Covid-19

[Erasmus]

I've found Nicola Sturgeon's press conferences much more informative than those from the UK government, and with rather different tone as well. Interesting point she made today was that they estimate that the number of people in Scotland carrying the virus is around 26,000. That works out at around 1 in 200 of us. Obviously, it's hard to say whether this is the same for England but it does give some indication of where we are at and what the current risks are.

[aggi]

How many people have jobs where regular bonuses are at the whim of the boss?

Apart from that, if bonuses and commission are customary and predictable, they probably become contractual anyway. If an employer always pays hourly overtime, for example, he can't generally claim it was voluntary. And it's not as if the boss has any reason to batter the employee's furlough pay down, because he gets it all back.

I've no idea. I know mine is. There's a definite grey area where the bonus is contractual but the amount is discretionary.

I'm going directly from the guidance that has been distributed by the government. The boss has the risk of being done for fraud if they overclaim. We've been getting a lot of guidance from our external payroll department and our financial crimes department on it, it's not just a matter of claim it and hope for the best.

[KateR]

So you think the government have handled it well then? Based on what exactly?

I don't think I said that, I don't think I remotely said that. But I think shouting that the government of BJ has made a "complete" mess of it's response to C-19 is anything but drivel and lends nothing to the discussions. When you actually look at the responses to date and don't quote UK being the worst in the world or even Europe at this stage because it's not true, eventually it might be but I will wait and see.

But you're allowed your own opinion in regard to what is right and wrong, what is helpful in understanding what has unfolded to date but stupid one liners blaming BJ for all the worlds ills are nothing but drivel and that's my opinion.

[IanMcL]

I've found Nicola Sturgeon's press conferences much more informative than those from the UK government, and with rather different tone as well. Interesting point she made today was that they estimate that the number of people in Scotland carrying the virus is around 26,000. That works out at around 1 in 200 of us. Obviously, it's hard to say whether this is the same for England but it does give some indication of where we are at and what the current risks are.

Yes, very straightforward approach, contrary to the garbled facts and very steered information by the UK equivalents.

Nonetheless, Scotland still have a high number of cases.perhaps the information giving is more truthful than England, perhaps not.

Not looking like anyone is being let out for good behaviour!

[AndrewJB]

Times have moved on, Andrew. The "working classes" are no longer doing 12 hours a day 6 days a week and living hand to mouth and taking their only suit down to Uncle's on Monday before redeeming it on Friday.

The working classes have money. They have holidays. They have days or nights out in the pub. They have leisure spending, is what I'm getting at. And while they are only getting (allowing for tax) a little more than 80% of their usual income, they are also saving virtually all the money they would have spent on motoring, leisure activities, and childcare.

According to the Rowntree Institute, the minimum income standard for a single man includes £83 on travel and leisure, out of £313 total spend. For a couple with no children, £96 out of £393. For a single parent with a baby, £354 out of £641. For a couple with two children, £394 out of £788. All well over 20%, with commitments which they do not have to spend (or in many cases, are not allowed to spend). Furloughed people, in the main, have enough with 80%. It's only those who are already on breadline and have no social activities, never go anywhere, and have no childcare costs that are the sufferers you refer to. And, so far as I know, working tax credit and other benefits haven't been cut. Have they?

That's an interesting take, though I'd imagine in London there are a significant number of people for whom the furlough pay won't make ends meet. It doesn't address the point I'm making though, that the economic cost of the shutdown is being borne by ordinary people and small businesses, while many further up the economic "food chain" are not forced to shoulder as much of a burden.

Examples: Small barber shop near me - shut since mid-March, he and the family live in the flat above the shop. They rent both spaces. I understand his landlord has deferred rent payments for May, and June (which landlords aren't obligated to do). He still owes the money, and when he's able to open up again he'll be facing tough times. He'll get something from the sole trader relief scheme, but not enough.

Quite a few families have had outright job loss for both parents, so no furlough for them. I've spoken with at least a half dozen who are facing eviction because they can't pay rent. Landlords aren't supposed to be evicting people (or can't right now), but this is what is happening. Even assuming both parents return to work quickly, there's no way they'll make up the shortfall.

If these examples are happening in my area, then they probably are right across the country.

