COVID19

[Banquo]

I agree there's no simple way out but that's because of years of fiscal irresponsibility by Conservative governments selling the idea that they were responsible.

They've splurged a hell of a lot of money on making themselves and their friends richer and, in turn, made the poor poorer and set the UK economy up for a big fall as soon as any disaster happened (pandemic, Brexit...).

Whilst I hold in distaste the activity of most recent governments, the idea that the govt could build up a surplus of the scale you are suggesting doesn’t really fly, especially given the start point in 2008. And your proposed clear out of businesses ( and consequences on the hated investments of pension funds) you don’t like in favour of one’s you do, along with penalising trade is indeed Trumpian in vision - I’m sure the employees of those companies of whom you do disapprove will welcome the opportunity to retrain as cyber experts or ballerinas . Now if it were the betting companies....
The problem is our start point is so far away from your vision- which in terms of govt providing huge levels of open ended support through either a series of trial runs or a lockdown til a solution is found medically as I understand it, seems unfeasible. My original point was the lockdown/stop lockdown cycle is taking a terrible toll physically and mentally, and we have to get out of that somehow. The logic of going into lockdown however, means it’s almost impossible to get out and stay out, unless you practically eliminate the virus or find a vaccine or an effective treatment. Or it blows out.

It doesn't need to be a cycle of lockdowns. Close the borders 100%. Wait until cases are 0. Wait a bit longer. Only open the borders to countries with 0 cases and then only with 2 negative tests.

No need for local lockdowns if the country is closed and the virus can't get in.

And this is the UK's big advantage: it's an island!

And so we go back to paying for it. But I agree if you do lockdown, there is no logic to coming out of it until the virus is eliminated. So I would have favoured the close the borders plan etc, in hindsight as it’s clear it had a lower ‘cost’ in all senses than what is about to happen.

If you’d just agreed to my original point about a cycle of lockdowns being unsustainable we could have saved a lot of time! . And I wasn’t even referring to the economics- the strain is massive mentally and physically for employers and employees and everyone else.

[Puja]

Think you kind of miss my point about pension funds. This is not some speculative investment portfolio that people have taken a super punt on, but pension funds saved into to provide for later life. There is no time for any paradigm shift to take place; people who have, or are near retirement will be depending on these for the couple of percent they yield per annum, as will many company pension schemes and final salary schemes. So when you scoff at these companies and dividends, just be aware what you are scoffing at. I’m not defending every big business, but they are pretty important, along with their dividends.

I'm not missing your point - it might be a pension investment fund, but it is still an investment fund. I know everyone glosses over the small print that says, "Investments may go down as well as up," but it's there for a reason. They could have invested in government bonds for a much smaller yet safer return, but the assumption was the commercial property was always going to continue to provide a return forever and, like investors in Barings and US mortgage funds learned in previous years, sometimes assumptions about investments continuing to rise forever turn out to be false.

My ire is mostly around the fact that, to protect these investors, the government pivoted to "Go back to the office" midway through the summer (to the extent of insisting that Civil Servants who were perfectly capable of doing their job remotely had to do at least 3 days per week in an office, to "set the example") to try and 'return to normal', rather than acknowledging that working in offices was likely to have finished forever and adapting to that. Banjaxed the public perception that staying away from people was still important, no doubt was a handy driver of infections, and was much more about protecting Tory donors with commercial portfolios than it was about saving innocent pensioners.

Puja

The commercial property piece was a red herring semi introduced by Digby. I’m talking about the low risk portfolio of stocks and shares which are the staple of any pension fund that isn’t state funded- if you have a company or private pension that’s what will be backing it. So just attacking ‘dividends’ like they are a dirty word is what I was objecting to.
You may assign some motives to the govt policy; I just saw it as necessary to keep some semblance of economic sanity in the midst of a nightmare, and they’ve hardly been unique in doing that. The execution in comms terms was sh&t, I agree.
Philosophically we are poles apart in what a government is there for, so we won’t agree. To be clear, I think this govt is shyte tho.

I think you're arguing a point I haven't made there. I never mentioned dividends or stocks and shares - literally just talked about commercial property.

I would very much disagree with the point about the "Return to the office to save the town centre" policy being necessary to keep economic sanity. That would only apply if you were expecting this to be a temporary event that needed weathering before everyone went back to the office in the same numbers that they were before, which ignores the very obvious truth that, even if there were a universally available vaccine tomorrow, we will never go back to the way things were. After the massive disruption and costs of moving all their work remote, a significant number of companies will prefer to keep it that way because it's a hell of a lot cheaper than paying rent on a city centre building and they can take their recruitment nationwide, and a significant number of employees will prefer to keep it that way because it makes sense in terms of commuting costs/time, childcare, being able to work nationwide, etc. I don't know if the office is dead as a concept, but there's certainly going to be a hell of a lot fewer of them going forwards.

