And broke the guidelines himself...
Current Affairs Coronavirus Thread - Serious stuff !!!
- Thread starter bullybeef
- Start date
- Status
And broke the guidelines himself...
What does it tell you when applied to the current circumstances?
Well yes, but that is entirely separate from his modelling..
Campaign #anyonebutBoris lives on.
NilSatisOptimum
Player Valuation: £70m
You've got to give little Tories some tiny weeny deflection, its hard out there at the moment it was supposed to be oh so different...
summerisle
The rain, it raineth every day
Remember when there was no money ?
We're all wearing masks, yet cases are still rising. Why weren't we told to wear masks in March? I'm not saying people can't wear them before that, but there was no ruling on it. All wishy washy.
Pulling some arbitrary number (six) out of their a**** doesn't seem scientific to me. And neither does a 10pm curfew over an 11pm last orders.
They've done some things right. The furlough scheme was well rolled out and, in the main, the SEISS one was too, albeit glaring holes.
But they've had five-six months to get properly organised for a second wave they knew would come, and they haven't done it. And their track and trace system is horrifically bad and, again, illogical.
I'm working in an office Monday and Tuesday. If one of the people I'm spending 8 hours a day with tests positive, I'll be told to carry on as normal, unless I get a text from track and trace which can take up to 9-10 days (though I would go get a test in that case to be sure).
If my housemate who I see maybe 3/4 times a week for 20/30 minutes at a time atm as we're working different hours around the clock, tests positive, then I have to isolate for 2 weeks regardless of whether I show symptoms.
There's glaring holes in the system and the way they're doing things, yet their answer has just been to lockdown entire regions or, doing even more damage, telling places to stay open but then insisting basically nobody can actually go to them anyway.
summerisle
The rain, it raineth every day
He predicted 250k to 500k without serious restrictions. Pretty basic maths - 70% infected needed to reach herd immunity (if possible) * 68 million population * 0.5% to 1% case fatality rate.
What bit of that is wrong?
The economy was stuffed by Covid. Resolve this and the economy is less affected. See South Korea (and others) to see this in action.
davek
Player Valuation: £150m
Interesting take in the New Statesman on the reason for leaving wriggle room on pubs adapting from 'wet' pubs to one's selling at least some food and the reason for not locking restaurants down. As you might guess, it's financial condsiderations over health considerations at the heart of it...
Everybody has missed one loophole in the new lockdown rules
By giving businesses room to stay open, the government is giving itself room over how few businesses to support.
Stephen Bush
The government is divided: between ministers who want to go into a lockdown, and between ministers who want to bring the United Kingdom’s generous coronavirus subsidies to an end.
Because Boris Johnson has not chosen between those two schools of thought but has instead opted for a middle path, the UK’s current policy mix actively discincentivises businesses seeking to transition to operating in a covid-secure way – because it is only businesses who are forcibly shut down by the government that are eligible for the next round of wage and operating subsidy. Businesses who are trading will be able to use the new job support scheme, but its design makes it more expensive for businesses than simply cutting jobs and hours. The transformational policy levers are only available to your business if you are shut down.
That’s the lens, too, to understand the prohibitions placed on businesses under England’s new three-tier system. Bars, pubs and restaurants in “medium” or “tier one” areas – that is, the default setting – have to shut at 10pm and cannot accept parties greater than six. The same establishments in “high” or “tier two” areas face the same restrictions and, in addition, a ban on mixing between households.
But it is only pubs and bars in “very high” or “tier three” areas that will actually be forced to close – and even then, not if they serve a “substantial” main course. Restaurants will be able to remain open – and will, therefore, not be eligible for financial support.
A lot of the commentary around this has focused on how silly it is – on the fact that many pubs can escape the instruction to shut by increasing the amount of food they offer, and that people will be ordering “meals” consisting of the soup of the day, eight tequila shots and a pint of lager. This is good fun and I’ve done it myself, but it’s not quite accurate: in practice this is not an attractive future for most "wet" (that is, booze-only) pubs.
