Government advice discussion

[StephenHunter]

They frequently don't, especially the NHS. There's only 15,000 deaths at the moment, but it is likely to increase.

 

[Mogster]

They frequently don't, especially the NHS.

But we haven’t crashed the economy before, even when we’ve had 100,000 extra deaths. It hardly makes the papers.

 

[krus_aragon]

I would have thought the NHS would be prioritising home deliveries, to reduce the load on hospitals. Accepted that some riskier pregnancies will require hospital facilities in case.

Indeed. My wife is on the fringes of those risk categories, and is on a consultant-led path. As this isn't a first-time pregnancy, her consultant suggested to skip the later ultrasound scans typically used to check growth rate: experienced mums are typically able to tell if things aren't as expected.

They'd been told that maternity services will be protected against any staff transfers etc. to deal with the coming surge, but reducing their workload anyway (where possible) will of course help.

 

[StephenHunter]

But we haven’t crashed the economy before, even when we’ve had 100,000 extra deaths. It hardly makes the papers.

Without this action, we could easily have 200,000 extra deaths.

 

[edwin_m]

If health services are overwhelmed now then how do they cope in a bad flu season when we can have 50-100,000 excess deaths over and above the 500,000 average per year. I’m not sure how an excess death is actually calculated, maybe by reviewing age and underlying condition stats.

I can see the developing situation in Italy, London and New York and just hope the WHO and Governments of developed countries are correct in their thinking and this isn’t a massive overreaction. At the moment we’ve crashed the world economy for only around 15,000 reported deaths worldwide, mostly in high risk groups with ages around average life expectancy.

Imagine what the annual flu deaths would be like if there was no vaccine and no immunity from previous years. If nothing is done then the cases will double every few days until most of the population has been infected (it only needs each infected person to infect a couple more). If that happens the number of hospital cases will be far more than the beds available, so many people who might be saved by hospital treatment will die unnecessarily. There will apparently be 30,000 hospital beds available in the UK for virus patients, so assuming 10% of cases need to be hospitalised, we reach that situation if more than about 300,000 are infected at the same time. We currently have 5000 cases that we know about in the UK, and it doesn't take many doublings to get to critical levels. Finally all the numbers are very uncertain because little is know about a new disease, so it's much better to be on the safe side.

 

[Bletchleyite]

5000 that are known about.

I am very much of the view that I'm at the end of a very mild case. Can't wait for the antibody test to be able to prove one way or the other.

Whatever it was was very similar to something I had in late Jan/early Feb which was grim and like nothing I've had before. Did I perhaps get it twice, the second time much more minor?

 

[Meerkat]

The average ‘normal’ flu death - how much time is spent in hospital and how long in ICU?
I am getting the impression it wouldn’t be anything like Covid.

 

[Mogster]

The average ‘normal’ flu death - how much time is spent in hospital and how long in ICU?
I am getting the impression it wouldn’t be anything like Covid.

That’s the sort of thing I’m trying to understand and feel is important. 1500 deaths a day is normal, how many of those require ICU beds before they die? How much greater demand than “bad” previously are hospitals seeing.

As I’ve said before it’s the economic fall out from this that’s keeping me awake at night more than thoughts of the disease. I really hope completely trashing the world economy is worth it.

 

[edwin_m]

5000 that are known about.

I am very much of the view that I'm at the end of a very mild case. Can't wait for the antibody test to be able to prove one way or the other.

Whatever it was was very similar to something I had in late Jan/early Feb which was grim and like nothing I've had before. Did I perhaps get it twice, the second time much more minor?

If there are more than 5000 cases that is to the good, because the death rate per case would be lower than we thought. If infection confers good immunity then it also means that more of the population is immune. But we don't know about either of these things, we will probably find out in coming weeks especially if and when an antibody test becomes available. That might prompt some change in the government advice. In the meantime it's prudent to be on the safe side because some of the other unknowns may be more on the side of danger.

 

[Meerkat]

I really hope completely trashing the world economy is worth it.

If it affects everywhere it shouldn’t do that should it? It’s a big fiscal and monetary boost to counteract the collapse in demand (a good chunk of which will be delayed rather than cancelled)
As long as we keep things ticking over (ie not too many otherwise good businesses collapse) so there isn’t a big start up inefficiency, then we will go back to a reduced state of normal.
There could even be a big demand boost on reemergence as whilst many will be on reduced income many will be getting broadly the same money whilst spending much less (all those unspent holiday budgets for a start).
It could also be a boost for the local economy as offshoring, importing, and foreign holidays would be seen as no longer a cheap low risk option.

