We must enable the economy to recover as soon as practicable

[Bletchleyite]

The current fudge isn’t benefiting anyone IMO.

It is. It's causing a continuing decline in both deaths and cases, it may well take only another 6 weeks or so to get cases very near 0.

Don't forget that testing is increasing so the number of known cases appears to increase but in fact it isn't.

 

[Bantamzen]

Yes I tend to agree with all of that.

I think it should be either one final push to try and get the infection circulation down, in which case it should be a couple of weeks of very strict lockdown along the lines of no one goes out at all except the absolute keyest workers (which may require some thought as to how we manage food supplies), or if that’s not practicable then a return to controlled normal - specifically kids back at school (perhaps looking at seeing if they can carry on through July and into August to make up some lost ground) and as many people as possible back at work except in the highest-risk industries.

The current fudge isn’t benefiting anyone IMO.

Mandating a strict 2 week lockdown would trigger a panic buying spree of biblical proportions. It would do way more harm than good, and is a terrible idea.

 

[Domh245]

It is. It's causing a continuing decline in both deaths and cases, it may well take only another 6 weeks or so to get cases very near 0.

I'm with Bramling on this, 6 more weeks of this in an attempt at eradication doesn't cut it I'm afraid. If we're going for eradication (which doesn't seem to be the policy, unlike Oz/Nz) then it's better to throw the kitchen sink at that for 14 days and then declare us "COVID free". If the aim is to get it to a manageable level then let things go back to semi-normality then either announce that or what the target is (3 days under 200 deaths/day, or whatever else arbitrary it is)

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm with Bramling on this, 6 more weeks of this in an attempt at eradication doesn't cut it I'm afraid. If we're going for eradication (which doesn't seem to be the policy, unlike Oz/Nz) then it's better to throw the kitchen sink at that for 14 days and then declare us "COVID free". If the aim is to get it to a manageable level then let things go back to semi-normality then either announce that or what the target is (3 days under 200 deaths/day, or whatever else arbitrary it is)

I think what we're following is not eradication, but the "hammer and the dance", i.e. you whack the cases down to a low but nonzero level then add/remove measures over a longer period to keep R as close to 1 (but below 1; above would be disastrous) as possible.

Details here: https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-the-hammer-and-the-dance-be9337092b56

Remember that the death figures lag actual infections by 3-4 weeks. Even if by some miracle spread stopped today, people would still be dying for the next 3-4 weeks of existing infections.

 

[43066]

I agree, especially on the point of getting everyone back to work as far as possible. By all means isolate the vulnerable - but they need to make sure that they are provided for (how about getting the thousands of now unemployed hospitality industry staff into some sort of meals on wheels service for the vulnerable - it would serve as a job creation scheme too). But all this is extremely unlikely when you consider the inevitable reaction of a very vocal section of society - the pro-total-lockdown brigade. I think that as soon as deaths start to rise again (which they will), the government would bow to pressure and lock us down again.

I wish Boris had been a lot more bullish about the need to protect the economy rather than encouraging this urge to minimise death rates at all costs.

Ironically the government itself has empowered the “lock down at all costs” brigade by creating such a ridiculous culture of fear. Many fit and healthy people genuinely don’t seem to understand that the measures adopted were intended to control the spread and prevent the NHS being overwhelmed. NOT because the disease poses much risk to people in good health. This is why we now have people clamouring for lockdown to continue until a vaccine is developed - utter madness!

The media hasn’t helped by stoking the fear mongering. The sentimental reports about victims are usually silent on whether they had any underlying conditions. On the other hand, when examples of otherwise healthy individuals who have passed away are reported, the fact that had no underlying conditions is always mentioned, but the fact they are statistical outliers is ignored.

The current fudge isn’t benefiting anyone IMO.

Quite.

We currently seem to have both a high death rate and a crashing economy. The worst of all worlds!

I must say I’m surprised how badly this has been handled by a government which started the year in such a strong position.

 

[bramling]

I wish Boris had been a lot more bullish about the need to protect the economy rather than encouraging this urge to minimise death rates at all costs.

