So, Sweden may well have been right.....

[sjpowermac]

A flatlining of GDP growth, with growth underway in the fourth quarter.

That’s an interesting idea, even Sweden saw a reduction in economic activity rather than a flatlining. What do you base your predictions on?

Pensioners are for the most part not very economically active.

I must have just imagined all those pensioners going to pubs/restaurants pre-lockdown.

Yes, people reduced travel before the lockdown, but the reduction was a shallow drop in mobility compared to the cliff that occurred when the lockdown was imposed.

That doesn’t square with my own observations, certainly the commuter trains in Yorkshire were empty the week prior to the lockdown, it may have been different in your area.

Police smashing down doors because they thought people have visitors, arrests and fines for people violating the lockdown instructions etc etc etc.

I’d be interested to see a source for this, I’ve not read about that.

I do think that the economy would still have suffered significantly as people felt less comfortable going out, arguably many businesses will have fared better with a lockdown due to furlough and the business support scheme. Now we know more about the virus and the associated risks, it’s time to advertise these accordingly and allow those who are at practically no risk to start building the economic growth we sorely need.

The problem is that the messaging the government used would likely still have been “there’s a deadly, scary virus out there” and people would feel less inclined to go out, particularly for leisure.

I’m in agreement with you, I feel there would have been an impact on the economy with or without a lockdown. I feel you’ve made a very astute observation too regarding the furlough/business support scheme.

Is the government line really scary though? I think dropping the doom and gloom daily conferences was a very positive move.

The latest advertising I’ve seen from the government is to get back out and enjoy whatever it is you have been missing.

To be fair too, the ‘Eat out to help out’ campaign seems to encourage just what you wish for.

I do think we also need a ‘Go haulage bashing for Britain’ to get people back on the trains, I’d be delighted to front that one

 

[Bletchleyite]

Police smashing down doors because they thought people have visitors, arrests and fines for people violating the lockdown instructions etc etc etc.

I know some forces acted inappropriately e.g. telling someone off for being in their front garden, but do you have a link to an actual news report of that? I haven't heard of it happening.

 

[sjpowermac]

I think there would have been a noticeable, difference between the two situations.

I can’t say for sure, and neither can you.

 

[yorkie]

Is the government line really scary though? I think dropping the doom and gloom daily conferences was a very positive move.

I'm not scared in the slightest, but I am well aware some people have been; some are still refusing to come out, or are too scared to go out even now.

The lockdown, and the "stay at home" messaging has been very damaging. I am confident Sweden handled this better and that they will get better results. Time will tell...

That said I think we are going to be saved by a vaccine; I think we are going to be very lucky indeed as if it wasn't for that, our strategy would make no sense whatsoever.

 

[AndyY]

What is very sad, almost criminal, is that if I'm right, and our high death rate reflects high exposure to this virus and its burning itself out, then all these social distancing measures we're continuing to inflict on ourselves are achieving very little, if anything.

Why is the virus burning itself out in Sweden, but not in Spain, say?

 

[Bletchleyite]

That said I think we are going to be saved by a vaccine; I think we are going to be very lucky indeed as if it wasn't for that, our strategy would make no sense whatsoever.

Agreed, it does look very much like there will be a widely available (in the UK) vaccine by the end of Q1 or at worst Q2 next year, which would allow all measures to be removed once a "critical mass" (i.e. herd immunity) of people had received it. The one remaining thing may be that we may have to require it for anyone entering the country who would not be unable to have it medically (i.e. they'd either need proof of having had it or proof that they could not have it). Basically a bit like Yellow Fever in the countries affected by that.

 

[sjpowermac]

I'm not scared in the slightest, but I am well aware some people have been; some are still refusing to come out, or are too scared to go out even now.

I’m not scared either and never have been. The difference here is that I think we both understand risk and look at things rationally.

What element of the government’s current messaging is it that you feel is scary?

Regarding the Swedish approach, I’m still genuinely curious about the relative rates of infection at the time.

The main economic differences I can see between their approach and our own was that schools, pubs and restaurants remained open in Sweden (and I assume rail travel was open to all too).

Given our rates of infection at the time, I wonder if keeping all of those things open in the U.K. would have resulted in the virus getting out of control? I wonder what would have been the economic fall out from that? Given you say that some people are still scared to go out, what would have been the result for the economy of keeping everything open?

