Some shocking stats

[AVB]

A few things I noticed from various news sources today. 
 

Only 1,000 new cars sold last month. A drop of 97%
1 in 10 British firms (that’s 591,000 businesses) face going broke. 
The last sale of UK Gilts was undersubscribed and had to be bought by the BoE (Gilts are NEVER undersubscribed) which demonstrates a complete lack of confidence in the UK PLC finances by the markets  

The cost of the furlough scheme is £8bn/month that compares to the total budget for the NHS of £11bn/month  

Yet of the c. 28,000 people who have died with CV-19 only 332 were under 45 (and may have had underlying health conditions). 
 

 

 

[Lloyd90]

Some are arguing that we are burning the economy to save a bunch of people who would have died in the next 2-3 years anyway 🤷‍♂️ 
 

Personally however I think A LOT more people would have died if it wasn’t for the lockdown ... I have had a lot of my case load being people over 70 with multiple health conditions and they have survived due to the fantastic care they have received from the NHS. 
 

That said a large number have died... a lot (or even all) of them still elderly and with health conditions. 

[toontastic]

7 hours ago, Lloyd90 said:

Some are arguing that we are burning the economy to save a bunch of people who would have died in the next 2-3 years anyway 🤷‍♂️ 
 

I hear that quite often, I also hear it said about sick children.

 

[Vince Green]

7 hours ago, Lloyd90 said:

Some are arguing that we are burning the economy to save a bunch of people who would have died in the next 2-3 years anyway 🤷‍♂️ 
 

 

I'm not so sure about that, I now know or know of seven people who have died and only one had an underlying heath condition. What about all the NHS staff that have died, the bus drivers, etc? 

[Mice!]

1 hour ago, Vince Green said:

I'm not so sure about that, I now know or know of seven people who have died and only one had an underlying heath condition. What about all the NHS staff that have died, the bus drivers, etc? 

The nhs and bus drivers probably comes back to viral loading and the amount of time and contact they have with the virus.

9 hours ago, AVB said:

Only 1,000 new cars sold last month. A drop of 97%
1 in 10 British firms (that’s 591,000 businesses) face going broke. 
The last sale of UK Gilts was undersubscribed and had to be bought by the BoE (Gilts are NEVER undersubscribed) which demonstrates a complete lack of confidence in the UK PLC finances by the markets  

No one is going to buy a car when you can't drive it? 

How many firms go bust every year? There is a small shop near us changes its signage every 12 months,  it's in a lousy spot?

Never heard of Gilts?

[wymberley]

9 hours ago, AVB said:

A few things I noticed from various news sources today. 
 

Only 1,000 new cars sold last month. A drop of 97%
1 in 10 British firms (that’s 591,000 businesses) face going broke. 
The last sale of UK Gilts was undersubscribed and had to be bought by the BoE (Gilts are NEVER undersubscribed) which demonstrates a complete lack of confidence in the UK PLC finances by the markets  

The cost of the furlough scheme is £8bn/month that compares to the total budget for the NHS of £11bn/month  

Yet of the c. 28,000 people who have died with CV-19 only 332 were under 45 (and may have had underlying health conditions). 
 

 

 

I thought that the figure for the car sales at the 97%  drop was 4000.

[Mungler]

9 hours ago, AVB said:

A few things I noticed from various news sources today. 
 

Only 1,000 new cars sold last month. A drop of 97%
1 in 10 British firms (that’s 591,000 businesses) face going broke. 
The last sale of UK Gilts was undersubscribed and had to be bought by the BoE (Gilts are NEVER undersubscribed) which demonstrates a complete lack of confidence in the UK PLC finances by the markets  

The cost of the furlough scheme is £8bn/month that compares to the total budget for the NHS of £11bn/month  

Yet of the c. 28,000 people who have died with CV-19 only 332 were under 45 (and may have had underlying health conditions). 
 

 

 

As has been said, there appears to be no stopping this virus - people in isolation are still dropping and the professionals still don’t seem to know enough about the virus or its means of transmission.

I do wonder if in the future we will look back and wonder if we haven’t killed the economy for generations to come in a futile attempt to stop something that couldn’t be stopped.

Everyone has a different way of looking at a situation / problem and which is forged by their background and own experiences. If you run a business you look at everything and ask ‘who is paying for that?’ I’m asking that question a lot these days and I’m frightening myself.

