Body & Soul0 min ago
Economy Takes A Big Hit
19 Answers
US economy -32.9 % and Germany over 10% for Q2, biggest fall since records began.
These are now bound to have a knock on effect to peoples health and well being.
Have we cut off our legs to cure an ingrowing toenail?
These are now bound to have a knock on effect to peoples health and well being.
Have we cut off our legs to cure an ingrowing toenail?
Answers
1 to 19 of 19
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by youngmafbog. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
"Don't understand why when you are quoting foreign economies."
Because foreign economies have a direct affect on our. Sorry I thought everyone was aware of that.
"If you think we'll fare any better you're very much mistaken."
I dont, see above. I would have thought you would have known that.
By "Economy takes a hit" I mean the Wests economy. You know - where we live and trade.
Because foreign economies have a direct affect on our. Sorry I thought everyone was aware of that.
"If you think we'll fare any better you're very much mistaken."
I dont, see above. I would have thought you would have known that.
By "Economy takes a hit" I mean the Wests economy. You know - where we live and trade.
There is also Sunack’s magic money tree, which will burden us with a £350 Billion debt for years. And the pain of paying it back. We were hampered by austerity for a decade, the affect of this could last twice as long.
And when the unemployment figure rockets, it will be hard for businesses to bounce back.
And when the unemployment figure rockets, it will be hard for businesses to bounce back.
//Have we cut off our legs to cure an ingrowing toenail?//
An excellent analogy, youngmaf, and one which I have been promoting since about mid-April. When the strategy to cope with the virus was devised there were three options involving a lockdown:
1. Have no lockdown at all.
2. Have one which endured until the virus was either eradicated or until everybody had received an effective vaccine.
3. Have one which lasted until the NHS had got its act together and was no longer in danger of being overwhelmed.
Option 1 was politically unacceptable after Prof. Fergusson's team had forecast 500,000 deaths and Option 2 would have meant closing the economy down for at least a year and probably far longer than that. So the government chose option 3. And that's where it began to go disastrously wrong. The lockdown lost its way. It was endured for about two months longer than necessary. By mid to late April it was quite clear the NHS would not be overwhelmed. Whether that was achieved as a result of the lockdown or it was never likely in view of Prof. Fergusson's dubious record in forecasting such events doesn't matter. By the end of April it should have been lifted and it wasn't.
The government now believes that spread can be contained by social distancing and other measures. If that's the case that strategy should have been adopted in March and it certainly should have been adopted before mid-June following the "saving" of the NHS. The damage done to this country by the lockdown, the furlough scheme and the closure of schools will prove to be immeasurable. But the UK economy will suffer as a result for decades to come.
An excellent analogy, youngmaf, and one which I have been promoting since about mid-April. When the strategy to cope with the virus was devised there were three options involving a lockdown:
1. Have no lockdown at all.
2. Have one which endured until the virus was either eradicated or until everybody had received an effective vaccine.
3. Have one which lasted until the NHS had got its act together and was no longer in danger of being overwhelmed.
Option 1 was politically unacceptable after Prof. Fergusson's team had forecast 500,000 deaths and Option 2 would have meant closing the economy down for at least a year and probably far longer than that. So the government chose option 3. And that's where it began to go disastrously wrong. The lockdown lost its way. It was endured for about two months longer than necessary. By mid to late April it was quite clear the NHS would not be overwhelmed. Whether that was achieved as a result of the lockdown or it was never likely in view of Prof. Fergusson's dubious record in forecasting such events doesn't matter. By the end of April it should have been lifted and it wasn't.
The government now believes that spread can be contained by social distancing and other measures. If that's the case that strategy should have been adopted in March and it certainly should have been adopted before mid-June following the "saving" of the NHS. The damage done to this country by the lockdown, the furlough scheme and the closure of schools will prove to be immeasurable. But the UK economy will suffer as a result for decades to come.
I forecast this in a post a few months ago.
What we are witnessing, is the beginning of the total breakdown of society.
The funny thing is that so many people really believe that it can be managed, even badly, and somehow we will muddle through it all.
So many people are tut tutting because their comfortable lives are, at !east for the present, being mildly inconvenienced.
No, you ain't seen nothing yet.
The list of disasters awaiting us is endless, a perfect storm of chaos and misery.
The first dominos have fallen, and more, many more will fall.
Where will you find hope and comfort?
Well certainly not in any political party, that's for sure.
Until next time, keep well.
What we are witnessing, is the beginning of the total breakdown of society.
The funny thing is that so many people really believe that it can be managed, even badly, and somehow we will muddle through it all.
So many people are tut tutting because their comfortable lives are, at !east for the present, being mildly inconvenienced.
No, you ain't seen nothing yet.
The list of disasters awaiting us is endless, a perfect storm of chaos and misery.
The first dominos have fallen, and more, many more will fall.
Where will you find hope and comfort?
Well certainly not in any political party, that's for sure.
Until next time, keep well.
"When the strategy to cope with the virus was devised there were three options involving a lockdown: ................. "
Do you have inside knowledge NJ ?