Ironically the government itself has empowered the “lock down at all costs” brigade by creating such a ridiculous culture of fear. Many fit and healthy people genuinely don’t seem to understand that the measures adopted were intended to control the spread and prevent the NHS being overwhelmed. NOT because the disease poses much risk to people in good health. This is why we now have people clamouring for lockdown to continue until a vaccine is developed - utter madness!

The media hasn’t helped by stoking the fear mongering. The sentimental reports about victims are usually silent on whether they had any underlying conditions. On the other hand, when examples of otherwise healthy individuals who have passed away are reported, the fact that had no underlying conditions is always mentioned, but the fact they are statistical outliers is ignored.




Quite.

We currently seem to have both a high death rate and a crashing economy. The worst of all worlds!

I must say I’m surprised how badly this has been handled by a government which started the year in such a strong position.

This is my view, if we’re going to have a destroyed economy then we damn well should have made a decent job at getting the virus out of circulation, if that was ever possible (the Chinese seem to have just about managed it, although I think I’m right in saying their initial outbreak was more geographically contained). If not why are we still on any form of lockdown at all given there’s Nightingale hospitals now sitting idle.

I think part of the issue is Boris’s fundamentally libertarian nature, restrictive measures just aren’t part of his DNA. Whilst 99.9% of the time this is absolutely the right thing, unfortunately on this occasion it’s caused him to follow the crowd rather than lead it. Having said that, would anyone else have done better? I think Cameron possibly. Corbyn no way. Blair maybe towards the beginning of his tenure, but certainly not after the toxification brought by Iraq. Could be food for another thread here.

 

[6862]

Ironically the government itself has empowered the “lock down at all costs” brigade by creating such a ridiculous culture of fear. Many fit and healthy people genuinely don’t seem to understand that the measures adopted were intended to control the spread and prevent the NHS being overwhelmed. NOT because the disease poses much risk to people in good health. This is why we now have people clamouring for lockdown to continue until a vaccine is developed - utter madness!

Yes - this is a massive part of the problem. If people understood that the risk of a severe illness is very very low to healthy people under 65-70ish, it might allow some return to normality which might then allow those people who are at risk (i.e. those with pre-existing conditions and the elderly) to be effectively supported in isolation. A collapsed economy and a society which no longer functions will not be able to effectively support people who will likely need to take precautions until we get a vaccine (if we get one at all).

 

[Domh245]

I think what we're following is not eradication, but the "hammer and the dance", i.e. you whack the cases down to a low but nonzero level then add/remove measures over a longer period to keep R as close to 1 (but below 1; above would be disastrous) as possible.

Details here: https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-the-hammer-and-the-dance-be9337092b56

Remember that the death figures lag actual infections by 3-4 weeks. Even if by some miracle spread stopped today, people would still be dying for the next 3-4 weeks of existing infections.

Agreed it's pretty clear that we're not going for eradication but instead the "hammer and the dance" however it does seem our hammering is dragging on when the rest of the world is starting to dance. On the point about 3-4 week lag, the ~200 a day deaths we're seeing in hospitals at the moment were infections from shortly after the peak in declared deaths (and about in line with peak registered excess deaths) based on that number, so we're now about 6-8 weeks on from peak infection, how much longer must it drag on - assuming that the relationship between deaths and infections is linear and constant, another 3-4 weeks and we're looking at ~50 deaths a day. (nb, using this graph to show daily deaths and registered excess)

I wish Boris had been a lot more bullish about the need to protect the economy rather than encouraging this urge to minimise death rates at all costs.

I'm beginning to worry about his credentials as a Tory with all this disregard for the economy and focus on helping people

I must say I’m surprised how badly this has been handled by a government which started the year in such a strong position.

Strong in terms of numbers of MPs but that's about the only way in which it could be described as strong! By all accounts it's pretty weak in terms of experience and expertise, the chancellor was a no-name until he took office!


As one last bit of food for thought for this thread, I found a study done by some Oxford academics showing the relationship between how strict a country's lockdown was, and the number of cases

Obviously there's far more too it than the graph would suggest, for example how strict they were in terms of border controls, how prepared they were in terms with test/trace infrastructure, but it's certainly an interesting finding

 

[bramling]

Yes - this is a massive part of the problem. If people understood that the risk of a severe illness is very very low to healthy people under 65-70ish, it might allow some return to normality which might then allow those people who are at risk (i.e. those with pre-existing conditions and the elderly) to be effectively supported in isolation. A collapsed economy and a society which no longer functions will not be able to effectively support people who will likely need to take precautions until we get a vaccine (if we get one at all).