Let's consider the landlords. You own a few properties, all of which have mortgages, and you rely on the net income to live. Rather than your sensible business plan of working with twenty percent of your portfolio not bringing in an income at any one time, you're suddenly faced with half of them not bringing in an income. Double your usual worst case scenario. The bank try to be helpful, and defer your payments - but your interest owed is still mounting up. Not as bad a situation as it is for your tenants, but still potentially precarious.

Further up the food chain, you have the banks, and their shareholders. So you see the further up the food chain you go, the greater the resillience is. If you place the financial burden of the crisis on those at the top, they won't end up suffering any more than those at the bottom, however the system will survive. As you can see from my examples, we haven't done that.

Furlough is a con, because it allows those at the top of the pile to keep earning from their assets, while people at the bottom struggle to pay their financial obligations. Furlough covers just enough people to keep everyone from demanding a rule change. The system continues - but if it were fair, then surely you'd only owe 80% of your mortgage / car payment / credit card, etc. That alone illustrates what a con it is.

[AndrewJB]

I assume they are earning over the threshold.

I see the point that AndrewJB is making.

As it stands the furlough scheme could be described as a loan, employees receive the "furlough salary" but it is likely to be clawed back at some point in the future by tax rises across the board, austerity, etc.

If you look at JCB for instance: last year the owners (the Bamford family I think) took out ~ £75m in dividends, this year a large number of their employees have been furloughed. The Bamford Family won't be bearing the costs of the furloughed employees now or, very possibly, in the future.

Making the scheme equitable would be very difficult in reality though. We won't know who pays for this until quite a time in the future when we can see how it has been funded. I'd be surpised if HNWIs are hit hard as it stands though.

Thanks for at least considering what I said, but he was only quoting a small portion of it. Usual selective answering of questions.

[AndrewJB]

Some of the stuff you come out with is so badly thought through - it’s embarrassing.
Have another look at the measures and you will see that landlords have as much right to apply for help as anyone else.
As for financial institutions and paying their staff wages I’m not really sure what your point is. Financial institutions can furlough their employees if they want or if they need to. Plenty already have.

My major point is to pause the economy. The government haven't done this. Instead they've closed down businesses, and stopped people from working, but they haven't also paused the upward movement of money. You can stop paying rent / mortgage but you still owe the money at a future date. Those who own the property are fully indemnified, and those who live in it have to pay. You can argue that landlords have mortgages too, so lets put those on pause as well. It works up the food chain, until someone just earns and has no debt. They are then in the same boat as those who are locked down and unable to earn. This is my point.

[Paul Waine]

Further up the food chain, you have the banks, and their shareholders. So you see the further up the food chain you go, the greater the resillience is. If you place the financial burden of the crisis on those at the top, they won't end up suffering any more than those at the bottom, however the system will survive. As you can see from my examples, we haven't done that.

Just this bit of your post, Andrew. Have you not noticed what's happened to share prices? Have you not noticed what's happened to airlines, nearly all of them are grounded. I believe you mentioned once that your partner was in the travel/holiday business, Do you think the owners of travel businesses are doing well out of covid-19 and lockdown? Then there's the farmers with their crops left in the ground and their milk poured down the drains. Or, restaurant owners, with no one able to go into pubs. As for the banks, did you miss how much RBS reported as credit losses for their first quarter? And, then there's the price of oil and Royal Dutch Shell cutting their dividends by around 2/3rd.

Yes, if you are "at the top" you may always still be able to eat and somewhere to live, but some will go bust.

btw: do you agree the estimates, posted above, of earnings of someone who's been furloughed who is now only taking home 50% of monthly take home before furlough?

[NewClaret]

My major point is to pause the economy. The government haven't done this. Instead they've closed down businesses, and stopped people from working, but they haven't also paused the upward movement of money. You can stop paying rent / mortgage but you still owe the money at a future date. Those who own the property are fully indemnified, and those who live in it have to pay. You can argue that landlords have mortgages too, so lets put those on pause as well. It works up the food chain, until someone just earns and has no debt. They are then in the same boat as those who are locked down and unable to earn. This is my point.

In that scenario, how do you distinguish between people who can afford to continue to pay and those who can’t? Or are you saying rich people also benefit from this pause? People you consider rich will have a lot of borrowings, you know - that’s likely how they got rich.

