Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » CO-19: It won’t be long before the global total tops the milli

245

Comments

  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483
    Not dissimilar arguments to here

    President of the Generalitat, Quim Torra, has expressed his satisfaction at the announcement by the Prime Minister to stop all non-essential activities since Monday. In a brief appearance from the Casa dels Canonges, where he remains confined after testing positive, Torra considered that this is "good news in the fight we have against the pandemic."
    21:29 The leader of Ciudadanos, Inés Arrimadas, has urged the Government not to create "more uncertainty" in society and that it should be "clearer" about its decisions. For Arrimadas the important thing would have been to "give tranquility" to freelancers and companies, something that Sánchez "has not done today".
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,165

    rcs1000 said:

    tlg86 said:

    People have an emotional attachment to football clubs that they don’t have to airlines. Letting Virgin Atlantic go bust would disappoint a few. Letting Everton go bust would devastate tens of thousands.

    But it isn't Everton that would go bust - it's those unfortunate enough to own the club when the music stopped.
    Spot on.

    Rangers went bust.

    Rangers still exists.

    That is a controversial assertion in Scottish football.
    Perhaps - and the road back to the top for Everton reincarnated would be harder than it was for Rangers - but for Everton fans it would still be their club.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774

    rcs1000 said:

    tlg86 said:

    People have an emotional attachment to football clubs that they don’t have to airlines. Letting Virgin Atlantic go bust would disappoint a few. Letting Everton go bust would devastate tens of thousands.

    But it isn't Everton that would go bust - it's those unfortunate enough to own the club when the music stopped.
    Spot on.

    Rangers went bust.

    Rangers still exists.

    The whole point about being a shareholder, is that you're first against the wall. That's the deal implicit in capitalism. You get the spoils, but there has to be an element of risk.

    I feel a lot happier about bailing out workers than I do about bailing out Richard Branson or the Glazers.
    Generally the shareholders take the losses when their failures caused the losses. Not when they're shut down by the government. If the shareholders go bust due to government actions then it puts a perverse incentive to the shareholders to frustrate or seek to circumvent the government actions - is that what we want to encourage?
    I want to discourage firms from taking on massive amounts of debt.

    I want to encourage them to take out sensible insurance policies.

    I want them to concentrate on being antifragile.

    I am all in favour of the government helping people in this difficult time. And I think allowing firms to defer PAYE payments for a few months is good. Likewise, the government stepping in for furloughed workers.

    All these are good.

    What we should not be doing is encouraging people and firms to take on massive amounts of debt, safe in the knowledge that the government will bail them out.
  • tyson said:

    stodge said:


    If we can't guarantee next season can take place uninterrupted then it'd be absurd to void this season. Just continue this season next season. Better one two-year season than no seasons for two years.

    Other sports face similar problems - rugby union, horse racing as well.

    The PL and Championship have nine rounds of matches outstanding which wouldn't be too bad - four weeks of two games a week plus one final round so achievable.

    The problem is you also have three rounds of FA Cup and European matches to complete.

    We're looking at six weeks of 2-3 games per week for some teams and 1-2 for others so start mid May end late June and start the new season without a break. It might be achievable, it might not.

    Matches played behind closed doors under tight security to begin with perhaps with relaxation later on.

    For horse racing the flat season will need to be re-considered. The Guineas looks doubtful (early May) but the Derby and Ascot (which are as much social as sporting occasions and therefore staging them without spectators seems impractical) are June.

    Oddly enough, the large events in each sport look more vulnerable than the day-to-day. Horse racing re-commencing at smaller fixtures behind closed doors in early May looks feasible subject to medical cover so a midweek Lingfield card would be a better option than Chester or the Dante meeting at York?

    No reason FA Cup couldnt be finished next season with a December final with the 2020-21 League cup cancelled. Champs League its realistically just Man City and they can play their first team in that and reserves in Prem games and still finish second. Europa League prem teams have played their reserves in more often than not anyway. Get it done.

    I really am of the opinion football as we know it may not survive covid 19

    Already the broadcasters are seeing a collapse in their sports income and this can only get worse as we emerge into an economic disaster with lost jobs, businesses and confidence

    At the end of June the broadcasters are likely to be locked in a huge legal fight with the football authorities. Clubs will see a collapse in season ticket sales and income from broadcasting

    Players will be seeing large reductions in wages and transfer, as clubs see revenue drop from season ticket sales, broadcast income, and sponsorship

    I see no pathway to football starting before late august but the chaos amongst clubs, players and supporters is going to be catastrophic. Indeed how many clubs will have players fit enough to play at the highest level and indeed how many will still be at the clubs they are today

    I love football, but I believe everyone needs to accept it cannot be the same and even thinking about it is absurd in the context of the people's priorities, and the nations, post covid 19
    I had an overwhelming sense of nostalgia today for football....but you are right
    And it pains me Tyson, but football with it's billions and overpaid individuals do not matter in the overall scheme of things. It is those bereaved, lost jobs and businesses, and no doubt many lost relationships that have to be the nations first priority

  • ABZABZ Posts: 441
    felix said:

    The news from Spain tonight is awful. The extension of the shutdown to now cover all non-essential work is pretty much the last throw of the dice. There is not much else they can do now if this doesn't work. Extraordinary how quickly it has come to this.

    I don't think it's quite so bleak! Italy actually did something similar two weeks into their lockdown as well if I recall correctly (@tyson is that correct?). It's more to cut down rates even more I think (Spanish friends say it was just poorly defined what was essential previously, so this gives greater clarity). Keep faith - we will, as a society, get this under control and lockdowns do work!!
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,069

    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    The Vatican city is up to a staggering 7,491 per million infection rate after 2 new cases today brought the total to 6.

    Rutland now has 2 cases, it seems to be everywhere. 2 deaths on the IoW too.
    Orkney still zero, I believe??
    Yes, and the Outer Hebrides
    https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-uk-tracker-how-many-cases-are-in-your-area-updated-daily-11956258
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,846
    rcs1000 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Too big to fail?

    Let them go bankrupt, the stadiums will still exist and the demand for football will still be there. The best players will get jobs with the new clubs once normality resumes.

    That is the argument some on here are making for the rest of the economy, for the small business owner and the high street shop. So why not football as well.

    I make that argument about Virgin Atlantic.

    And I make that argument because if you can't ever go bankrupt, because the government will bail you out, then it is an optimal strategy to lever up as much as possible.

    The reason why wealth inequality has increased in the last ten years is because of wealthy people being able to engage in a massive carry trade: borrow at 3%, invest at 5%. Free money. Oodles of free money. The more you leverage yourself, the richer you become.

    If Virgin Atlantic go bust, it is shit for people who have loads of Virgin miles, like me. It's shit for Richard Branson. It's shit for the CEO, and various other people who own shares.

    But it does not affect the productive power of the economy. Someone will come along, and buy Virgin Atlantic out of the administrators or recievers.

    And even if they don't, then someone will lease some planes (they already exist) and setup a new route from LA to London. The amount of work done in the economy will be the same.

    What we will have done, though, is make it clear to the wealthy that they cannot engage, at the public's expense, in a massive carry trade that does nothing for the real economy.

    Bailing out Virgin Atlantic is corporatism. It stunk in the 1970s. And it stinks now. It doesn't save jobs, it merely encourages the uber-wealthy to borrow, borrow, borrow, borrow.
    Agree 100%. Moreover if there is a general trend towards less flying around the world as a result of both this virus and, longer term, the warming issue, then all Governments will be doing is propping up a business which will soon become uneconomic entirely.

    Unless there is a real national interest (which might apply to some industries and manufacturers to maintain a strategic base for these in Britain) then the Government should not be bailing out businesses just to keep a name alive.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    rcs1000 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Too big to fail?

    Let them go bankrupt, the stadiums will still exist and the demand for football will still be there. The best players will get jobs with the new clubs once normality resumes.

    That is the argument some on here are making for the rest of the economy, for the small business owner and the high street shop. So why not football as well.

    I make that argument about Virgin Atlantic.

    And I make that argument because if you can't ever go bankrupt, because the government will bail you out, then it is an optimal strategy to lever up as much as possible.

    The reason why wealth inequality has increased in the last ten years is because of wealthy people being able to engage in a massive carry trade: borrow at 3%, invest at 5%. Free money. Oodles of free money. The more you leverage yourself, the richer you become.

    If Virgin Atlantic go bust, it is shit for people who have loads of Virgin miles, like me. It's shit for Richard Branson. It's shit for the CEO, and various other people who own shares.

    But it does not affect the productive power of the economy. Someone will come along, and buy Virgin Atlantic out of the administrators or recievers.

    And even if they don't, then someone will lease some planes (they already exist) and setup a new route from LA to London. The amount of work done in the economy will be the same.

    What we will have done, though, is make it clear to the wealthy that they cannot engage, at the public's expense, in a massive carry trade that does nothing for the real economy.

    Bailing out Virgin Atlantic is corporatism. It stunk in the 1970s. And it stinks now. It doesn't save jobs, it merely encourages the uber-wealthy to borrow, borrow, borrow, borrow.
    In normal circumstances I'd 100% agree. When its businesses that have failed they should go under - whether that be Monarch or Thomas Cook or FlyBe or however many others.