Firstly, someone who has had a square meal and a drink is more likely to observe social distancing when they leave the pub than someone who has just had a drink. It really doesn’t matter how many drinks those two otherwise identical customers have had: the one who has had a meal is less of a disease vector than the one who hasn’t. But secondly, and perhaps more importantly: the immediate effect of these loopholes is to sharply reduce the number of businesses which are eligible to seek government support.
A pub, bar or restaurant that has been deprived of its post-10pm trade is already under severe financial pressure. One that has been deprived of any custom that comes from mixing between households – from dates between new couples, catch-ups between friends, and so on – is under yet greater pressure. Frankly, anyhospitality business that does a significant Christmas party trade is heading for a very painful winter – yet they will receive no additional financial support unless they are a very narrowly defined group of bars and pubs in tier-three areas.
These loopholes aren’t silly, or ill-thought-through: they are masterful examples of a Chancellor and a Treasury that might have lost the policy argument internally but that are finding ways to get their way at the implementation stage nonetheless: by sharply reducing the amount they have to spend in subsidy to businesses and to households even while superficially caving to internal and external political pressure.
www.newstatesman.com
Everybody has missed one loophole in the new lockdown rules
By giving businesses room to stay open, the government is giving itself room over how few businesses to support.
Stephen Bush
The government is divided: between ministers who want to go into a lockdown, and between ministers who want to bring the United Kingdom’s generous coronavirus subsidies to an end.
Because Boris Johnson has not chosen between those two schools of thought but has instead opted for a middle path, the UK’s current policy mix actively discincentivises businesses seeking to transition to operating in a covid-secure way – because it is only businesses who are forcibly shut down by the government that are eligible for the next round of wage and operating subsidy. Businesses who are trading will be able to use the new job support scheme, but its design makes it more expensive for businesses than simply cutting jobs and hours. The transformational policy levers are only available to your business if you are shut down.
That’s the lens, too, to understand the prohibitions placed on businesses under England’s new three-tier system. Bars, pubs and restaurants in “medium” or “tier one” areas – that is, the default setting – have to shut at 10pm and cannot accept parties greater than six. The same establishments in “high” or “tier two” areas face the same restrictions and, in addition, a ban on mixing between households.
But it is only pubs and bars in “very high” or “tier three” areas that will actually be forced to close – and even then, not if they serve a “substantial” main course. Restaurants will be able to remain open – and will, therefore, not be eligible for financial support.
A lot of the commentary around this has focused on how silly it is – on the fact that many pubs can escape the instruction to shut by increasing the amount of food they offer, and that people will be ordering “meals” consisting of the soup of the day, eight tequila shots and a pint of lager. This is good fun and I’ve done it myself, but it’s not quite accurate: in practice this is not an attractive future for most "wet" (that is, booze-only) pubs.
Firstly, someone who has had a square meal and a drink is more likely to observe social distancing when they leave the pub than someone who has just had a drink. It really doesn’t matter how many drinks those two otherwise identical customers have had: the one who has had a meal is less of a disease vector than the one who hasn’t. But secondly, and perhaps more importantly: the immediate effect of these loopholes is to sharply reduce the number of businesses which are eligible to seek government support.
A pub, bar or restaurant that has been deprived of its post-10pm trade is already under severe financial pressure. One that has been deprived of any custom that comes from mixing between households – from dates between new couples, catch-ups between friends, and so on – is under yet greater pressure. Frankly, anyhospitality business that does a significant Christmas party trade is heading for a very painful winter – yet they will receive no additional financial support unless they are a very narrowly defined group of bars and pubs in tier-three areas.
These loopholes aren’t silly, or ill-thought-through: they are masterful examples of a Chancellor and a Treasury that might have lost the policy argument internally but that are finding ways to get their way at the implementation stage nonetheless: by sharply reducing the amount they have to spend in subsidy to businesses and to households even while superficially caving to internal and external political pressure.
Everybody has missed one loophole in the new lockdown rules
By giving businesses room to stay open, the government is giving itself room over how few businesses to support.
www.newstatesman.com
Further research on the ability of children to spread infection from nursery/school settings.
davek
Player Valuation: £150m
- Status