How much will this cost me

[Rorschach]

Going back to the original question I am of the view that no one knows but whatever the cost, given we cannot change that C19 has happened, it will be much less than the cost of not having put measures in place

We will be able to make fairly accurate estimations of how much this has cost in the next year or so. At the moment we don't know, but the cost is going to be high for certain.

It is a logical fallacy though to suggest that the cost (economic or death toll) would have been higher had we simply done nothing, or done less.

 

[Rorschach]

Something to bear in mind for those who think the lockdown was essential.

It would appear that approx 1/3rd of the excess deaths each week are not directly C19 related. These can be for a multitude of reasons but it does show that already large numbers of people are dying because of lockdown.

 

[DBT85]

Swmbo can do a certain amount of work from home, but as her work is clerical she needs to be be in the office most of the time. Working from home isn't always very practical - last night the broadband speed was 0.3mbps. Even at 3.00am it was only 7mbps.

This is one of the key points in getting the whole country on fibre to the home. It would drastically improve things like this. It can also only happen with huge govt funding, which this crisis will make flow like wine.

 

[Blackswanwood]

Going back to the original question I am of the view that no one knows but whatever the cost, given we cannot change that C19 has happened, it will be much less than the cost of not having put measures in place

We will be able to make fairly accurate estimations of how much this has cost in the next year or so. At the moment we don't know, but the cost is going to be high for certain.

It is a logical fallacy though to suggest that the cost (economic or death toll) would have been higher had we simply done nothing, or done less.

No it isn't - you just happen to have a different opinion to me and are unable to respect that not everyone shares your view of the world.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Something to bear in mind for those who think the lockdown was essential.
It would appear that approx 1/3rd of the excess deaths each week are not directly C19 related. These can be for a multitude of reasons but it does show that already large numbers of people are dying because of lockdown.

As there are approximately twice the number of usual deaths, half of them are not C19 related. They're dying because their time is up.

 

[Rorschach]

No it isn't - you just happen to have a different opinion to me and are unable to respect that not everyone shares your view of the world.

Wrong again. It will be a fact that either more or less people will have died because of intervention. (Notice I didn't say which would happen, I don't know yet)

My opinion is no more people would have died if I had acted differently. Others have different opinions.
You stated a fact that ore people would have died, you don't know that, I don't know that, the world doesn't know that (yet).

 

[Blackswanwood]

No it isn't - you just happen to have a different opinion to me and are unable to respect that not everyone shares your view of the world.

Wrong again. It will be a fact that either more or less people will have died because of intervention. (Notice I didn't say which would happen, I don't know yet)

My opinion is no more people would have died if I had acted differently. Others have different opinions.
You stated a fact that ore people would have died, you don't know that, I don't know that, the world doesn't know that (yet).

I made no reference to the number of people dying and was clear I was stating my view as opposed to a fact. Not sure which bit of it confused you.

 

[garethharvey]

Swmbo can do a certain amount of work from home, but as her work is clerical she needs to be be in the office most of the time. Working from home isn't always very practical - last night the broadband speed was 0.3mbps. Even at 3.00am it was only 7mbps.

The UK broadband system is useless. This is evident every morning on the news when they try to have a video call with a member of the public. There are developing countries with better infrastructure than us. My business broadband with BT was so useless, I had to buy a lease line as I work from home.

 

[Rorschach]

No it isn't - you just happen to have a different opinion to me and are unable to respect that not everyone shares your view of the world.

Wrong again. It will be a fact that either more or less people will have died because of intervention. (Notice I didn't say which would happen, I don't know yet)

My opinion is no more people would have died if I had acted differently. Others have different opinions.
You stated a fact that ore people would have died, you don't know that, I don't know that, the world doesn't know that (yet).

I made no reference to the number of people dying and was clear I was stating my view as opposed to a fact. Not sure which bit of it confused you.

Ok change deaths to economic costs, it's the same argument (and in some ways the same thing, higher economic cost = more deaths/lower standard of living)

 

[rafezetter]

Something to bear in mind for those who think the lockdown was essential.

It would appear that approx 1/3rd of the excess deaths each week are not directly C19 related. These can be for a multitude of reasons but it does show that already large numbers of people are dying because of lockdown.

That info is no proof of anything unless you've got EXACT INFO of EVERY SINGLE DEATH AND IT'S ROOT CAUSE and most especially not "because of lockdown", people do actually still die, it's just that now people with your viewpoint are suddenly paying attention to them because it fits with your agenda, it was just winter - with all the related deaths from that, then there's all the heart disease, cancer etc etc etc etc etc etc etc.