 

[Mogster]

If it affects everywhere it shouldn’t do that should it? It’s a big fiscal and monetary boost to counteract the collapse in demand (a good chunk of which will be delayed rather than cancelled)
As long as we keep things ticking over (ie not too many otherwise good businesses collapse) so there isn’t a big start up inefficiency, then we will go back to a reduced state of normal.
There could even be a big demand boost on reemergence as whilst many will be on reduced income many will be getting broadly the same money whilst spending much less (all those unspent holiday budgets for a start).
It could also be a boost for the local economy as offshoring, importing, and foreign holidays would be seen as no longer a cheap low risk option.

Who knows, current events are totally unprecedented. I hate that term as it gets used so often nowadays but in this context I think it’s correct.

I suppose the largest economies in the world have recovered from worse. WW1 and WW2. Germany was left totally defeated and had complete regime change. Japan was defeated with its major cities destroyed and two H bombed.

 

[krus_aragon]

Who knows, current events are totally unprecedented.

The only precedence I could suggest is the flu of 1918/1919. In that case, many European nations were distracted by a certain war, and the British press (among others) was also censoring any mention of an epidemic at home. That limited the mitigation efforts significantly. (It's known as the Spanish Flu because there was no censorship of news out of neutral Spain, not because they had any more cases that anywhere else.)

 

[JonathanH]

There could even be a big demand boost on reemergence as whilst many will be on reduced income many will be getting broadly the same money whilst spending much less (all those unspent holiday budgets for a start).

I do wonder whether, once it is clear who can and can't work during this period, whether a one off tax hit on those who are working from home but are not key workers would be better than increasing tax for all later. Some sort of 'in it together' approach.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I do wonder whether, once it is clear who can and can't work during this period, whether a one off tax hit on those who are working from home but are not key workers would be better than increasing tax for all later. Some sort of 'in it together' approach.

Interesting idea. Could just whack income tax up, say stick 10% on basic and 20% on higher? Or just more on higher, as most health workers aren't paid that much?

 

[AndrewE]

That’s the sort of thing I’m trying to understand and feel is important. 1500 deaths a day is normal, how many of those require ICU beds before they die? How much greater demand than “bad” previously are hospitals seeing.

As I’ve said before it’s the economic fall out from this that’s keeping me awake at night more than thoughts of the disease. I really hope completely trashing the world economy is worth it.

3rd paragraph of the quoted piece in #319 (a good number, that!)

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The only precedence I could suggest is the flu of 1918/1919. In that case, many European nations were distracted by a certain war, and the British press (among others) was also censoring any mention of an epidemic at home. That limited the mitigation efforts significantly. (It's known as the Spanish Flu because there was no censorship of news out of neutral Spain, not because they had any more cases that anywhere else.)

From what I have read, the 1918-19 epidemic cost in the tens of millions of lives.
The second wave was significantly worse than the first, exacerbated by returning military and poor hygiene generally.
In the US, a senior medic recommended a large dose of aspirin to reduce the effects of the virus, but in fact the side-effects made it worse.

 

[AM9]

That’s the sort of thing I’m trying to understand and feel is important. 1500 deaths a day is normal, how many of those require ICU beds before they die? How much greater demand than “bad” previously are hospitals seeing.

As I’ve said before it’s the economic fall out from this that’s keeping me awake at night more than thoughts of the disease. I really hope completely trashing the world economy is worth it.

That sounds like either you don't have any friends/relatives that are vulnerable and might die if they contract COVID-19 so don't care, or do and are more concerned about how a recession affects you.

 

[Ivor]

As ‘Agency staff’ I’ve been struggling for shifts, last week had three but had to travel a 4 hour round journey to get some work, have 4 this coming week again miles away but today from the office get asked can I go to a shift ‘now?’ it was too far & I had no hope of getting the last train home, a colleague rang me to say yesterday he had no shifts issued but just called to say he now has 5 out of the blue.

We have also been told they will come back to us later today with an offer of more locations asking.... “please help us out”

Marvellous, most weeks this year we’ve literally begged for work now all of a sudden shortages at GTR with staff going sick or self isolating we are in demand.

I’m not complaining & I wouldn’t want work at the expense of someone else’s ill health as this virus is way beyond serious. For zero hour contract staff we will of course take the shifts if logistically we can get there & our health keeps up.

There is not going to be a quick fix with this virus but I sincerely hope it finds a way to go as quickly as it came, I live in hope!

 

[Mogster]

That sounds like either you don't have any friends/relatives that are vulnerable and might die if they contract COVID-19 so don't care, or do and are more concerned about how a recession affects you.

I do have elderly relatives.

A massive global recession and the extreme austerity that will go with it will have far reaching effects on everyone on the planet. There is a distinct possibility that the current measures will lead to the collapse of some economies, civil unrest, maybe conflict. Yes the potential local healthcare implications of the virus are scary, however it’s the likely economic fallout from this that’s keeping me awake at night...

 

[Belperpete]

Well I've clearly put the world at risk then, as I travelled to my Mum's (approximately 20 miles each way) by bus yesterday. For just under half the journey it was just me and the driver, which after years of experience of that route felt strange. My little sister, she's on a week off and travelled from Cheshire by train a couple of days ago for Mother's Day. So she clearly committed a sinful action then too!