Far better to start working on what is going to happen going forwards and attempt to have some kind of control over that than try to artificially keep both Greggs in the town centre viable.

Puja

[Banquo]

I'm not missing your point - it might be a pension investment fund, but it is still an investment fund. I know everyone glosses over the small print that says, "Investments may go down as well as up," but it's there for a reason. They could have invested in government bonds for a much smaller yet safer return, but the assumption was the commercial property was always going to continue to provide a return forever and, like investors in Barings and US mortgage funds learned in previous years, sometimes assumptions about investments continuing to rise forever turn out to be false.

My ire is mostly around the fact that, to protect these investors, the government pivoted to "Go back to the office" midway through the summer (to the extent of insisting that Civil Servants who were perfectly capable of doing their job remotely had to do at least 3 days per week in an office, to "set the example") to try and 'return to normal', rather than acknowledging that working in offices was likely to have finished forever and adapting to that. Banjaxed the public perception that staying away from people was still important, no doubt was a handy driver of infections, and was much more about protecting Tory donors with commercial portfolios than it was about saving innocent pensioners.

Puja

The commercial property piece was a red herring semi introduced by Digby. I’m talking about the low risk portfolio of stocks and shares which are the staple of any pension fund that isn’t state funded- if you have a company or private pension that’s what will be backing it. So just attacking ‘dividends’ like they are a dirty word is what I was objecting to.
You may assign some motives to the govt policy; I just saw it as necessary to keep some semblance of economic sanity in the midst of a nightmare, and they’ve hardly been unique in doing that. The execution in comms terms was sh&t, I agree.
Philosophically we are poles apart in what a government is there for, so we won’t agree. To be clear, I think this govt is shyte tho.

I think you're arguing a point I haven't made there. I never mentioned dividends or stocks and shares - literally just talked about commercial property.

I would very much disagree with the point about the "Return to the office to save the town centre" policy being necessary to keep economic sanity. That would only apply if you were expecting this to be a temporary event that needed weathering before everyone went back to the office in the same numbers that they were before, which ignores the very obvious truth that, even if there were a universally available vaccine tomorrow, we will never go back to the way things were. After the massive disruption and costs of moving all their work remote, a significant number of companies will prefer to keep it that way because it's a hell of a lot cheaper than paying rent on a city centre building and they can take their recruitment nationwide, and a significant number of employees will prefer to keep it that way because it makes sense in terms of commuting costs/time, childcare, being able to work nationwide, etc. I don't know if the office is dead as a concept, but there's certainly going to be a hell of a lot fewer of them going forwards.

Far better to start working on what is going to happen going forwards and attempt to have some kind of control over that than try to artificially keep both Greggs in the town centre viable.

Puja

Eh? Your start point was being critical/cynical of dividends (and investment’risk’) it was was what I originally commented on (I’d thought you jumped on dividends or otherwise being paid by said property companies so might be on me). And in terms of govt policy I was referring to encouraging back into the work place where safe to do so; and frankly those who did make it safe at great cost are being punished once more, and as I also said it was poorly executed. I do agree with adapting to use what worked well, and indeed have done so in my own business. As ever, probably not a binary debate or set of solutions. That said, having no sympathy when businesses one might not like are tanking isn’t a great look either- it’s profoundly sad for employees and business owners; apart from betting shops

[Digby]

Think you kind of miss my point about pension funds. This is not some speculative investment portfolio that people have taken a super punt on, but pension funds saved into to provide for later life. There is no time for any paradigm shift to take place; people who have, or are near retirement will be depending on these for the couple of percent they yield per annum, as will many company pension schemes and final salary schemes. So when you scoff at these companies and dividends, just be aware what you are scoffing at. I’m not defending every big business, but they are pretty important, along with their dividends.

I'm not missing your point - it might be a pension investment fund, but it is still an investment fund. I know everyone glosses over the small print that says, "Investments may go down as well as up," but it's there for a reason. They could have invested in government bonds for a much smaller yet safer return, but the assumption was the commercial property was always going to continue to provide a return forever and, like investors in Barings and US mortgage funds learned in previous years, sometimes assumptions about investments continuing to rise forever turn out to be false.

My ire is mostly around the fact that, to protect these investors, the government pivoted to "Go back to the office" midway through the summer (to the extent of insisting that Civil Servants who were perfectly capable of doing their job remotely had to do at least 3 days per week in an office, to "set the example") to try and 'return to normal', rather than acknowledging that working in offices was likely to have finished forever and adapting to that. Banjaxed the public perception that staying away from people was still important, no doubt was a handy driver of infections, and was much more about protecting Tory donors with commercial portfolios than it was about saving innocent pensioners.

