birch-chorley Posted October 21, 2020 Share Posted October 21, 2020 Interesting piece from Ian King on a potential second Credit Crunch. The markets that went tits up in 2008 are creaking again, this time commercial and office real estate defaults causing the damage Will history repeat itself with another big short collapse, but this time in commercial property? https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/xx-f3hb2vd7n Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Site Supporter Spider Posted October 21, 2020 Site Supporter Share Posted October 21, 2020 Send them to the seaside. Theyre always complaining that is young ‘uns don’t know what sacrifice is, well nows their chance to really show us. All paid for, as much bingo and QC Sherry as they can sink - busty 70’s type barmaids giving handjobs to the single blokes, and naughty window cleaners with a glint in their eye and some bawdy humour for the widows. Meldrew, Mounts etc will have a great time and be happy that the country can crack on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Site Supporter only1swanny Posted October 21, 2020 Site Supporter Share Posted October 21, 2020 1 minute ago, Spider said: Send them to the seaside. Theyre always complaining that is young ‘uns don’t know what sacrifice is, well nows their chance to really show us. All paid for, as much bingo and QC Sherry as they can sink - busty 70’s type barmaids giving handjobs to the single blokes, and naughty window cleaners with a glint in their eye and some bawdy humour for the widows. Meldrew, Mounts etc will have a great time and be happy that the country can crack on. Purge style event, whack it on PPV with funds going to the NHS.. jobs a good-un Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt. Aldo Raine Posted October 21, 2020 Share Posted October 21, 2020 16 minutes ago, Spider said: Send them to the seaside. Theyre always complaining that is young ‘uns don’t know what sacrifice is, well nows their chance to really show us. All paid for, as much bingo and QC Sherry as they can sink - busty 70’s type barmaids giving handjobs to the single blokes, and naughty window cleaners with a glint in their eye and some bawdy humour for the widows. Meldrew, Mounts etc will have a great time and be happy that the country can crack on. I think you were ahead of the game with this as well as the circuit breaker idea, weren't you? They should get you on SAGE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
athywhite1958 Posted October 21, 2020 Share Posted October 21, 2020 Found out today that 3 of my mates have tested positive, it seems to ne spreading more Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaisyHWanderer Posted October 21, 2020 Share Posted October 21, 2020 2 minutes ago, athywhite1958 said: Found out today that 3 of my mates have tested positive, it seems to ne spreading more Not the window cleaners? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
athywhite1958 Posted October 21, 2020 Share Posted October 21, 2020 no mate, a self employed joiner, United Utilities worker and a carer, all the window cleaners will be in the petrol station tomorrow morning about 07.10 queueing for Costa coffee whilst infecting everybody, not one of them will have a mask on Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Zico Posted October 21, 2020 Moderators Share Posted October 21, 2020 2 hours ago, Spider said: In summary Absolutely fucking no one knows what’s best. Not in this country no Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gonzo Posted October 22, 2020 Share Posted October 22, 2020 (edited) 8 hours ago, athywhite1958 said: no mate, a self employed joiner, United Utilities worker and a carer, all the window cleaners will be in the petrol station tomorrow morning about 07.10 queueing for Costa coffee whilst infecting everybody, not one of them will have a mask on We only wear masks when collecting our money .... Edited October 22, 2020 by gonzo Tried to put a picture of dick turpin. Nevermind :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morizio Posted October 22, 2020 Share Posted October 22, 2020 The police are now asking for the COVID tier restrictions to be clearer, standardised and to avoid nuances. I think they’ve got a point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Site Supporter Steejay Posted October 22, 2020 Site Supporter Share Posted October 22, 2020 9 hours ago, Mr Grey said: Exactly, though apparently we already have, next step is the 55 to 65 year old bracket, and that's most of us on here and definitely @Steejay 😁 Lovely to see respect and empathy from the (slightly) younger element. Just wait till Covid 25 hits you all in 10 years time. 😱 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Site Supporter MickyD Posted October 22, 2020 Site Supporter Share Posted October 22, 2020 15 hours ago, Winchester White said: I work from home anyway, can I claim this? Fairly sure the website mentioned that if your work from home is normal or you've been given the option and then volunteered to WFH then you don't qualify. Nice try though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boby Brno Posted October 22, 2020 Share Posted October 22, 2020 6 minutes ago, Steejay said: Lovely to see respect and empathy from the (slightly) younger element. Just wait till Covid 25 hits you all in 10 years time. 😱 Don’t worry mate, it’ll never happen. To be effective it would need to be done world wide. Germany wouldn’t want to be implicated twice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birch-chorley Posted October 22, 2020 Share Posted October 22, 2020 Not sure if this was shared previously..... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-54433305 ‘The average age at death for those who died with Covid-19 in Scotland was 79 for men and 84 for women. Elsewhere in the NRS report it showed that life expectancy in Scotland is 77.1 for males and 81.1 for females.’ This is a huge price to pay to save the life of someone who (on average) is already past their life expectancy! The cost of Covid in year 1 is £400bn (forgetting the cost of the long term economic damage, likely to take us past £1tn) The worst case scenario 500k would have died if we did nothing, 50k have died anyway so far despite the fact we have trashed the economy. Let’s say after all this we have saved 400k lives (which is likely too high once we have accounted for all the extra cancer deaths as nobody has been able to get into hospital) £400bn to save 400k lives = £1m spent per life saved. Given the average age of a Covid death is already above life expectancy is safe to assume that after we have spent a million saving a life they will go on to die within the next year or two anyway. Worst case we had let it go then yes excess deaths in 2020 and 2021 would have likely been 200k higher per annum. However 2022, 2023, 2024 & 2025 would have been much lower than average given the vulnerable group was much smaller, the 5 year average wouldn’t have ended up that far off the norm IMO This is a chronic waste of money if you ask me, we would have been better serviced spending this sort of money elsewhere. It could have re built all our hospitals and given us all a better health service for generations, saving millions of lives over the next 50 years What a waste Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Site Supporter Cheese Posted October 22, 2020 Site Supporter Share Posted October 22, 2020 4 minutes ago, birch-chorley said: Not sure if this was shared previously..... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-54433305 ‘The average age at death for those who died with Covid-19 in Scotland was 79 for men and 84 for women. Elsewhere in the NRS report it showed that life expectancy in Scotland is 77.1 for males and 81.1 for females.’ This is a huge price to pay to save the life of someone who (on average) is already past their life expectancy! The cost of Covid in year 1 is £400bn (forgetting the cost of the long term economic damage, likely to take us past £1tn) The worst case scenario 500k would have died if we did nothing, 50k have died anyway so far despite the fact we have trashed the economy. Let’s say after all this we have saved 400k lives (which is likely too high once we have accounted for all the extra cancer deaths as nobody has been able to get into hospital) £400bn to save 400k lives = £1m spent per life saved. Given the average age of a Covid death is already above life expectancy is safe to assume that after we have spent a million saving a life they will go on to die within the next year or two anyway. Worst case we had let it go then yes excess deaths in 2020 and 2021 would have likely been 200k higher per annum. However 2022, 2023, 2024 & 2025 would have been much lower than average given the vulnerable group was much smaller, the 5 year average wouldn’t have ended up that far off the norm IMO This is a chronic waste of money if you ask me, we would have been better serviced spending this sort of money elsewhere. It could have re built all our hospitals and given us all a better health service for generations, saving millions of lives over the next 50 years What a waste What you're really saying here is - we should give Doctors the power to decide who gets life-saving medical intervention, based on their post-treatment life expectancy and potential economic contribution if they survive. Imagine having to tell someone "It's just not worth saving your life unfortunately. Even if you live for another 10 years, you're just going to be a drain on the economy. It'll be much cheaper in the long run to let you die. Sorry about that". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Site Supporter Spider Posted October 22, 2020 Site Supporter Share Posted October 22, 2020 All my dead relatives would be telling us to crack on for the sake of their grandchildren. Either lock up the oldies or let nature take its course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birch-chorley Posted October 22, 2020 Share Posted October 22, 2020 7 minutes ago, Cheese said: What you're really saying here is - we should give Doctors the power to decide who gets life-saving medical intervention, based on their post-treatment life expectancy and potential economic contribution if they survive. Imagine having to tell someone "It's just not worth saving your life unfortunately. Even if you live for another 10 years, you're just going to be a drain on the economy. It'll be much cheaper in the long run to let you die. Sorry about that". It happens all the time If money was no object then average life expectancy in the U.K. would be even higher, deaths per annum lower However as we have a limited budget we make pragmatic decisions on the most effective way to spend our money £400bn to save 400k people who on average are already beyond life expectancy isn’t a good use of money. It could have saved many more lives spent elsewhere between 2010 and 2020 an additional £20bn (£2bn a year) spent on the NHS would have saved 150k lives, just 1 example Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweep Posted October 22, 2020 Share Posted October 22, 2020 38 minutes ago, birch-chorley said: Not sure if this was shared previously..... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-54433305 ‘The average age at death for those who died with Covid-19 in Scotland was 79 for men and 84 for women. Elsewhere in the NRS report it showed that life expectancy in Scotland is 77.1 for males and 81.1 for females.’ Obviously that's for Scotland, and they run their own affairs.... Do we know what the figures for England are, as they're more relevant to the majority of us I expect. I'm not expecting them to be massively different, but I reckon the life expectancy in England is higher than in Scotchland Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birch-chorley Posted October 22, 2020 Share Posted October 22, 2020 4 minutes ago, Sweep said: Obviously that's for Scotland, and they run their own affairs.... Do we know what the figures for England are, as they're more relevant to the majority of us I expect. I'm not expecting them to be massively different, but I reckon the life expectancy in England is higher than in Scotchland 82.5 vs life expectancy 81.5 Article https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/average-age-of-coronavirus-fatalities-is-82-pcwqrzdzz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boby Brno Posted October 22, 2020 Share Posted October 22, 2020 20 hours ago, Boby Brno said: Czech Republic going into full lockdown tomorrow. As they start their lockdown today, 14,968 cases reported yesterday in a population of just over 10 million. It would equate to around 90,000 if it was the UK. Apart from a curfew on bars etc. they only closed them last week. Our restrictions have been more severe so as a comparison, it could be argued that we are at least keeping the numbers down. We’ll see what affect their lockdown will have in a few weeks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Site Supporter Tonge moor green jacket Posted October 22, 2020 Site Supporter Share Posted October 22, 2020 2 hours ago, Morizio said: The police are now asking for the COVID tier restrictions to be clearer, standardised and to avoid nuances. I think they’ve got a point. At the presentation when the tier system was unveiled, it was explained that in tier 3, local authorities would have more powers to 'manage' the situation locally. On that basis, there are bound to be subtle differences locally. Liverpool has requested their gyms to reopen, which has forced the closure of indoor play areas instead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ani Posted October 22, 2020 Share Posted October 22, 2020 1 hour ago, birch-chorley said: Not sure if this was shared previously..... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-54433305 ‘The average age at death for those who died with Covid-19 in Scotland was 79 for men and 84 for women. Elsewhere in the NRS report it showed that life expectancy in Scotland is 77.1 for males and 81.1 for females.’ This is a huge price to pay to save the life of someone who (on average) is already past their life expectancy! The cost of Covid in year 1 is £400bn (forgetting the cost of the long term economic damage, likely to take us past £1tn) The worst case scenario 500k would have died if we did nothing, 50k have died anyway so far despite the fact we have trashed the economy. Let’s say after all this we have saved 400k lives (which is likely too high once we have accounted for all the extra cancer deaths as nobody has been able to get into hospital) £400bn to save 400k lives = £1m spent per life saved. Given the average age of a Covid death is already above life expectancy is safe to assume that after we have spent a million saving a life they will go on to die within the next year or two anyway. Worst case we had let it go then yes excess deaths in 2020 and 2021 would have likely been 200k higher per annum. However 2022, 2023, 2024 & 2025 would have been much lower than average given the vulnerable group was much smaller, the 5 year average wouldn’t have ended up that far off the norm IMO This is a chronic waste of money if you ask me, we would have been better serviced spending this sort of money elsewhere. It could have re built all our hospitals and given us all a better health service for generations, saving millions of lives over the next 50 years What a waste #all lives matter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweep Posted October 22, 2020 Share Posted October 22, 2020 Whilst I know some of us jest....is anybody really comfortable with the notion that in some instances that "It's not financially prudent to treat you, as you're past average life expectancy already" is something we should be saying to people who are very ill. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boby Brno Posted October 22, 2020 Share Posted October 22, 2020 3 minutes ago, Sweep said: Whilst I know some of us jest....is anybody really comfortable with the notion that in some instances that "It's not financially prudent to treat you, as you're past average life expectancy already" is something we should be saying to people who are very ill. Let’s start at the other end of the scale. If a child is born with serious health issues that will require a life time of support and maybe even a short life expectancy. Does a financially prudent argument come in to it? See Ani’s post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birch-chorley Posted October 22, 2020 Share Posted October 22, 2020 (edited) 24 minutes ago, Sweep said: Whilst I know some of us jest....is anybody really comfortable with the notion that in some instances that "It's not financially prudent to treat you, as you're past average life expectancy already" is something we should be saying to people who are very ill. Surely it happens all the time in the NHS, treatment decided based on chances of survival / age Besides, I’m not saying don’t treat them, we aren’t spending £400bn treating them. We are spending £400bn trashing the economy so we don’t need to treat them If we have £400bn to spend then we could have saved many many more lives than we are doing here. It’s a huge amount of money for the level of risk In year 1 this has already cost 20% of what we spent fighting WW2 over 5 years (as a % of GDP). Given year 2, 3 and 4 are looking particularly bleak we could easily end up spending half of what we did in WW2 Madness Edited October 22, 2020 by birch-chorley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.