Yes there have been cases of people having heart attacks and such not going to hospital, but if you think everyone in the UK has suddenly become "selfless, self sacrificing people" recent evidence in the shops PROVES otherwise - those deaths that might have been prevented had medical help been available are in the minority - because those people who might do that are in the minority. I think the truth is most people are still seeking medical help for medical stuff, ESPECIALLY the life important stuff, because most people have the desire to stay alive - but of course that whole situation doesn't fit with your narrative so you've conveniently editied it out and replaced it with sensationalist - "seee? I told you the lockdown was a bad idea - people are allowing themselves to die, coz lockdown, instead of going to hospital to get life saving treatment! See, see, I told you so!"

Ridiculous. Utter pappekak - to use the dutch original.

If this is how the general population behaves WITH A LOCKDOWN - what do you think the situation would have been without it? I'd love to know which parallel world you are getting this information from how, where all the people actually did thier civic duty like they are required to and stayed indoors except for ESSENTIALS like food, or buying gas electric (for those of us with a keymeter) - excluding the key workers obviously.

I posted about that "yoof" I saw buying that ONE can of energy drink - no mask, no gloves - if he is doing it - others are too and all it takes is JUST ONE infected person to start it all again, or do you dispute that as well?

I'd wager EVERY YEAR there are people who die because of the very English "it's nothing, it's nothing" and "oh I didn't want to bother them" mentality that many of the older generation have.

You just didn't pay any attention to those poor souls, because you didn't have an agenda then.

I truly makes me nauseous how all of these "extra" deaths has suddenly become "news" and grabbed by the "we want the lockdown lifted, coz we are losing money" brigade as "proof" that the lockdown was ineffective and actually harmful.

but yeah - lets forget about the "stay at home save the health services of the world [from being swamped]" message. Unless you or ANY of those from that brigade can show me that you are on your uppers, house has been sold and downsized to a caravan to release vital life saving capital, all savings gone and are now about to sell the caravan and become homeless on the streets with your family then yeah - most of what you, and those with the same viewpoint, are saying about how the lockdown wasn't essential has a very hollow ring to it.

I'm still waiting to hear what community vital business you are in that requires the lockdown being eased or lifted. You are LOUDLY silent on that point still. So I'll make my own guess - you are a trader (NOT tradesman like Dr Bob) of some sort and are losing profits like the rest of us. We are just dealing with it in a less "needy" manner.

This isn't personal to you Rorschach, my problem is with anyone who thinks the lockdown was "not essential" for the UK - because clearly they haven't been paying proper attention to the news in the UK or the rest of the world.

Yes Sweden had a more lenient lockdown, but that was because thier population didn't all take the mickey and treat it as an opportunity for a "grand day out" someplace, along with millions of others.

You've conveniently forgotten that the lockdown was BECAUSE OF THE BEHAVIOUR OF THE POPULATION - not mandated by an overly controlling govt in spite of most people adhereing to it.

There are still people going out DAILY for shopping instead of buying for a week or two. The roads around Bristol still have a LOT of traffic on them as I live very close to a high traffic area - normally gridlocked in rush hour - when I go shopping I'm looking and thinking what the HELL are all these people doing / going, and that's NOT during previous rush hour times - middle of the day - loads of cars - mid morning - loads of cars..... but the carparks of the 3 local supermarkets - mostly empty - so WHERE are they going?

Clearly wherever you live Rorschach you aren't seeing this - or you just don't want to acknowldge it's STILL happening DESPITE the lockdown.

The old adage of "give them an inch" has been proven to be absolutely true about a disturbingly large number of the general UK population - and India if a housemates information is to be believed. While there are countries with a portion of the population still being reckless about self isolating and social distancing, then this situation won't change and the risk remains of a second wave. I can envison that India might end up as a "no fly" country for many more months than other countries.

You just have to suck it up like the rest of us and the more you keep going on an on about how it wasn't necessary shows which side of the fence you are one and for my opinion of you, it's profit, not people.

Money can be replaced, and our national support systems like benefits is enough to ensure no-one dies from neglect or lack of availability and access to the basic things of life of food, water and a roof. Everything else is a LUXURY we are NOT ENTITLED TO.

Your viewpoint (and those like you, like that wetherspoons guy) when taken in the context of people in Africa and India is frankly in incredibly poor taste. "waaa I might have to stop paying for internet BB and netflix services and wine and other luxuries I don't need because money is tight".

A "first world problem" if ever I saw one.