Puja

The commercial property piece was a red herring semi introduced by Digby. I’m talking about the low risk portfolio of stocks and shares which are the staple of any pension fund that isn’t state funded- if you have a company or private pension that’s what will be backing it. So just attacking ‘dividends’ like they are a dirty word is what I was objecting to.
You may assign some motives to the govt policy; I just saw it as necessary to keep some semblance of economic sanity in the midst of a nightmare, and they’ve hardly been unique in doing that. The execution in comms terms was sh&t, I agree.
Philosophically we are poles apart in what a government is there for, so we won’t agree. To be clear, I think this govt is shyte tho.

It's not exactly a red herring. More the risk being spread across different investment types is still seeing failure almost across the board. And we're still far from unclear another credit crunch isn't in the offing

[Puja]

Eh? Your start point was being critical/cynical of dividends (and investment’risk’) it was was what I originally commented on (I’d thought you jumped on dividends or otherwise being paid by said property companies so might be on me).

I apologise, you are correct - I did mention dividends first. I had put it in as a flippant riff on the "Protect the NHS, Save Lives" slogan, mostly because it scanned, but reading back, I can see that's where you brought it up from. You saw it as an attack on dividends as a filthy word whereas I'd forgotten I'd even mentioned the word cause it was just a throwaway comment.

Typical Rugby Rebels argument - two people being ever more confused at each other over nothing much in particular.

Puja

[Digby]

Bar those dividends are actually very important, and about the only plan I've seen for addressing the problem is to hope the problem goes away without needing to do anything.

[Banquo]

Eh? Your start point was being critical/cynical of dividends (and investment’risk’) it was was what I originally commented on (I’d thought you jumped on dividends or otherwise being paid by said property companies so might be on me).

I apologise, you are correct - I did mention dividends first. I had put it in as a flippant riff on the "Protect the NHS, Save Lives" slogan, mostly because it scanned, but reading back, I can see that's where you brought it up from. You saw it as an attack on dividends as a filthy word whereas I'd forgotten I'd even mentioned the word cause it was just a throwaway comment.

Typical Rugby Rebels argument - two people being ever more confused at each other over nothing much in particular.

Puja

‘Thumbs up emoji’

[Galfon]

Fur crying out loud, that's all we need..

https://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/a ... m=referral

[Son of Mathonwy]

Fur crying out loud, that's all we need..

https://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/a ... m=referral

That's really worrying.

(Pedantic aside : I think the article should have mentioned the name SARS-CoV-2 to make it clear this is a mutation of the virus which causes Covid-19, not some other coronavirus.)

[Sandydragon]

Fur crying out loud, that's all we need..

https://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/a ... m=referral

That's really worrying.

(Pedantic aside : I think the article should have mentioned the name SARS-CoV-2 to make it clear this is a mutation of the virus which causes Covid-19, not some other coronavirus.)

The odds were quite high I suppose of this or similar happening. Good to see the Danes take swift action, hopefully it’s swift enough.

[Son of Mathonwy]

I haven't done one of these for a while but since we're in the 2nd wave (back by no demand at all, let alone popular ) here it is:

New ONS numbers up to 30 Oct are out, so as of that date we have:
Positive test UK Covid-19 deaths (headline gov number): 47,104
All UK Covid-19 per death certificate (ONS number): 61,648
So the Covid-19 death certificate number is 31% higher than the government number.

Excess deaths compared with 5 year average to 30 Oct: 68,646
which is 46% higher than the government number.

Add at least 3k to these to get an estimate of current figures.

[Galfon]

I hope the post-election euphoria doesn't lead the eyes away from the ball across t'pond. or they won't be having a ball soon..



at reportedly £30 a time for a Pfizzy pop (uk costs), it will be intreresting to see how efficient the National vaccination programme runs in US, between administrations.

[Digby]

So for a family of 4 it's £240 for this 1st vaccine which may or may not confer long term resistance. That's not going to be an easy sell outside Connecticut

[gransoporro]

https://theamericanonews.com/2020/11/09/pfizer-vaccine/

It should be free. Let’s see.

[morepork]

https://theamericanonews.com/2020/11/09/pfizer-vaccine/

It should be free. Let’s see.

These guys you mean?



"It's wholly inappropriate for executives at pharmaceutical companies to be implementing or modifying 10b5-1 plans the business day before they announce data or results from drug trials,"



But hey, apparently they are part of a "medical deep state". Really.

These fucking guys in government...