It’s like today the news is saying the government is “considering” imposing a quarantine on anyone arriving. Yet I can hear neighbours over my garden fence expressing disbelief that this this is only being “considered” at this late stage.

I suppose on the positive side it looks like we might just see garden centres open next week. I have made an effort to support a couple of local small businesses who have been open these last few weeks, for example bringing forward a batch of work on one of my cars, they were most grateful as their custom has apparently dropped off a cliff in the last few weeks. This is the sort of thing which could have been encouraged perhaps, keeping at least some money flowing round the system.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think that suggests that actually our level of lockdown is no less effective than Italy's much stronger one, and that it's probably cultural matters that are more significant (e.g. the more collectivist approach in the Asian countries).

I did read something about Italy, though, that the reason they banned people going out entirely bar for food was that people were still meeting up on the streets, hugging etc. My impression of the UK situation is that other than a smallish number of groups of lads people are sticking to household groups. One reason for groups of lads in their 20s being out together is of course because groups of lads in their 20s often share flats, particularly in London, and I think a lot of people are misinterpreting that as being breaches.

 

[43066]

As one last bit of food for thought for this thread, I found a study done by some Oxford academics showing the relationship between how strict a country's lockdown was, and the number of cases

Obviously there's far more too it than the graph would suggest, for example how strict they were in terms of border controls, how prepared they were in terms with test/trace infrastructure, but it's certainly an interesting finding

Interesting indeed, and certainly doesn’t paint strict lockdown in a favourable light as a method of reducing spread of the disease!

I notice they’ve they’ve used total cases rather than cases per hundred thousand. I suppose that makes sense as, when each country has started from a base point of zero cases, total population size is irrelevant.

No account has been taken of population density, though, or for the fact that the virus does better in certain climates, so that hot/humid countries have a natural advantage.

One of the most important factors missing from that graph is surely when the measures were implemented. A strict lockdown will presumably be far less effective once the virus already has a strong foothold in the population.

It’s certainly interesting that Sweden has still managed to do better than the UK, despite no official lockdown at all! Perhaps implying that steps short of lockdown, implemented at an early stage, might be more effective than strict lockdown implemented later.

 

[43066]

I'm beginning to worry about his credentials as a Tory with all this disregard for the economy and focus on helping people

I certainly didn’t expect to see Boris Johnson’s government engaging in a wholesale nationalisation of the economy!!!

 

[bramling]

Latest government advice on public transport has been published today on this link.

People with symptoms of a respiratory infection including COVID-19

Guidance for people with symptoms of a respiratory infection including COVID-19, or a positive test result for COVID-19.

www.gov.uk

Under the "is your journey necessary" section is this advice;



I'm sure we'll all interpret it our own way as it's so vague but I would take it to mean that yes, it's okay to use public transport to meet up with your partner in a public place if you live some distance apart.

The whole thing is now such a muddle it’a shambolic. One day they announce that people should be endeavouring to go back to work, then next day the furlough scheme is extended to a date in the very distant future. Is the left hand even talking to the right hand?

 

[Domh245]

The whole thing is now such a muddle it’a shambolic. One day they announce that people should be endeavouring to go back to work, then next day the furlough scheme is extended to a date in the very distant future. Is the left hand even talking to the right hand?

The hospitality sector definitely won't be opening any time soon, which is why the CJRS needed to be extended. It is a shame to see that the announcement didn't include more about cutting it back for sectors that weren't forced to close, although I expect that's what the reference to "start sharing the cost" may be - some companies may find the portion of wages covered by it decreasing. Indeed, reading this bit makes me think that changes will be coming

The chancellor told the Commons that from August, the scheme would continue for all sectors and regions of the country but with greater flexibility to support the transition back to work, he said.

 

[Mag_seven]

Given the Chancellor's announcement re the extension of the furlough scheme this thread is now open again but please stay on topic otherwise we may be forced to lock it again. Thanks.