    What we're seeing now is a government-mandated shutdown that goes beyond the realms of what businesses or individuals cater for.

    If the government tells a profitable company that it can no longer operate because they're going to build a railway track through the land the company runs on do the shareholders just lose out? No, there has to be a compulsory purchase order with fair market value compensation. This is the same thing but temporary rather than permanent. The businesses haven't failed through any fault or malfeasance, the government has shut them down so the government owes compensation.
  • alteregoalterego Posts: 1,100

    alterego said:

    kyf_100 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Too big to fail?

    Let them go bankrupt, the stadiums will still exist and the demand for football will still be there. The best players will get jobs with the new clubs once normality resumes.

    That is the argument some on here are making for the rest of the economy, for the small business owner and the high street shop. So why not football as well.

    I make that argument about Virgin Atlantic.

    And I make that argument because if you can't ever go bankrupt, because the government will bail you out, then it is an optimal strategy to lever up as much as possible.

    The reason why wealth inequality has increased in the last ten years is because of wealthy people being able to engage in a massive carry trade: borrow at 3%, invest at 5%. Free money. Oodles of free money. The more you leverage yourself, the richer you become.

    If Virgin Atlantic go bust, it is shit for people who have loads of Virgin miles, like me. It's shit for Richard Branson. It's shit for the CEO, and various other people who own shares.

    But it does not affect the productive power of the economy. Someone will come along, and buy Virgin Atlantic out of the administrators or recievers.

    And even if they don't, then someone will lease some planes (they already exist) and setup a new route from LA to London. The amount of work done in the economy will be the same.

    What we will have done, though, is make it clear to the wealthy that they cannot engage, at the public's expense, in a massive carry trade that does nothing for the real economy.

    Bailing out Virgin Atlantic is corporatism. It stunk in the 1970s. And it stinks now. It doesn't save jobs, it merely encourages the uber-wealthy to borrow, borrow, borrow, borrow.
    A fair point.

    I don't think the productive power of the economy will be damaged by, say, Man U going to the wall, either.

    Surely the biggest swindle is the banks being able to borrow money at nothing or next to nothing, then loaning it out to the likes of you or me at 12% (for a business loan - 40% on an agreed overdraft!). I don't understand why the government doesn't loan or even give people the money directly.
    Banks are making nothing like this NET
    Agreed. The banks are carrying the bad debt risk here are they not?
    Banks are in the Championship of losers in terms of share price (and share price is forward looking and ever changing) losses over last couple of weeks - but definitely Premiership title contenders over the last 12 years. Base Rate close to zero does banks no favours at all. Banks a swindle - utter crap.
  • tysontyson Posts: 6,049
    edited March 2020
    Foxy said:

    ABZ said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Actually I find that figure a lot more positive than I thought it would be based on some of the news reports from Italy.
    It's very interesting. In essence, seriously obese people clearly have a poorer prognosis once within the ICU and males are much more susceptible. This all confirms reports from other countries. I think the definition of 'very severe comorbidities' they have used is quite narrow - for example, 'standard' hypertension or several other factors that are commonly mentioned as increasing risk are not included. Hence, I suspect the fraction of those who have been in the ICU with one of these milder symptoms would be a bit higher. Given this, I think the report might (although clearly it's not super positive) be better in some sense than at first glance and might reinforce what @SandyRentool said.


    My nephew is really chippy about the results with the next level down...those responding to oxygen and mixed drug therapies (including 90 plus)....

    All the time clinicians are getting experienced in strategies in helping people with a virus that our body has no natural defence against.....

    It's good to see you here...you must be over there worst....

    My other nephew is still spikey (fever)...but less so today....
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited March 2020
    They are one the Corbynista Fake News outlet aren't they?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281

    rcs1000 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Too big to fail?

    Let them go bankrupt, the stadiums will still exist and the demand for football will still be there. The best players will get jobs with the new clubs once normality resumes.

    That is the argument some on here are making for the rest of the economy, for the small business owner and the high street shop. So why not football as well.

    I make that argument about Virgin Atlantic.

    And I make that argument because if you can't ever go bankrupt, because the government will bail you out, then it is an optimal strategy to lever up as much as possible.

    The reason why wealth inequality has increased in the last ten years is because of wealthy people being able to engage in a massive carry trade: borrow at 3%, invest at 5%. Free money. Oodles of free money. The more you leverage yourself, the richer you become.

    If Virgin Atlantic go bust, it is shit for people who have loads of Virgin miles, like me. It's shit for Richard Branson. It's shit for the CEO, and various other people who own shares.

    But it does not affect the productive power of the economy. Someone will come along, and buy Virgin Atlantic out of the administrators or recievers.

    And even if they don't, then someone will lease some planes (they already exist) and setup a new route from LA to London. The amount of work done in the economy will be the same.

    What we will have done, though, is make it clear to the wealthy that they cannot engage, at the public's expense, in a massive carry trade that does nothing for the real economy.

    Bailing out Virgin Atlantic is corporatism. It stunk in the 1970s. And it stinks now. It doesn't save jobs, it merely encourages the uber-wealthy to borrow, borrow, borrow, borrow.
    In normal circumstances I'd 100% agree. When its businesses that have failed they should go under - whether that be Monarch or Thomas Cook or FlyBe or however many others.

    What we're seeing now is a government-mandated shutdown that goes beyond the realms of what businesses or individuals cater for.

    If the government tells a profitable company that it can no longer operate because they're going to build a railway track through the land the company runs on do the shareholders just lose out? No, there has to be a compulsory purchase order with fair market value compensation. This is the same thing but temporary rather than permanent. The businesses haven't failed through any fault or malfeasance, the government has shut them down so the government owes compensation.
    The real cause here though is not HMG, it's a black swan event no one (and everyone) could have predicted. That's tough luck on the shareholders of the companies impacted but it's not for HMG (i.e. all of us) to pick up the tab.
  • stodge said:


    If we can't guarantee next season can take place uninterrupted then it'd be absurd to void this season. Just continue this season next season. Better one two-year season than no seasons for two years.

    Other sports face similar problems - rugby union, horse racing as well.

    The PL and Championship have nine rounds of matches outstanding which wouldn't be too bad - four weeks of two games a week plus one final round so achievable.

    The problem is you also have three rounds of FA Cup and European matches to complete.

    We're looking at six weeks of 2-3 games per week for some teams and 1-2 for others so start mid May end late June and start the new season without a break. It might be achievable, it might not.

    Matches played behind closed doors under tight security to begin with perhaps with relaxation later on.

    For horse racing the flat season will need to be re-considered. The Guineas looks doubtful (early May) but the Derby and Ascot (which are as much social as sporting occasions and therefore staging them without spectators seems impractical) are June.

    Oddly enough, the large events in each sport look more vulnerable than the day-to-day. Horse racing re-commencing at smaller fixtures behind closed doors in early May looks feasible subject to medical cover so a midweek Lingfield card would be a better option than Chester or the Dante meeting at York?

    No reason FA Cup couldnt be finished next season with a December final with the 2020-21 League cup cancelled. Champs League its realistically just Man City and they can play their first team in that and reserves in Prem games and still finish second. Europa League prem teams have played their reserves in more often than not anyway. Get it done.

    I really am of the opinion football as we know it may not survive covid 19

    Already the broadcasters are seeing a collapse in their sports income and this can only get worse as we emerge into an economic disaster with lost jobs, businesses and confidence

    At the end of June the broadcasters are likely to be locked in a huge legal fight with the football authorities. Clubs will see a collapse in season ticket sales and income from broadcasting

    Players will be seeing large reductions in wages and transfer, as clubs see revenue drop from season ticket sales, broadcast income, and sponsorship

    I see no pathway to football starting before late august but the chaos amongst clubs, players and supporters is going to be catastrophic. Indeed how many clubs will have players fit enough to play at the highest level and indeed how many will still be at the clubs they are today

    I love football, but I believe everyone needs to accept it cannot be the same and even thinking about it is absurd in the context of the people's priorities, and the nations, post covid 19
    Players and agents may well earn less, especially over the next few years, but its probably a blip, the logic of the elite players earning more will continue to be driven by global interest and online pay tv and that will remain the longer term trend.

    Football still would work fine as a spectacle whether the players were amateur or billionaires. The players dont need to be as fit as they would be normally, if the opposition are also less fit, so that part is fine.

    The Soton chairman said the govt were keen on them starting behind closed doors before the lockdown ends. Clubs and TV will also want that. So we will restart as soon as the players can be convinced, which will be the tricky point.
    Re your last paragraph. Purely self interest with no care for those suffering

    If football starts while we are in 12 week lockdown it will see a fury you cannot imagine

    Priorities first, and football is not even on the list
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,286
    DavidL said:

    The Vatican city is up to a staggering 7,491 per million infection rate after 2 new cases today brought the total to 6.

    Have you seen the San Marino figures?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281
    edited March 2020

    stodge said:


    If we can't guarantee next season can take place uninterrupted then it'd be absurd to void this season. Just continue this season next season. Better one two-year season than no seasons for two years.

    Other sports face similar problems - rugby union, horse racing as well.

    The PL and Championship have nine rounds of matches outstanding which wouldn't be too bad - four weeks of two games a week plus one final round so achievable.