We are no where near at the end of this and we still have no real concept of the consequences. 

[AVB]

1 hour ago, Vince Green said:

I'm not so sure about that, I now know or know of seven people who have died and only one had an underlying heath condition. What about all the NHS staff that have died, the bus drivers, etc? 

10 minutes ago, Mice! said:

The nhs and bus drivers probably comes back to viral loading and the amount of time and contact they have with the virus.

No one is going to buy a car when you can't drive it? 

How many firms go bust every year? There is a small shop near us changes its signage every 12 months,  it's in a lousy spot?

Never heard of Gilts?

Statistically no higher percentage of NHS staff have died than they represent in the general working population. I.e. if 10% of the working population work for the NHS, then the number of NHS staff who have died represent no more than 10% of the people who have died overall.

About 4,000 companies go bankrupt in a normal year. 

Gilt = Gilt edged security = UK Government bonds = what the government are issuing to try to pay for this 

my point is that we have burnt the economy for something that is relatively harmless for a lot of the population and used a blunt instrument, lockdown for all, to fight it.  Could we have considered a more targeted approach that would have given us hope of saving the economy? 

[Spoon]

Lots of talk about "only the old dying", but what is the impact on people who have serious symptoms and survive? It reminds me of anti-vax "evidence" that only uses a death rate as a binary indicator of proof, leaving out lasting damage done to survivors.

I'm a fit and healthy 34 year old and you wouldn't know by looking at me that I have a condition that could mean catching it kills me or seriously reduces my long term health. There will be other people like that out there that we're "burning the economy" for and they can hear you talking...

[Raja Clavata]

It just goes to show how fragile as a race and global society we are. I've always thought preppers were a few sandwiches short of a picnic and it wouldn't be practical here in the UK anyway but can you imagine the carnage if we got hit with something really bad!?

The health and economic response is a tricky balancing act and the whole thing is multi-factorial but one brutal reality is that if more people had died then there'd be less people on the dole as a result of this and less burden going forward (I'm not advocating this, just using as an example).

There is also the political reality that it would have been suicide for the government to see 250k deaths in the UK in the first wave when other countries in Europe are in the 10's of thousands. Even the current number could come back and bite them as it's nearly 50% higher than the modelling predicted. If you consider the fact we had Italy and to a lesser extent Spain as leading examples, we've hardly lit ourselves up in glory here...

Just now, AVB said:

my point is that we have burnt the economy for something that is relatively harmless for a lot of the population and used a blunt instrument, lockdown for all, to fight it.  Could we have considered a more targeted approach that would have given us hope of saving the economy? 

I would say yes, if we had been better prepared, and we will be better prepared next time. I think our thinking around this is more or less aligned, I had these views going into lockdown and have them now but must admit I did have a bit of a "wobble" somewhere in between.

[Mungler]

In the not too distant future when we have swingeing government cuts, massive unemployment (and believe you me this is just round the corner), more crime and more poverty -  no one will care why. However, we’re not there yet and whilst people are at home cheering on isolation and being paid furlough they are being shielded from the reality. Governments don’t have their own money and what is being spent now by the government is our money, however, the government haven’t taken it off us yet. 

Edited May 6, 2020 by Mungler

[TIGHTCHOKE]

1 minute ago, Mungler said:

In the not too distant future when we have swingeing government cuts, massive unemployment (and believe you me this is just round the corner), more crime and more poverty -  no one will care why. However, we’re not there yet and whilst people are at home cheering on isolation and being paid furlough they are being shielded from the reality.

And the alternative is?

[Raja Clavata]

Just now, Mungler said:

In the not too distant future when we have swingeing government cuts, massive unemployment (and believe you me this is just round the corner), more crime and more poverty -  no one will care why. However, we’re not there yet and whilst people are at home cheering on isolation and being paid furlough they are being shielded from the reality.

And significant tax rises across the board for those who are still earning / legitimately sitting on cash / spending it. Is it even conceivable tax on pensions could increase, I would think so...

[Mungler]

Just now, TIGHTCHOKE said:

And the alternative is?

Testing. Before putting in a lockdown the government had no idea how many people had already had the virus - they now reckon it could be between 40-60%.

Would we have done what we have done if it turns out 60% of the population have already had it?

[al4x]

Just now, TIGHTCHOKE said:

And the alternative is?