[gransoporro]

Yes, that’s the dude.

[Digby]

That on the face of it is wildly inappropriate. And there's surely no way he's allowed to trade without it going past compliance so this error seems likely to go across a good number of people

[Which Tyler]

http://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4425

When good science is suppressed by the medical-political complex, people die

Politicians and governments are suppressing science. They do so in the public interest, they say, to accelerate availability of diagnostics and treatments. They do so to support innovation, to bring products to market at unprecedented speed. Both of these reasons are partly plausible; the greatest deceptions are founded in a grain of truth. But the underlying behaviour is troubling.

Science is being suppressed for political and financial gain. Covid-19 has unleashed state corruption on a grand scale, and it is harmful to public health.1 Politicians and industry are responsible for this opportunistic embezzlement. So too are scientists and health experts. The pandemic has revealed how the medical-political complex can be manipulated in an emergency—a time when it is even more important to safeguard science.

...

The incident relates to research published this week by The BMJ, which finds that the government procured an antibody test that in real world tests falls well short of performance claims made by its manufacturers.1213 Researchers from Public Health England and collaborating institutions sensibly pushed to publish their study findings before the government committed to buying a million of these tests but were blocked by the health department and the prime minister’s office.14 Why was it important to procure this product without due scrutiny? Prior publication of research on a preprint server or a government website is compatible with The BMJ’s publication policy. As if to prove a point, Public Health England then unsuccessfully attempted to block The BMJ’s press release about the research paper.

ARTICLE CONTINUES...

[Digby]

If you fancy some amusement 5Live accidentally let someone who knows what they're talking about onto air last night

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000pg09

Starts 8 minutes in, bloody Indian immigrants coming over here with their science and understanding!

[Son of Mathonwy]

http://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4425

When good science is suppressed by the medical-political complex, people die

Politicians and governments are suppressing science. They do so in the public interest, they say, to accelerate availability of diagnostics and treatments. They do so to support innovation, to bring products to market at unprecedented speed. Both of these reasons are partly plausible; the greatest deceptions are founded in a grain of truth. But the underlying behaviour is troubling.

Science is being suppressed for political and financial gain. Covid-19 has unleashed state corruption on a grand scale, and it is harmful to public health.1 Politicians and industry are responsible for this opportunistic embezzlement. So too are scientists and health experts. The pandemic has revealed how the medical-political complex can be manipulated in an emergency—a time when it is even more important to safeguard science.

...

The incident relates to research published this week by The BMJ, which finds that the government procured an antibody test that in real world tests falls well short of performance claims made by its manufacturers.1213 Researchers from Public Health England and collaborating institutions sensibly pushed to publish their study findings before the government committed to buying a million of these tests but were blocked by the health department and the prime minister’s office.14 Why was it important to procure this product without due scrutiny? Prior publication of research on a preprint server or a government website is compatible with The BMJ’s publication policy. As if to prove a point, Public Health England then unsuccessfully attempted to block The BMJ’s press release about the research paper.

ARTICLE CONTINUES...

I feel this story won't feature strongly in the Telegraph.

[morepork]

I feel there isn't really anyone at the tiller right now....


It's all about to turn to fish paste. Again.

[Galfon]

There are reluctant murmerings now that letting the older
children attend school may be contributing to rising cases.
Italy quickly returned to the bumpy road after their schools re-opened, after holding things well.

Meanwhile, the PM has reportedly been notified by NHS Test and Trace that he is required to self-isolate as a result of having contact with someone diagnosed with the disease..( an MP, socially distanced but no masks.. )

[Stom]

We have a wonderful system in place here right now...

No restaurants, no indoor sports or clubs, no kids activities, no going outside between 8pm and 5am, no meeting in groups of more than 10...

Yet...

There's still school and nursery, and you can go to church...

So the same 30 kids who meet in the morning at nursery and spend 3 hours in a room together without masks are not allowed to spend time together in the afternoon...

Unless they go to a church, which is probably poorly ventilated, and sit in a room full of old people.

Yeah, great idea that.

I just wish lockdown rules made sense.

Seriously, there are exemptions on travel bans for business. I mean, fuck right off. You can do business over this wonderful thing we have called the internet.

It just leads to people breaking them. If the rules were simply: No travel. People might adhere. As it is, everyone is pissed off.

[morepork]

As long as it doesn’t interfere with weekend golf. I mean, fuck, there are limits people.

[Digby]

One of my local golf courses is now much busier with golf cancelled. There are a couple of courses in a local park and there are now far more people out walking on the closed golf course than you'd ever see golfers, though I suspect the groups walking are far more likely to be from the same household or bubbling than the golfing groups were