It didn’t work if Ln Germany in the 30s, or Zimbabwe more recently, or anywhere else its ever been tried. It’s pretty much how to guarantee rampant inflation.
In theory you need to take money out not put it in, so what little people have has greater value. Like most theories though it would be utterly rubbish and not work in practice.
This is spectacularly wrong. Governments are continually printing money - I mean, where do you think it comes from? To understand money properly, you need to get your head around how central banking works (or does not perhaps), and what Fractional Reserve Banking is. Like do you really think the government has a piggy bank and puts it's tax in from your petrol money and then saves it up for something like HS2?
I wonder if boris has the balls to go to the EU and ask for an extension to the transition period, otherwise with the double whammy we’ll be irretrievably ****
If there are any positives to take from this (and I'm struggling to think of any) then offering Joris a way out of the corner he painted himself into with regard to not extending the transition period is it.
He surely has too now. He's got the majority, so he's no longer hostage to the ERG, and it'd just be absolute madness not too, given the circumstances
Genuine question for the bozza bashers, can you actually imagine any of the alternatives doing a better (different) job?
Would you do his job today for 160k a year and a flat above your office in Central London?
Genuine question, does anyone really believe Boris Johnson is only milking 160k out of his current gig?
Johnson has had a long career, but I don't think it's actually marked by notable success in any field other than journalism (and even there he got in trouble for writing fiction).
He ducks and dives, doesn't have the discipline to do his jobs properly and leaves failures in his wake. He's a dreadful person to be in charge of the current crisis. But a lot of people seem to like "Boris", so I guess that's OK.
Anyway Spain's just declared a State of Emergency, I imagine from sometime tomorrow I won't be allowed to leave my home. Thank god for the turbo, but even so 🙁
"The government is concerned that if not enough people catch the virus now, it will re-emerge in the winter, when the NHS is already overstretched."
Current average temp in Lombardy is 16 degrees - its actually over 20 in Milan right now. You might want to ask the locals how that's going with the seasonal thing.
Its total hogwash - they are saying anything to reduce panic. The government has an agenda and your/my health isn't really on it. You can see the fear in Chris Witty's face. He knows whats coming.
If you suppress something very, very hard, when you release those measures it bounces back and it bounces back at the wrong time,” he said.
Be interesting to see the basis for that statement. Is it consistent with previous experience of, say, SARS ?
I've no idea if there's evidence but it sounds totally plausible to me. If you totally protect your population from exposure to a virus when you end that protection, as end it you must, they all catch it.
Total isolation kept Incas and Native North Americans safe from European Diseases for centuries. ...but at first exposure they died by the million.
Current average temp in Lombardy is 16 degrees – its actually over 20 in Milan right now. You might want to ask the locals how that’s going with the seasonal thing.
What has the weather in Italy got to do with Winter pressure in the UK?
Be interesting to see the basis for that statement. Is it consistent with previous experience of, say, SARS ?
Isnt the unique thing about Covid-19 that its much more easily caught than SARS or MERS, as well as being equally deadly?
Isnt the unique thing about Covid-19 that its much more easily caught than SARS or MERS, as well as being equally deadly.
pretty much
all the doctors in my lab are being pulled back from research for training, consensus is that unless the government can magic up a lot of ITU beds very quickly 1/4 million figure sounds plausible
no wonder Johnson looked so worried yesterday
I think when the dust settles a lot of questions will be asked
oldagedpredator
Subscriber
Removing the minimum floor income on UC will help a bit if I need to claim, but it’s not really enough to survive on if this last for a protracted period.Does UC work like Tax Credits – initial assessment made on previous year’s income? If your income over the year goes up above the one your payouts are calculated on you are asked to pay it back. It would seem more like a lot of people are going to effectively end up with a loan that they will need to pay back.
Anyone with savings is going to have to chew through those before they qualify for any benefit? Yes savings are for situations like this as well as fun stuff. Potentially this could chew through what people had set aside for retirement.
Could have a financial aftershock the actual event goes through?