As they started out, shield the vulnerable and let everyone else crack on.  The best case is you get herd immunity. The worst case is the younger side of the population keep the economy going and have to put up with catching this. From the initial appearance a lot will hardly know they have had it

A vet said to me the other day this could be worse it could be a virus that kills 90% of people. 

[Mungler]

The other point to note is that people are making their assessments based on what they know and see around them.

Say you have a good job or a good income / pension. Now imagine that income gone (unemployment) or your pension reduced by 50% following markets collapsing. So you have a savings pot - imagine the government helping themselves to 25%. So you have a house worth £500,000 and you have a £200,000 mortgage - you’re happy enough because you own more than you owe. Imagine that property now being worth only £250,000.

These are the issues that are coming over the horizon - they haven’t landed / manifest and so they are as yet not real to us and we don’t factor them in to our thinking and perceptions now.

Edited May 6, 2020 by Mungler

[Raja Clavata]

Just now, TIGHTCHOKE said:

And the alternative is?

Acting on the data from testing, had it been an option to us.

[Mice!]

7 minutes ago, Mungler said:

Testing. Before putting in a lockdown the government had no idea how many people had already had the virus - they now reckon it could be between 40-60%.

Would we have done what we have done if it turns out 60% of the population have already had it?

This would have been a good shout, its obviously worked in S Korea,  we either didn't have reliable tests or didn't want to pay for them who knows?

I hope someone is looking at Australia and New Zealand and comparing how they have done things considering how low their numbers of cases and deaths are, and as for Hong Kong,  well someone must be telling lies.

[JohnfromUK]

6 minutes ago, Mungler said:

they now reckon it could be between 40-60%.

I have heard so many different versions of what this could be.  I (and it seems many others) had a nasty illness late December/early January.  In theory it couldn't have been a mild Covid - because it wasn't here then for me to catch.  - Or maybe it was?  Perhaps I have had it?  If so, how did I catch it - as I am notoriously 'isolated' anyway and never travel etc!  I simply don't know.

I have no idea how many 'have had it', and indeed no certainty that having had it doesn't mean you can't get it again.  There are just so many unknowns.

[Mungler]

2 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

Acting on the data from testing, had it been an option to us.

They have opened up old suspected pneumonia cases and are finding Covid in early December before it is suggested to have left Wuhan. I had breathlessness back in last September and low blood O2 levels - I went to the quack (that’s a once a year trip for me at best) and had tests and a chest x-ray. No answers, quack said ‘it’s probably a virus but have some antibiotics anyway’. I would like a test.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

2 minutes ago, Mungler said:

They have opened up old suspected pneumonia cases and are finding Covid in early December before it is suggested to have left Wuhan. I had breathlessness back in last September and low blood O2 levels - I went to the quack (that’s a once a year trip for me at best) and had tests and a chest x-ray. No answers, quack said ‘it’s probably a virus but have some antibiotics anyway’. I would like a test.

Yes that is worrying, I would hope that imunity would been gained.

[JohnfromUK]

5 minutes ago, Mungler said:

I would like a test.

It is reported that Roche (big medicine maker) have a test for antibodies that should be available in large quantities in weeks. https://www.roche.com/media/releases/med-cor-2020-05-03.htm

[Vince Green]

25 minutes ago, Mungler said:

 people in isolation are still dropping and the professionals still don’t seem to know enough about the virus or its means of transmission.

 

Every case now has been infected since the lockdown (more or less). People still don't get the surfaces/hand transmission aspects. They think wearing a mask or standing two metres apart is enough but they don't isolate their shopping or post and touch their phones and car keys etc 

[TIGHTCHOKE]

2 minutes ago, Vince Green said:

Every case now has been infected since the lockdown (more or less). People still don't get the surfaces/hand transmission aspects. They think wearing a mask or standing two metres apart is enough but they don't isolate their shopping or post and touch their phones and car keys etc 

And the simple hand washing (properly) and not touching your face too.

[Mice!]

3 minutes ago, Vince Green said:

Every case now has been infected since the lockdown (more or less). People still don't get the surfaces/hand transmission aspects. They think wearing a mask or standing two metres apart is enough but they don't isolate their shopping or post and touch their phones and car keys etc 

It could be that some who are still being infected aren't in lockdown,  they may still be working or using public transport.

Not everyone is staying home, many wearing masks and gloves won't be doing it correctly.