michaelc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,844
Likes: 2,758
|
Post by michaelc on Mar 13, 2020 16:35:06 GMT
Because there are legitimate differences of view? And maybe because we are not all in quite the same place. France has 5x the confirmed number of cases vs. the UK: so we are different places on the curve. (that of course doesn't explain the Ireland piece, since they have only 70 EDIT: actually I hadn't realised that the population of Eire was < 5m Blimey, my geography needs a refresh. So Ireland is further along the curve than us, but not so much as France is).
One thing I do feel comfortable about: I do get the impression that the govt is listening to and acting on scientific advise. I'm sure there is some "political" input as there is a balancing act, but nonetheless I don 't get the impression that politics is driving the decision making. Rather the other way round.
I like the piece below. Who knows what is right or wrong - but the below at least has the benefit of being logical.
"But the UK has adopted relatively modest controls. The difference can be explained partly by the fact that some of the countries are further into their epidemics.
Computer simulations indicate Britain is in the early stages. Its top scientists believe it is too soon to impose severe restrictions .
Such limitations might last several months and risk “self-isolation fatigue”, with people leaving their homes when the epidemic reaches its height. Many elderly people, who are particularly at risk of developing severe symptoms, are already isolated.
Cutting them off from their communities now, when the risks are still relatively low, would create unnecessary difficulties for them.
School closures have also yet to be announced. Such measures are effective for controlling serious flu epidemics, but Covid-19 seems to affect children less.
In addition, school closures would take many much needed NHS staff away from their jobs while they look after their own children.
Some good points there but regarding the last one I've highlighted, I did wonder before the previous health secretary Hunt mentioned it yesterday, whether schools could operate a minimal service to children of those workers deemed essential to tackling the virus and keeping the peace. Of course there would be issues to iron out but I think it could be done and might be a good halfway house.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,664
Likes: 2,988
|
Post by IFISAcava on Mar 13, 2020 16:45:55 GMT
Because there are legitimate differences of view? Regrettably you can have as many scientist in the room as you like but its still BoJo and his yes-men making the decisions. It seems to me that BoJo has chosen "dither-and-delay" rather than "delay". I don't think any sane scientist would still be advocating for the continuation of large-scale public gatherings such as race meetings. That is pure politics. or it is a scientific judgement that the effect of banning large public gatherings in open spaces will be small at the moment, that transmission is more likely when people go to closed space like the pub instead of the matches, that they will be banned when the effects of banning them are likely to be more substantial (eg when the UK is further down the curve in a week or two), that the organisers will stop them anyway (and that might be more acceptable to people than a central government imposed cancellation), that the public will only take so much restriction and that if you do it too early you just increase the risk of a later recurrence of the infection when you most need the restrictions, that economic side effects are also damaging to health (I don't think I need to go into all the ways that might manifest I hope), that it might be a good thing for healthy people to get mild infections whilst protecting the vulnerable so that herd immunity later protects the vulnerable more permanently when the restrictions end, that the more you make huge restrictions the more you panic people with the risk of counter-productive effects on their heath psychologically. Etc. I think there are valid scientific counter arguments, I don't think it is clearcut what is the right thing to do, and those screaming for more and more measures to be done right now might in fact be wrong. They might be right. We will see how the UK's approach compares with other countries. At the very least, it will help inform what we and others do next time (either for corona2 next autumn, or a future pandemic).
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,241
Likes: 2,686
Member is Online
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Mar 13, 2020 16:53:46 GMT
And maybe because we are not all in quite the same place. France has 5x the confirmed number of cases vs. the UK: so we are different places on the curve. (that of course doesn't explain the Ireland piece, since they have only 70 EDIT: actually I hadn't realised that the population of Eire was < 5m Blimey, my geography needs a refresh. So Ireland is further along the curve than us, but not so much as France is).
One thing I do feel comfortable about: I do get the impression that the govt is listening to and acting on scientific advise. I'm sure there is some "political" input as there is a balancing act, but nonetheless I don 't get the impression that politics is driving the decision making. Rather the other way round.
I like the piece below. Who knows what is right or wrong - but the below at least has the benefit of being logical.
"But the UK has adopted relatively modest controls. The difference can be explained partly by the fact that some of the countries are further into their epidemics.
Computer simulations indicate Britain is in the early stages. Its top scientists believe it is too soon to impose severe restrictions .
Such limitations might last several months and risk “self-isolation fatigue”, with people leaving their homes when the epidemic reaches its height. Many elderly people, who are particularly at risk of developing severe symptoms, are already isolated.
