SARS CoV-2 coronavirus / Covid-19 (No tin foil hat silliness please)

MTF said:
If you write off debt then you become unable to raise new debt the second after that. See Argentina. If you print money you cause price inflation and devalue your currency (both effects are interlinked). A devalued currency is very very bad for a country that imports its food.
Click to expand...
What is the alternative? The first lockdown cost the country a lot of money and it's looking like we will need another one. What is the most plausible way of funding/paying for this?
 
MTF said:
If you write off debt then you become unable to raise new debt the second after that. See Argentina. If you print money you cause price inflation and devalue your currency (both effects are interlinked). A devalued currency is very very bad for a country that imports its food.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is the risk and you only have to look at the Lebanese to see how quickly things go sideways.

It is possible if you have your own currency to simply print money to buy back the debt though and your currencies value is against other currencies so if other countries are forced to do the same then you can get away with it for a while. The problem is going be when one or more of the major economies put this behind them well before all the others do. At which point the correction is going to be very hard to manage. Also if you use a currency you don't control and can't just print the debt away you are going to struggle very badly indeed.
 
Berbaclass said:
What is the alternative? The first lockdown cost the country a lot of money and it's looking like we will need another one. What is the most plausible way of funding/paying for this?
Click to expand...

Proper austerity (Greece style) I guess?
 
Berbaclass said:
What's to stop the UK government from literally writing the debt off? They have the power to 'print money' essentially don't they?
Click to expand...
Right from the labour school of economics. The magic money tree. U might want to look at Venezuelas ecomomy to answer your question.
 
Maticmaker said:
Testing is the key, agreed, so why are those who don't have symptoms clogging up the system... ? Its like the 'bog-roll buying madness' all over again!
Click to expand...

I would take a guess at those with colds are getting tested thinking they have covid symptoms. My sister in law's school has had two year groups been sent for testing due a cold going around their school. It's difficult to determine who is 'clogging up' the system. Looking at the data again, testing demand has increased as schools have re-opened.
 
bonothom said:
Right from the labour school of economics. The magic money tree. U might want to look at Venezuelas ecomomy to answer your question.
Click to expand...
I wasn't suggesting anything should be done, merely asking a question about potential financial implications.
 
bonothom said:
Right from the labour school of economics. The magic money tree. U might want to look at Venezuelas ecomomy to answer your question.
Click to expand...

What rubbish. There is good value in investing wisely. Whether that be in people or infrastructure.
 
Berbaclass said:
What is the alternative? The first lockdown cost the country a lot of money and it's looking like we will need another one. What is the most plausible way of funding/paying for this?
Click to expand...
Its kind of like paying off war debt years after the war, something the UK actually has a few hundred years experience with (obviously 21st century economy is quite different from 20th, 19th, etc). You'll just have an amount of both interest on the accumulated debt and ideally a level of principal payment also. And over the years the government will have to tax more than it spends, whether that is raising taxes vs current, reducing expenses, or a combination of both. You don't have to pay that debt all the way down to 0, but you do have to for many years make progress towards repayment if you want the creditors to continue to trust you and extend both longer terms and better rates. You can prudently stop being more austere/conservative if many years down the line the economy has "grown into" the higher level of debt, to where the debt as % of GDP looks like it might have before all this.
 
F-Red said:
Face coverings should, in theory, negate the need to manage capacity in stores. Some are doing it still (the ones I run certainly are still, due to the longer than normal dwell time we experience).
Click to expand...
We should be doing both better to be too safe.
 
redshaw said:
UK 4422 cases and 27 deaths, very similar to yesterday.
Click to expand...
Italy 1638 cases, 24 deaths. That's staying pretty steady, really.

We're back in England for a few weeks and I can honestly say I feel much safer in Italy, which is ironic seeing as the rest of Europe was watching Italy with horror back in March. People are bonkers here with the crowding and the lack of masks.
 