    The problem is you also have three rounds of FA Cup and European matches to complete.

    We're looking at six weeks of 2-3 games per week for some teams and 1-2 for others so start mid May end late June and start the new season without a break. It might be achievable, it might not.

    Matches played behind closed doors under tight security to begin with perhaps with relaxation later on.

    For horse racing the flat season will need to be re-considered. The Guineas looks doubtful (early May) but the Derby and Ascot (which are as much social as sporting occasions and therefore staging them without spectators seems impractical) are June.

    Oddly enough, the large events in each sport look more vulnerable than the day-to-day. Horse racing re-commencing at smaller fixtures behind closed doors in early May looks feasible subject to medical cover so a midweek Lingfield card would be a better option than Chester or the Dante meeting at York?

    No reason FA Cup couldnt be finished next season with a December final with the 2020-21 League cup cancelled. Champs League its realistically just Man City and they can play their first team in that and reserves in Prem games and still finish second. Europa League prem teams have played their reserves in more often than not anyway. Get it done.

    I really am of the opinion football as we know it may not survive covid 19

    Already the broadcasters are seeing a collapse in their sports income and this can only get worse as we emerge into an economic disaster with lost jobs, businesses and confidence

    At the end of June the broadcasters are likely to be locked in a huge legal fight with the football authorities. Clubs will see a collapse in season ticket sales and income from broadcasting

    Players will be seeing large reductions in wages and transfer, as clubs see revenue drop from season ticket sales, broadcast income, and sponsorship

    I see no pathway to football starting before late august but the chaos amongst clubs, players and supporters is going to be catastrophic. Indeed how many clubs will have players fit enough to play at the highest level and indeed how many will still be at the clubs they are today

    I love football, but I believe everyone needs to accept it cannot be the same and even thinking about it is absurd in the context of the people's priorities, and the nations, post covid 19
    Players and agents may well earn less, especially over the next few years, but its probably a blip, the logic of the elite players earning more will continue to be driven by global interest and online pay tv and that will remain the longer term trend.

    Football still would work fine as a spectacle whether the players were amateur or billionaires. The players dont need to be as fit as they would be normally, if the opposition are also less fit, so that part is fine.

    The Soton chairman said the govt were keen on them starting behind closed doors before the lockdown ends. Clubs and TV will also want that. So we will restart as soon as the players can be convinced, which will be the tricky point.
    Re your last paragraph. Purely self interest with no care for those suffering

    If football starts while we are in 12 week lockdown it will see a fury you cannot imagine

    Priorities first, and football is not even on the list
    You often make these sweeping statements Big_G and I have no doubt some will be upset. But many others (myself included) will be happy to watch some live football to take our minds of the relentlessly depressing news.

    Was there fury during the Blitz when cinemas and dance halls were kept open? No, there was not.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,004
    edited March 2020

    rcs1000 said:

    tlg86 said:

    People have an emotional attachment to football clubs that they don’t have to airlines. Letting Virgin Atlantic go bust would disappoint a few. Letting Everton go bust would devastate tens of thousands.

    But it isn't Everton that would go bust - it's those unfortunate enough to own the club when the music stopped.
    Spot on.

    Rangers went bust.

    Rangers still exists.

    The whole point about being a shareholder, is that you're first against the wall. That's the deal implicit in capitalism. You get the spoils, but there has to be an element of risk.

    I feel a lot happier about bailing out workers than I do about bailing out Richard Branson or the Glazers.
    Generally the shareholders take the losses when their failures caused the losses. Not when they're shut down by the government. If the shareholders go bust due to government actions then it puts a perverse incentive to the shareholders to frustrate or seek to circumvent the government actions - is that what we want to encourage?
    What a strange post
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    nichomar said:

    Not dissimilar arguments to here

    President of the Generalitat, Quim Torra, has expressed his satisfaction at the announcement by the Prime Minister to stop all non-essential activities since Monday. In a brief appearance from the Casa dels Canonges, where he remains confined after testing positive, Torra considered that this is "good news in the fight we have against the pandemic."
    21:29 The leader of Ciudadanos, Inés Arrimadas, has urged the Government not to create "more uncertainty" in society and that it should be "clearer" about its decisions. For Arrimadas the important thing would have been to "give tranquility" to freelancers and companies, something that Sánchez "has not done today".

    Quim Torra is an excellent name - the sort of chap who goes to Thailand for his holidays, presumably.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    rcs1000 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Too big to fail?

    Let them go bankrupt, the stadiums will still exist and the demand for football will still be there. The best players will get jobs with the new clubs once normality resumes.

    That is the argument some on here are making for the rest of the economy, for the small business owner and the high street shop. So why not football as well.

    I make that argument about Virgin Atlantic.

    And I make that argument because if you can't ever go bankrupt, because the government will bail you out, then it is an optimal strategy to lever up as much as possible.

    The reason why wealth inequality has increased in the last ten years is because of wealthy people being able to engage in a massive carry trade: borrow at 3%, invest at 5%. Free money. Oodles of free money. The more you leverage yourself, the richer you become.

    If Virgin Atlantic go bust, it is shit for people who have loads of Virgin miles, like me. It's shit for Richard Branson. It's shit for the CEO, and various other people who own shares.

    But it does not affect the productive power of the economy. Someone will come along, and buy Virgin Atlantic out of the administrators or recievers.

    And even if they don't, then someone will lease some planes (they already exist) and setup a new route from LA to London. The amount of work done in the economy will be the same.

    What we will have done, though, is make it clear to the wealthy that they cannot engage, at the public's expense, in a massive carry trade that does nothing for the real economy.

    Bailing out Virgin Atlantic is corporatism. It stunk in the 1970s. And it stinks now. It doesn't save jobs, it merely encourages the uber-wealthy to borrow, borrow, borrow, borrow.
    In normal circumstances I'd 100% agree. When its businesses that have failed they should go under - whether that be Monarch or Thomas Cook or FlyBe or however many others.

    What we're seeing now is a government-mandated shutdown that goes beyond the realms of what businesses or individuals cater for.

    If the government tells a profitable company that it can no longer operate because they're going to build a railway track through the land the company runs on do the shareholders just lose out? No, there has to be a compulsory purchase order with fair market value compensation. This is the same thing but temporary rather than permanent. The businesses haven't failed through any fault or malfeasance, the government has shut them down so the government owes compensation.
    The real cause here though is not HMG, it's a black swan event no one (and everyone) could have predicted. That's tough luck on the shareholders of the companies impacted but it's not for HMG (i.e. all of us) to pick up the tab.
    If HMG wants to keep the taxes coming in from what were profitable businesses after this then I'd say it is. Which is why HMG has already made loans available to many businesses and grants to others and grants for wages etc and for the self-employed now too - because quite rightly HMG is taking the decision to shut down the economy so the onus is on HMG to pick up the tab for that.

    However HMG is also sensibly linking payments to employees and the self-employed to the taxed earnings they were getting before this endemic. For the struggling businesses impacted by this it would make sense to follow a similar principle - if your business was not a net tax contributer in recent years then you're on your own. If the business has been paying considerable taxes to HMG (and will in the future) then a grant or loan should be made on that basis.
  • TGOHF666TGOHF666 Posts: 2,052

    stodge said:


    If we can't guarantee next season can take place uninterrupted then it'd be absurd to void this season. Just continue this season next season. Better one two-year season than no seasons for two years.

    Other sports face similar problems - rugby union, horse racing as well.

    The PL and Championship have nine rounds of matches outstanding which wouldn't be too bad - four weeks of two games a week plus one final round so achievable.

    The problem is you also have three rounds of FA Cup and European matches to complete.

    We're looking at six weeks of 2-3 games per week for some teams and 1-2 for others so start mid May end late June and start the new season without a break. It might be achievable, it might not.

    Matches played behind closed doors under tight security to begin with perhaps with relaxation later on.

    For horse racing the flat season will need to be re-considered. The Guineas looks doubtful (early May) but the Derby and Ascot (which are as much social as sporting occasions and therefore staging them without spectators seems impractical) are June.

    Oddly enough, the large events in each sport look more vulnerable than the day-to-day. Horse racing re-commencing at smaller fixtures behind closed doors in early May looks feasible subject to medical cover so a midweek Lingfield card would be a better option than Chester or the Dante meeting at York?

    No reason FA Cup couldnt be finished next season with a December final with the 2020-21 League cup cancelled. Champs League its realistically just Man City and they can play their first team in that and reserves in Prem games and still finish second. Europa League prem teams have played their reserves in more often than not anyway. Get it done.

    I really am of the opinion football as we know it may not survive covid 19

    Already the broadcasters are seeing a collapse in their sports income and this can only get worse as we emerge into an economic disaster with lost jobs, businesses and confidence

    At the end of June the broadcasters are likely to be locked in a huge legal fight with the football authorities. Clubs will see a collapse in season ticket sales and income from broadcasting

    Players will be seeing large reductions in wages and transfer, as clubs see revenue drop from season ticket sales, broadcast income, and sponsorship

    I see no pathway to football starting before late august but the chaos amongst clubs, players and supporters is going to be catastrophic. Indeed how many clubs will have players fit enough to play at the highest level and indeed how many will still be at the clubs they are today

    I love football, but I believe everyone needs to accept it cannot be the same and even thinking about it is absurd in the context of the people's priorities, and the nations, post covid 19
    Players and agents may well earn less, especially over the next few years, but its probably a blip, the logic of the elite players earning more will continue to be driven by global interest and online pay tv and that will remain the longer term trend.