Cutting them off from their communities now, when the risks are still relatively low, would create unnecessary difficulties for them.
School closures have also yet to be announced. Such measures are effective for controlling serious flu epidemics, but Covid-19 seems to affect children less.
In addition, school closures would take many much needed NHS staff away from their jobs while they look after their own children.
Some good points there but regarding the last one I've highlighted, I did wonder before the previous health secretary Hunt mentioned it yesterday, whether schools could operate a minimal service to children of those workers deemed essential to tackling the virus and keeping the peace. Of course there would be issues to iron out but I think it could be done and might be a good halfway house. And wouldn't the other parents love that! There are also other problems with shutting schools, many children may then be left alone at home (many parents just have to work), poorer children won't get their free school meals that they rely on, if it drags on for months school progress may be affected (I know computers etc, but not all children have them). Parents having to take indefinite time off to look after children further affecting the economy.
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Mar 13, 2020 18:18:45 GMT
And maybe because we are not all in quite the same place. France has 5x the confirmed number of cases vs. the UK: so we are different places on the curve. (that of course doesn't explain the Ireland piece, since they have only 70 EDIT: actually I hadn't realised that the population of Eire was < 5m Blimey, my geography needs a refresh. So Ireland is further along the curve than us, but not so much as France is).
One thing I do feel comfortable about: I do get the impression that the govt is listening to and acting on scientific advise. I'm sure there is some "political" input as there is a balancing act, but nonetheless I don 't get the impression that politics is driving the decision making. Rather the other way round.
I like the piece below. Who knows what is right or wrong - but the below at least has the benefit of being logical.
"But the UK has adopted relatively modest controls. The difference can be explained partly by the fact that some of the countries are further into their epidemics.
Computer simulations indicate Britain is in the early stages. Its top scientists believe it is too soon to impose severe restrictions .
Such limitations might last several months and risk “self-isolation fatigue”, with people leaving their homes when the epidemic reaches its height. Many elderly people, who are particularly at risk of developing severe symptoms, are already isolated.
Cutting them off from their communities now, when the risks are still relatively low, would create unnecessary difficulties for them.
School closures have also yet to be announced. Such measures are effective for controlling serious flu epidemics, but Covid-19 seems to affect children less.
In addition, school closures would take many much needed NHS staff away from their jobs while they look after their own children.
Some good points there but regarding the last one I've highlighted, I did wonder before the previous health secretary Hunt mentioned it yesterday, whether schools could operate a minimal service to children of those workers deemed essential to tackling the virus and keeping the peace. Of course there would be issues to iron out but I think it could be done and might be a good halfway house.
BTW, although I don't have kids, you don't need to have to know that closing schools is hugely disrupting, not just to the kids but their parents and the wider economy. And while kids are clearly a vector for flu/colds/measles, its far less clear that they are a major vector of Covid-19. How long are you going to close schools for : 2 weeks, 4 weeks; 8 weeks ? It can't be indefinite, and if you think they are not a major transmitter, do you leave school closure as an option to use futher along the curve.
Its pretty damn clear that this is no longer something which can be contained and killed off. If it was, then 3 weeks of complete lock down might well be considered worth it. I'm sure if it was ebola it would be. But it is not, and its now here to stay. So I think the UK scientific advise is reasoned, and reasonable. Whether it turns out to have been the optimal, near optimal, or very sub-optimal approach is still to be seen. But it is at least a valid and debatable line.
one thing the UK certainly did "well" was to introduce "community" testing early on at some scale i.e. testing not just of those who were suspected victims. This should have achieved its aims of having a much better understanding of underlying infection rates and from that have better modelling of how the infection might progress, and hence help to inform decision making. Maybe.
|
|
james100
Member of DD Central
Posts: 983
Likes: 1,191
|
Post by james100 on Mar 13, 2020 21:40:26 GMT
GBPUSD down 5.97% this week.
|
|
r00lish67
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,691
Likes: 4,048
|
Post by r00lish67 on Mar 13, 2020 22:02:05 GMT
GBPUSD down 5.97% this week. GBPEUR down from 1.20 to 1.10 in less than a month as well My rioja est trop cher, Rodney. Volatility is hardly a stranger in these heady days, but these are quite big swings against GBP. I can and do live with comfortably with the volatility of shares, but currency swings still get my goat since I'm not going to see that money bounce back once it's spent. Still, well spent though. Slurp. edit: ooh, my 2000th post. Written about the pound being at 1.20, at 22:02 in the year 2020. On Friday 13th. In a leap year. On a full moon (maybe. It's cloudy).
|
|
|
Post by dan1 on Mar 13, 2020 23:13:29 GMT
Possibly but science is generally a more truth based subject than politics therefore my money is on the decisions taken by politicians - specifically the BJ government. Its starting to look like every country in europe is imposing social distances measures including school closures except the UK. I find that worrying. Yeah but this isn't just sceince is it. Its science plus understanding of human behaviours. And there's nowt so strange as folk. The behavioural scientists (sociology, psychology, etc) may not appreciate the "science plus..." They're just as valid a science as medicine. That's not to say I don't get your point!
