Re: coronavirus and sport ? : Tue Apr 14, 2020 2:24 pm  

Cronus wrote:

Deaths per 100,000 of population as of yesterday:

- Spain: 38.00
- Belgium: 34.17
- Italy: 33.86
- France: 22.37
- United Kingdom: 17.07
- Netherlands: 16.44
- US: 7.19

...and the rest, bearing in mind the majority of the world are still in earlier stages of infection, and I think we can confidently ignore the numbers coming out of China, Iran and others. China especially.

You're not paying attention again. I note you ignored my replies to you in the PM thread - seems to me if anyone is ignoring facts and numbers, it's you. You've gone into boring rant mode.

The lag in social care reporting is not 'ludicrous' - it's been widely reported and openly discussed in almost every daily briefing. I assume you aren't watching these? Several times they've talked about how reporting of deaths away from hospitals is subject to a delay due to how & when GPs register deaths and how & when the ONS collate and report the data, which isn't as quick as a hospital reporting their daily deaths centrally. Yes of course it will inflate the figures, those of us following things closely understand this and therefore feel no need to rant or attribute it to conspiracy.

Within the numbers we then have the question over cause of death - dying with CV19 and dying of CV19 are two different things. And given the age and vulnerabilities of most of the fatalities, it's likely some would have died anyway. There are many question marks over the accuracy and different reporting criteria of the numbers globally.

Your post is just ridiculous. Full of unfounded maybes, accusations, assumptions and tinpot conspiracy. Even when you try to offer facts, you are wrong.

Sorry Cronus, I was talking about the daily total, where the UK has made it into the top 3 in the world, maybe even 2nd ?? and our total is on target to surpass our former friends in Spain, France and Italy.

As far as "information" from Government sources is concerned, I think that we start from a different place.
There was enough from our ruling party in both the GE campaign and the EU in/out campaign to ensure that my trust of them always starts at zero.

Of course, you are right to say that there is a difference in dying with Covid 19 and dying because of it and yes, some would perhaps have died anyway. Again, it's down to whether or, how much you trust those giving out the numbers.

It's interesting to hear Macron speak on the issue, where he is happy to admit some mistakes and compare this with Patel and Tory colleagues, where they even apportion blame to NHS staff for misusing the PPE, rather than admit to ANY failings in procurement.
So bloody minded are our government that they have refused to accept help for the EU, both in relation to supplies of PPE and also in relation to ventilators.

In my mind, they would be "happy" to have a higher number of deaths than take ANY help form the EU.

As for having a rant, damn fecking right

We still have planes landing from overseas without ANY enforced quarantine, something that is compulsory if you choose to and can travel.

As for your post on the PM thread, I'll have to look it up and I'll get back to you, if that's ok ?

Just as an "extra" to this, there also seems to be an additional circa 3000 deaths for March (compared to last year), which, as yet are unexplained.
How many of these will be due to covid 19 ?

Re: coronavirus and sport ? : Tue Apr 14, 2020 3:19 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

Don't be so touchy - one day you will accept the facts - perhaps if we isolate the vulnerable then the rest of us can carry on as normal - OBR suggests economic downturn of c35% wow - how many people will die post this virus from suicide, depression, domestic violence, addiction because either they can't work or have had their business taken from them - perhaps that's acceptable externality of this - not for me its not - perfectly healthy people being sacrificed - perhaps that is acceptable to you?

My parents are in their 80's both are fully accepting of their fate in their eyes they have had a great life and they cannot live forever.

Nobody posts more spiteful stuff than you - so get off your high moral horse - you more than anyone needs to look in the mirror.

The "experts" have spent the last 4 years, telling us that Brexit was going to cause a staggering drop in GDP, and would ruin the future prospects of the young, the older generations who voted Leave don't matter so their votes should be ignored to save our future.

Now it seems we are going to get a big campaign from "experts" that the lock down is going to cause a staggering drop in GDP and would ruin the future prospects of the young, the older generations don't matter so we should allow them to die to save our future.

