Covid-19 Virus

Yes I know many families where some were positive and others never caught it. Maybe you had it first and were asymptomatic ?

 

There is of course a difference between legal restrictions and changes in behaviour. The big fear for some sectors is the mirror to those concerns about those that fail to abide by the restrictions - those that are reluctant to change their behaviour and spending back to the pre pandemic norms. Commuting, bricks and mortar retail are the most obvious. While many have suffered terrible financial hardship in the last year, many others have saved money by default.

I can see.Otis of government inspired campaigns to get us all out spending. Those with most disposal income tend to be the 50-65 cohort.

But I think most restrictions are unlikely to be fully lifted to we are down to death rates of 8,000 per annum. Next winter will be the test of the health impact of the vaccine. If hospitalisations are high say the equivalent of seasonal flu the NHS will be under significant pressure and restrictions will be reapplied. They may be the more minor irritants like compulsory face masks in public spaces and no standing in pubs, etc.

this year seasonal flu infections and hospitalisations have fallen sharply due to the restrictions on social mixing. That lesson won’t be lost on public health advisors to government.

with any luck the virus will keep mutating down the path of being more infectious but less virulent. That with evolving treatment plus year round vaccination programmes will turn it to a endemic virus that society will tolerate.

 

I don’t really go to the pub so no real truck in this argument but it would seem stupid to cut the pub industry off at its knees in peak season if there are not less than 8k deaths per annum. That would be hysterical.

 

The argument about Covid motivated restrictions on behaviour is about the impact on society and the economy of a virus that fills hospitals to the point you impact all other treatments required by the population. Deaths is the measure that seems to get peoples attention, but it is hospitalisations that has the biggest impact. Once half your hospital capacity is taken up by a single disease, you are going to impose restrictions on society to combat it.

I agree once Covid 19 is down to seasonal flu levels of virulence there won’t be restrictions. Maybe voluntary changes in behaviour. Mask wearing on the tube in winter, being seen as a social courtesy, etc

Seasonal flu did not lead to social restrictions, but each winter put hospitals under pressure. If Covid infections are running at similar levels thats two infections which lead to pressure on capacity.16,000 deaths. in March the first lockdown was described as a plan to keep deaths down to 20,000 which would be a good outcome, it’s now pushing an annualised total of 100,000+

until vaccines were developed it took the pandemic flu variant took 40 years to mutate itself back into of our lives with 1957 H2N2 variant. For the foreseeable future Covid could be with us at pandemic levels for many years. But let’s hope not. Mutations are not always helpful. Social isolation tends to accelerate the trend towards reducing virulence.

https://www.theguardian.com/society...to-protect-against-new-variant-study-suggests

 

There are 1000 new cancer cases a day and 160k deaths a year. Do these not impact hospital capacity? Do we mandate what people can drink or eat?

I’d suggest if Covid gets down to 8k deaths per year we adjust priorities. Masks on tube sure no problem. But binning off the hospitality industry at those levels is pure hysteria.

 

We don’t mandate it but there is increasing interest in trying to shape eating and drinking choices to improve health and thus reduce this type of long-term pressure on the NHS.

 

I see today's news is that while the government stats show a marked drop off in positive cases out of the tests it carries out, Imperial College's testing in the first two weeks of lockdown found no reduction.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55736239

Some scientists are saying this means the current lockdown needs to be made even stricter. But isn't the obvious explanation that Imperial is picking up asymptomatic carriers who don't need hospital treatment, while only symptomatic people are getting tests through the government?

 

That's a good point. If Imperial's research is anything to go by, we should see the government case figures going back up again in the next few days. Sounds like Cornwall is the place to be, the R rate there is below 0.5 by all accounts.

 

And my mate’s 80 year old Dad, in Truro, has already had both jabs.

 

Infection is infection is bad. It has to go down in all groups, otherwise relaxation means the asymptomatic can infect the rest. A reevaluation of that risk can take place when all the moderate to high risk groups have had the vaccine.

 

I'm not arguing for relaxation on the basis of this. I just thought the different direction of the government's testing outcomes and Imperial's regular study were interesting. I think it's the first time there's been a significant divergance like this, as the trend has previously always been the same.

 

You’d need to be sure that the Government’s testing hasn’t subtlety changed methodology within that time, for example finding people to use up capacity rather than ill people finding it.

However, it may also be the case that Imperial’s next study will be different. The effects of Xmas will have washed through. Surely there must be a drop off soon?

But you are right that it’s at odds and not clear why.

 

I've since read Imperial didn't run any testing for most of December and so the government says these tests in early January missed the peak. There's others on the record saying Imperial's results are slightly dubious. So possibly it's something of nothing - just a shame they went so big on it and there's prominent articles on the BBC, Reuters etc parroting their conclusions.