I was on it for a bit when my company got liquidated end of 2018, I had to cause they'd have deducted benefits from my gov redundancy payouts.
Way it works, if you've more that 6k in savings, you'll probably get nothing.
The minimum floor income is usually about 1.1k, where they'll not even consider you as self employed if you aren't earning that. So you get nothing. which is ridiculous, cause if you earn 1.1k, you'll most likely not get anything from them anyhow.
But I was on a thing called NEA, new enterprise allowance for 6 months, where the minimum floor isn't applied for a year.
basically, the max you can get on benefits, in scotland anyhow, is £350 housing, £317 income support. so £667 total. Without the minimum floor, you'll basically be able to claim if you are earning less than £1058 and they'll top you up a bit. They basically take off 63p from your benefits for every £1 you earn.
Example, you earn nothing in a calendar month (that's how it works, month to month), you'll get the £667 if you qualify for income and housing support.
If you earn say £300 they'll take £189 of you benefits, so you get the £300 you've earned, and £478 benefits. totalling £778.
if you earn say 900 quid, you'll get 100 quid (667 - 900 x 0.63) in benefits. So basically, you'll get topped up up you are earning about 1058, which is the zero point.
it's a shit system, but might be needed to string things out a bit longer if things collapse.
When I was only it, i'd about 6 months of getting about 2/300 quid a month from the brew as I was earning a bit(I also got the NEA month regardless on top, which was 66 quid a week for 3 months then 33), soon as i started earning they closed my account, luckily, I've been earning a wage ever since..
That's for a single claimant, rules are different for couples.
It works on a month to month basis, ie it's just relevant for that month, it's not a yearly thing and you'll not pay it back.
It was alright for me just being paid off, and starting up, but stuff being on it longer term. I can't imagine being on the brew long term, it must be grim as hell.
Actually thats a fair point Drac. The seasonal thing is what I was disputing i.e that Covid 19 is a bit like the flu and that it goes into abeyance in the summer - when clearly it won't. But yes you are right - the NHS is under more pressure over here in the winter due to actual seasonal illness.
Like do you really think the government has a piggy bank and puts it’s tax in from your petrol money and then saves it up for something like HS2?
Oh I'm disappointed now. I assumed it was one of those plastic houses I got when I opened my Halifax account back in the 80s.
I mean, where do you think it comes from?
Borrowing, largely, no I don't think it's actual money but nor do I think that the BoE or anyone else for that matter just says "let's have another few billion quid today" with no ramifications.
Its total hogwash – they are saying anything to reduce panic. The government has an agenda and your/my health isn’t really on it.
I am not sure about this. As much as I despise Boris I think he is being driven by the scientists at the moment.
You can see the fear in Chris Witty’s face. He knows whats coming.
. Agreed, but thats because of the science, not which chump is in government.
This also makes me even madder at Corbyn for his incompetence that got the Tories back into govt when we should have been turning round the NHS 5 years ago, but I think this is now beyond politics.
So. When it all started kicking off in China they started a massive building programme to create more hospitals and beds. Given we all seem pretty certain an awful lot of people are going to get ill, why aren't we doing the same?
Surely any measures to 'flatten' the curve are a good idea to implement immediately, so I don't subscribe to the theory shutting schools etc... is more effective when we are at the peak. I thought the strategy was to delay the peak, in which case shutting stuff down now is what is needed.
I could absolutely work from home in my current role, my company is not encouraging at all, if the gov came on a recommended it, it would force them to offer it.
but nor do I think that the BoE or anyone else for that matter just says “let’s have another few billion quid today” with no ramifications.
You might want to read up on Quantitative Easing. That's exactly what they did for years following the banking and Greek debt crisis.
why aren’t we doing the same
Nimbys
COVID19 has R0 of 2-3, so ~70% of population need to be infected to get herd immunity
At the current rate of spread we reach that point before the end of May. It will probably be a bit later than that as the rate of increase will slow once we get over 20%. Things like this usually double every 6 days - current stats are a bit faster than that, but let's say 6.