Re: coronavirus and sport ? : Tue Apr 14, 2020 3:30 pm  

sally cinnamon wrote:

The "experts" have spent the last 4 years, telling us that Brexit was going to cause a staggering drop in GDP, and would ruin the future prospects of the young, the older generations who voted Leave don't matter so their votes should be ignored to save our future.

Now it seems we are going to get a big campaign from "experts" that the lock down is going to cause a staggering drop in GDP and would ruin the future prospects of the young, the older generations don't matter so we should allow them to die to save our future.

I think you're listening to the wrong experts - only politically motivated ones are suggesting a removal of lockdown right now, as deaths continue on their current plan.

As for Brexit though, if and when we actually leave the security of the single market and customs union we'll see what happens; as it is it's looking more and more unicorn like every day.

Re: coronavirus and sport ? : Tue Apr 14, 2020 6:28 pm  

The one thing that has been running through my mind for the past two weeks is what happens either next year if/when another wave of the virus ripples through the country or indeed if/when we get the next global infectious virus/desease? The course of action taken must surely be a once in a decade opportunity as the logistics and ultimately cost will not be able to be repeated, there will be no furlough scheme, businesses wont be able to stomach being effectively closed for another three months and people may not be able to afford to stay at home. Do we then just crack on and hope for the best? Basically do we then just go down the herd immunity route?

Re: coronavirus and sport ? : Tue Apr 14, 2020 7:45 pm  

sally cinnamon wrote:

The "experts" have spent the last 4 years, telling us that Brexit was going to cause a staggering drop in GDP, and would ruin the future prospects of the young, the older generations who voted Leave don't matter so their votes should be ignored to save our future.

Now it seems we are going to get a big campaign from "experts" that the lock down is going to cause a staggering drop in GDP and would ruin the future prospects of the young, the older generations don't matter so we should allow them to die to save our future.

I don't think anyone is saying that as you well know - most people are saying total lockdown is not needed if we are to protect the vulnerable then do just that. You don't need to be an expert to predict the long term financial damage of shutting down a big chunk of the economy - again as you well know.

Perhaps you could answer why without a lockdown Sweden is managing to restrict the deaths to reasonable numbers?

The idea that all those leaver voters were all old isn't really supported when you look at the results of the GE in 2019 which was in most people's view a Brexit election

The fall in leaving the EU wouldn't have been anywhere near as staggering as what could happen if this continues for 3/6 months. How much is a life worth - let's say 30k die the cost to the economy of shut down £500bn so that's c£17m for each!! Move the numbers up and down to suit your argument?

[Mild Rover]

Re: coronavirus and sport ? : Tue Apr 14, 2020 8:33 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

I don't think anyone is saying that as you well know - most people are saying total lockdown is not needed if we are to protect the vulnerable then do just that. You don't need to be an expert to predict the long term financial damage of shutting down a big chunk of the economy - again as you well know.

Perhaps you could answer why without a lockdown Sweden is managing to restrict the deaths to reasonable numbers?

The idea that all those leaver voters were all old isn't really supported when you look at the results of the GE in 2019 which was in most people's view a Brexit election

The fall in leaving the EU wouldn't have been anywhere near as staggering as what could happen if this continues for 3/6 months. How much is a life worth - let's say 30k die the cost to the economy of shut down £500bn so that's c£17m for each!! Move the numbers up and down to suit your argument?

I think you make a good point about the health consequences of a severe and prolonged downturn in the economy.

The NICE quality-adjusted life year threshold (i.e. the value of one year of life with in good/perfect health) is estimated to be around £30k. So, given that health tends to decline in old age, maybe £2 million for a newborn, and much less for somebody like me in my mid-40s!

The flaw in your estimate in my opinion is that you are using the number of lives lost in an ongoing shutdown scenario to value life, whereas it should be the number of lives saved. There were estimates that more that half a million people would die by August in the do nothing scenario (which I know was based on limited available evidence and isn’t what you’re advocating). That’d mean, if the £500 billion is correct, £1 million per life. There’s also the significant cost savings associated with keeping hospital admissions and stays down.

It’s a problem without a good solution until, fingers crossed, an effective vaccine can be made widely available.

Re: coronavirus and sport ? : Wed Apr 15, 2020 9:15 am  

Mild Rover wrote:

I think you make a good point about the health consequences of a severe and prolonged downturn in the economy.

