Current Affairs Coronavirus Thread - Serious stuff !!!

[Paris]

A £516 billion deficit?

A leaked Treasury report the Daily Telegraph today reveals that its worst-case scenario is a deficit of £516 billion – almost ten times that expected in the March budget and treble that seen after the 2007/8 crash. That such a report was written in the first place suggests concern in HM Treasury that No. 10 has been slow to realise the economic consequences of lockdown and has judged measures only by modelling progress of the virus. The Treasury, it seems, has engaged in some modelling of its own. Its memo is quoted as saying: ‘In a worst-case scenario, this could lead to a liquidity crisis and, ultimately, a sovereign debt crisis. A comparable UK scenario would be market conditions in 1976 ahead of the IMF loan when high and volatile inflation led to a loss of macro strategy credibility and a reluctance to hold UK debt’


Britain’s Q1 GDP data, released this morning, is dire but captures just a fraction of the lockdown effect. The 2 per cent quarter-on-quarter decline is far less than the 5 per cent reported for France, Italy and Spain – all harder hit because they locked down slightly earlier.

The leaked Treasury document suggests massive tax-raising measures, but this exaggerates the options open to the government. In truth, the UK tax take stood near a 35-year high before the virus and it’s not clear that it’s possible to squeeze significantly more tax out of the economy without choking it. The high rates of tax in the 1970s led to far less revenue: the best-paid 1 per cent then contributed 11 per cent of all tax paid. Now, they account for 29 per cent. The 50p rate, when introduced in the UK after the 2009 crash, led to less income tax collected. Above a certain level, higher rates mean lower yields. Attempts to impose high rates would anyway serve as an advance resignation letter from a Tory government elected on a pledge to avoid them.



Everything now hangs on the markets lending staggering sums to governments at rock-bottom rates. Their willingness to do so until now has, arguably, led to lockdown economics: the idea that it’s now possible for government to borrow billions, then hand the cash to furloughed workers, without any financial penalty. This has, so far, been the experience. Markets have played along. The UK’s economic viability may depend on their continuing to do so.

Only way out of this is for the UK to get itself back into the EU.

 

[LouReedwalkonthewildside]

That's why ONS are looking at the figures.

"The UK death toll from Covid-19 has surpassed 40,000, according to official figures, with almost 10,000 care home residents now having died from coronavirus.

The Office for National Statistics said on Tuesday that 35,044 deaths involving Covid-19 were registered in England and Wales up to 9 May. Adding the latest figures for Scotland and Northern Ireland and more up to date fatalities from the four nations , the total official UK death toll now stands at 40,496".

The government claim 33 186.

So who do we believe?

 

[Nymzee]

Our KFC drive-through opened again today my Lord the queue looks insane for it.

 

[mill]

I was going to post the following on my Facebook but thought I’d stick it in here first and see what the reaction is. I’m literally just interpreting statistics. I’m not attempting to make any suggestions on how people should live their lives over the next few weeks or months. Those decisions will be partly dictated by the government decisions and also your own judgement.

I’ve just spent a little time on the website of the Office of National Statistics (LINK) looking in to the death rate from Covid-19 to see what the real risks are and to see who is really vulnerable. The results were both shocking (because it’s not something I’d seen reported in the news) and not shocking (because it seems to show what I’d expect).

The first death reported in the UK occurred in the week ending 13th March. In the following 8 weeks up to the week ending 1st May there have been a total of 33,365 deaths relating to Covid-19. It is totally unknown how many of these deaths were actually caused by Covid-19 as the only reported stats just show those that die while having the Covid-19 virus in their body at the time of death. It’s possible they may have been showing absolutely no symptoms of Covid-19 and their death was caused by something else. We’ll never know the real numbers of actual Covid-19 deaths.

What I have found interesting however if the deaths split by age range.

Age 0 to 39 - 0.64% of total covid-19 related deaths up to 1st May 2020
Age 40 to 41 - 1.52%
Age 50 to 59 - 5.03%
Age 60 to 69 - 10.59%
Age 70 to 79 - 23.64%
Age 80 to 99 - 58.58%

To me it seems very clear that those most at risk are the over 60s and that the older you are, the greater the risk. That sounds familiar, that just sounds like death in general. The older you are, the more you are at risk of dying.

But what shocked me the most is the relatively small percentage of people under the age of 60 who have died relating to Covid-19. Just 7.19% of all Covid-19 deaths have been under the age of 60 and an even smaller 2.16% if you are under 40. Some of you may say that is still too many, well yes, no one wants anyone dying but the cold hard truth is that people die of illnesses every single day. Life is a risk, life has a finite time limit, life comes to an end. But if you are sat at home in lockdown and too scared to go back to work or send your kids back to school or to go to the supermarket more than once a week, just look at the statistics and do your own risk assessment.