    Football still would work fine as a spectacle whether the players were amateur or billionaires. The players dont need to be as fit as they would be normally, if the opposition are also less fit, so that part is fine.

    The Soton chairman said the govt were keen on them starting behind closed doors before the lockdown ends. Clubs and TV will also want that. So we will restart as soon as the players can be convinced, which will be the tricky point.
    Re your last paragraph. Purely self interest with no care for those suffering

    If football starts while we are in 12 week lockdown it will see a fury you cannot imagine

    Priorities first, and football is not even on the list
    Would break the boredom of a lockdown.
  • tysontyson Posts: 6,049

    stodge said:


    If we can't guarantee next season can take place uninterrupted then it'd be absurd to void this season. Just continue this season next season. Better one two-year season than no seasons for two years.

    Other sports face similar problems - rugby union, horse racing as well.

    The PL and Championship have nine rounds of matches outstanding which wouldn't be too bad - four weeks of two games a week plus one final round so achievable.

    The problem is you also have three rounds of FA Cup and European matches to complete.

    We're looking at six weeks of 2-3 games per week for some teams and 1-2 for others so start mid May end late June and start the new season without a break. It might be achievable, it might not.

    Matches played behind closed doors under tight security to begin with perhaps with relaxation later on.

    For horse racing the flat season will need to be re-considered. The Guineas looks doubtful (early May) but the Derby and Ascot (which are as much social as sporting occasions and therefore staging them without spectators seems impractical) are June.

    Oddly enough, the large events in each sport look more vulnerable than the day-to-day. Horse racing re-commencing at smaller fixtures behind closed doors in early May looks feasible subject to medical cover so a midweek Lingfield card would be a better option than Chester or the Dante meeting at York?

    No reason FA Cup couldnt be finished next season with a December final with the 2020-21 League cup cancelled. Champs League its realistically just Man City and they can play their first team in that and reserves in Prem games and still finish second. Europa League prem teams have played their reserves in more often than not anyway. Get it done.

    I really am of the opinion football as we know it may not survive covid 19

    Already the broadcasters are seeing a collapse in their sports income and this can only get worse as we emerge into an economic disaster with lost jobs, businesses and confidence

    At the end of June the broadcasters are likely to be locked in a huge legal fight with the football authorities. Clubs will see a collapse in season ticket sales and income from broadcasting

    Players will be seeing large reductions in wages and transfer, as clubs see revenue drop from season ticket sales, broadcast income, and sponsorship

    I see no pathway to football starting before late august but the chaos amongst clubs, players and supporters is going to be catastrophic. Indeed how many clubs will have players fit enough to play at the highest level and indeed how many will still be at the clubs they are today

    I love football, but I believe everyone needs to accept it cannot be the same and even thinking about it is absurd in the context of the people's priorities, and the nations, post covid 19
    Players and agents may well earn less, especially over the next few years, but its probably a blip, the logic of the elite players earning more will continue to be driven by global interest and online pay tv and that will remain the longer term trend.

    Football still would work fine as a spectacle whether the players were amateur or billionaires. The players dont need to be as fit as they would be normally, if the opposition are also less fit, so that part is fine.

    The Soton chairman said the govt were keen on them starting behind closed doors before the lockdown ends. Clubs and TV will also want that. So we will restart as soon as the players can be convinced, which will be the tricky point.
    Re your last paragraph. Purely self interest with no care for those suffering

    If football starts while we are in 12 week lockdown it will see a fury you cannot imagine

    Priorities first, and football is not even on the list
    You cannot have football going on with the news showing makeshift morgues....

    And...without pubs...people will venture to mates houses who have still kept the subscriptions going....

    So..it's not going to happen....

    You could do Wimbledon...and the Open and put them on BBC...but that won't happen either....
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,069
    tyson said:

    Foxy said:

    ABZ said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Actually I find that figure a lot more positive than I thought it would be based on some of the news reports from Italy.
    It's very interesting. In essence, seriously obese people clearly have a poorer prognosis once within the ICU and males are much more susceptible. This all confirms reports from other countries. I think the definition of 'very severe comorbidities' they have used is quite narrow - for example, 'standard' hypertension or several other factors that are commonly mentioned as increasing risk are not included. Hence, I suspect the fraction of those who have been in the ICU with one of these milder symptoms would be a bit higher. Given this, I think the report might (although clearly it's not super positive) be better in some sense than at first glance and might reinforce what @SandyRentool said.


    My nephew is really chippy about the results with the next level down...those responding to oxygen and mixed drug therapies (including 90 plus)....

    All the time clinicians are getting experienced in strategies in helping people with a virus that our body has no natural defence against.....

    It's good to see you here...you must be over there worst....

    My other nephew is still spikey (fever)...but less so today....
    Sounds positive.

    A bit tight chested again this evening, but OK.
  • ABZABZ Posts: 441
    tyson said:

    Foxy said:

    ABZ said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Actually I find that figure a lot more positive than I thought it would be based on some of the news reports from Italy.
    It's very interesting. In essence, seriously obese people clearly have a poorer prognosis once within the ICU and males are much more susceptible. This all confirms reports from other countries. I think the definition of 'very severe comorbidities' they have used is quite narrow - for example, 'standard' hypertension or several other factors that are commonly mentioned as increasing risk are not included. Hence, I suspect the fraction of those who have been in the ICU with one of these milder symptoms would be a bit higher. Given this, I think the report might (although clearly it's not super positive) be better in some sense than at first glance and might reinforce what @SandyRentool said.


    My nephew is really chippy about the results with the next level down...those responding to oxygen and mixed drug therapies (including 90 plus)....

    All the time clinicians are getting experienced in strategies in helping people with a virus that our body has no natural defence against.....

    It's good to see you here...you must be over there worst....

    My other nephew is still spikey (fever)...but less so today....
    @tyson Thank you so much for these reports. It is really uplifting to hear how we are getting on top of this (and I hear something similar from clinical colleagues). If you are able to keep updating us on this it would be really wonderful. Thank you!!
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,749

    rcs1000 said:

    tlg86 said:

    People have an emotional attachment to football clubs that they don’t have to airlines. Letting Virgin Atlantic go bust would disappoint a few. Letting Everton go bust would devastate tens of thousands.

    But it isn't Everton that would go bust - it's those unfortunate enough to own the club when the music stopped.
    Spot on.

    Rangers went bust.

    Rangers still exists.

    That is a controversial assertion in Scottish football.
    To the point that certain parties thought that the term 'zombie' should be considered under the Offensive Behaviour Act. Of course they were all supporters of the zombie team.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,286
    We need to take all the statistics we're looking at with a pinch of salt. Each country may be measuring things in a different way.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    rcs1000 said:

    tlg86 said:

    People have an emotional attachment to football clubs that they don’t have to airlines. Letting Virgin Atlantic go bust would disappoint a few. Letting Everton go bust would devastate tens of thousands.

    But it isn't Everton that would go bust - it's those unfortunate enough to own the club when the music stopped.
    Spot on.

    Rangers went bust.

    Rangers still exists.

    The whole point about being a shareholder, is that you're first against the wall. That's the deal implicit in capitalism. You get the spoils, but there has to be an element of risk.

    I feel a lot happier about bailing out workers than I do about bailing out Richard Branson or the Glazers.
    Generally the shareholders take the losses when their failures caused the losses. Not when they're shut down by the government. If the shareholders go bust due to government actions then it puts a perverse incentive to the shareholders to frustrate or seek to circumvent the government actions - is that what we want to encourage?
    What a strange post
    Why?

    Do we want a nation of responsible people staying at home to save the NHS with the government picking up the tab for that? Or do we want a nation of arseholes like Tim Martin trying to look after themselves because nobody else will do so?

    I'm very much an Atlas Shrugged libertarian normally but this is special circumstances. For those who've been playing fair and paying their taxes this is the time for those taxes to go in reverse while the government and the country puts the NHS before the economy.
  • alteregoalterego Posts: 1,100

    stodge said:


    If we can't guarantee next season can take place uninterrupted then it'd be absurd to void this season. Just continue this season next season. Better one two-year season than no seasons for two years.

    Other sports face similar problems - rugby union, horse racing as well.

    The PL and Championship have nine rounds of matches outstanding which wouldn't be too bad - four weeks of two games a week plus one final round so achievable.

    The problem is you also have three rounds of FA Cup and European matches to complete.

    We're looking at six weeks of 2-3 games per week for some teams and 1-2 for others so start mid May end late June and start the new season without a break. It might be achievable, it might not.

    Matches played behind closed doors under tight security to begin with perhaps with relaxation later on.

    For horse racing the flat season will need to be re-considered. The Guineas looks doubtful (early May) but the Derby and Ascot (which are as much social as sporting occasions and therefore staging them without spectators seems impractical) are June.

    Oddly enough, the large events in each sport look more vulnerable than the day-to-day. Horse racing re-commencing at smaller fixtures behind closed doors in early May looks feasible subject to medical cover so a midweek Lingfield card would be a better option than Chester or the Dante meeting at York?

