience I’m working from home on 100% of my salary and saving about two thirds of it each month. Before Covid-19 I was much more active in the economy - going out for meals, after work drinks, cinema, football matches etc. and making more modest savings.

I’m likely to have the ability to work from home well into next year and if the virus is prevalent in my local community (or the city to which I used to regularly commute) I’m unlikely to start spending as much again. There’s likely to be hundreds of thousands, if not millions, working from home in a similar boat - spending less and not going to until they feel it’s safe to do so (either for personal health or job security reasons).

That impacts on every service sector, hospitality, retail, etc. going forward.

Fundamentally the whole economy needs restructured to rebalance the gains of the Amazons of this world with the costs to bread and butter local businesses hit hardest. This is the bitterest pill to swallow for “small c” conservatives who see no role for the state and uninhibited free markets as the answer. If they are the answer - the question most definitely isn’t how to we respond to Coronavirus.

It's all very well with coming out with idealistic suggestions of this type. It's somewhat vacuous, if you'll forgive me for saying so.
For what my opinion is worth, it's the tax laws that need restructuring and simplifying so that the dodges used by the likes of Amazon cannot succeed.
At the end of the day, taxes generated from business success must pay for all this.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

It's all very well with coming out with idealistic suggestions of this type. It's somewhat vacuous, if you'll forgive me for saying so.
For what my opinion is worth, it's the tax laws that need restructuring and simplifying so that the dodges used by the likes of Amazon cannot succeed.
At the end of the day, taxes generated from business success must pay for all this.

We've phrased it differently but we aren't a million miles apart on the point. Yes, successful businesses need to pay their share. However, the tax system is currently balanced against businesses with a presence in each and every community employing local people, encouraging people to spend in their local high street and that promote local jobs.

Those drive money round and through the Exchequer multiples times over.

Looks like the contact tracing app has been delayed 'until the winter'.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Damien

Looks like the contact tracing app has been delayed 'until the winter'.

Can we be surprised?.