|
Post by bracknellboy on Jul 8, 2020 14:51:39 GMT
As of two weeks ago, deaths now running BELOW expected, even though plenty still mention COVID 19 on death cert. So some evidence accumulating that some people's deaths were "brought forward" by covid-19, and we are entering a period of fewer deaths than usual. Pending the second and third waves of course -although my expectation is that those worst affected first time round will be less affected by second and subsequent waves.
Umm. I see where you are coming from in the "bought forward" argument (as we are now running below). However, isn't an entirely different hypothesis/interpretation also entirely valid (at this stage). Namely that if it weren't for C19, this happens to be one of those years that we would have otherwise been running at below average deaths for the time of year, and that therefore the actual number of excess deaths that could/should be attributable to C19 is higher than being calculated (as that is, obviously, being taken from the historic average).
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,920
Likes: 2,774
|
Post by michaelc on Jul 8, 2020 15:02:11 GMT
I'm not interested in getting into detailed debate over it, so all I'll say is this:
To the West we've got an unpredictable partner, but one thing is sure that he'll take any opportunity to make the UK bend over and pick up the soap for a US trade deal To the East we've got a significant trading partner who the present government is busy alienating To the Far East we've got China, and not being part of Europe is removing, not adding bargaining chips to that table
Then at home we've emerged from Wave 1 COVID with an already significantly damaged economy, Wave 2 COVID is almost certain
The argument for Brexit was never particularly strong in the first place (mostly built on little-islander mentality and pure bullshit from pro-brexit politicians). In today's scenario, the argument is weakened significantly.
which is probably why there is a significant majority against it. Irrelevant though that is as we have already left. what is abundantly clear is that there was never and is not now any significant support for a no-deal Brexit, which this bunch of idealogues is hurtling towards. My understanding is the rules of the EU apply until Dec 31. I think any government that plans to leave and not extend has to create the impression that they are can manage without a trade deal. If they didn't, or worse it was enshrined in law that a deal needs to be done, surely that would allow the EU to specify whatever they like and we'd need to agree? I would have assumed this is broadly common ground? Since its not really relevant to the thread this will be my last word on the subject but as ever happy to discuss further in another appropriate thread (although not sure many others would be happy to resurrect the debate on there lol)
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Jul 8, 2020 15:20:59 GMT
Telegraph reports "Rishi Sunak has unveiled an "eat out to help out" discount scheme, as part of a £30bn plan to rescue the economy from the coronavirus-induced recession. The Chancellor said participating restaurants would be able to offer half price meals every Monday to Wednesday throughout August, and be reimbursed by the Government within five working days."
Talk about gesture politics. And one with a bill.
I thought people were meant to be hot to trot to get out after lockdown. So why on earth do they need to be subsidised to go out.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,665
Likes: 2,989
|
Post by IFISAcava on Jul 8, 2020 15:36:34 GMT
As of two weeks ago, deaths now running BELOW expected, even though plenty still mention COVID 19 on death cert. So some evidence accumulating that some people's deaths were "brought forward" by covid-19, and we are entering a period of fewer deaths than usual. Pending the second and third waves of course -although my expectation is that those worst affected first time round will be less affected by second and subsequent waves.
Umm. I see where you are coming from in the "bought forward" argument (as we are now running below). However, isn't an entirely different hypothesis/interpretation also entirely valid (at this stage). Namely that if it weren't for C19, this happens to be one of those years that we would have otherwise been running at below average deaths for the time of year, and that therefore the actual number of excess deaths that could/should be attributable to C19 is higher than being calculated (as that is, obviously, being taken from the historic average).
Sure, that's possible. As is the possibility that we would have had a worse year than average and that C19 has caused fewer excess deaths than currently calculated. A longer term data series should help provide a better idea.
|
|
|
Post by honda2ner on Jul 8, 2020 15:42:38 GMT
Not sure that hospital deaths is a good stat to track. The NHS had a very rocky start to the pandemic, staff drafted in from other specialties were thrown in at the deep end with almost zero pertinent knowledge. The whole NHS machine has learnt a lot since then, in my department we have gone through the standardised drugs route (standardised morphine/midazolam bags to stop patients killing themselves by fighting for every breath to standardised adrenaline bags to pick up the struggling patients) and now heading back into bespoke prescribing for each patient, not just the ones in ICU.
Standardising really helped as even inexperienced staff quickly learned what was normal, errors dropped as everyone did the same thing on every ward and anything abnormal was flagged to doctors, it reduced the deaths from staff simply not knowing what was serious and what wasn't.