UK furlough scheme extended by four months

The scheme to pay wages of workers on leave because of coronavirus has been extended to the end of October.

www.bbc.co.uk

The UK scheme to pay wages of workers on leave because of coronavirus will be extended to October, Chancellor Rishi Sunak said.

He said the government backed workers and companies going into the lockdown, and would support them coming out.

Mr Sunak confirmed that employees will continue to receive 80% of their monthly wages up to £2,500.

 

[Starmill]

Again and again, the Chancellor and the Treasury do a notably better job on policymaking than the whole of the rest of the government, including No 10.

 

[bramling]

Again and again, the Chancellor and the Treasury do a notably better job on policymaking than the whole of the rest of the government, including No 10.

Do they? We have the real risk now of a situation where some people become addicted to furlough, and at some point the massive bill will have to be picked up. It seems to be that the right hand isn’t talking to the left.

80% is too generous in my view.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Again and again, the Chancellor and the Treasury do a notably better job on policymaking than the whole of the rest of the government, including No 10.

I do see a future PM there. He does seem more competent than the rest of them put together, though I also think Matt Hancock is more competent at his actual job than he is at doing presentations to a television camera (which to be fair aren't usually a big part of his role).

Talking of Hancock, a friend in PHE believes Health Secretary is basically his dream job, though I bet he could do without this bit of it!

 

[bramling]

I do see a future PM there. He does seem more competent than the rest of them put together, though I also think Matt Hancock is more competent at his actual job than he is at doing presentations to a television camera (which to be fair aren't usually a big part of his role).

I don’t quite share such an optimistic view. Personally I can’t help but feel Sunak is acting in an almost populist fashion, literally chucking money out in the short-term without really considering the long-term implications. The true test will be to see how all this gets paid for.

I have a suspicion it’s far from happy families behind the scenes.

I agree Hancock appears to come out of this reasonably well.

 

[WelshBluebird]

It is a shame to see that the announcement didn't include more about cutting it back for sectors that weren't forced to close, although I expect that's what the reference to "start sharing the cost" may be - some companies may find the portion of wages covered by it decreasing. Indeed, reading this bit makes me think that changes will be coming

The problem is working out where to draw the line.

Even in industries not directly asked to close, there would have been mass redundancies if the scheme had not been put in place.
E.g. there is quite a long chain of industries that support office workers in some areas (certainly in central London say). With people working from home, you would have seen a lot of people working in coffee shops, cafes, food places etc made unemployed.
Some of them are obvious (like the above), but some are not.

Do they? We have the real risk now of a situation where some people become addicted to furlough, and at some point the massive bill will have to be picked up. It seems to be that the right hand isn’t talking to the left.

80% is too generous in my view.

How can people become addicted to something they generally don't have any control over?
Presumably you would have preferred mass redundancies instead?

 

[ainsworth74]

Do they? We have the real risk now of a situation where some people become addicted to furlough, and at some point the massive bill will have to be picked up. It seems to be that the right hand isn’t talking to the left.

80% is too generous in my view.

It's not the employees choice though whether they start or finish their furlough. It's the employers. If the employer rings up and says "furloughs over we need you back" then they can't just say "nah, I'm happy as things are thanks" unless they fancy being dismissed.

 

[Starmill]

In spite of the CJRS, P&O have chosen to make 1,100 staff based in Hull redundant. P&O are owned by the State of Dubai, who have very significant liquidity, who own businesses which have received millions of pounds in UK government money, and who recently paid out more than £170m in dividends. Still it's good to see where our money is going.

It's not the employees choice though whether they start or finish their furlough. It's the employers. If the employer rings up and says "furloughs over we need you back" then they can't just say "nah, I'm happy as things are thanks" unless they fancy being dismissed.

Precisely. It's also usually open to employees to refuse to take furlough leave, and certainly isn't open to them to request it.

 

[WelshBluebird]

In spite of the CJRS, P&O have chosen to make 1,100 staff based in Hull redundant. P&O are owned by the State of Dubai, who have very significant liquidity.

I suspect that for some industries we will see that. Airlines will be hit in a similar way I would imagine as companies look to the longer term.
Furlough is there to help companies keep staff on during this period instead of making them redundant. If the company can't see a future for those staff after this short term period (e.g. in industries that will see a large decline in demand and probably won't see it return to previous levels for a number of years) then that is a different problem to the one the furlough scheme is meant to deal with.