And how do people put food on the table if they have no income? Or are you proposing food is also free during this period? In the scheme of things, I’d personally worry about feeding my family before paying the mortgage...had the government not mandated mortgage holidays anyway (which is sort of what you’re arguing for?)

Your theory also assumes everyone has debt. That’s not always the case. Again, in these instances, putting money in the hands of the man on the street is more beneficial than pausing a debt they don’t owe.

In any event, I suspect if Rishi had walked up to the lectern and said “we’re just going to pause the economy for a few months, so don’t worry anyone”, the consequence would have been economic turmoil. It would have far-reaching consequences, so complex we could not even begin to contemplate.

The furlough scheme may not align perfectly with your political ideology, but I imagine it is easier to deliver upon in a few weeks than an “economic pause”.

[NewClaret]

Also not sure I agree with the concept that “the further up the food chain, the more resilience there is” theory.

Setting banks aside for a moment, I think generally people consider big organisations to be financial behemoths, sat on cash piles, ready to ride out any storm. There are certainly examples where that is true (Apple), but the vast majority or companies, I would say, operate of very narrow margins and basically operate just to keep their people in employment. The second something like this hits, they have to make massive cost reductions/job cuts to survive.

Now back to banks - if you make them shoulder all the burden, they will collapse. Then, stock markets crash, people’s pensions are destroyed, savings wiped out. I’m not at all disagreeing they don’t have a part to play in this crisis, just that they can’t shoulder all the burden.

I actually think the furlough scheme protects the man on the street (to some extent), whist those at the top of the food chains (Branson) and any business owners really, will take a spanking. I’d have thought you’d be delighted about that.

[Damo]

I've found Nicola Sturgeon's press conferences much more informative than those from the UK government, and with rather different tone as well. Interesting point she made today was that they estimate that the number of people in Scotland carrying the virus is around 26,000. That works out at around 1 in 200 of us. Obviously, it's hard to say whether this is the same for England but it does give some indication of where we are at and what the current risks are.

She reminds me of the furloughed people and the people 'living off the fat of the land' types that I personally know.
They seem to be the ones ranting about people still being out and about, clogging up the roads etc.
Easy to stay at home when someone else is paying all the bill's

[claretonthecoast1882]

That's an interesting take, though I'd imagine in London there are a significant number of people for whom the furlough pay won't make ends meet. It doesn't address the point I'm making though, that the economic cost of the shutdown is being borne by ordinary people and small businesses, while many further up the economic "food chain" are not forced to shoulder as much of a burden.

Examples: Small barber shop near me - shut since mid-March, he and the family live in the flat above the shop. They rent both spaces. I understand his landlord has deferred rent payments for May, and June (which landlords aren't obligated to do). He still owes the money, and when he's able to open up again he'll be facing tough times. He'll get something from the sole trader relief scheme, but not enough.

Quite a few families have had outright job loss for both parents, so no furlough for them. I've spoken with at least a half dozen who are facing eviction because they can't pay rent. Landlords aren't supposed to be evicting people (or can't right now), but this is what is happening. Even assuming both parents return to work quickly, there's no way they'll make up the shortfall.

If these examples are happening in my area, then they probably are right across the country.

Let's consider the landlords. You own a few properties, all of which have mortgages, and you rely on the net income to live. Rather than your sensible business plan of working with twenty percent of your portfolio not bringing in an income at any one time, you're suddenly faced with half of them not bringing in an income. Double your usual worst case scenario. The bank try to be helpful, and defer your payments - but your interest owed is still mounting up. Not as bad a situation as it is for your tenants, but still potentially precarious.

Further up the food chain, you have the banks, and their shareholders. So you see the further up the food chain you go, the greater the resillience is. If you place the financial burden of the crisis on those at the top, they won't end up suffering any more than those at the bottom, however the system will survive. As you can see from my examples, we haven't done that.

Furlough is a con, because it allows those at the top of the pile to keep earning from their assets, while people at the bottom struggle to pay their financial obligations. Furlough covers just enough people to keep everyone from demanding a rule change. The system continues - but if it were fair, then surely you'd only owe 80% of your mortgage / car payment / credit card, etc. That alone illustrates what a con it is.

Surely if you think it is a con you wouldn’t willingly take part in it? If you hate everything Johnson says and does, massively dislike the government and think the furlough scheme is a con the last thing you would do is stand there with your hand out receiving the con cash.