You are not broke, clearly, you have means and assets you could dipose of before you are down to your last pennies and slice of bread (a place I have been to) - and the UK govt as I said has things in place to help prevent starvation in that event that anyway.

These are hard times sure - but you'll just have to suck it up - like the rest of us.

 

[doctor Bob]

but yeah - lets forget about the "stay at home save the health services of the world [from being swamped]" message. Unless you or ANY of those from that brigade can show me that you are on your uppers, house has been sold and downsized to a caravan to release vital life saving capital, all savings gone and are now about to sell the caravan and become homeless on the streets with your family then yeah - most of what you, and those with the same viewpoint, are saying about how the lockdown wasn't essential has a very hollow ring to it.

Trust me I'm not in that brigade but in about a year or two, plenty will forfill your criteria above. The economic impact of this will be mind blowing.

 

[Trainee neophyte]

I've been trying to keep away from these discussions, because they just go in circles. However...

There were options that the government (all governments) had to consider - and all decisions lead to consequences. The full lockdown, switch off the economy choice has benefited a certain sector of the community, at the expense of virtually everyone. It could be argued that the depression was coming anyway (I would fall strongly in that camp), but it will be even worse because of what has been done to protect the eldely and infirm. If you are elderly and/or infirm, you are probably delighted at the actions of the government, and have strong views about anyone who doesn't follow strict orders (or buys evil energy drinks - what was the ***** thinking!!?).

However, if you are young, and about to enter the workplace and find your place in the world, you have just had your entire future crippled for the benefit of a small group of people who couldn't be further removed from your world. The oldies had already rigged the system to ensure house ownership, sensible employment, debt-free education etc were all a distant memory of an older generation and almost impossible to aim for as a youngster, and now to rub salt into the wounds, life will be even harder, for even longer. Perhaps even impossible, for the majority. The days of the middle class might be over.

Perhaps a thank you may be in order. "Never before in the history of Britain, has so much been owed by so few, to so many".

Another way of putting it is we have, collectively, destroyed our children's futures so their grandparents can live instead. An interesting, and biologically improbable, choice.

 

[Rorschach]

Another way of putting it is we have, collectively, destroyed our children's futures so their grandparents can live instead. An interesting, and biologically improbable, choice.

A (probably now shortened) lifetime of hardship for young people in exchange for a couple of years (maybe) for the most elderly who were already sick with underlying health conditions.

Those who say that we can cope with this or have that the government will provide the money to those who lost their jobs or business clearly have no idea that governments have no money, it all comes from the tax payer. If business fail and people lose jobs there is no money to pay for benefits, NHS etc.

 

[Chris152]

Cherpy start to the day!

Another way of putting it is we have, collectively, destroyed our children's futures so their grandparents can live instead.

Is that what's happening, though? As far as I can see the most elderly have been told to stay in their homes and where they're in care homes, there's a terrible rate of mortality unfolding.

That said, the economic impact of all this seems to go waaay over my head. I've been assuming/ hoping that development of a vaccine/ therapeutic drugs/ learning from other countries' return to work would mean things get back on some kind of track within the next 12 months. Clearly, irreparable damage will be done to many businesses in that time, but others - certainly the essential ones - would survive one way or another. And with time, businesses that had gone under would be replaced, tho not to the same level on account of profound recession and return to harsh austerity.

I'm assuming my relative optimism comes from ignorance of how the economy works, that the functioning of the global economy undermines my simple understanding - can anyone spell out for me in really, really simple terms where the danger comes from? Maybe it's not possible and you could recommend some reading? Thanks.
[eta - is it as simple as: govt borrows loads to help us through crisis; economy's nose-dived so too little tax paid to pay back money borrowed; nearly everyone's poorer and far less opportunity?]

ps - Clinging on to possible positive outcomes, I do think that much of how we live our lives in 'the West' is ultimately self-destructive - I'm thinking of work patterns, increases in serious physical and mental illnesses that result from an excessive lifestyle, pollution and its consequences (you know the lists) - and a decrease in many of those things could be a positive for young people? In the words of Nietzsche, 'Praised be a moderate poverty'. :?

 

[craigs]

I'm with Chris, I'm sure there will be a bumpy ride, but ultimately i think we will comes out ok. It seems the government of the day are doing the best they can with the cards dealt and there seems to be a focus on getting the economy to bounce back as quickly as possible (could be wishful thinking). If i didn't think that then i wouldn't have just exchanged contracts on a house, and let me tell you trying to release the deposit which happens to be all our savings from my wifes clutches was like wrestling a mobile phone from an angry mob of "like-hungry" instagrama's.