 

[Domh245]

The problem is working out where to draw the line.

Even in industries not directly asked to close, there would have been mass redundancies if the scheme had not been put in place.
E.g. there is quite a long chain of industries that support office workers in some areas (certainly in central London say). With people working from home, you would have seen a lot of people working in coffee shops, cafes, food places etc made unemployed.
Some of them are obvious (like the above), but some are not.

Agreed that it's a fine line to tread, and I mentioned that in a post earlier in this thread (I think). This post seems like a sensible way forward - some form of proof that even though you aren't required to be shutdown, the situation makes it unviable to open. That does then create a bit of a chicken and egg situation for some employers, where they can't open because nobody near them is open, because nobody else is, etc.

I would agree, and would say that it should over time be restricted to only those businesses which are not legally permitted to operate or can prove that a substantial amount of their income would derive from such businesses with no other alternative viable. For instance, companies that presently launder bed linen for the hotel business, while not prohibited from operating, probably lack business at present and I'd include them.

 

[Bantamzen]

Copying what I said in another thread:

It is a shame to see that the announcement didn't include more about cutting it back for sectors that weren't forced to close, although I expect that's what the reference to "start sharing the cost" may be - some companies may find the portion of wages covered by it decreasing. Indeed, reading this bit makes me think that changes will be coming

Reading between the lines, I suspect that when the Chancellor takes about companies sharing the burden from August, he is referring to the July wages, i.e. from the start of the extension. Given that there has been a further increase from 6.3 million people to 7.5 million, there is no way the government can stand this for another 4 months at 80%. That would more than double the cost from an estimated £40-50 billion to potentially over £100 billion. So I expect the flexibility he talks about is probably going to be nothing more than wriggle room for employers struggling to enable full operations whilst any distancing guidelines are in play. The bottom line for employers however will I expect be by exception rather than by rule as it moves into the extension.

I don’t quite share such an optimistic view. Personally I can’t help but feel Sunak is acting in an almost populist fashion, literally chucking money out in the short-term without really considering the long-term implications. The true test will be to see how all this gets paid for.

I have a suspicion it’s far from happy families behind the scenes.

I agree Hancock appears to come out of this reasonably well.

The rumour mill suggests that Sunak practically had kittens when HMRC starting giving him the real numbers, with estimates being wildly higher than he had hoped for. Original figures had around 6.3 million people covered, we have now learned that this is now at 7.5 million, and there were suggestions it could get up towards 9 million. Literally a financial black hole in the making, which is why although it has been extended (definitely a political decision), it will probably come with lots of caveats (a financial decision).

The problem is working out where to draw the line.

Even in industries not directly asked to close, there would have been mass redundancies if the scheme had not been put in place.
E.g. there is quite a long chain of industries that support office workers in some areas (certainly in central London say). With people working from home, you would have seen a lot of people working in coffee shops, cafes, food places etc made unemployed.
Some of them are obvious (like the above), but some are not.




How can people become addicted to something they generally don't have any control over?
Presumably you would have preferred mass redundancies instead?

Realistically there will likely be a lot more. Nearly 1.8 million additional people have already applied for Universal Credit, and the longer businesses remain closed, the more that will fail as labour costs are not their only costs, and the more people that lose their jobs the less they will have to spend. A vicious financial circle. I believe the Bank of England's current forecast is for a 14% downturn and unemployment rising to close to 10% by the close of the year.

 

[bramling]

I suspect that for some industries we will see that. Airlines will be hit in a similar way I would imagine as companies look to the longer term.
Furlough is there to help companies keep staff on during this period instead of making them redundant. If the company can't see a future for those staff after this short term period (e.g. in industries that will see a large decline in demand and probably won't see it return to previous levels for a number of years) then that is a different problem to the one the furlough scheme is meant to deal with.

In which case furlough to October is simply kicking the can down the road.