5000 today - the low estimate from the Science advisor yesterday
10,000 in 6 days time
20,000 19th March
40,000 25th March
80,000 31st March
160,000 6th April
320,000 12th April
640,000 18th April
1.28M 24th April
2.56M 30th April
5.12M 6th May
10.24M 12th May
20.48M 18th May
40.96M 24th May
Exponential growth is a bitch. And bear in mind that if even only 4% need ICU beds, we run out in March, and only last that long by kicking all the people already in ICU out. It really isn't pretty.
I think regardless of where you stand on the politics, the fact that it's fallen to the football association to call off matches rather than the government just seems crazy.
I think he is being driven by the scientists at the moment.
This. There's going to be a massive enquiry into this when it's over whatever happens. With the benefit of hindsight any decision will be seen to be flawed in some way. A politician's only defence is going to be that he followed the best advice available. So that's what politicians will do.
If you suppress something very, very hard, when you release those measures it bounces back and it bounces back at the wrong time,” he said.
Be interesting to see the basis for that statement. Is it consistent with previous experience of, say, SARS ?
I’ve no idea if there’s evidence but it sounds totally plausible to me. If you totally protect your population from exposure to a virus when you end that protection, as end it you must, they all catch it.
How is that worse than them all catching it now? In fact the population aren't all totally protected. Some will continue to get it (see Taiwan etc) but the number of respirators etc will not impose a limit on the number of survivors - the peak is flattened over a long period.
Think the comms strategy and plan is terrible. They could be much clearer telling people about what their readiness plan is and what steps they are taking. They struggle to even meet the commitment to update the numbers at 2pm each day.
@Drac why does this forum kick me back 5 pages each time I post?
hes being driven by some scientists, not all agree with him
if cummings isnt as clever as he believes he is it may not be so good
This also makes me even madder at Corbyn
Binners - you need to up your game - someone blamed Corbyn before you did. The only way to save your reputation is a quick flurry of Monty Python pictures.
The benefits questions are all dependent on circumstances - if you have any specific questions then @ me and I'll try to point you in the right direction on here so others can see. (Edit: or PM if you'd rather not disclose circumstances on here)
..and this thread is a shit show!
Given we all seem pretty certain an awful lot of people are going to get ill, why aren’t we doing the same?
SO you'll build empty hospitals, considering we already have a shortfall of 100,000 NHS staff, where are you going to find the people to staff them if we cant recruit ones into the current hospitals
How is that worse than them all catching it now? In fact the population aren’t all totally protected. Some will continue to get it (see Taiwan etc) but the number of respirators etc will not impose a limit on the number of survivors – the peak is flattened over a long period.
Peak flattening *is* the UKs plan. If instead of peak flattening you suppress hard with strict isolation (close your borders) you just delay the problem.
Hence "If you suppress something very, very hard, when you release those measures it bounces back and it bounces back at the wrong time,” is totally plausible.
...but I accept your point there may not be good evidence for that.
Actually thats a fair point Drac. The seasonal thing is what I was disputing i.e that Covid 19 is a bit like the flu and that it goes into abeyance in the summer – when clearly it won’t. But yes you are right – the NHS is under more pressure over here in the winter due to actual seasonal illness.
Yes it’s not expected to drop because of the weather.
if cummings isnt as clever as he believes he is it may not be so good
I pray they arent letting Cummings anywhere near this and its the medical science pros that are driving it!!
hes being driven by some scientists, not all agree with him
So we can only take actions that *all* scientists agree with? That limits us to washing our hands, and nothing more.
Borrowing, largely, no I don’t think it’s actual money but nor do I think that the BoE or anyone else for that matter just says “let’s have another few billion quid today” with no ramifications.
That's exactly what they do. Money is created 'with the stroke of a pen' and it is destroyed/cancelled out through taxation. Monetary supply in modern economies is hard to get your head around, but once you do you realise why there is always hundreds of billions for certain things, like Trident or HS2, bailouts or perpetual war, but not enough money for social housing, roads, etc. For an advanced food secure nation like the UK which creates its own money, it's a political choice, nothing more. When Tory politicians talk about maxing credit cards or saving up, it's pure horseshit designed to justify not/spending to a misinformed and confused population.