    No reason FA Cup couldnt be finished next season with a December final with the 2020-21 League cup cancelled. Champs League its realistically just Man City and they can play their first team in that and reserves in Prem games and still finish second. Europa League prem teams have played their reserves in more often than not anyway. Get it done.

    I really am of the opinion football as we know it may not survive covid 19

    Already the broadcasters are seeing a collapse in their sports income and this can only get worse as we emerge into an economic disaster with lost jobs, businesses and confidence

    At the end of June the broadcasters are likely to be locked in a huge legal fight with the football authorities. Clubs will see a collapse in season ticket sales and income from broadcasting

    Players will be seeing large reductions in wages and transfer, as clubs see revenue drop from season ticket sales, broadcast income, and sponsorship

    I see no pathway to football starting before late august but the chaos amongst clubs, players and supporters is going to be catastrophic. Indeed how many clubs will have players fit enough to play at the highest level and indeed how many will still be at the clubs they are today

    I love football, but I believe everyone needs to accept it cannot be the same and even thinking about it is absurd in the context of the people's priorities, and the nations, post covid 19
    Players and agents may well earn less, especially over the next few years, but its probably a blip, the logic of the elite players earning more will continue to be driven by global interest and online pay tv and that will remain the longer term trend.

    Football still would work fine as a spectacle whether the players were amateur or billionaires. The players dont need to be as fit as they would be normally, if the opposition are also less fit, so that part is fine.

    The Soton chairman said the govt were keen on them starting behind closed doors before the lockdown ends. Clubs and TV will also want that. So we will restart as soon as the players can be convinced, which will be the tricky point.
    Re your last paragraph. Purely self interest with no care for those suffering

    If football starts while we are in 12 week lockdown it will see a fury you cannot imagine

    Priorities first, and football is not even on the list
    You often make these sweeping statements Big_G and I have no doubt some will be upset. But many others (myself included) will be happy to watch some live football to take our minds of the relentlessly depressing news.

    Was there fury during the Blitz when cinemas and dance halls were kept open? No, there was not.
    Bread and circuses in spades 😎
  • rcs1000 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Too big to fail?

    Let them go bankrupt, the stadiums will still exist and the demand for football will still be there. The best players will get jobs with the new clubs once normality resumes.

    That is the argument some on here are making for the rest of the economy, for the small business owner and the high street shop. So why not football as well.

    I make that argument about Virgin Atlantic.

    And I make that argument because if you can't ever go bankrupt, because the government will bail you out, then it is an optimal strategy to lever up as much as possible.

    The reason why wealth inequality has increased in the last ten years is because of wealthy people being able to engage in a massive carry trade: borrow at 3%, invest at 5%. Free money. Oodles of free money. The more you leverage yourself, the richer you become.

    If Virgin Atlantic go bust, it is shit for people who have loads of Virgin miles, like me. It's shit for Richard Branson. It's shit for the CEO, and various other people who own shares.

    But it does not affect the productive power of the economy. Someone will come along, and buy Virgin Atlantic out of the administrators or recievers.

    And even if they don't, then someone will lease some planes (they already exist) and setup a new route from LA to London. The amount of work done in the economy will be the same.

    What we will have done, though, is make it clear to the wealthy that they cannot engage, at the public's expense, in a massive carry trade that does nothing for the real economy.

    Bailing out Virgin Atlantic is corporatism. It stunk in the 1970s. And it stinks now. It doesn't save jobs, it merely encourages the uber-wealthy to borrow, borrow, borrow, borrow.
    In normal circumstances I'd 100% agree. When its businesses that have failed they should go under - whether that be Monarch or Thomas Cook or FlyBe or however many others.

    What we're seeing now is a government-mandated shutdown that goes beyond the realms of what businesses or individuals cater for.

    If the government tells a profitable company that it can no longer operate because they're going to build a railway track through the land the company runs on do the shareholders just lose out? No, there has to be a compulsory purchase order with fair market value compensation. This is the same thing but temporary rather than permanent. The businesses haven't failed through any fault or malfeasance, the government has shut them down so the government owes compensation.
    The government will reject on the grounds of 'force majeure' just as insurers are rejecting claims
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281
    Foxy said:

    tyson said:

    Foxy said:

    ABZ said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Actually I find that figure a lot more positive than I thought it would be based on some of the news reports from Italy.
    It's very interesting. In essence, seriously obese people clearly have a poorer prognosis once within the ICU and males are much more susceptible. This all confirms reports from other countries. I think the definition of 'very severe comorbidities' they have used is quite narrow - for example, 'standard' hypertension or several other factors that are commonly mentioned as increasing risk are not included. Hence, I suspect the fraction of those who have been in the ICU with one of these milder symptoms would be a bit higher. Given this, I think the report might (although clearly it's not super positive) be better in some sense than at first glance and might reinforce what @SandyRentool said.


    My nephew is really chippy about the results with the next level down...those responding to oxygen and mixed drug therapies (including 90 plus)....

    All the time clinicians are getting experienced in strategies in helping people with a virus that our body has no natural defence against.....

    It's good to see you here...you must be over there worst....

    My other nephew is still spikey (fever)...but less so today....
    Sounds positive.

    A bit tight chested again this evening, but OK.
    Have you managed to get tested yet @Foxy?

    Roll-out of testing seems to be the nub of our current challenge.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    rcs1000 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Too big to fail?

    Let them go bankrupt, the stadiums will still exist and the demand for football will still be there. The best players will get jobs with the new clubs once normality resumes.

    That is the argument some on here are making for the rest of the economy, for the small business owner and the high street shop. So why not football as well.

    I make that argument about Virgin Atlantic.

    And I make that argument because if you can't ever go bankrupt, because the government will bail you out, then it is an optimal strategy to lever up as much as possible.

    The reason why wealth inequality has increased in the last ten years is because of wealthy people being able to engage in a massive carry trade: borrow at 3%, invest at 5%. Free money. Oodles of free money. The more you leverage yourself, the richer you become.

    If Virgin Atlantic go bust, it is shit for people who have loads of Virgin miles, like me. It's shit for Richard Branson. It's shit for the CEO, and various other people who own shares.

    But it does not affect the productive power of the economy. Someone will come along, and buy Virgin Atlantic out of the administrators or recievers.

    And even if they don't, then someone will lease some planes (they already exist) and setup a new route from LA to London. The amount of work done in the economy will be the same.

    What we will have done, though, is make it clear to the wealthy that they cannot engage, at the public's expense, in a massive carry trade that does nothing for the real economy.

    Bailing out Virgin Atlantic is corporatism. It stunk in the 1970s. And it stinks now. It doesn't save jobs, it merely encourages the uber-wealthy to borrow, borrow, borrow, borrow.
    Another one sitting on a ton of Virgin Miles - I agree.

    I used to have Northern Rock shares too - as a shareholder, I got all I deserved.
  • stodge said:


    If we can't guarantee next season can take place uninterrupted then it'd be absurd to void this season. Just continue this season next season. Better one two-year season than no seasons for two years.

    Other sports face similar problems - rugby union, horse racing as well.

    The PL and Championship have nine rounds of matches outstanding which wouldn't be too bad - four weeks of two games a week plus one final round so achievable.

    The problem is you also have three rounds of FA Cup and European matches to complete.

    We're looking at six weeks of 2-3 games per week for some teams and 1-2 for others so start mid May end late June and start the new season without a break. It might be achievable, it might not.

    Matches played behind closed doors under tight security to begin with perhaps with relaxation later on.

    For horse racing the flat season will need to be re-considered. The Guineas looks doubtful (early May) but the Derby and Ascot (which are as much social as sporting occasions and therefore staging them without spectators seems impractical) are June.

    Oddly enough, the large events in each sport look more vulnerable than the day-to-day. Horse racing re-commencing at smaller fixtures behind closed doors in early May looks feasible subject to medical cover so a midweek Lingfield card would be a better option than Chester or the Dante meeting at York?

    No reason FA Cup couldnt be finished next season with a December final with the 2020-21 League cup cancelled. Champs League its realistically just Man City and they can play their first team in that and reserves in Prem games and still finish second. Europa League prem teams have played their reserves in more often than not anyway. Get it done.

    I really am of the opinion football as we know it may not survive covid 19

    Already the broadcasters are seeing a collapse in their sports income and this can only get worse as we emerge into an economic disaster with lost jobs, businesses and confidence

    At the end of June the broadcasters are likely to be locked in a huge legal fight with the football authorities. Clubs will see a collapse in season ticket sales and income from broadcasting

    Players will be seeing large reductions in wages and transfer, as clubs see revenue drop from season ticket sales, broadcast income, and sponsorship

    I see no pathway to football starting before late august but the chaos amongst clubs, players and supporters is going to be catastrophic. Indeed how many clubs will have players fit enough to play at the highest level and indeed how many will still be at the clubs they are today

    I love football, but I believe everyone needs to accept it cannot be the same and even thinking about it is absurd in the context of the people's priorities, and the nations, post covid 19
    Players and agents may well earn less, especially over the next few years, but its probably a blip, the logic of the elite players earning more will continue to be driven by global interest and online pay tv and that will remain the longer term trend.