Schools is an area where I’m happy to admit that I’ve changed my mind. I do now feel that a lot more could and should have been done to keep them open in the U.K., even if things were done on a rota basis for year groups.

Do you know how they kept the schools open in Sweden? Perhaps @scarby has some info on this? I’m genuinely interested to know.

 

[NorthOxonian]

Agreed, it does look very much like there will be a widely available (in the UK) vaccine by the end of Q1 or at worst Q2 next year, which would allow all measures to be removed once a "critical mass" (i.e. herd immunity) of people had received it. The one remaining thing may be that we may have to require it for anyone entering the country who would not be unable to have it medically.

The elephant in the room is whether we'd be able to reach such a critical mass. Sadly a significant proportion of people seem to be radically anti-vax, and would refuse any vaccine. When you add to that number those people who cannot receive the vaccine for medical reasons, there's a serious risk we might not reach the 60-80% likely required for herd immunity.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The elephant in the room is whether we'd be able to reach such a critical mass. Sadly a significant proportion of people seem to be radically anti-vax, and would refuse any vaccine. When you add to that number those people who cannot receive the vaccine for medical reasons, there's a serious risk we might not reach the 60-80% likely required for herd immunity.

New thread to discuss the issue of "anti-vaccination" and herd immunity.

What if herd immunity can't be reached with a vaccine, as too many refuse to have it?

The elephant in the room is whether we'd be able to reach such a critical mass. Sadly a significant proportion of people seem to be radically anti-vax, and would refuse any vaccine. When you add to that number those people who cannot receive the vaccine for medical reasons, there's a serious...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[sjpowermac]

Why is the virus burning itself out in Sweden, but not in Spain, say?

From what I can understand, the argument seems to be that Sweden has built greater immunity to the virus. I’m not sure of where people take the proof of this...

 

[HSTEd]

That’s an interesting idea, even Sweden saw a reduction in economic activity rather than a flatlining. What do you base your predictions on?

Well the problem is Sweden is a fundamentally different economy - its much more tightly integrated with Europe than even the UK is.
Malmo etc, which would be catastrophically impacted when the Danish areas they are tightly integrated with just "go missing" economically.

I must have just imagined all those pensioners going to pubs/restaurants pre-lockdown.

Sure, they spend money, but they don't hold jobs.
Which means there impact on the economy is as simple as "they might not spend money any more".
That is considerably easier to fix than a disruption caused by a loss of personnel with valuable skillsets.

Worst comes to worse the government could toss money from helicopters to replace that reduction in spending fairly easily.

I’d be interested to see a source for this, I’ve not read about that.

It was Scotland back in April, hard to find a sober report on the topic but it was variously reported as "Police break down door for music being too loud" because the police thought he was holding a party.

But evidence of police excess has been evident all over the place since this started.

 

[DB]

I think dropping the doom and gloom daily conferences was a very positive move.

Now they need to persuade the media to do the same - they are all still at it with the doom and gloom headlining the news every day.

 

[sjpowermac]

Well the problem is Sweden is a fundamentally different economy - its much more tightly integrated with Europe than even the UK is.
Malmo etc, which would be catastrophically impacted when the Danish areas they are tightly integrated with just "go missing" economically.

Do you honestly think that the virus had no impact at all on domestic spending in Sweden? That certainly didn’t seem to be the assessment of the Swedish themselves with comments in the initial article in the thread mentioning empty restaurants.

Sure, they spend money, but they don't hold jobs.
Which means there impact on the economy is as simple as "they might not spend money any more".
That is considerably easier to fix than a disruption caused by a loss of personnel with valuable skillsets.


Worst comes to worse the government could toss money from helicopters to replace that reduction in spending fairly easily.

Why do you think that pensioners not spending money is simple to fix. Given your helicopter reference, I’m not certain I’ll reply to any more of your posts.

It was Scotland back in April, hard to find a sober report on the topic but it was variously reported as "Police break down door for music being too loud" because the police thought he was holding a party.

But evidence of police excess has been evident all over the place since this started.

So you’ve found one example, that you can’t provide a link for. Perhaps if there has been ‘police excess all over the place’ you could provide a link to some other examples of ‘police brutality’?