Where did China find all its doctors?
NHS staff wise if it gets that bad some sort of conscription could be in order. I think whilst you can't magic up doctors there is stuff you could do. Plenty of people could get involved and help out with the less technical roles (if that's the right phrase). They are already taking about retiree docs and final year nurses.
But lots of extra NHS help means nowt if you don't have the beds and kit to deal with it
And that herd immunity thing - does that only really work by the bit of the herd that is 'weak' being dead, hence the rest of the herd is now 'immune'
Peak flattening *is* the UKs plan.
So people keep saying, but as I asked before, how is our "peak flattening" action (as opposed to "plan") different from what the Italians were doing 2 weeks before their cases spiked?
Think the comms strategy and plan is terrible.
It's not terrible, it's non-existant. The entire approach is don't worry your little heads about it. People are not stupid, when they see the chief scientific advisor on the telly saying he wants 60% of the country to be infected they quite rightly do the very simple maths which tells them that at least hundreds of thousands will die, maybe even millions. Then they realise that will be the elderly relatives, friends, and perhaps even themselves. But the government won't even admit that will happen, and are effectively saying there's nothing we can do. And then people look at other countries and see them throwing everything at it in a massive collective effort and wonder why we aren't doing the same. The result is fear, anxiety, hopelessness and anger. If the govt don't start being honest and treating us like adults this is going to go south very quickly. How long before social unrest and disorder?
Covid 19 is SARS. SARS proper name was SARS-COV - this is SARS-COV2. The main differences between them is both the incubation period (6 days for SARS, 14-20 for COV19) before symptoms are shown and the amount of infection transfer needed to truly infect. For SARS that was something like a 20% lung infection - meaning you needed a prolonged period in the presence of someone who was obviously sick. For COV19, it's a lower percentage (they don't know exact numbers) and you don't know people are sick. As such it was easier to quarantine those with SARS as they were obviously ill.
How long before social unrest and disorder?
I predict a bit of tutting, some eye rolling, a bit of mild head-shaking and a sternly worded letter to the Daily Telegraph
when they see the chief scientific advisor on the telly saying he wants 60% of the country to be infected they quite rightly do the very simple maths
Yep, this is the point at which they lost me. Making it sound like they are letting it spread at speed, rather than doing everything they can to delay and control it, sounds like inhumane game theory has taken over from any sensible epidemiology medical science and is driving the government response. I have at risk people in the house, and won’t be doing the stiff upper lip thing, and instead will be cancelling all leisure travel and not attending indoor gatherings. Yes the virus is here… yes it will spread… but delaying it is key… even if you intend to rely on people developing immunity as part of your response… this needs to happen steadily and locally.
Did they ever fess up who the Cabinet Minister was who tested positive? Wasnt Raab as he bowled into work the following day.
"You can see the fear in Chris Witty’s face. He knows whats coming."
What we're actually seeing is a guy who along with Patrick Vallance and their team have been working crazy hours since January to build the models and analytics required to make informed decisions. This is familiar ground to Whitty - he is one of the main reasons that Ebola was stopped in its tracks in 2009:
Whitty is quite literally one of the best epidemiologists in the world and the government is doing what they should be doing - listening to the experts who've spent their whole careers studying this sort of stuff - rather than making policy decisions that satisfy the siren cries of shouty people on the internet / Daily Mail.
Did they ever fess up who the Cabinet Minister was who tested positive?
The ‘other’ health minister… I forget his name.
And that herd immunity thing – does that only really work by the bit of the herd that is ‘weak’ being dead, hence the rest of the herd is now ‘immune’
Not quite.
A virus only survives in a host for a few weeks, and is viable in terms of onward infection for a shorter period than that. So it needs lots of different targets to ensure that it can continue to infect new people, and not die out. When more people have had it, there is a lower chance an infected person will encounter an uninfected one.