 

Given that this virus seems likely to be around in some form for many years has there been any suggestion that we build a few more hospitals, recruit some extra nurses and doctors and pay the ones we've already got a few more quid so they're less likely to jack it in? I'm sure if we faced a new military threat with the potential to do as much damage to our society and way of life as covid there'd be no hesitation in beefing up the armed forces budget.

 

Absolutely not. In fact, if the pandemic ended tomorrow what would we have to show for all the money that's been spent? A few thousand ventilators, a better understanding of treating respiratory illnesses in an ICU setting and maybe some new drugs to use. That's it I reckon. This really should be used as an opportunity to invest so that we can try to do away with the annual NHS winter crisis... but no sign of that happening so far.

 

What's happened to those much heralded Nightingale hospitals or was that just money set on fire like the track and trace?

 

Even if they had the staff to run them on more than a skeleton/token basis, they're all in rented conference centre type spaces. They can't stay there forever.

The slightly odd thing is Boris stood on a manifesto to build 40 'new hospitals' and upgrade another 20. Surely this pandemic was the perfect opportunity to accelerate that agenda while the Treasury taps were more open than ever?

 

But aren't the Treasury taps fully open bailing out the rest of the economy?

 

Absolutely but as a country we are going to be absolutely bankrupt. This debt is going to have to be paid back by huge tax rises and cuts in spending. Spending more on the NHS to comfortably cover the usual Jan peak and have excess capacity the rest of the year is just going to make those tax rises even higher. My concern is that the govt have decided to effectively use a blank chequebook approach to this on the basis that the next govt, probably labour, will have to make the cuts and tax rises. It wouldn't surprise me if we were all paying an extra 10% of our net pay in taxes of one form or another within a couple of years.

 

Are you suggesting there will be a Labour government in a year?

 

You never know
Thanks - corrected !

 

Is it? We're only going to be as bankrupt as nearly every other nation on the planet. This is going to be a multi-generational debt to pay back, akin to WW2, surely? There will undoubtedly be tax rises but I don't think the public will accept huge ones, nor notable cuts in spending.

 

The government has spent astronomical sums over the past 11 months but it's not as if every £ has gone towards economic support. They've also bought PPE, medical equipment, mass testing capacity, vaccines, built Nightingale hospitals, created the 'world beating' track and trace service etc etc. Why isn't part of the strategy aimed at providing medium-to-long term benefits rather than just short term hits? Pre-pandemic the government claimed it could build 6 brand new hospitals for £2.7bn. It's spent about £300bn so far on Covid-related stuff. Even if you treble the new hospital budget because of the urgency and need to get it done, that's still less than 3% of the overall spend. Does that really sound like it couldn't have been done?

 

It's a fair point. I suspect the answer is partly that short term benefits are "quicker wins" in terms of votes than longer-term ones. Which is short-sighted in respect of health, especially.

I wonder if any other countries have committed to these sorts of plans, though? I suspect everyone is just too busy fire-fighting at present.

 

Yep ! It will cover decades but the levels of debt are eye-watering and the interest cost alone will be a drain on public spending and will have to be brought down. The quality of life post the end of WW2 was of course dramatically impacted as the war debt had to be reduced even though paid back over many years. You can't accrue this level of debt without a significant impact on spending/tax for decades.

 

Can't we just not answer the door when the bailiffs turn up in Dover?

 

Tempting. Or just advise that they can't come in without a valid COVID certificate issued in the previous 30 seconds.

 

Luckily they'll probably be stuck in a queue at the border somewhere, so that should keep them busy for a few years.

 

I'm sure at least some of the debt will be reduced through inflation. The government are borrowing at near zero interest, so it wont be too difficult to inflate away some of the debt.

I imagine there will be some tax rises, but I doubt they will be enough to severely impact day-to-day spending.

Maybe a couple of percent income tax. Also some sort of online service tax and maybe a 10% rise in capital gains (to tax those who have done really well from the governments Covid measures).

And seeing as governments are generally extremely short term and cannot see the long term damage of increasing the property price bubble, I imagine they'll keep stamp duty very low.

 

Short term nature of governments the world over is one of the reasons the world is in such a mess generally. No Govt wants to do anything that involves short term pain for long term gain eg climate change reaction, plastics, loss of forests etc. However the level of the level of borrowing has to be seriously addressed. As you say the interest cost is mitigated greatly at present with interest rates so low but can't assume that will the case forever. I would think IT rates over £100k, inheritance tax, NI rates etc will all need to rise, maybe VAT too to 20%.

 

Already 20% isn't it?

 

Haha yes I meant above 20%. Big mistake trying to lost on here when work is pretty intense !

 

If we are serious about raising money then we need to raise the basic and higher rate of tax. Just raising income tax on 100k+ is a drop in the ocean.