[Steve-Harpers-perm]

The death rate and the furlough scheme can take a back seat with today’s important front page news about a scientist having sex.

[evensteadiereddie]

The scheme is there to prop up our financial and commercial system primarily and it does so by giving workers some, some of their monthly income.
Without that, the system collapses and the financial institutions which rule our world and the way we lead our lives are fooked.
This, of course, would inevitably lead to huge social and political changes across the globe - and that can't be allowed to happen at any cost, literally, so it appears.
I'm not sure it's a con but it's driving force is certainly not to help out individuals survive the crisis.

[claretonthecoast1882]

The death rate and the furlough scheme can take a back seat with today’s important front page news about a scientist having sex.

Haven't seen her but when I saw the guys mugshot on the news my first thought was fair play you done well pulling someone

[Lowbankclaret]

Think you may be right actually on further investigation. I think that £2500 is the cap after the 20% is deducted. So you will only forfeit 20% of your salary if you earn up to £37.5k. In which case someone who’s usual salary is approx £68k would take home 50% of their normal wage.

Unless I’ve made another pigs ear of it, which could well be the case...

As I understand it.
I earn just over 50k, take home just over 3k a month.

I am furloughed, under the Gov scheme I would get a little over 2k. Around 66% of normal pay, however currently my company is topping it up to £2.5k.

[evensteadiereddie]

Don't mention how well off you are on here, lowbank, the natives will crucify you !

[RingoMcCartney]

The reason I’m calling it a con is that working people get a 80% of basic salary (in my partner’s case this reduces her take home income by a half). All of the obligations these, and people not covered by the scheme are expected to be maintained. If they didn’t put the furlough scheme in place, then a lot of people would fall into arrears - and there’d be a push for those arrears to be forgiven. In other words the financial cost would be pushed up the food chain. The furlough is a con for ensuring the costs are not pushed up the food chain, and it remains business as usual for the rich.

Andrew, your brand of far left politics was soundly rejected at the December general election, by the British electorate.

Given theyve just elected Keir "charisma-free zone" Starmer, as their new leader. You're brand of far left politics, appears to have now been soundly rejected by, none other than








The Labour Party.

[evensteadiereddie]

Relevance ?

[Steve-Harpers-perm]

Haven't seen her but when I saw the guys mugshot on the news my first thought was fair play you done well pulling someone

Probably the reason why so many papers have chosen it as today’s front page I can’t think of any other reason anyway!

[RingoMcCartney]

So praise is ok (even if retrospectively it may not be) but criticism isn't (even if retrospectively it may be)?

I'm just hoping you're not one of those people who has been criticising the WHO, that would be really hypocritical.

I criticised the WHO after they announced on March 3rd that "the Coronavirus is not as contagious as influenza"

I didnt attempt to prematurely compare their performance with anothe world health organisation, because there isn't one.

By attempting compare our government's performance against other countries while we're in the middle of a
unprecedented global pandemic is jumping the gun on steroids.

You're the equivalent of an over eager young journalist trying to get a post match interview with Sean Dyche. AT HALF TIME!!!!!

[RingoMcCartney]

Oddly enough, was chatting to three mates today from a variety of political allegiances. Have spoken to them all once during lockdown, early doors. They were all happy then, but was curious if that may have changed today. It hadn’t, but all said the same as you - will come out in the wash.

The majority of people think like me and your 3 mates. The noisy minority, some of whom post on here, do not represent in any way, shape or form , what most fair minded people think.

And importantly that includes statisticians who say its fool hardy to make a judgement and draw conclusions from an event that has not yet concluded.

Only those attempting to not let a good crisis go to waste for political purposes would.

[NewClaret]

The death rate and the furlough scheme can take a back seat with today’s important front page news about a scientist having sex.

That was also Cummings’ fault. According to a piece in the Guardian, he felt so uncomfortable at his presence at hIs presence at a SAGE meeting, he had to ask a married woman to travel across London to “comfort” him.

[evensteadiereddie]

And again, Ringo,by the time this is all over and the press gagged as you and others seem to wish, the subsequent inquiry will be as far-reaching and damning as er, Bloody Sunday, Hillsborough, Grenfell, Russian intereference and so on.
Everything will be forgotten. No blame , nothing learned.