"The lockdown lost its way." - no, it just never followed your narrow parameters.
I thought the lockdown was about saving lives and hope the phased de-cuffing is also about savings lives.
Sunak’s magic money tree Gromit is an artificial tree ( like a reusable Xmas tree) and the money it produces is artificial, like the baubles on a tinsel Xmas tree. It has no roots so can be put away and brought out as necessary.
But it is not the end of the world, but maybe peoples' expectations will have to be adjusted.
Do you have inside knowledge NJ ?
"The lockdown lost its way." - no, it just never followed your narrow parameters.
I thought the lockdown was about saving lives and hope the phased de-cuffing is also about savings lives.
Sunak’s magic money tree Gromit is an artificial tree ( like a reusable Xmas tree) and the money it produces is artificial, like the baubles on a tinsel Xmas tree. It has no roots so can be put away and brought out as necessary.
But it is not the end of the world, but maybe peoples' expectations will have to be adjusted.
//Do you have inside knowledge NJ ?//
No. Perhaps you could explain what other options there were.
//I thought the lockdown was about saving lives and hope the phased de-cuffing is also about savings lives.//
If that was the case it should still be in place. By putting the lockdown in place and then releasing it all it did was to delay the spread. The end result will be the same, only spread over a far longer period with the concomitant increase in economic damage. The original plan was to allow the virus to spread to achieve "herd immunity". That went out the window when Prof. Fergusson's forecast was published. The government panicked and introduced the lockdown with the stated aim of protecting the NHS (remember: "Stay at home; Save Lives; Protect the NHS"). It was to prevent the NHS being overwhelmed. Well it wasn't - it never even came close. And the lockdown was released too late.
No. Perhaps you could explain what other options there were.
//I thought the lockdown was about saving lives and hope the phased de-cuffing is also about savings lives.//
If that was the case it should still be in place. By putting the lockdown in place and then releasing it all it did was to delay the spread. The end result will be the same, only spread over a far longer period with the concomitant increase in economic damage. The original plan was to allow the virus to spread to achieve "herd immunity". That went out the window when Prof. Fergusson's forecast was published. The government panicked and introduced the lockdown with the stated aim of protecting the NHS (remember: "Stay at home; Save Lives; Protect the NHS"). It was to prevent the NHS being overwhelmed. Well it wasn't - it never even came close. And the lockdown was released too late.
Since returning to work some 7 weeks ago I have witnessed, first hand, the devastation (not a word I use without aforethought) which industry and commerce are suffering. We haven’t seen anything like the worst of redundancies and economic hardship which the world will see in the coming months.
God, I sound like Theland ;-)
God, I sound like Theland ;-)
"Perhaps you could explain what other options there were."
I cannot itemise a potentially unlimited amount of variations 'lockdown' could encompass.
"The end result will be the same,"
You don't know that, no-one knows exactly how future will unfold NJ, you seen stuck in the confines of your own constructed boundaries.
Preventing the NHS being overwhelmed was one means to the end objective of saving lives.
I cannot itemise a potentially unlimited amount of variations 'lockdown' could encompass.
"The end result will be the same,"
You don't know that, no-one knows exactly how future will unfold NJ, you seen stuck in the confines of your own constructed boundaries.
Preventing the NHS being overwhelmed was one means to the end objective of saving lives.
//I cannot itemise a potentially unlimited amount of variations 'lockdown' could encompass.//
They are not potentially unlimited. The three I mention are the only three which make any rational sense. Doing anything else simply shifts or spreads the outcome; it doesn't alter it. And that's exactly what we've done. As has been noted infections are again on the rise. They will continue to do so unless stricter measures are re-imposed or until the virus mutates or disappears. And all the time those measures are in place the economy suffers continuing damage. .
They are not potentially unlimited. The three I mention are the only three which make any rational sense. Doing anything else simply shifts or spreads the outcome; it doesn't alter it. And that's exactly what we've done. As has been noted infections are again on the rise. They will continue to do so unless stricter measures are re-imposed or until the virus mutates or disappears. And all the time those measures are in place the economy suffers continuing damage. .
Sorry to hear that Tony, I am in the same boat although lucky enough to be able to support myself without Government help.
Many wont be and with all the money spent on the ridiculous furlough scheme it is a real worry that those in need will suffer the brunt.
From the outset I have always maintained isolate the vulnerable and let the rest continue. Still we are where we are.
Unfortunately Boris and Hancock now seem to have changed tack. Its no longer save the NHS but how many ridiculous controls they can get away with. Hancock is clearly a control freak as is Whitey. Boris just doesnt seem to be with us anymore. All should go now.
Many wont be and with all the money spent on the ridiculous furlough scheme it is a real worry that those in need will suffer the brunt.
From the outset I have always maintained isolate the vulnerable and let the rest continue. Still we are where we are.
Unfortunately Boris and Hancock now seem to have changed tack. Its no longer save the NHS but how many ridiculous controls they can get away with. Hancock is clearly a control freak as is Whitey. Boris just doesnt seem to be with us anymore. All should go now.
1 to 19 of 19
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.