Coronavirus in the UK - news, lockdown and discussion

[planetgeli]

So, I see we are now at £400 billion spending on Covid relief.

Rishi Sunak flags tax rises in budget as total Covid spending tops £400bn

Tax increases required for businesses and workers to repair public finances, says chancellor

www.theguardian.com

As a reminder, that is still only 80% of the first (and not only) cheque written, a cheque that was immediately written, to bail out the banking crisis of 2008.

 

[teuchter]

So, I see we are now at £400 billion spending on Covid relief.

Rishi Sunak flags tax rises in budget as total Covid spending tops £400bn

Tax increases required for businesses and workers to repair public finances, says chancellor

www.theguardian.com

As a reminder, that is still only 80% of the first (and not only) cheque written, a cheque that was immediately written, to bail out the banking crisis of 2008.

Apples and oranges. The eventual cost of the bank bailout was way less than this.

 

[Sunray]

Apples and oranges. The eventual cost of the bank bailout was way less than this.

Not necessarily different. The eventual cost of this bailout will be less in the long term. Once companies go bust they do not suddenly reappear,. If all the companies that would have gone to the wall were allowed to go to the wall, lost tax revenue would dwarf £400b.

This is a sound investment in the future.

 

[planetgeli]

Apples and oranges. The eventual cost of the bank bailout was way less than this.

Yes. One was a guarantee freely given to bail out an economic system that had caused it's own ills through greed, to organizations deemed 'too big to fail', while being dressed up as economic and social costs to society, and that exposed the UK govt to over a trillion pound of debt, while the other is a payment given to support people who through no fault of their own have been exposed to economic hardship via a virus.

 

[teuchter]

I'm not sure why we are comparing the numbers then, when they apply to different things.

 

[planetgeli]

Because it's all government money.

Because one was freely given to cover incompetence and greed yet barely caused a ripple in the national psyche over what was 'affordable'.

Because the other, given to protect people's economic and social wellbeing, through something they had no control over, is producing a theme of 'we can't afford this'. I'm sick of hearing this.

Capitalism affords what it wants to afford.

 

[Teaboy]

Is there no scores on the doors this evening? I've been looking around and can't find any. I like looking at numbers going down and especially since this week might be our last chance for a while to see new cases declining...

 

[elbows]

Is there no scores on the doors this evening? I've been looking around and can't find any. I like looking at numbers going down and especially since this week might be our last chance for a while to see new cases declining...

Due to a case processing issue the dashboard wasnt updated till 7.15pm which probably upset the usual rhythm of reporting those figures elsewhere.

UKHSA data dashboard

Showing public health data across England

coronavirus.data.gov.uk

 

[cupid_stunt]

Is there no scores on the doors this evening? I've been looking around and can't find any. I like looking at numbers going down and especially since this week might be our last chance for a while to see new cases declining...

They have been late with today's figures, all good news -

Vaccinations - 1st dose just over 20.7m, 2nd dose just under 900k.

New cases - 6,385, down -31.6% in a week.

New deaths - 315, down -33.8% in a week.

 

[cupid_stunt]

On a personal note, Worthing was one of those 50 local authority areas that were highlighted as seeing an increase in cases, the 7-day average started going up about 2 weeks ago, reaching a peak of +63% about a week ago.

Whilst scary, I assumed it was just a bit of a blip, and have been pleased to see the figure drop slowly, down to +22% yesterday, and a bloody brilliant -8.5% today.

 

[MJ100]

Nobody thinks you're a hedge fund manager. We just think you're a cunt.

Not sure I've ever interacted with you, but the feeling is very mutual I can assure you.

 

[MJ100]

Eat out to help out.

Also, according to this Johnson was ready to lock down back in September (you know, when we should have done) your hero dishy Rishi threw his rich boy toys out of the pram 48 hours in September when ministers and scientists split over Covid lockdown

And the idea that it's a balancing act between the economy and public health is bollocks. Fail to prioritise public health in a pandemic and the economy is fucked, worse than restrictions and the right time will fuck it, as Sunak and Johnson's reckless actions have proven.

Why do you think he's "my hero?" I know you seem to enjoy putting words into people's mouths on here, but maybe read the other things I've posted first before you assume I think he's necessarily doing a good job. I already posted about how for every success he has had a failure. The one I mentioned was the self-employed mess, but eat out to help out may well qualify (though according to Sunak, he has other evidence that says it was hardly responsible for any infections, so I guess it depends who you believe).

It may not be a balancing act between "the economy" and "public health" in direct terms, but more about short v. long term. If you do too much to prioritise short-term public health, then you will absolutely wreck the economy, which will lead to long term suffering that is even greater than if you had taken less stringent measures in the first place. You do know that poverty is the leading cause of ill health and premature death worldwide, don't you?

I certainly HOPE we have not done that, but I fear that it is entirely possible that we might have. Even if we haven't, then many countries around the world, notably those that are hugely dependent on tourism or do not have the financial reserves and borrowing clout that we do, absolutely have. To suggest that you can simply ignore all the long term effects on economies because "public health" trumps everything is to fundamentally misunderstand what "public health" actually entails.

 

[Orang Utan]

So you’d rather be dead than poor. OK

 

[MJ100]

So you’d rather be dead than poor. OK

Guess there's no getting through to some people. As long as Orang Utan lives through this, who cares how many might have to die and suffer in the future as a result of the policies to keep you safe today, right? If global lockdowns saved a million lives but will cost an extra ten million over the coming years, is that a price you're happy to pay?

There's every chance that won't be the case, and it's entirely possible that we HAVE saved more lives than we will lose from the after effects, but the fact that nobody here seems to even vaguely deign to consider that it MIGHT be the other way around is infuriating. Guess only time will tell.