[RingoMcCartney]

A sensible perspective on the death figures,either way it's terrible for both Italy and the UK.

'Months before we can say who has highest death toll'

Nick Triggle

Health Correspondent

This is a sobering moment.

Italy was the first part of Europe to see cases rise rapidly and the scenes of hospitals being overwhelmed were met with shock and disbelief.

But we should be careful how we interpret the figures.

On the face of it both countries now count deaths in a similar way, including both in hospitals and the community. But there are other factors to consider.

First the UK has a slightly larger population. If you count cases per head of population, Italy still comes out worse - although only just.

Cases are confirmed by tests - and the amount of testing carried out varies.

The geographical spread looks quite different too - half of the deaths in Italy have happened in Lombardy.

In the UK, by comparison, they have been much more spread out.

Less than a fifth have happened in London, which has a similar population to Lombardy.

Then, how do you factor in the indirect impact from things such as people not getting care for other conditions?

The fairest way to judge the impact in terms of fatalities is to look at excess mortality - the numbers dying above what would normally happen.

You need to do this over time. It will be months, perhaps even years, before we can really say who has the highest death toll.

There speaks a voice or reason.

[Burnley1989]

btw: do you agree the estimates, posted above, of earnings of someone who's been furloughed who is now only taking home 50% of monthly take home before furlough?

That’s certainly the case for myself, although I’m not complaining as I’m receiving just enough to cover my bills.

My boss is a fair guy, he has said he will pay me all monies owed at the end of the year if finances allow. There are people is far worse situations than myself and I’m not expecting the money, although it would be a nice bonus.

[RingoMcCartney]

And again, Ringo,by the time this is all over and the press gagged as you and others seem to wish, the subsequent inquiry will be as far-reaching and damning as er, Bloody Sunday, Hillsborough, Grenfell, Russian intereference and so on.
Everything will be forgotten. No blame , nothing learned.

I'm late already and just setting off to work. But do me a favour, show me where I "wish the press to be gagged" would you? It's going to be later when I get back so you've plenty of time.

As for blame, "I dont want to be seen as making a political point out of this horrendous crisis. BUT....." Ashworth, Starmer, etc., its already happened!

Like I say, "press , gagged" , my quote.......

[Steve-Harpers-perm]

Late for work but still time to post on a football messageboard!

[evensteadiereddie]

"You need to do this over time. It will be months, perhaps even years, before we can really say who has the highest death toll."

Nobody's disputing this and in the here and now, our figures do, indeed, make for a "sobering moment." There is sense in questioning constantly what circumstances may have led to this. Uncomfortable politically, possibly, but we need to learn as we go along.

[Lowbankclaret]

Don't mention how well off you are on here, lowbank, the natives will crucify you !

My be in the short term, as has been in the news. My company are going to make 8,000 people redundant. I expect to be one of them.

[Paul Waine]

The scheme is there to prop up our financial and commercial system primarily and it does so by giving workers some, some of their monthly income.
Without that, the system collapses and the financial institutions which rule our world and the way we lead our lives are fooked.
This, of course, would inevitably lead to huge social and political changes across the globe - and that can't be allowed to happen at any cost, literally, so it appears.
I'm not sure it's a con but it's driving force is certainly not to help out individuals survive the crisis.

Hi eddie, I believe you've posted that you are a retired teacher. May I ask what subject you taught?

Yes, chaos without "our financial and commercial system" and, if it didn't exist we would be rushing to invent it. It would be a very tough existence without "our financial and commercial system" - it would also mean no jobs, no health system, no education.

[Zlatan]

Don't mention how well off you are on here, lowbank, the natives will crucify you !

I know, truly frightening... I think the Peter Principle applies here

[evensteadiereddie]

That's horrendous. I wish you - and your colleagues - all the best.

The pack will probably lay off you now.

[evensteadiereddie]

I know, truly frightening... I think the Peter Principle applies here

I know what the PP is , you see a fair bit of it over 40 years in teaching, but I'm not sure how it applies here.

[Zlatan]

I know what the PP is , you see a fair bit of it over 40 years in teaching, but I'm not sure how it applies here.