Is there any factual data on percentage of infections that are hospitalised? I know at the beginning it was looking like 15% ish but that’s when the IFR was around 4-5% which, because of a large percentage of cases going undiagnosed, was heavily inflated.

If we had a good idea of this data then we could look at hospitalisations and get a good figure of how many cases are being underreported due to lack of testing etc
 
Adamsk7 said:
Is there any factual data on percentage of infections that are hospitalised? I know at the beginning it was looking like 15% ish but that’s when the IFR was around 4-5% which, because of a large percentage of cases going undiagnosed, was heavily inflated.

If we had a good idea of this data then we could look at hospitalisations and get a good figure of how many cases are being underreported due to lack of testing etc
Click to expand...
Hospitalisations depend on age structure as well. So can't use any data without analysis.

Daily infections in England were around 6.000 12 days ago, so maybe double that now.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...ionsurveypilot/englandandwales18september2020
 
Berbaclass said:
Click to expand...

What kind of nonsense is this? "May have"??? Who determines if you may have something? Good luck with collecting fines when people are losing their jobs and the economy is getting ever worse. Not to mention Brexit about to create another issue with hardly any trade deals on the horizon.

Do people really agree with this?
 
Jazz said:
What kind of nonsense is this? "May have"??? Who determines if you may have something? Good luck with collecting fines when people are losing their jobs and the economy is getting ever worse. Not to mention Brexit about to create another issue with hardly any trade deals on the horizon.

Do people really agree with this?
Click to expand...

The “may have” refers to anyone who has been in close contact with someone who has since tested positive. They’ll be reached by track and trace.

The procedure is the same, except now, failure to isolate could result in a fine.
 
Jazz said:
What kind of nonsense is this? "May have"??? Who determines if you may have something? Good luck with collecting fines when people are losing their jobs and the economy is getting ever worse. Not to mention Brexit about to create another issue with hardly any trade deals on the horizon.

Do people really agree with this?
Click to expand...
Exactly. This is getting bizarre. What if you’re asymptotic or have a slight cough, how are you meant to say with any degree of certainty that you’ve COVID. Especially in cold and flu season as well. Seems like the gov are just sticking shit at the wall hoping something works.
 
MaxiPaxi said:
Exactly. This is getting bizarre. What if you’re asymptotic or have a slight cough, how are you meant to say with any degree of certainty that you’ve COVID. Especially in cold and flu season as well. Seems like the gov are just sticking shit at the wall hoping something works.
Click to expand...

It’s only if you’re contacted by track and trace. It’s believed people are skipping self isolation despite being contacted.
 
Jacko21 said:
It’s only if you’re contacted by track and trace. It’s believed people are skipping self isolation despite being contacted.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. That’s fine then. Sorry just looked the tweet.
 
Adamsk7 said:
Is there any factual data on percentage of infections that are hospitalised? I know at the beginning it was looking like 15% ish but that’s when the IFR was around 4-5% which, because of a large percentage of cases going undiagnosed, was heavily inflated.

If we had a good idea of this data then we could look at hospitalisations and get a good figure of how many cases are being underreported due to lack of testing etc
Click to expand...

It's difficult to get to those figures as only those that were being tested for covid were already in a hospital setting, it was some months later before we had community (pillar 2) based testing. I would hazard a guess that case levels were some 5-10 times bigger than what the official 'first' wave is reported as.
 
Jazz said:
What kind of nonsense is this? "May have"??? Who determines if you may have something? Good luck with collecting fines when people are losing their jobs and the economy is getting ever worse. Not to mention Brexit about to create another issue with hardly any trade deals on the horizon.

Do people really agree with this?
Click to expand...

I would read the article & not the headline, its basically saying if you have a positive test or have been contacted by the test & trace unit to say that you've been in contact with someone then you need to self-isolate. If you don't then you risk the chance of facing a fine.

Considering where we are currently, I struggle to see any logical argument to be against making sure people self isolate if they have a positive test or have had contact with someone who has been tested positive.