 

[eoin_k]

Well, it looks like Britain is world-beating, or at least top of the OECD heap, in terms of both excess deaths and economic impact, so maybe it doesn't have to be a trade-off and you can fuck up on both at the same time.

 

[MJ100]

Well, it looks like Britain is world-beating, or at least top of the OECD heap, in terms of both excess deaths and economic impact, so maybe it doesn't have to be a trade-off and you can fuck up on both at the same time.

Exactly.

 

[Sunray]

Here is an interesting piece with Pfizer regarding new varients

Science | AAAS

www.sciencemag.org

Also very encouraged to hear we could vaccinate 4m people a week, everybody by June as the Moderna vaccine is due to arrive soon.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Why do you think he's "my hero?" I know you seem to enjoy putting words into people's mouths on here, but maybe read the other things I've posted first before you assume I think he's necessarily doing a good job. I already posted about how for every success he has had a failure. The one I mentioned was the self-employed mess, but eat out to help out may well qualify (though according to Sunak, he has other evidence that says it was hardly responsible for any infections, so I guess it depends who you believe).

It may not be a balancing act between "the economy" and "public health" in direct terms, but more about short v. long term. If you do too much to prioritise short-term public health, then you will absolutely wreck the economy, which will lead to long term suffering that is even greater than if you had taken less stringent measures in the first place. You do know that poverty is the leading cause of ill health and premature death worldwide, don't you?

I certainly HOPE we have not done that, but I fear that it is entirely possible that we might have. Even if we haven't, then many countries around the world, notably those that are hugely dependent on tourism or do not have the financial reserves and borrowing clout that we do, absolutely have. To suggest that you can simply ignore all the long term effects on economies because "public health" trumps everything is to fundamentally misunderstand what "public health" actually entails.

Bollocks. What you've said only makes sense if lockdown was a pro-active action aimed at saving lives.

That's a position that can only be sustained if you've not really been paying attention.

In the UK it has been a last minute act of desperation to avoid the health service getting overwhelmed. If that happens the impact on the economy (both short and especially long term, as a large proportion of the younger people who would have just needed oxygen die, people die of relatively trivial non covid causes etc) s worse than that of a lockdown by several orders of magnitude.

Basically you're talking shit.

He is your hero too isn't he?

 

[existentialist]

Bollocks. What you've said only makes sense if lockdown was a pro-active action aimed at saving lives.

That's a position that can only be sustained if you've not really been paying attention.

In the UK it has been a last minute act of desperation to avoid the health service getting overwhelmed. If that happens the impact on the economy (both short and especially long term, as a large proportion of the younger people who would have just needed oxygen die, people die of relatively trivial non covid causes etc) s worse than that of a lockdown by several orders of magnitude.

Basically you're talking shit.

He is your hero too isn't he?

Big signed poster on the wall, membership of the Rishi Squirrels, I'd say it's an open-and-shut case.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Also the only serious study I've seen showed that eat out to help did cause outbreaks and increases in cases but fuck getting into that with this boring clown.

 

[Johnny Doe]

Hi cupid_stunt, I don't think fertility issues would definitely have emerged yet.

Indeed. Neither have any issues where the vaccine makes your ears fall off. No reason to suspect these side effects are any more likely than others that have not emerged yet.

 

[SpineyNorman]

I don't think we can completely rule out its potential to turn us into monkeys at this early stage either.

Which for me is an additional reason to get it as soon as possible.

 

[LDC]

Anyone seen any recent news on this person infected with the P.1 Brasil variant who couldn't be found in the SE? It was all over the news they'd narrowed it down to a few hundred households, so surely door-to-door must have found them now...?

 

[Cid]

Guess there's no getting through to some people. As long as Orang Utan lives through this, who cares how many might have to die and suffer in the future as a result of the policies to keep you safe today, right? If global lockdowns saved a million lives but will cost an extra ten million over the coming years, is that a price you're happy to pay?

There's every chance that won't be the case, and it's entirely possible that we HAVE saved more lives than we will lose from the after effects, but the fact that nobody here seems to even vaguely deign to consider that it MIGHT be the other way around is infuriating. Guess only time will tell.

But we have disrupted people's lives more than many other nations, and our economic performance has been woeful.

 

[weltweit]

Anyone seen any recent news on this person infected with the P.1 Brasil variant who couldn't be found in the SE? It was all over the news they'd narrowed it down to a few hundred households, so surely door-to-door must have found them now...?

I haven't seen any updates on this yet. Hope they find the person though.

 

[LDC]

I haven't seen any updates on this yet. Hope they find the person though.

Yeah, be bit weird if they haven't. A handful of small teams doing door-to-door of the possibles could have sorted it in 24 hours surely?

 

[elbows]

Yeah, be bit weird if they haven't. A handful of small teams doing door-to-door of the possibles could have sorted it in 24 hours surely?

Thats assuming 100% successful contact & cooperation, which isnt a safe assumption. Also we dont know how much delay there will be between the reality of the investigation and us finding out about progress. Especially if there are additional validation steps required to confirm they've found the right person.

I dont worry about this missing case any more than the others we will have missed by not picking them up via genomic surveillance in the first place, either because they were never tested at all or their test wasnt one of the ones given the genomic analysis.

 

[two sheds]

Serco doing the tracing?

 

[2hats]

I dont worry about this missing case any more than the others we will have missed by not picking them up via genomic surveillance in the first place, either because they were never tested at all or their test wasnt one of the ones given the genomic analysis.

Arguably those deserve at least four times as much attention. Also, bear in mind that recent data from France indicate P.1 & B.1.351 together comprise >=30% of cases in some areas.

 

[MrSki]

Serco doing the tracing?