Only going off what’s been posted

[NottsClaret]

She reminds me of the furloughed people and the people 'living off the fat of the land' types that I personally know.
They seem to be the ones ranting about people still being out and about, clogging up the roads etc.
Easy to stay at home when someone else is paying all the bill's

It's a fair point. Surprising the contempt out there for people who live week to week financially. It seems to be the most earnest, left leaning folk (and that's not an insult, it's usually me) who simply can't believe there's anyone who can't manage to stay off work for 3 months without genuinely fearing for losing everything.

The obvious comeback is, well it's better than dying. Or killing someone else. But for a lot of families - on the breadline but young - it's all an invisible and relatively low-risk threat to them. If we're asking them to sacrifice potentially everything they've managed to scrape together - and seriously damage their kid's education - to save an older generation who spend a good chunk of their time ridiculing them, telling them how easy they have it and pricing them out of the housing market then we might want to stop the sneering and rein in the 'I can stay home for months' superiority.

[martin_p]

The majority of people think like me and your 3 mates. The noisy minority, some of whom post on here, do not represent in any way, shape or form , what most fair minded people think.

And importantly that includes statisticians who say its fool hardy to make a judgement and draw conclusions from an event that has not yet concluded.

Only those attempting to not let a good crisis go to waste for political purposes would.

The majority of people think we went into lockdown too late. That’s a criticism of the government. So actually the majority of people are more than prepared to criticise the government when they think it is warranted.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

That was also Cummings’ fault. According to a piece in the Guardian, he felt so uncomfortable at his presence at hIs presence at a SAGE meeting, he had to ask a married woman to travel across London to “comfort” him.

Having seen said married woman, she could comfort me anytime she likes.

[NewClaret]

It's a fair point. Surprising the contempt out there for people who live week to week financially. It seems to be the most earnest, left leaning folk (and that's not an insult, it's usually me) who simply can't believe there's anyone who can't manage to stay off work for 3 months without genuinely fearing for losing everything.

The obvious comeback is, well it's better than dying. Or killing someone else. But for a lot of families - on the breadline but young - it's all an invisible and relatively low-risk threat to them. If we're asking them to sacrifice potentially everything they've managed to scrape together - and seriously damage their kid's education - to save an older generation who spend a good chunk of their time ridiculing them, telling them how easy they have it and pricing them out of the housing market then we might want to stop the sneering and rein in the 'I can stay home for months' superiority.

Entirely agree. For many, who want to feed their families, it’s not an option.

[evensteadiereddie]

Sorry, Ringo, let me explain. The press you appear to wish to gag is the one that addresses difficult questions, assesses our performance, examines not only what has gone well but also the disastrous errors. The sychophantic, compliant press, shrinking admittedly, is the only one you are comfortable with.
Hence the "Let's pretend we'll ask awkward questions later. Not sure when but later." cop-out.

Stay safe etc.

[NewClaret]

Having seen said married woman, she could comfort me anytime she likes.

She’s a left-wing campaigner, apparently, so not for me

Does just go to show that senior people in SAGE have links to the left though. Does make you wonder if it’s this plonkers pillow talk with her that’s the Guardian’s mystery source.

[evensteadiereddie]

Hi eddie, I believe you've posted that you are a retired teacher. May I ask what subject you taught?

Yes, chaos without "our financial and commercial system" and, if it didn't exist we would be rushing to invent it. It would be a very tough existence without "our financial and commercial system" - it would also mean no jobs, no health system, no education.

English and Head of Years 8 and 9, Paul.

No disputing what you say , of course. What I was referring to, obviously not clearly enough, was that, at any cost, those systems and all their by-products had to be preserved.
We will see this over the next few days or weeks, it's about to happen in the States, when livelihood will take precedence over the risk to life.
The economy has been allowed to creak and crumble to some extent but we are almost at the stage when it HAS to be kick-started, irrespective of how safe it is for the individuals contributing to it.

[NewClaret]

The majority of people think we went into lockdown too late. That’s a criticism of the government. So actually the majority of people are more than prepared to criticise the government when they think it is warranted.

Not sure that is true.

I agree with you. I think, with the benefit of hindsight, locking down much sooner, harder and banning all inbound air travel in January or February would have reduced death rate. Hindsight is wonderful in that respect because I would not have supported a hard lockdown or being separated from my family that went on holiday in January or February.

But nobody I speak to complains about the timing of the lockdown. Or cares enough to talk to me about it. Just on here.