Was it a stupid idea, maybe. but i'm not planning to sell anytime soon and as long as the storm can be weathered, at least i can pass something down (hopefully).

I find it interesting, and that could be that i'm an older person in slightly-less-old-more-fat body that younger people (not everyone admittedly) just blame older generations for their failings/future without learning anything that the older generations try to teach them. why is this? nihilism? narcissism? reliance on attention on social media?

in essence, i hope all is well and we all learn to be better people.

oh sorry my tangent took a tangent....ill get my coat.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

The economy is 70% a confidence trick.

30% is around that which is required to keep us fed, housed, clothed, watered etc. If these decline, for whatever reason, then physical comfort and well being is directly impacted.

About 80% of GDP is services. Some of these are very important to physical well being. The rest (say 60-70%) are discretionary not essential. We are encouraged to value them in large part through advertising and social conditioning.

Entertainment, tourism, pubs, restaurants, gardeners, hairdressers, etc are all discretionary - if you want them and have the income, buy it. If you like movies, subscribe to Netfix, if you are not bothered ............

If I pay someone to cut my lawn, and they pay me to cut their hair, this is an economic transaction and part of the gross domestic product. If I cut my own grass ..... the economic transaction disappears without loss to either of us. If I entertain at home GDP is reduced compared to having eaten in a restaurant, but my enjoyment of the meal and company may be greater.

The fall out from the virus will affect behaviours - some we can anticipate, but others we can't. But to me it seems likely that (a) the opportunity to spend money will be limited for some while, and (b) many people will realise the benefits of having their own financial safety net and save more.

In summary I think we need to question whether traditional measures of economic performance will actually reflect future personal aspirations. The value of family, friends, society, hobbies, sport may rise. The desire for material wealth as a visible measure of personal economic success may decline.

 

[Rorschach]

You make a lot of good points there Terry.

I would add though, while a lot of these industries might be discretionary or "luxury", their existence not only adds a lot to social well being for (some) people but they also employ people and create tax revenue that pays for those essential services that we all need.

Using your example of cutting your own lawn is a good one but I would say it is a little more complicated than that. Changing the example to one that works for this forum. Lets say many members here do not go out for entertainment, pay for movies or buy mass produced furniture. Instead they spend their leisure time making things in their sheds. That is not a loss or zero gain to the economy because they are not spending on those luxury goods. Instead they are buying materials, tools, new or secondhand. Keeping companies like Axminster in business relies heavily, maybe almost entirely on hobbyists. Everyone contributes in their own way, one persons essential is another persons luxury and vice versa.

And to go back to Chris152's point, I am afraid if you think businesses can last 12 months before getting back to normal then please just look at how many business have failed in the last 6 weeks, and those are just the ones who made the news. Our local pub (independent not chain) and a friends pub are both now looking at ways to liquidate the business, they are too small to allow social distancing if they were to re-open and the last 6 weeks have wiped out any buffer they might have had. A lot of small businesses probably have about a month,maybe 2 of buffer built in that would allow them to weather tough times. Government grants might have helped a bit but for many they are just not going to be able to re-open even if it was all lifted tomorrow. Even for big businesses it will tough and their workers, what are 4000 BA pilots going to do? Tesco deliveries?

 

[cookiemonster]

Trying to paint this current crisis as some kind of inter-generational problem is tempting (every generation blames the one before, as someone once sang), but as ever reality is way more complicated. True, all other things being equal, the elderly are more vulnerable to Covid19 than youngsters, but all other things could hardly be less equal. What about the role played by underlying health conditions, occupation, gender, ethnicity, etc. etc? As Gandhi once said (or perhaps did not say, but the point still stands), “The measure of a civilization is how it treats its weakest members.”

 

[RobinBHM]

The scary thing is that (if true) 16 million people only have £100 or less in their bank account / available savings.
That is an awful lot of people just 1 weeks wage away from debt.
my guess an awful lots of people are in the gooey stuff financially right now.

 

[Chris152]

And to go back to Chris152's point, I am afraid if you think businesses can last 12 months before getting back to normal then please just look at how many business have failed in the last 6 weeks

Clearly, irreparable damage will be done to many businesses in that time, but others - certainly the essential ones - would survive one way or another. And with time, businesses that had gone under would be replaced, tho not to the same level on account of profound recession and return to harsh austerity.

I can only imagine that many pubs and restaurants will more or less disappear in the short term, at least.