Dexamethasone has almost eliminated the cytokine storm patient deaths providing the ward staff spot it in time.
The steep part of the learning curve is over in the NHS so community deaths would be a much better deaths statistic to track IMO.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,665
Likes: 2,989
|
Post by IFISAcava on Jul 8, 2020 16:46:33 GMT
which is probably why there is a significant majority against it. Irrelevant though that is as we have already left. what is abundantly clear is that there was never and is not now any significant support for a no-deal Brexit, which this bunch of idealogues is hurtling towards. My understanding is the rules of the EU apply until Dec 31. I think any government that plans to leave and not extend has to create the impression that they are can manage without a trade deal. If they didn't, or worse it was enshrined in law that a deal needs to be done, surely that would allow the EU to specify whatever they like and we'd need to agree? I would have assumed this is broadly common ground?
Since its not really relevant to the thread this will be my last word on the subject but as ever happy to discuss further in another appropriate thread (although not sure many others would be happy to resurrect the debate on there lol) Not really. That's what some people who think the government has a cunning plan like to think. In reality, we have to agree with most of what the EU wants if we want a deal as they have much more clout than us and we really do need them more than they need us - that's realpolitik. And also in reality, many in the government are just hard core ideological anti-Europeans who don't and never wanted a deal. This idea of using bluff and bluster to infer that we can go it alone to somehow "trick" the EU into giving us a better deal is risible nonsense. We will be cutting off our nose to spite our face and they know it.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2020 17:30:48 GMT
I would disagree slightly and say it is not necessarily about the discipline studied. You may disagree with their vision but both Thatcher and Blair were effective leaders I think in part because they tolerated strong differing views in their ranks. This approach brought in a diversity of views which meant (but not always) better challenge and decisions. This current lot actively seek to remove anyone who disagrees with them. There is no incentive to speak up. Having said that, the electorate were quite clearly asked is Brexit the most important thing to you no matter what? They said yes. If the Government do that to an acceptable level, I suspect a lot of shambles on covid will be accepted by the electorate. I couldn't agree more, it's what differentiates this administration. Blair was an effective leader. LOL
|
|
james100
Member of DD Central
Posts: 996
Likes: 1,202
|
Post by james100 on Jul 8, 2020 18:06:24 GMT
My understanding is the rules of the EU apply until Dec 31. I think any government that plans to leave and not extend has to create the impression that they are can manage without a trade deal. If they didn't, or worse it was enshrined in law that a deal needs to be done, surely that would allow the EU to specify whatever they like and we'd need to agree? I would have assumed this is broadly common ground?
Since its not really relevant to the thread this will be my last word on the subject but as ever happy to discuss further in another appropriate thread (although not sure many others would be happy to resurrect the debate on there lol) Not really. That's what some people who think the government has a cunning plan like to think. In reality, we have to agree with most of what the EU wants if we want a deal as they have much more clout than us and we really do need them more than they need us - that's realpolitik. And also in reality, many in the government are just hard core ideological anti-Europeans who don't and never wanted a deal. This idea of using bluff and bluster to infer that we can go it alone to somehow "trick" the EU into giving us a better deal is risible nonsense. We will be cutting off our nose to spite our face and they know it. I have always believed this is the case. But although I agree there are a fair few anti-EUs I still think the overriding motivation of the core Brexit team was to create / apply the basic principles of disaster capitalism to make some people more wealthy at the expense of the majority of the population (and on the same theme to escape impending noose of the EU anti-tax avoidance legislation). The suggestion that they need us more than we need them baffles me, particularly given impact assessments (even pre-covid!) and don't get me started on the quality of negotiator the UK has put forward. At no point in time has this government taken any action to suggest they are genuinely seeking to forge a long-term deal with a respected business partner. Exactly the opposite, in fact.
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,920
Likes: 2,774
|
Post by michaelc on Jul 8, 2020 19:57:45 GMT
I'm not interested in getting into detailed debate over it, so all I'll say is this:
|
|
|
Post by dan1 on Jul 8, 2020 21:25:01 GMT
I couldn't agree more, it's what differentiates this administration. Blair was an effective leader. LOL I suspect he sends Lots Of Love to you too bobo
|
|
|
Post by dan1 on Jul 9, 2020 7:58:58 GMT
Telegraph reports "Rishi Sunak has unveiled an "eat out to help out" discount scheme, as part of a £30bn plan to rescue the economy from the coronavirus-induced recession. The Chancellor said participating restaurants would be able to offer half price meals every Monday to Wednesday throughout August, and be reimbursed by the Government within five working days."