When I was talking to my Mum last night, she said “we can’t even discuss politics now because nothings happening”. Made me chuckle inside. You should go on UTC Mum, it’s all we discuss on there, I thought.

[Spijed]

Not sure that is true.

I agree with you. I think, with the benefit of hindsight, locking down much sooner, harder and banning all inbound air travel in January or February would have reduced death rate. Hindsight is wonderful in that respect because I would not have supported a hard lockdown or being separated from my family that went on holiday in January or February.

But nobody I speak to complains about the timing of the lockdown. Or cares enough to talk to me about it. Just on here.

When I was talking to my Mum last night, she said “we can’t even discuss politics now because nothings happening”. Made me chuckle inside. You should go on UTC Mum, it’s all we discuss on there, I thought.

Scientists and doctors from around the world think we went into lockdown far too late and many are very critical of how both the USA and us have handled things.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

She’s a left-wing campaigner, apparently, so not for me

Does just go to show that senior people in SAGE have links to the left though. Does make you wonder if it’s this plonkers pillow talk with her that’s the Guardian’s mystery source.

Ah the age old spy tactic of sleeping with the enemy

[martin_p]

Not sure that is true.

I agree with you. I think, with the benefit of hindsight, locking down much sooner, harder and banning all inbound air travel in January or February would have reduced death rate. Hindsight is wonderful in that respect because I would not have supported a hard lockdown or being separated from my family that went on holiday in January or February.

But nobody I speak to complains about the timing of the lockdown. Or cares enough to talk to me about it. Just on here.

When I was talking to my Mum last night, she said “we can’t even discuss politics now because nothings happening”. Made me chuckle inside. You should go on UTC Mum, it’s all we discuss on there, I thought.

The polls say it’s true.

https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/fi ... s-mori.pdf

66% think the government were too late to take strict measures.

[TheFamilyCat]

"You need to do this over time. It will be months, perhaps even years, before we can really say who has the highest death toll."

There speaks a voice or reason.

Why the obsession about the highest? Why not just face up to the fact that ours is horrific and look at all the reasons why that might be the case?

[dsr]

English and Head of Years 8 and 9, Paul.

No disputing what you say , of course. What I was referring to, obviously not clearly enough, was that, at any cost, those systems and all their by-products had to be preserved.
We will see this over the next few days or weeks, it's about to happen in the States, when livelihood will take precedence over the risk to life.
The economy has been allowed to creak and crumble to some extent but we are almost at the stage when it HAS to be kick-started, irrespective of how safe it is for the individuals contributing to it.

That's the way it is, eddie. Society as a whole accepts that there will be "unnecessary" deaths for the sake of wealth and convenience.

Driving being the obvious example. There are something like 2000 deaths per year on the road, and all of tem are unnecessary. Every single one could be avoided - if the speed limit was made (say) 5 mph in towns and 20 mph on motorways. It would be inconvenoent and it would cost uis money, but there is no reason why it couldn't be done - except tat society as a whole is willing to put up with those deaths.

Yes, there is a perfectly valid view that it is worth a lifetime of poverty to give a bedridden old lady one more day of life. There is a less valid view that it isn't worth one day of poverty to give a child a whole lifetime. But for basically all of us, we are somewhere between those extremes. It's just a matter of where on the scale we are.

[aggi]

I criticised the WHO after they announced on March 3rd that "the Coronavirus is not as contagious as influenza"

I didnt attempt to prematurely compare their performance with anothe world health organisation, because there isn't one.

By attempting compare our government's performance against other countries while we're in the middle of a
unprecedented global pandemic is jumping the gun on steroids.

You're the equivalent of an over eager young journalist trying to get a post match interview with Sean Dyche. AT HALF TIME!!!!!

But you're not just trying to shut down comparisons to other countries, you're trying to shut down all criticisms (whilst praising the government is fine for some reason you've failed to explain).

I note the Treasury Select Committee doesn't really agree with your approach.

[TVC15]

Does this “noisy minority” who like to ask questions include the Treasury Select Committee chaired by a Conservative and who are asking questions of the government and chief medical officers as we speak ?

Why have they not waited till after all this is finished if that’s what the “majority” of people want ?

The hypocrisy and frankly utter made up sh-ite of some posters is beyond belief

Edit - got there before me Aggi !