 

[sjpowermac]

Now they need to persuade the media to do the same - they are all still at it with the doom and gloom headlining the news every day.

I’m still at a loss as to understand which part of the government’s current messaging people find objectionable.

Regarding ‘persuading the media’ I’m not sure that state control of the media is necessarily a good idea, not that having most of it owned by a rich elite is a great idea either...

 

[DB]

I’m still at a loss as to understand which part of the government’s current messaging people find objectionable.

Regarding ‘persuading the media’ I’m not sure that state control of the media is necessarily a good idea, not that having most of it owned by a rich elite is a great idea either...

They could quite reasonably request the media to tone it down in the national interest. Not all of them would, but probably enough - certainly the BBC would, and that's terrible for it at the moment.

 

[yorkie]

What element of the government’s current messaging is it that you feel is scary?

I personally have never been scared by the messaging but clearly some people were; I think the earlier messaging is what scared people, and some of those people still won't come out now.

From what I can understand, the argument seems to be that Sweden has built greater immunity to the virus. I’m not sure of where people take the proof of this...

There is good evidence that immunity is building up in the population from the figures; you can see from the way the infection rate has dropped that it's likely due to increased immunity.

There have been studies on this too; there have been links posted on the forum before; here is one:

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-immunity-sweden-study-karolinska-a4485076.html

Public immunity to Covid-19 could be as high as 30 per cent, a new study from Sweden has claimed.

T cells, a type of white blood cell, could be a source of immunity for twice as many people as Covid-19 antibodies.

The findings have been published by the Karolinka Institutet, in a paper that has yet to be peer reviewed and that only had a test sample of 200 people in Karolinska University Hospital in Sweden.

 

[HSTEd]

Do you honestly think that the virus had no impact at all on domestic spending in Sweden? That certainly didn’t seem to be the assessment of the Swedish themselves with comments in the initial article in the thread mentioning empty restaurants.

Flatlining growth *is* an impact.

Economies in the modern era do not tend to stay static like that.

Why do you think that pensioners not spending money is simple to fix. Given your helicopter reference, I’m not certain I’ll reply to any more of your posts.

Helicopter money is a well known term in economics?

If we had helicopters drop millions of free restaurant meal vouchers over cities, what do you think would happen?

So you’ve found one example, that you can’t provide a link for. Perhaps if there has been ‘police excess all over the place’ you could provide a link to some other examples of ‘police brutality’?

I could provide a reference, but given my currently in use machine does not have adblock, I really didn't want to have to put myself through the ad ridden hell that is tabloid websites. Here is one from the Daily Heil

 

[43066]

I’m still at a loss as to understand which part of the government’s current messaging people find objectionable.

The initial “stay home to stay safe” messaging was far too alarmist: for those not at high risk (especially under 45 and otherwise healthy), it has never been “unsafe” to be infected. That messaging was amplified by businesses which, in many cases, interpreted the guidance more strictly than required. TOCs have been some of the absolute worst offenders for this, with the “key workers” only mantra, which went on for far longer then it should have done (and was never a requirement in the first place).

The main criticism of the messaging now is that it’s too confusing and complex, and a lot of people have simply stopped listening.

 

[sjpowermac]

The initial “stay home to stay safe” messaging was far too alarmist: for those not at high risk (especially under 45 and otherwise healthy), it has never been “unsafe” to be infected. That messaging was amplified by businesses which, in many cases, interpreted the guidance more strictly than required. TOCs have been some of the absolute worst offenders for this, with the “key workers” only mantra, which went on for far longer then it should have done (and was never a requirement in the first place).

The main criticism of the messaging now is that it’s too confusing and complex, and a lot of people have simply stopped listening.

Which part of:

Whatever you’ve missed, now is the time to get back out there and enjoy it safely.

or

Enjoy Summer Safely

is confusing or complex? Or is there another message you are referring to? That’s not a dig, I’m simply curious.

https://twitter.com/GOVUK/status/1285213748400185347?s=20

Regarding the early messaging, that goes back to whether we should have ‘done a Sweden’ or not. I’m saying I don’t have the answer to that because I don’t know the levels of infection in each country at the time.