The NICE quality-adjusted life year threshold (i.e. the value of one year of life with in good/perfect health) is estimated to be around £30k. So, given that health tends to decline in old age, maybe £2 million for a newborn, and much less for somebody like me in my mid-40s!

The flaw in your estimate in my opinion is that you are using the number of lives lost in an ongoing shutdown scenario to value life, whereas it should be the number of lives saved. There were estimates that more that half a million people would die by August in the do nothing scenario (which I know was based on limited available evidence and isn’t what you’re advocating). That’d mean, if the £500 billion is correct, £1 million per life. There’s also the significant cost savings associated with keeping hospital admissions and stays down.

It’s a problem without a good solution until, fingers crossed, an effective vaccine can be made widely available.

I thought the original estimate was 250k the most of the deaths are elderly 70+ so if we scale your number over 80 years is £25k a year so the statistical hit is (225k x £250k x 90%) + (25k x £1m) so potential cost is c£80bn - so its costs £500bn to save £80bn - no matter how you look at it the maths doesn't add up.

Re: coronavirus and sport ? : Wed Apr 15, 2020 10:27 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

I don't think anyone is saying that as you well know - most people are saying total lockdown is not needed if we are to protect the vulnerable then do just that. You don't need to be an expert to predict the long term financial damage of shutting down a big chunk of the economy - again as you well know.

Perhaps you could answer why without a lockdown Sweden is managing to restrict the deaths to reasonable numbers?

The idea that all those leaver voters were all old isn't really supported when you look at the results of the GE in 2019 which was in most people's view a Brexit election

The fall in leaving the EU wouldn't have been anywhere near as staggering as what could happen if this continues for 3/6 months. How much is a life worth - let's say 30k die the cost to the economy of shut down £500bn so that's c£17m for each!! Move the numbers up and down to suit your argument?

Hey Sal,

Would you care to re-evaluate your forecast that the global hit from coronavirus "will be nothing like the 2007 crash" ?

You will recall that I said this will be far worse and with the effects long term, will make the current economic outlook absolutely desperate.
Many of the people currently furloughed will find their employers shutting the doors when they try to return to work and the idea of a huge "bounce" in the ecconomy, seems to assume that the majority of people will be back at work and desperate to spend - I just dont get it, do you ?

[Mild Rover]

Re: coronavirus and sport ? : Wed Apr 15, 2020 10:43 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

I thought the original estimate was 250k the most of the deaths are elderly 70+ so if we scale your number over 80 years is £25k a year so the statistical hit is (225k x £250k x 90%) + (25k x £1m) so potential cost is c£80bn - so its costs £500bn to save £80bn - no matter how you look at it the maths doesn't add up.

Obviously there’s some uncertainty around the numbers, but from a purely economic POV I suspect you’re right.

The government has to consider second order consequences too. If the NHS is overwhelmed or if civil society frays or even breaks down during a peak, that’d have a big impact. Really difficult judgement call. And politically, a ‘let’s send nan to dignitas’ type of platform would be a hard sell.

Numbers like £500 billion aren’t very relatable, imo. So, for context I looked up the UK’s national debt, which is currently over £1800 billion. £500 billion is about £7k per capita (which sounds fairly affordable with ‘repayments over several years’) or £28k for a family of four (which sounds less affordable to me, even though it is the same thing stated differently).

Bad times.

Re: coronavirus and sport ? : Wed Apr 15, 2020 10:48 am  

wrencat1873 wrote:

the idea of a huge "bounce" in the ecconomy, seems to assume that the majority of people will be back at work and desperate to spend - I just dont get it, do you ?

If anything, I think people still in a job will be desperate to save. The last 15 years have been a pretty volatile period, and a lot of people living it up on the tick will get a massive foghorn-like wake up call during this current crisis.

There's an old saying about the Lebanese - "2 cars on the drive, no food in the fridge". That currently applies to plenty of Brits. There will be a lot of Range Rover Evoques getting handed back over the next few months as people reasses just what's important in their lives. Keep living up to the fantasy of capitalism, or save for the next inevitable rainy day?