    Football still would work fine as a spectacle whether the players were amateur or billionaires. The players dont need to be as fit as they would be normally, if the opposition are also less fit, so that part is fine.

    The Soton chairman said the govt were keen on them starting behind closed doors before the lockdown ends. Clubs and TV will also want that. So we will restart as soon as the players can be convinced, which will be the tricky point.
    Re your last paragraph. Purely self interest with no care for those suffering

    If football starts while we are in 12 week lockdown it will see a fury you cannot imagine

    Priorities first, and football is not even on the list
    You often make these sweeping statements Big_G and I have no doubt some will be upset. But many others (myself included) will be happy to watch some live football to take our minds of the relentlessly depressing news.

    Was there fury during the Blitz when cinemas and dance halls were kept open? No, there was not.
    Football is a contact sport and if millions cannot leave their homes how can it be justified
  • AndreaParma_82AndreaParma_82 Posts: 4,714
    https://nst.sky.it/content/dam/static/contentimages/original/sezioni/tg24/politica/2020/03/25/coronavirus_camera_deputati_hero_2_ansa.jpg
    ABZ said:

    felix said:

    The news from Spain tonight is awful. The extension of the shutdown to now cover all non-essential work is pretty much the last throw of the dice. There is not much else they can do now if this doesn't work. Extraordinary how quickly it has come to this.

    I don't think it's quite so bleak! Italy actually did something similar two weeks into their lockdown as well if I recall correctly (@tyson is that correct?).

    Decree suspending not essential activities is dated 22th march. Came into effect starting 25th march.
    There is a list of NACE codes considered essential. Those outside of it could ask to the prefecture for an exception to carry on proving that they are working for a business considered essential (for ex a company that produces paper used by a company that produces pasta to make package can ask to stay open)
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281

    rcs1000 said:

    tlg86 said:

    People have an emotional attachment to football clubs that they don’t have to airlines. Letting Virgin Atlantic go bust would disappoint a few. Letting Everton go bust would devastate tens of thousands.

    But it isn't Everton that would go bust - it's those unfortunate enough to own the club when the music stopped.
    Spot on.

    Rangers went bust.

    Rangers still exists.

    The whole point about being a shareholder, is that you're first against the wall. That's the deal implicit in capitalism. You get the spoils, but there has to be an element of risk.

    I feel a lot happier about bailing out workers than I do about bailing out Richard Branson or the Glazers.
    Generally the shareholders take the losses when their failures caused the losses. Not when they're shut down by the government. If the shareholders go bust due to government actions then it puts a perverse incentive to the shareholders to frustrate or seek to circumvent the government actions - is that what we want to encourage?
    What a strange post
    Why?

    Do we want a nation of responsible people staying at home to save the NHS with the government picking up the tab for that? Or do we want a nation of arseholes like Tim Martin trying to look after themselves because nobody else will do so?

    I'm very much an Atlas Shrugged libertarian normally but this is special circumstances. For those who've been playing fair and paying their taxes this is the time for those taxes to go in reverse while the government and the country puts the NHS before the economy.
    Gratifying to see all these neoliberals convert to socialism! :wink:

    (Edit: Not directed at you personally Philip)
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,069

    Foxy said:

    tyson said:

    Foxy said:

    ABZ said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Actually I find that figure a lot more positive than I thought it would be based on some of the news reports from Italy.
    It's very interesting. In essence, seriously obese people clearly have a poorer prognosis once within the ICU and males are much more susceptible. This all confirms reports from other countries. I think the definition of 'very severe comorbidities' they have used is quite narrow - for example, 'standard' hypertension or several other factors that are commonly mentioned as increasing risk are not included. Hence, I suspect the fraction of those who have been in the ICU with one of these milder symptoms would be a bit higher. Given this, I think the report might (although clearly it's not super positive) be better in some sense than at first glance and might reinforce what @SandyRentool said.


    My nephew is really chippy about the results with the next level down...those responding to oxygen and mixed drug therapies (including 90 plus)....

    All the time clinicians are getting experienced in strategies in helping people with a virus that our body has no natural defence against.....

    It's good to see you here...you must be over there worst....

    My other nephew is still spikey (fever)...but less so today....
    Sounds positive.

    A bit tight chested again this evening, but OK.
    Have you managed to get tested yet @Foxy?

    Roll-out of testing seems to be the nub of our current challenge.
    Yes, no result yet though.
  • tysontyson Posts: 6,049
    Foxy said:

    tyson said:

    Foxy said:

    ABZ said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Actually I find that figure a lot more positive than I thought it would be based on some of the news reports from Italy.
    It's very interesting. In essence, seriously obese people clearly have a poorer prognosis once within the ICU and males are much more susceptible. This all confirms reports from other countries. I think the definition of 'very severe comorbidities' they have used is quite narrow - for example, 'standard' hypertension or several other factors that are commonly mentioned as increasing risk are not included. Hence, I suspect the fraction of those who have been in the ICU with one of these milder symptoms would be a bit higher. Given this, I think the report might (although clearly it's not super positive) be better in some sense than at first glance and might reinforce what @SandyRentool said.


    My nephew is really chippy about the results with the next level down...those responding to oxygen and mixed drug therapies (including 90 plus)....

    All the time clinicians are getting experienced in strategies in helping people with a virus that our body has no natural defence against.....

    It's good to see you here...you must be over there worst....

    My other nephew is still spikey (fever)...but less so today....
    Sounds positive.

    A bit tight chested again this evening, but OK.
    That sounds promising Fox...

    I meant chipper...he's discharging 2 over 90's with Covid tomorrow hopefully and he was so chuffed.....

    As you know all too well being a clinician...if any of us do fall ill, and have to be admitted as patients....just remember to be unfailingly positive with the staff..they are human beings too...more difficult to do than say I guess....

    Anyway, I'm off now to read and walk Trotsky....


  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,286
    Since the lockdown I've eaten less but drunk more. Anyone else with the same experience?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281
    edited March 2020

    stodge said:


    If we can't guarantee next season can take place uninterrupted then it'd be absurd to void this season. Just continue this season next season. Better one two-year season than no seasons for two years.

    Other sports face similar problems - rugby union, horse racing as well.

    The PL and Championship have nine rounds of matches outstanding which wouldn't be too bad - four weeks of two games a week plus one final round so achievable.

    The problem is you also have three rounds of FA Cup and European matches to complete.

    We're looking at six weeks of 2-3 games per week for some teams and 1-2 for others so start mid May end late June and start the new season without a break. It might be achievable, it might not.

    Matches played behind closed doors under tight security to begin with perhaps with relaxation later on.

    For horse racing the flat season will need to be re-considered. The Guineas looks doubtful (early May) but the Derby and Ascot (which are as much social as sporting occasions and therefore staging them without spectators seems impractical) are June.

    Oddly enough, the large events in each sport look more vulnerable than the day-to-day. Horse racing re-commencing at smaller fixtures behind closed doors in early May looks feasible subject to medical cover so a midweek Lingfield card would be a better option than Chester or the Dante meeting at York?

    No reason FA Cup couldnt be finished next season with a December final with the 2020-21 League cup cancelled. Champs League its realistically just Man City and they can play their first team in that and reserves in Prem games and still finish second. Europa League prem teams have played their reserves in more often than not anyway. Get it done.

    I really am of the opinion football as we know it may not survive covid 19

    Already the broadcasters are seeing a collapse in their sports income and this can only get worse as we emerge into an economic disaster with lost jobs, businesses and confidence

    At the end of June the broadcasters are likely to be locked in a huge legal fight with the football authorities. Clubs will see a collapse in season ticket sales and income from broadcasting

    Players will be seeing large reductions in wages and transfer, as clubs see revenue drop from season ticket sales, broadcast income, and sponsorship

    I see no pathway to football starting before late august but the chaos amongst clubs, players and supporters is going to be catastrophic. Indeed how many clubs will have players fit enough to play at the highest level and indeed how many will still be at the clubs they are today

    I love football, but I believe everyone needs to accept it cannot be the same and even thinking about it is absurd in the context of the people's priorities, and the nations, post covid 19
    Players and agents may well earn less, especially over the next few years, but its probably a blip, the logic of the elite players earning more will continue to be driven by global interest and online pay tv and that will remain the longer term trend.

    Football still would work fine as a spectacle whether the players were amateur or billionaires. The players dont need to be as fit as they would be normally, if the opposition are also less fit, so that part is fine.

    The Soton chairman said the govt were keen on them starting behind closed doors before the lockdown ends. Clubs and TV will also want that. So we will restart as soon as the players can be convinced, which will be the tricky point.
    Re your last paragraph. Purely self interest with no care for those suffering

    If football starts while we are in 12 week lockdown it will see a fury you cannot imagine

    Priorities first, and football is not even on the list
    You often make these sweeping statements Big_G and I have no doubt some will be upset. But many others (myself included) will be happy to watch some live football to take our minds of the relentlessly depressing news.

    Was there fury during the Blitz when cinemas and dance halls were kept open? No, there was not.
    Football is a contact sport and if millions cannot leave their homes how can it be justified
    Actually, I've got to confess, you have me on that point. :smile:
  • stodge said:


    If we can't guarantee next season can take place uninterrupted then it'd be absurd to void this season. Just continue this season next season. Better one two-year season than no seasons for two years.