 

[DB]

Which part of:

or

is confusing or complex? Or is there another message you are referring to? That’s not a dig, I’m simply curious.

https://twitter.com/GOVUK/status/1285213748400185347?s=20

Regarding the early messaging, that goes back to whether we should have ‘done a Sweden’ or not. I’m saying I don’t have the answer to that because I don’t know the levels of infection in each country at the time.

The masks issue is a classic example of the mixed messaging - on the one hand saying go out again, then on the other introducing rules which weren't in place when the risk was allegedly at its highest.

And the messaging from the railways is still in some cases pretty hostile - but there's no consistency there either.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The initial “stay home to stay safe” messaging was far too alarmist

That wasn't the messaging. It was "stay at home, protect the NHS and save lives" - it was an altruism based message all along.

 

[sjpowermac]

They could quite reasonably request the media to tone it down in the national interest. Not all of them would, but probably enough - certainly the BBC would, and that's terrible for it at the moment.

I’m not sure that government’s should openly involve themselves in the editorial stance of the media. Isn’t there something in the BBC’s charter that would preclude what you are saying?

 

[sjpowermac]

That wasn't the messaging. It was "stay at home, protect the NHS and save lives" - it was an altruism based message all along.

That was my reading of it too.

 

[43066]

is confusing or complex? Or is there another message you are referring to? That’s not a dig, I’m simply curious.

So on Twitter they’re advising us to “get back out there”, yet if I go to the Gov.Uk website I’m then advised to:

COVID-19: guidance and support

Find information on COVID-19, including guidance and support.

www.gov.uk

• stay at home as much as possible

So still a confusing, and confused message!

 

[DB]

I’m not sure that government’s should openly involve themselves in the editorial stance of the media. Isn’t there something in the BBC’s charter that would preclude what you are saying?

Given that the government has done all sorts of unprecedented things over the past few months, it's hardly impossible - and it would actually be justifiably in the national interest to try to discourage the media from its constant negative stories about this - they are not doing individuals or the country any good at all.

 

[sjpowermac]

I personally have never been scared by the messaging but clearly some people were; I think the earlier messaging is what scared people, and some of those people still won't come out now.

There is good evidence that immunity is building up in the population from the figures; you can see from the way the infection rate has dropped that it's likely due to increased immunity.

There have been studies on this too; there have been links posted on the forum before; here is one:

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-immunity-sweden-study-karolinska-a4485076.html

What’s your suggestion for what the earlier messaging should have been?

You don’t think that some people had seen the scenes from Italy and rightly or wrongly concluded for themselves that it might not be a bad idea to take some precautions?

So whilst on some threads anything that’s not peer reviewed is shot down in flames and yet here it’s OK...

 

[sjpowermac]

Given that the government has done all sorts of unprecedented things over the past few months, it's hardly impossible - and it would actually be justifiably in the national interest to try to discourage the media from its constant negative stories about this - they are not doing individuals or the country any good at all.

So you think we should have state control of the media? Wow!

 

[43066]

That wasn't the messaging. It was "stay at home, protect the NHS and save lives" - it was an altruism based message all along.

That was the core message but a lot of the more detailed guidance was (and is) still very much about “staying safe”. The gov.uk guidance I linked to above refers to:

“protecting yourself and others from Coronavirus”

“Staying safe outside your home”

“Working safely”

So an emphasis on personal protection, in addition to altruism, has been a key part of the messaging throughout. I understand why to some extent: many people are not altruistic, so it was thought necessary to scare those people into obedience. Unfortunately that has succeeded in terrifying a significant proportion of the population to the point where they wish to remain in a perpetual state of lockdown!

 

[DB]

So you think we should have state control of the media? Wow!

Please point to where I said that (hint - you can't as you've just made it up)

I merely said that it would be in the interests of everyone now if they could encourage the media to tone down the doom mongering. Some of the media would ignore that, but probably not all.

 

[sjpowermac]

Please point to where I said that (hint - you can't as you've just made it up)

I merely said that it would be in the interests of everyone now if they could encourage the media to tone down the doom mongering. Some of the media would ignore that, but probably not all.

So how do we ensure that ‘encourage the media’ doesn’t turn into state control of the media? You are blurring lots of lines and it’s a tremendously slippery slope that you are advocating. Where does it end?