Over time, a large enough 'herd' of immune people gives the virus effectively no room to circulate, as even though there are still plenty of uninfected out there, the chances of infected meeting uninfected is much lower, and the chance of infecting them lower still.
That is the ethos behind mass vaccination. There are some people you can't vaccinate - those with no immune system, some for whom the vaccine doesn't work, and some who don't get it. The point is that if the herd of vaccinated is big enough, it works to protect the unvaccinated.
For highly contagious diseases, the herd needs to be bigger, because of the greater chance that it will be transmitted if the opportunity arises. Eg measles, which is massively more infectious than Covid-19, and requires a herd of 85%+, IIRC. Not sure what the estimate would be for Covid-19, should be a bit lower.
But even a substantial but smaller % herd should help the NHS by significantly slowing the rate of infection, coupled with isolation/social distancing and the rest.
Haven’t we shut loads of wards that are effectively mothballed?
What we’re actually seeing is a guy who along with Patrick Vallance and their team have been working crazy hours since January to build the models and analytics required to make informed decisions. This is familiar ground to Whitty – he is one of the main reasons that Ebola was stopped in its tracks in 2009:
Whitty is quite literally one of the best epidemiologists in the world and the government is doing what they should be doing – listening to the experts who’ve spent their whole careers studying this sort of stuff – rather than making policy decisions that satisfy the siren cries of shouty people on the internet / Daily Mail.
+1
These guys need knighthoods not a bunch of armchair epidemiologists slagging them off on the internet.
Not quite.
A virus only survives in a host for a few weeks, and is viable in terms of onward infection for a shorter period than that. So it needs lots of different targets to ensure that it can continue to infect new people, and not die out. When more people have had it, there is a lower chance an infected person will encounter an uninfected one.
Over time, a large enough ‘herd’ of immune people gives the virus effectively no room to circulate, as even though there are still plenty of uninfected out there, the chances of infected meeting uninfected is much lower, and the chance of infecting them lower still.
That is the ethos behind mass vaccination. There are some people you can’t vaccinate – those with no immune system, some for whom the vaccine doesn’t work, and some who don’t get it. The point is that if the herd of vaccinated is big enough, it works to protect the unvaccinated.
For highly contagious diseases, the herd needs to be bigger, because of the greater chance that it will be transmitted if the opportunity arises. Eg measles, which is massively more infectious than Covid-19, and requires a herd of 85%+, IIRC. Not sure what the estimate would be for Covid-19, should be a bit lower.
But even a substantial but smaller % herd should help the NHS by significantly slowing the rate of infection, coupled with isolation/social distancing and the rest.
+1
I have at risk people in the house, and won’t be doing the stiff upper lip thing, and instead will be cancelling all leisure travel and not attending indoor gatherings.
You're delay it, not avoiding it, which is exactly what the people who know are suggesting.
Isnt the unique thing about Covid-19 that its much more easily caught than SARS or MERS, as well as being equally deadly?
This current virus isn't even close to being as deadly as those 2. Sars is close to 10% and mers close to 35% fatality. And that's with adequate levels of health care available.
If it was mers spreading as fast as coronavirus it wouldn't just be your 80 year old nan we'd be worried about...basically the entire human race would be pretty much fxxxxd
You’re delay it, not avoiding it, which is exactly what the people who know are suggesting.
It is exactly what epidemiologists are suggesting.
It’s exactly what the government is not currently doing.
The government seems to be relying on organisations, business and individuals to take their own actions, rather than coordinating the response as in other countries. Number 10 is briefing that they are holding back on acting, so that the public will do as they are asked when action is deemed most advantageous by their team. There appears to be no strong basis for this low expectation that people can’t accept measures lasting more than a few weeks. They also have their medical experts talking about allowing a quick spread to gain herd immunity in the country at large, relatively quickly, which seems at odds with what other experts are saying, and at odds with the idea that we should be delaying the spread.