    Other sports face similar problems - rugby union, horse racing as well.

    The PL and Championship have nine rounds of matches outstanding which wouldn't be too bad - four weeks of two games a week plus one final round so achievable.

    The problem is you also have three rounds of FA Cup and European matches to complete.

    We're looking at six weeks of 2-3 games per week for some teams and 1-2 for others so start mid May end late June and start the new season without a break. It might be achievable, it might not.

    Matches played behind closed doors under tight security to begin with perhaps with relaxation later on.

    For horse racing the flat season will need to be re-considered. The Guineas looks doubtful (early May) but the Derby and Ascot (which are as much social as sporting occasions and therefore staging them without spectators seems impractical) are June.

    Oddly enough, the large events in each sport look more vulnerable than the day-to-day. Horse racing re-commencing at smaller fixtures behind closed doors in early May looks feasible subject to medical cover so a midweek Lingfield card would be a better option than Chester or the Dante meeting at York?

    No reason FA Cup couldnt be finished next season with a December final with the 2020-21 League cup cancelled. Champs League its realistically just Man City and they can play their first team in that and reserves in Prem games and still finish second. Europa League prem teams have played their reserves in more often than not anyway. Get it done.

    I really am of the opinion football as we know it may not survive covid 19

    Already the broadcasters are seeing a collapse in their sports income and this can only get worse as we emerge into an economic disaster with lost jobs, businesses and confidence

    At the end of June the broadcasters are likely to be locked in a huge legal fight with the football authorities. Clubs will see a collapse in season ticket sales and income from broadcasting

    Players will be seeing large reductions in wages and transfer, as clubs see revenue drop from season ticket sales, broadcast income, and sponsorship

    I see no pathway to football starting before late august but the chaos amongst clubs, players and supporters is going to be catastrophic. Indeed how many clubs will have players fit enough to play at the highest level and indeed how many will still be at the clubs they are today

    I love football, but I believe everyone needs to accept it cannot be the same and even thinking about it is absurd in the context of the people's priorities, and the nations, post covid 19
    Players and agents may well earn less, especially over the next few years, but its probably a blip, the logic of the elite players earning more will continue to be driven by global interest and online pay tv and that will remain the longer term trend.

    Football still would work fine as a spectacle whether the players were amateur or billionaires. The players dont need to be as fit as they would be normally, if the opposition are also less fit, so that part is fine.

    The Soton chairman said the govt were keen on them starting behind closed doors before the lockdown ends. Clubs and TV will also want that. So we will restart as soon as the players can be convinced, which will be the tricky point.
    Re your last paragraph. Purely self interest with no care for those suffering

    If football starts while we are in 12 week lockdown it will see a fury you cannot imagine

    Priorities first, and football is not even on the list
    You often make these sweeping statements Big_G and I have no doubt some will be upset. But many others (myself included) will be happy to watch some live football to take our minds of the relentlessly depressing news.

    Was there fury during the Blitz when cinemas and dance halls were kept open? No, there was not.
    Football is a contact sport and if millions cannot leave their homes how can it be justified
    Actually, I've got to confess, you have me on that point. :smile:
    Fair play
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195
    Japan apparently only using 15% of its testing capacity of 7k per day.....

    Edmund???????
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    tyson said:

    Foxy said:

    ABZ said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Actually I find that figure a lot more positive than I thought it would be based on some of the news reports from Italy.
    It's very interesting. In essence, seriously obese people clearly have a poorer prognosis once within the ICU and males are much more susceptible. This all confirms reports from other countries. I think the definition of 'very severe comorbidities' they have used is quite narrow - for example, 'standard' hypertension or several other factors that are commonly mentioned as increasing risk are not included. Hence, I suspect the fraction of those who have been in the ICU with one of these milder symptoms would be a bit higher. Given this, I think the report might (although clearly it's not super positive) be better in some sense than at first glance and might reinforce what @SandyRentool said.


    My nephew is really chippy about the results with the next level down...those responding to oxygen and mixed drug therapies (including 90 plus)....

    All the time clinicians are getting experienced in strategies in helping people with a virus that our body has no natural defence against.....

    It's good to see you here...you must be over there worst....

    My other nephew is still spikey (fever)...but less so today....
    Sounds positive.

    A bit tight chested again this evening, but OK.
    Have you managed to get tested yet @Foxy?

    Roll-out of testing seems to be the nub of our current challenge.
    Yes, no result yet though.
    Glad at least to hear that you've been tested. Must be strange awating the outcome. Not sure what result I'd want in your position. If it's positive will you be allowed back into patient contact once your symptoms have gone?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    rcs1000 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Too big to fail?

    Let them go bankrupt, the stadiums will still exist and the demand for football will still be there. The best players will get jobs with the new clubs once normality resumes.

    That is the argument some on here are making for the rest of the economy, for the small business owner and the high street shop. So why not football as well.

    I make that argument about Virgin Atlantic.

    And I make that argument because if you can't ever go bankrupt, because the government will bail you out, then it is an optimal strategy to lever up as much as possible.

    The reason why wealth inequality has increased in the last ten years is because of wealthy people being able to engage in a massive carry trade: borrow at 3%, invest at 5%. Free money. Oodles of free money. The more you leverage yourself, the richer you become.

    If Virgin Atlantic go bust, it is shit for people who have loads of Virgin miles, like me. It's shit for Richard Branson. It's shit for the CEO, and various other people who own shares.

    But it does not affect the productive power of the economy. Someone will come along, and buy Virgin Atlantic out of the administrators or recievers.

    And even if they don't, then someone will lease some planes (they already exist) and setup a new route from LA to London. The amount of work done in the economy will be the same.

    What we will have done, though, is make it clear to the wealthy that they cannot engage, at the public's expense, in a massive carry trade that does nothing for the real economy.

    Bailing out Virgin Atlantic is corporatism. It stunk in the 1970s. And it stinks now. It doesn't save jobs, it merely encourages the uber-wealthy to borrow, borrow, borrow, borrow.
    In normal circumstances I'd 100% agree. When its businesses that have failed they should go under - whether that be Monarch or Thomas Cook or FlyBe or however many others.

    What we're seeing now is a government-mandated shutdown that goes beyond the realms of what businesses or individuals cater for.

    If the government tells a profitable company that it can no longer operate because they're going to build a railway track through the land the company runs on do the shareholders just lose out? No, there has to be a compulsory purchase order with fair market value compensation. This is the same thing but temporary rather than permanent. The businesses haven't failed through any fault or malfeasance, the government has shut them down so the government owes compensation.
    The government will reject on the grounds of 'force majeure' just as insurers are rejecting claims
    The government should take responsibility for the 'force majeure' since its their decision.

    We could have just continued to trade normally, taken the risk, seen plenty of economically inactive elderly folks especially die - many of whom would have died before long anyway - and the collapse of the NHS. If the government wishes to enforce a shutdown then it should take responsibility for its choice.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281

    stodge said:


    If we can't guarantee next season can take place uninterrupted then it'd be absurd to void this season. Just continue this season next season. Better one two-year season than no seasons for two years.

    Other sports face similar problems - rugby union, horse racing as well.

    The PL and Championship have nine rounds of matches outstanding which wouldn't be too bad - four weeks of two games a week plus one final round so achievable.

    The problem is you also have three rounds of FA Cup and European matches to complete.

    We're looking at six weeks of 2-3 games per week for some teams and 1-2 for others so start mid May end late June and start the new season without a break. It might be achievable, it might not.

    Matches played behind closed doors under tight security to begin with perhaps with relaxation later on.

    For horse racing the flat season will need to be re-considered. The Guineas looks doubtful (early May) but the Derby and Ascot (which are as much social as sporting occasions and therefore staging them without spectators seems impractical) are June.

    Oddly enough, the large events in each sport look more vulnerable than the day-to-day. Horse racing re-commencing at smaller fixtures behind closed doors in early May looks feasible subject to medical cover so a midweek Lingfield card would be a better option than Chester or the Dante meeting at York?

    No reason FA Cup couldnt be finished next season with a December final with the 2020-21 League cup cancelled. Champs League its realistically just Man City and they can play their first team in that and reserves in Prem games and still finish second. Europa League prem teams have played their reserves in more often than not anyway. Get it done.

    I really am of the opinion football as we know it may not survive covid 19

    Already the broadcasters are seeing a collapse in their sports income and this can only get worse as we emerge into an economic disaster with lost jobs, businesses and confidence

    At the end of June the broadcasters are likely to be locked in a huge legal fight with the football authorities. Clubs will see a collapse in season ticket sales and income from broadcasting

    Players will be seeing large reductions in wages and transfer, as clubs see revenue drop from season ticket sales, broadcast income, and sponsorship

    I see no pathway to football starting before late august but the chaos amongst clubs, players and supporters is going to be catastrophic. Indeed how many clubs will have players fit enough to play at the highest level and indeed how many will still be at the clubs they are today

    I love football, but I believe everyone needs to accept it cannot be the same and even thinking about it is absurd in the context of the people's priorities, and the nations, post covid 19
    Players and agents may well earn less, especially over the next few years, but its probably a blip, the logic of the elite players earning more will continue to be driven by global interest and online pay tv and that will remain the longer term trend.