Nothing to do with Brexit or trade deals, this is about basic common sense for the public. If you have it or have been close to someone who has it, stay at home and don't infect others.
 
Classical Mechanic said:
It’s a social lockdown isn’t it? You’ll still have to be a good little drone and go to work.
Click to expand...
yeah but considering a large chunk of the economy is based around leisure activities, from restaurants to pubs, to gyms, clothes stores... I'm guessing they would need to close and what happens to people who work there? Can we afford to support them? It's not a leading question I genuinely asking as I don't know.

Also, think its a bit disrespectful calling people drones who go to work, the country is reliant on tax incomes, its what pays for everything from the NHS to schools, to supporting benefits for those who are too vulnerable to work through this or have lost their jobs, its what would pay for any vaccine.....it isn't about being a drone
 
Berbaclass said:
What's to stop the UK government from literally writing the debt off? They have the power to 'print money' essentially don't they?
Click to expand...
if you print money it decreases the value of your currency, countries debt are mainly based in dollars, so you don't lose any debt you just have to use more of your currency to pay it off.
 
Sprain and France 2nd waves seems to be hitting numbers worse than first wave? I get that there were likely many many unrecorded cases in first wave, but what causes such spikes?

Are they about to enter a 2nd lockdown?

presumbaly that’s exactly what’s coming to UK given we were always a few weeks behind their curves plus had similar post lockdown behaviours?

abit mad time see Germany allowing fans back into their stadiums!
 
Jazz said:
What kind of nonsense is this? "May have"??? Who determines if you may have something? Good luck with collecting fines when people are losing their jobs and the economy is getting ever worse. Not to mention Brexit about to create another issue with hardly any trade deals on the horizon.

Do people really agree with this?
Click to expand...
Might have means if you’ve been in contact with someone who definitely had it. You have to self isolate as you won’t know if you are asymptotic
 
F-Red said:
I would read the article & not the headline, its basically saying if you have a positive test or have been contacted by the test & trace unit to say that you've been in contact with someone then you need to self-isolate. If you don't then you risk the chance of facing a fine.

Considering where we are currently, I struggle to see any logical argument to be against making sure people self isolate if they have a positive test or have had contact with someone who has been tested positive.

Nothing to do with Brexit or trade deals, this is about basic common sense for the public. If you have it or have been close to someone who has it, stay at home and don't infect others.
Click to expand...
Ah I see.Fair enough. However, they are hardly ever getting that fine as people are losing money right now hence my reference to folks losing money and nothing on the horizon to give us much hope things will improve in this respect.

Also, you can be around someone who is positive but not have the virus. Wouldn't it be better to test you to see if you're negative or positive, instead of requiring people to isolate just because they've come into contact with someone? It just seems more logical to me.
 
Jazz said:
Ah I see.Fair enough. However, they are hardly ever getting that fine as people are losing money right now hence my reference to folks losing money and nothing on the horizon to give us much hope things will improve in this respect.
Click to expand...

The issue isn’t so much the fine in the extreme measures of the case, it’s the fact that people who have tested positive or have been told to self isolate by test and trace aren’t doing so. Bolton’s case load (biggest in the country per 100k of people) can be attributed to just that, and the damage to the community and local economy it’s caused is significant.

There’s no logical argument to not be self isolating if you’ve been tested positive. It’s plain old selfish and negligent if you’re not isolating.

Jazz said:
Also, you can be around someone who is positive but not have the virus. Wouldn't it be better to test you to see if you're negative or positive, instead of requiring people to isolate just because they've come into contact with someone? It just seems more logical to me.
Click to expand...

Don’t disagree with that approach, but the capacity for testing is woeful and doesn’t accommodate for all who do not have symptoms. This hasn’t changed from day one in its approach for self isolation. It’s just now they’re enforcing rules because people don’t want to follow the self isolation process, which causes a bigger challenge around the transmission rate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.