The last I looked, the rate of increase in deaths in the UK is currently worse than they were in Italy at the same stage. The government will keep adding extra restrictions until that rate of growth drops to a manageable level. So every individual who ignores the current advice makes the imposition of even tighter restrictions that bit more likely.

All those people who ignored the advice not to congregate and still went out to bars and restaurants made it inevitable that there would be an instruction for all bars and restaurants to shut. That is making it difficult for those currently staying in hotels to get breakfast and evening meals.

Likewise all those ignoring the advice not to travel unless essential make it that bit more likely that further travel restrictions will be imposed. And all those heading off to the caravan parks and the like in Wales and Scotland make it that bit more likely that there will be an instruction to shut them. Each extra restriction will have negative impacts.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The last I looked, the rate of increase in deaths in the UK is currently worse than they were in Italy at the same stage. The government will keep adding extra restrictions until that rate of growth drops to a manageable level. So every individual who ignores the current advice makes the imposition of even tighter restrictions that bit more likely.

The problem with this is that there is a lag of about 1 week on new cases, and of about 2-3 weeks on deaths, in terms of the effect on any given measure. So looking at Italy, you will only see the effect of their lockdown in the next few days. So I would imagine the Government is watching that.

 

[StephenHunter]

Italy today recorded the lowest percentage increase in cases (10%) since 21 February. However, still more work to do.

 

[scotrail158713]

Italy today recorded the lowest percentage increase in cases (10%) since 21 February. However, still more work to do.

In a time where there are few positives I suppose that is one

 

[telstarbox]

Interesting idea. Could just whack income tax up, say stick 10% on basic and 20% on higher? Or just more on higher, as most health workers aren't paid that much?

That would absolutely whack NHS doctors though.

 

[hexagon789]

That would absolutely whack NHS doctors though.

Exceptions for emergency workers?

Not that I'm necessarily in favour of such tax hikes

 

[Belperpete]

Exceptions for emergency workers?
Not that I'm necessarily in favour of such tax hikes

Let's face it, we're all going to be paying for this for decades to come, in the form of higher taxes, lower benefits and so on. I am left wondering who exactly is lending us all this money? China? It's got to be coming from somewhere.

The Tories roundly blamed Labour for the money they spent on mitigating the financial crash (even though at the time they largely supported what they were doing), and the effect that spending subsequently had on the economy. It will be interesting to see what the other parties have to say in a decade or so's time about what the Tories are currently spending and the inevitable effect it will have on our economy.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Let's face it, we're all going to be paying for this for decades to come, in the form of higher taxes, lower benefits and so on. I am left wondering who exactly is lending us all this money? China? It's got to be coming from somewhere.

Government borrowing often comes from investors. National Savings is, for instance, Government borrowing.

 

[hexagon789]

Let's face it, we're all going to be paying for this for decades to come, in the form of higher taxes, lower benefits and so on. I am left wondering who exactly is lending us all this money? China? It's got to be coming from somewhere.

The Tories roundly blamed Labour for the money they spent on mitigating the financial crash (even though at the time they largely supported what they were doing), and the effect that spending subsequently had on the economy. It will be interesting to see what the other parties have to say in a decade or so's time about what the Tories are currently spending and the inevitable effect it will have on our economy.

I'm not sure there's much alternative than increasing spending at least in certain areas. This is something which is different to the 2008 financial crisis, and I would expect governments of a different hue to handle the economic situation in a similar fashion

 

[Belperpete]

Government borrowing often comes from investors. National Savings is, for instance, Government borrowing.

So are millions of people currently making significant additional investments into National Savings? I very much doubt it.

At the same time that our government is proposing to spend billions, the EU and various member states are also proposing to spend similar sums, and the US is proposing to spend trillions. So where is all this extra money coming from? For someone to borrow money, there must be someone else lending/investing it. If not, if the governments are just printing money, there is going to be one almighty financial crash.

 

[AndrewE]

So are millions of people currently making significant additional investments into National Savings? I very much doubt it.
At the same time that our government is proposing to spend billions, the EU and various member states are also proposing to spend similar sums, and the US is proposing to spend trillions. So where is all this extra money coming from? For someone to borrow money, there must be someone else lending/investing it. If not, if the governments are just printing money, there is going to be one almighty financial crash.

...Cue (yet) another discussion about the difference between household and National budgets... There might well be an almighty crash, which is exactly why a government which can issue bonds at 0.5% would be stupid not to revitalise the economy by using "money" raised that way to invest in infrastructure (or even keeping people out of debt, or preventing evictions from house repossessions.)
Inflation will ensure that what has to be paid back will be less than the money borrowed.
National Savings might be secure, but savings in it are depreciating compared to any measure of inflation. They don't want you to save, They are saying Please spend!