If you are under 60 there is only a very small chance that you will be adversely affected by Covid-19. If you are under the age of 40 this risk becomes even smaller, so small that it shouldn’t really be any real concern or affect your life too much. So when the government tell you to ‘Be Alert’, maybe you should be alert to the risks of Covid-19. Children will potentially be returning back to school in the next few weeks because they are in the very lowest of risk categories. The statistics show that those children will be relatively safe and at very little risk. What parents need to be aware of in the coming months is that children shouldn’t be spending time with the elderly. Unfortunately the only way to keep the death rate as low as possible is to keep the over 60s as isolated as possible. Most over 60s are going to be retired and therefore won’t need to return to work. Although they may want their lives to return to normal, they are the ones that need to make the sacrifice and continue their lockdown.

I think this makes a good point re relative risk for each cohort. I think the numbers here are broadly in line with what I’d read and what my expectations are.
The risk for me was never about myself (I was more worried about my daughter even though she’s in a low risk group - that’s just being a parent). The real risk was the transmission to that older cohort. My parents for instance. Everyone will know someone st risk and the fact that so many people can be asymptomatic means that it’s your effect of others that is the most important factor. Who might I be passing it onto who is vulnerable.

 

[Brisan123]

No new cases in 4 days since restrictions have eased here.

When are the first tourists due ??
It will all change then

 

[Jebus_lives]

I think the excess deaths are the best measure of the impact really. There is no massaging of figures. No need to rely on how the deaths are recorded or where they happened.
Effectively, at the end of the year, we need to see how many more people have died than usually would. I think you need a whole year (possibly 2 if I’m honest) as I think this will help with the effect this virus will have in the normal seasonality.
Sorry if this sounds a bit cold. Trying to look at it objectively.

I assume you aren't just saying we wait and see, because realistically not analysing data means you can't make informed decisions about the best course of action. Wait and see might be sensible from a statistical accuracy perspective, but it's not as a response strategy.

 

[BrendanGOT]

 

[PhilM]

It's nice to see a downward trend, yet I know that within sub-regions the deaths per 100,000 are more than double national the regional average, let alone national.

 

[Jebus_lives]

Pillar 1 testing is generally much better at indicating steady progress in reduction of hospital admissions and, as such, deaths.

However, the national trend is somewhat misleading as regional variation can be significant and there is a real possibility that with the new rules metropolitan movement towards tourist spots could see a change in that balance to cause significant problems.

 

[LouReedwalkonthewildside]

NHS England announced 244 new deaths of people who tested positive for Covid-19, bringing the total number of confirmed reported deaths in hospitals in England to 23,952.




Of the new deaths announced today, 40 occurred on May 12, 72 on May 11, and 27 on May 10.


The figures show 62 of the new deaths took place between May 1 and May 9, 42 took place in April, while the remaining one death occurred on March 27.

 

[roydo]

Even after 7 weeks, I still dont really understand how they count them, well, present them.

Still, if a trend is down, thats the main thing. I think.

 

[Barnfred 55]

I think the excess deaths are the best measure of the impact really. There is no massaging of figures. No need to rely on how the deaths are recorded or where they happened.
Effectively, at the end of the year, we need to see how many more people have died than usually would. I think you need a whole year (possibly 2 if I’m honest) as I think this will help with the effect this virus will have in the normal seasonality.
Sorry if this sounds a bit cold. Trying to look at it objectively.

At this stage I think it's very hard to put a number on the people who died of other causes, both in care homes and the community, because they didn't get proper medical attention early enough if at all. Given how quiet the hospitals are in this regard I suspect the figures could be substantial.

I think it would be wrong, at this very early stage, to just assume that all the excess deaths are down to covid. There is of course a valid argument to say these are covid linked in so far as people are avoiding hospitals because of the virus

 

[navidson]

Nearly 500 people died from this yesterday (we know that's not true but that's the way we're publishing it) - 7 weeks after lockdown

Is it safe to say the format of lockdown has been a complete failure?

 

[Nymzee]

Nearly 500 people died from this yesterday (we know that's not true but that's the way we're publishing it) - 7 weeks after lockdown

Is it safe to say the format of lockdown has been a complete failure?

Have you got stats to show what the numbers would have been without lockdown?

 

[mill]

At this stage I think it's very hard to put a number on the people who died of other causes, both in care homes and the community, because they didn't get proper medical attention early enough if at all. Given how quiet the hospitals are in this regard I suspect the figures could be substantial.

I think it would be wrong, at this very early stage, to just assume that all the excess deaths are down to covid. There is of course a valid argument to say these are covid linked in so far as people are avoiding hospitals because of the virus

If you look at historical death rates over the year then you will see that they are very stable. The reason why I suggested using 1 year/2 year periods is that there will be a large number of people who have died from the virus that would have died this year without it but just at a later date.

that’s why I was suggesting looking at it over a longer period. Death rates from other causes is actually fairly confident if you look at the actual stats.

id say annualised excess deaths over the next 2 years or so above and beyond the 10 year average will give you a pretty close to the true impact of the virus. Although this would include collateral effects which could be attributed to the virus too (mental health issues due to lockdown etc).