Covid-19 Virus

Yeah, I know. I was just trying to ba a bit provocative on a boring Sunday morning!

 

Some would say the alternative is to not open the pubs so soon.

 

But some will always say it’s too soon. It’s a pretty arbitrary line to draw. I think we just need to see what happens and, if the evidence points to pub closures needing to be reimposed, then do it.

 

When should they open though? If they’re a risk they’re a risk and that won’t change until the virus no longer exists.

 

It’s about how we manage the risk. I can’t really see why they couldn’t have been opened a couple of weeks ago, mainly focused on gardens. The risk isn’t the same as in March as there are lots of mitigation measures, well bedded in.

The bigger problem is the Government’s leadership. Desperate to be popular, pubs have to reopen with fanfare rather than caution. Following the flouting of lockdown rules by members of the Government and their families and the egregious attacks on teaching unions for showing justified caution, large parts of the population are in a state of scepticism. It is this that undermines safe reopening and sensible strategies.

 

The process of exiting ‘lockdown’ has already been elongated by not going into it sooner in the first place. By rushing to encourage an early exit the probability of further lockdowns being required is increased. It won’t just be pub closures that need to be reimposed.

 

Maybe I’m missing something, but I’m not sure that’s true. Nationally cases are very low right now, 1/2200 at the last count. So In a pub with 50 people in 0.02 would have it. In my area there was 0.7 cases per 100k and the area has a population of 150k, so essentially one case. Of course in cases like Leicester it’s higher, so they haven’t exited lockdown so soon.

If the stage we’re at now with pubs back open is enough to completely reverse the trend and drive cases back up, what real difference does it make opening up now vs a week, month etc?

Theoretically if we drove cases down to zero, if the stage were at now is enough to reverse the decline in infections then with exponential growth how long would it take before we’re back to the stage we’re at now and then hitting a second wave at some point.

Nobody ever really has a number for where cases should be, it’s just “too soon” but the trade off with that is the longer you wait for this magical number the more the economy is crippled and the more financial misery we store up. Only to end up the in same place anyway (if opening pubs in fact does reverse the trend) just perhaps a month later.

 

And a crippled economy means unemployment, which results in mental health problems, and less money to make good health choices (eating more junk food, for example). So there are public health arguments on both sides of the coin.

 

I understood that they were. Your example seems surprising. I can see that there may have been some slippage in the list of priorities as hospitals go back to normal but wholesale closure seems puzzling.

 

We're not disagreeing. I'm simply saying that one would understand if priorities had shifted in hospitals - I'm sure they have - but I agree that being closed altogther seems odd.

 

Guess what's back in town.....

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/wor...=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1594020777

 

Bubonic plague isn't all that uncommon, though - and can be easily treated with antibiotics.

 

Yes but it can kill an adult in less than 24 hours if not treated in time, according to the WHO.

 

I came across an explanation of how the government support for businesses affects people in different ways at the weekend.

A local High Street hairdresser owner is boasting about how her pandemic support grant has meant that she is now looking for a new car. She has furloughed herself, and is not wanting to re-open her hairdressers yet.

Whilst one of her hairdressers who "rents a chair" at 50%, has been without income for nearly four months and has been unable to claim any financial assistance at all - obviously because she has not been declaring her income to HMRC in previous years.

 

Yep, a friend is a director of a recruitment company, there is another director and two staff. They’ve furloughed both the staff (but still get them to do stuff) taken the £50k bounce back loan and the business grant. He said they’re significantly better off because of Covid.

 

Pubs with outdoor seating doing a roaring trade right now, like this charming beer garden in Motherwell.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/motherwell-boozer-trolled-online-having-22312413

 

Two weeks on the bounce now of weekly deaths running below average:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...glandandwalesprovisional/weekending26june2020

Obviously this was entirely predictable but the scale and length of any period running below average will be interesting to see.

Also slightly concerning to see hospital deaths way down on the 5 year average for the week (-850), but deaths at home significantly up (+745). The government really needs to get the routine NHS work up and running pronto.

 

The latter isn’t necessarily people who could have been saved though, more like people who have died in care homes or at home rather than receive final care in hospital. More subtle statistics needed to establish how many people whose lives the lockdown itself may have shortened.

 

Yeah, more analysis needed. Although worth noting the at home number means private homes and doesn't include care homes (where deaths were -103 below the weekly average).

 

Pretty grim, but would it mean if you were at the end of life with something like Cancer you wouldn’t have been admitted to hospital but just died at home instead. A death that was going to happen, but probably happened in a less than ideal way.

Edit: I think that’s what Moose was suggesting, missed his post.

 

Florida now sitting on the precipice of disaster.

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/506344-56-florida-icus-at-capacity-as-virus-surges

For all that the UK government's initial response seemed poor, at least they eventually got it right.

Unlike the US. :/

 

Interesting article about Sweden, held up by many as the golden example of why locking down is bad.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/sweden-has-become-the-worlds-cautionary-tale/ar-BB16rAdT

The NYT claims the numbers don't support that conclusion, though. Not only have they experienced deaths at a far higher rate than comparable countries, they've also experienced virtually identical economic damage, i.e they've experienced a significantly increased death rate (a literal order of magnitude higher compared to Norway) in return for absolutely nothing.

 

When it says they’ve had no benefit in terms of how badly their economy has been hit, have Sweden’s government made any sort of financial interventions, furlough schemes etc?

I genuinely have no idea if they have, but if you look at the U.K. the government have spent hundreds of billions to limit the damage to the economy which will have an impact for many years to come. If Sweden haven’t had to take the same measures then it doesn’t really tell the whole picture to say they’ve had no benefit.

 

Sweden has spent 10s of billions, which is to be expected as its population is less than one sixth of the UK. While some sectors, like hospitality, have been allowed greater freedom they have suffered a downturn and sectors like Tourism are hit just as badly. Sweden’s failure to get on top of the virus has meant that it’s travellers are currently welcome in far fewer countries than even the UK.

It may not suffer as badly with assistance measures as the state is already generous. People won’t be going to foodbanks in big numbers there (the number of people doing so in the UK is getting on for Sweden’s whole population) but it does seem like it’s had a lot of pain for not much gain.

Worse is that it cannot yet be said to have escaped the virus. The winter is long and people will be indoors together for long periods. A second wave is not unlikely and it may have to lockdown then. Hopefully a vaccine will come first, which does seem a realistic hope.

 

Yes, they have. One example:

https://www.government.se/press-rel...a-result-of-the-impact-of-the-covid-19-virus/

How wide that covid-19 related emergency spending goes compared to Denmark/Norway would be an interesting exercise, I agree.

 

Less then £100m verses the £132 billion UK response. Utterly pointless example.

 

Sweden allocated 300bn Krona in March alone (about £26bn).
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-sweden-budget-idUSKBN21311G

 

Which puts them on a similar level to us if you consider their GDP, so their plan didn’t save the public purse it seems.

 

It’s very hard to compare. If the UK furlough scheme ends with simply delayed unemployment, then Sweden’s approach may have been better. It was therefore a good move to incentivise employers to end the furlough while keeping staff. Won’t work where the business can’t function though.

But it’s mind boggling to get your head around the different complexities and we simply don’t know how it pans out from here. What I can’t quite get a grip on is where demand is going. Because of furlough, many people are yet to take the wages hit. Is it simply getting absorbed in higher prices?

 

I think there are sectors that are massively up, where people have been spending their money instead. Equally I think a lot of people on furlough have saved money or paid off debt. There is somebody on the house price thread who said he’s been able to save enough money for a house deposit.

 

There will be a hell of an echo in the Harlequin.