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,664
Likes: 2,988
|
Post by IFISAcava on Mar 18, 2020 11:48:56 GMT
Pound is being hammered It was a REALLY bad time to be playing silly buggers with our economy (I won't mention the word).
|
|
r00lish67
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,691
Likes: 4,048
|
Post by r00lish67 on Mar 18, 2020 11:55:22 GMT
Pound is being hammered It was a REALLY bad time to be playing silly buggers with our economy (I won't mention the word). I'm quite interested in this. I won't pretend to understand the full detail, but what I've understood when trying to work out what is happening is that Sterling is particularly susceptible when banks start suffering. Hence we saw the £ reach near Euro parity in 2008. The same effect is happening now, combined with the USD strengthening against everything for other reasons. What concerns me is that when that happened back in 2008 GFC, we were starting from much higher levels (something like GBPEUR 1.45 and 2.04 (!) GBPUSD. So, what is going to happen when we're going into this having started at GBPEUR 1.2 and GBPUSD 1.3? Anyone have some reassuring technical words as to why we're not going to see below parity on both? edit: side point, god I still miss the old Google finance. Would have taken moments to conjure up a nice little graph comparing the stock market and GBPUSD over any time period.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2020 13:06:42 GMT
I don't really mind falling below parity, it merely follows on with government strategy since 1945. Google finance graph would have sat HERE.
It does mean, of course, you should invest mainly in the US.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,664
Likes: 2,988
|
Post by IFISAcava on Mar 18, 2020 13:13:27 GMT
I don't really mind falling below parity, it merely follows on with government strategy since 1945. Google finance graph would have sat HERE.
It does mean, of course, you should invest mainly in the US.
it is fine for investment - I took the lesson and moved 90% of my investments into non-sterling and dumped loads of spare cash into USD, EUR, CHF and JPY. The problem is that I EARN in sterling and every time we devalue, we get a burst of inflation that permanently reduces my real income. But yes, parity is on the way, and beyond.
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Mar 18, 2020 15:10:49 GMT
so the only thing stopping the FTSE100 dropping like a stone is the collapse in sterling it would seem.
|
|
pa
Posts: 39
Likes: 42
|
Post by pa on Mar 18, 2020 15:43:45 GMT
...Well I suppose, at least, it means that we won't be able to afford any chlorinated chicken
|
|
r00lish67
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,691
Likes: 4,048
|
Post by r00lish67 on Mar 18, 2020 15:45:58 GMT
Pound is being hammered It was a REALLY bad time to be playing silly buggers with our economy (I won't mention the word). and still lower...pushing 2.5% down now. This is horrendous.
|
|
|
Post by dan1 on Mar 18, 2020 15:55:15 GMT
Pound is being hammered It was a REALLY bad time to be playing silly buggers with our economy (I won't mention the word). I'm quite interested in this. I won't pretend to understand the full detail, but what I've understood when trying to work out what is happening is that Sterling is particularly susceptible when banks start suffering. Hence we saw the £ reach near Euro parity in 2008. The same effect is happening now, combined with the USD strengthening against everything for other reasons. What concerns me is that when that happened back in 2008 GFC, we were starting from much higher levels (something like GBPEUR 1.45 and 2.04 (!) GBPUSD. So, what is going to happen when we're going into this having started at GBPEUR 1.2 and GBPUSD 1.3? Anyone have some reassuring technical words as to why we're not going to see below parity on both? edit: side point, god I still miss the old Google finance. Would have taken moments to conjure up a nice little graph comparing the stock market and GBPUSD over any time period. That's my understanding too. The UK's financial services sector is a bigger proportion of GDP than most (all?) other developed nation economies. This large inflow of investment keeps GBP higher than it would otherwise be (remember our big current account deficit). Of course, at times of financial shock, such as the GFC and now Coronavirus, GBP falls rapidly and deeply.
|
|