 

[bramling]

Reading between the lines, I suspect that when the Chancellor takes about companies sharing the burden from August, he is referring to the July wages, i.e. from the start of the extension. Given that there has been a further increase from 6.3 million people to 7.5 million, there is no way the government can stand this for another 4 months at 80%. That would more than double the cost from an estimated £40-50 billion to potentially over £100 billion. So I expect the flexibility he talks about is probably going to be nothing more than wriggle room for employers struggling to enable full operations whilst any distancing guidelines are in play. The bottom line for employers however will I expect be by exception rather than by rule as it moves into the extension.



The rumour mill suggests that Sunak practically had kittens when HMRC starting giving him the real numbers, with estimates being wildly higher than he had hoped for. Original figures had around 6.3 million people covered, we have now learned that this is now at 7.5 million, and there were suggestions it could get up towards 9 million. Literally a financial black hole in the making, which is why although it has been extended (definitely a political decision), it will probably come with lots of caveats (a financial decision).

Some well made points there. In my view it’s too early to judge on this scheme, that level of expenditure in such a short time could turn out with hindsight to have been extremely foolhardy, especially as it certainly seems to be the case that the scheme hasn’t always been used as intended.

We also have to question whether subsidising non-vital businesses is the best use of limited resources. There’s going to a million and one sectors wanting bail-outs, some of these more essential than others, and ultimately hard choices are going to have to be made. At present we seem to have two puppy-dogs (Johnson and Sunak) who seem eager to please everyone, but perhaps ultimately failing to take the tough decisions needed.

 

[Domh245]

Some well made points there. In my view it’s too early to judge on this scheme, that level of expenditure in such a short time could turn out with hindsight to have been extremely foolhardy, especially as it certainly seems to be the case that the scheme hasn’t always been used as intended.

We also have to question whether subsidising non-vital businesses is the best use of limited resources. There’s going to a million and one sectors wanting bail-outs, some of these more essential than others, and ultimately hard choices are going to have to be made. At present we seem to have two puppy-dogs (Johnson and Sunak) who seem eager to please everyone, but perhaps ultimately failing to take the tough decisions needed.

On the flip side, doing nothing and letting some 9million+ people fall into unemployment is by no means the right thing to do either, especially where the economy is taking a hit anyway. Spending a lot now hopefully softens (or prevents) blows later, much as it may seem like a high price to pay at the moment.

 

[bramling]

On the flip side, doing nothing and letting some 9million+ people fall into unemployment is by no means the right thing to do either, especially where the economy is taking a hit anyway. Spending a lot now hopefully softens (or prevents) blows later, much as it may seem like a high price to pay at the moment.

I don’t disagree, however I can’t help but find the furlough scheme too generous. £2.5k per month is a *lot*, especially when people’s costs should be lower on account of there being less to do / spend money on at this moment in time.

 

[Bantamzen]

Some well made points there. In my view it’s too early to judge on this scheme, that level of expenditure in such a short time could turn out with hindsight to have been extremely foolhardy, especially as it certainly seems to be the case that the scheme hasn’t always been used as intended.

The impression I get is that the scheme was used, we let's just say liberally by some businesses.

We also have to question whether subsidising non-vital businesses is the best use of limited resources. There’s going to a million and one sectors wanting bail-outs, some of these more essential than others, and ultimately hard choices are going to have to be made. At present we seem to have two puppy-dogs (Johnson and Sunak) who seem eager to please everyone, but perhaps ultimately failing to take the tough decisions needed.

We also have to remember that such businesses are often healthy sources of tax revenue, so its a double whammy in letting them hit the wall. You will likely pick up the cost in more benefits, whilst also losing the tax revenue. The 2020-21 budget is already going to be a nightmare to balance, and frankly probably won't be. The leisure industry alone was worth some £129 billion in the UK in 2018, and add to that non-essential retail and it would be a huge hole in revenue if large parts were lost. With everything else going on and a massive global downturn expected, that could trigger a shockwave that could beggar up the economy for years if not decades.

I don’t disagree, however I can’t help but find the furlough scheme too generous. £2.5k per month is a *lot*, especially when people’s costs should be lower on account of there being less to do / spend money on at this moment in time.

Don't forget that's up to £2.5K a month, although in all honestly the UK median is about in that range anyway. But nonetheless there will be plenty on less, but remember that most have taken a 20% pay cut without necessarily reducing their costs by 20%.