Appears there is such a thing as a free lunch.
Indeed, there is no such thing as a free lunch but then what's £0.5bn in the £350bn giveaway so far! This is the view of the former Chairman of the council of economic advisors (CEA) to Obama's administration... Let's hope he's wrong!
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,524
Likes: 2,667
|
Post by cb25 on Jul 9, 2020 9:03:31 GMT
dan1 I imagine this relatively modest (by cost) initiative is going to generate a lot more headlines than it should because of the ability to splat headlines like "go out for a Rishi Dishi". I guess it - along with the cut to VAT on food - might drive a little more traffic to eateries.
I think the cut to SDLT is more questionable. OK, people want to pay less tax, but what problem is that solving? What jobs are being protected/generated - estate agents? Not sure I see buyers who are fearful for their future income are going to buy a property because it might cost less. Any reduction in prices assumes sellers don't simply increase the price of their property, knowing the buyer has more money available. Trying to maintain/increase property prices is a pretty dumb move imo. Better to have put money into a massive house building programme (possibly even social housing) - generates jobs, helps to meet the demand, might stabilize/lower prices a little.
|
|
zlb
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,414
Likes: 332
|
Post by zlb on Jul 9, 2020 10:52:57 GMT
dan1 I imagine this relatively modest (by cost) initiative is going to generate a lot more headlines than it should because of the ability to splat headlines like "go out for a Rishi Dishi". I guess it - along with the cut to VAT on food - might drive a little more traffic to eateries.
I think the cut to SDLT is more questionable. OK, people want to pay less tax, but what problem is that solving? What jobs are being protected/generated - estate agents? Not sure I see buyers who are fearful for their future income are going to buy a property because it might cost less. Any reduction in prices assumes sellers don't simply increase the price of their property, knowing the buyer has more money available. Trying to maintain/increase property prices is a pretty dumb move imo. Better to have put money into a massive house building programme (possibly even social housing) - generates jobs, helps to meet the demand, might stabilize/lower prices a little.
I've already seen discussion in BTL landlords using the stamp duty break to sell houses to their BTL company - perhaps they were the secret intended benefactors of this. Who are the intended benefactors of this stamp duty break? Can't be FTB as, you say, there are enough people with "more money available" to trump them now.
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Jul 9, 2020 11:13:50 GMT
dan1 I imagine this relatively modest (by cost) initiative is going to generate a lot more headlines than it should because of the ability to splat headlines like "go out for a Rishi Dishi". I guess it - along with the cut to VAT on food - might drive a little more traffic to eateries.
I think the cut to SDLT is more questionable. OK, people want to pay less tax, but what problem is that solving? What jobs are being protected/generated - estate agents? Not sure I see buyers who are fearful for their future income are going to buy a property because it might cost less. Any reduction in prices assumes sellers don't simply increase the price of their property, knowing the buyer has more money available. Trying to maintain/increase property prices is a pretty dumb move imo. Better to have put money into a massive house building programme (possibly even social housing) - generates jobs, helps to meet the demand, might stabilize/lower prices a little.
I've already seen discussion in BTL landlords using the stamp duty break to sell houses to their BTL company - perhaps they were the secret intended benefactors of this. Who are the intended benefactors of this stamp duty break? Can't be FTB as, you say, there are enough people with "more money available" to trump them now. Many estate agents, and new-build sale offices, right now are only allowing potential buyers to view a property if they can demonstrate they already have a sale agreed on their own house. I know someone currently trying to move house and, even though their own property is on the market, they are barred from even viewing a large proportion of homes they would like to consider. Seems crazy, and I can only put it down to my highlight above. I can't imagine it's Covid related, but I'm stumped. Can anyone offer any other explanation?
|
|
r00lish67
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,691
Likes: 4,048
|
Post by r00lish67 on Jul 9, 2020 11:16:26 GMT
Many estate agents, and new-build sale offices, right now are only allowing potential buyers to view a property if they can demonstrate they already have a sale agreed on their own house. I know someone currently trying to move house and, even though their own property is on the market, they are barred from even viewing a large proportion of homes they would like to consider. Seems crazy, and I can only put it down to my highlight above. I can't imagine it's Covid related, but I'm stumped. Can anyone offer any other explanation? We have a friend reporting exactly the same thing (she has yet to sell her house but is interested in buying) , and my assumption is it's because of exactly that. No bad thing really, little point in encouraging almost certainly pointless viewings if there are piles of people with ready cash/no chain.
|
|