    Football still would work fine as a spectacle whether the players were amateur or billionaires. The players dont need to be as fit as they would be normally, if the opposition are also less fit, so that part is fine.

    The Soton chairman said the govt were keen on them starting behind closed doors before the lockdown ends. Clubs and TV will also want that. So we will restart as soon as the players can be convinced, which will be the tricky point.
    Re your last paragraph. Purely self interest with no care for those suffering

    If football starts while we are in 12 week lockdown it will see a fury you cannot imagine

    Priorities first, and football is not even on the list
    You often make these sweeping statements Big_G and I have no doubt some will be upset. But many others (myself included) will be happy to watch some live football to take our minds of the relentlessly depressing news.

    Was there fury during the Blitz when cinemas and dance halls were kept open? No, there was not.
    Football is a contact sport and if millions cannot leave their homes how can it be justified
    Actually, I've got to confess, you have me on that point. :smile:
    Fair play
    I am totally infallible (except when wrong) :wink:
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    stodge said:


    If we can't guarantee next season can take place uninterrupted then it'd be absurd to void this season. Just continue this season next season. Better one two-year season than no seasons for two years.

    Other sports face similar problems - rugby union, horse racing as well.

    The PL and Championship have nine rounds of matches outstanding which wouldn't be too bad - four weeks of two games a week plus one final round so achievable.

    The problem is you also have three rounds of FA Cup and European matches to complete.

    We're looking at six weeks of 2-3 games per week for some teams and 1-2 for others so start mid May end late June and start the new season without a break. It might be achievable, it might not.

    Matches played behind closed doors under tight security to begin with perhaps with relaxation later on.

    For horse racing the flat season will need to be re-considered. The Guineas looks doubtful (early May) but the Derby and Ascot (which are as much social as sporting occasions and therefore staging them without spectators seems impractical) are June.

    Oddly enough, the large events in each sport look more vulnerable than the day-to-day. Horse racing re-commencing at smaller fixtures behind closed doors in early May looks feasible subject to medical cover so a midweek Lingfield card would be a better option than Chester or the Dante meeting at York?

    No reason FA Cup couldnt be finished next season with a December final with the 2020-21 League cup cancelled. Champs League its realistically just Man City and they can play their first team in that and reserves in Prem games and still finish second. Europa League prem teams have played their reserves in more often than not anyway. Get it done.

    I really am of the opinion football as we know it may not survive covid 19

    Already the broadcasters are seeing a collapse in their sports income and this can only get worse as we emerge into an economic disaster with lost jobs, businesses and confidence

    At the end of June the broadcasters are likely to be locked in a huge legal fight with the football authorities. Clubs will see a collapse in season ticket sales and income from broadcasting

    Players will be seeing large reductions in wages and transfer, as clubs see revenue drop from season ticket sales, broadcast income, and sponsorship

    I see no pathway to football starting before late august but the chaos amongst clubs, players and supporters is going to be catastrophic. Indeed how many clubs will have players fit enough to play at the highest level and indeed how many will still be at the clubs they are today

    I love football, but I believe everyone needs to accept it cannot be the same and even thinking about it is absurd in the context of the people's priorities, and the nations, post covid 19
    Players and agents may well earn less, especially over the next few years, but its probably a blip, the logic of the elite players earning more will continue to be driven by global interest and online pay tv and that will remain the longer term trend.

    Football still would work fine as a spectacle whether the players were amateur or billionaires. The players dont need to be as fit as they would be normally, if the opposition are also less fit, so that part is fine.

    The Soton chairman said the govt were keen on them starting behind closed doors before the lockdown ends. Clubs and TV will also want that. So we will restart as soon as the players can be convinced, which will be the tricky point.
    Re your last paragraph. Purely self interest with no care for those suffering

    If football starts while we are in 12 week lockdown it will see a fury you cannot imagine

    Priorities first, and football is not even on the list
    You often make these sweeping statements Big_G and I have no doubt some will be upset. But many others (myself included) will be happy to watch some live football to take our minds of the relentlessly depressing news.

    Was there fury during the Blitz when cinemas and dance halls were kept open? No, there was not.
    Being bombed is not infectious, and movies and dancing are not as oafishly blokeish as football is.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    rcs1000 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Too big to fail?

    Let them go bankrupt, the stadiums will still exist and the demand for football will still be there. The best players will get jobs with the new clubs once normality resumes.

    That is the argument some on here are making for the rest of the economy, for the small business owner and the high street shop. So why not football as well.

    I make that argument about Virgin Atlantic.

    And I make that argument because if you can't ever go bankrupt, because the government will bail you out, then it is an optimal strategy to lever up as much as possible.

    The reason why wealth inequality has increased in the last ten years is because of wealthy people being able to engage in a massive carry trade: borrow at 3%, invest at 5%. Free money. Oodles of free money. The more you leverage yourself, the richer you become.

    If Virgin Atlantic go bust, it is shit for people who have loads of Virgin miles, like me. It's shit for Richard Branson. It's shit for the CEO, and various other people who own shares.

    But it does not affect the productive power of the economy. Someone will come along, and buy Virgin Atlantic out of the administrators or recievers.

    And even if they don't, then someone will lease some planes (they already exist) and setup a new route from LA to London. The amount of work done in the economy will be the same.

    What we will have done, though, is make it clear to the wealthy that they cannot engage, at the public's expense, in a massive carry trade that does nothing for the real economy.

    Bailing out Virgin Atlantic is corporatism. It stunk in the 1970s. And it stinks now. It doesn't save jobs, it merely encourages the uber-wealthy to borrow, borrow, borrow, borrow.
    Another one sitting on a ton of Virgin Miles - I agree.

    I used to have Northern Rock shares too - as a shareholder, I got all I deserved.
    You don't see a difference between Northern Rock failing due to its own failure - and profitable taxpaying businesses struggling due to government actions?

    PS I don't know the specifics of Virgin and its profits or taxes. Has it been paying much Corporation Tax in recent years? Has it been turning a profit? If its been avoiding Corporation Tax (or ineligible to it due to losses) I'm suggesting it should be left to its own devices. I'm only suggesting support linked to previously paid taxes.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,454

    stodge said:


    If we can't guarantee next season can take place uninterrupted then it'd be absurd to void this season. Just continue this season next season. Better one two-year season than no seasons for two years.

    Other sports face similar problems - rugby union, horse racing as well.

    The PL and Championship have nine rounds of matches outstanding which wouldn't be too bad - four weeks of two games a week plus one final round so achievable.

    The problem is you also have three rounds of FA Cup and European matches to complete.

    We're looking at six weeks of 2-3 games per week for some teams and 1-2 for others so start mid May end late June and start the new season without a break. It might be achievable, it might not.

    Matches played behind closed doors under tight security to begin with perhaps with relaxation later on.

    For horse racing the flat season will need to be re-considered. The Guineas looks doubtful (early May) but the Derby and Ascot (which are as much social as sporting occasions and therefore staging them without spectators seems impractical) are June.

    Oddly enough, the large events in each sport look more vulnerable than the day-to-day. Horse racing re-commencing at smaller fixtures behind closed doors in early May looks feasible subject to medical cover so a midweek Lingfield card would be a better option than Chester or the Dante meeting at York?

    No reason FA Cup couldnt be finished next season with a December final with the 2020-21 League cup cancelled. Champs League its realistically just Man City and they can play their first team in that and reserves in Prem games and still finish second. Europa League prem teams have played their reserves in more often than not anyway. Get it done.

    I really am of the opinion football as we know it may not survive covid 19

    Already the broadcasters are seeing a collapse in their sports income and this can only get worse as we emerge into an economic disaster with lost jobs, businesses and confidence

    At the end of June the broadcasters are likely to be locked in a huge legal fight with the football authorities. Clubs will see a collapse in season ticket sales and income from broadcasting

    Players will be seeing large reductions in wages and transfer, as clubs see revenue drop from season ticket sales, broadcast income, and sponsorship

    I see no pathway to football starting before late august but the chaos amongst clubs, players and supporters is going to be catastrophic. Indeed how many clubs will have players fit enough to play at the highest level and indeed how many will still be at the clubs they are today

    I love football, but I believe everyone needs to accept it cannot be the same and even thinking about it is absurd in the context of the people's priorities, and the nations, post covid 19
    Players and agents may well earn less, especially over the next few years, but its probably a blip, the logic of the elite players earning more will continue to be driven by global interest and online pay tv and that will remain the longer term trend.

    Football still would work fine as a spectacle whether the players were amateur or billionaires. The players dont need to be as fit as they would be normally, if the opposition are also less fit, so that part is fine.

    The Soton chairman said the govt were keen on them starting behind closed doors before the lockdown ends. Clubs and TV will also want that. So we will restart as soon as the players can be convinced, which will be the tricky point.
    Re your last paragraph. Purely self interest with no care for those suffering

    If football starts while we are in 12 week lockdown it will see a fury you cannot imagine

    Priorities first, and football is not even on the list
    Of course football is not the national priority.

    I might be missing your point but if its suggesting that anyone who discusses things other than the highest priority issues has no care for others, then that is offensive. People respond in different ways and there is no harm in people thinking about how football might resume.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281
    edited March 2020
    Andy_JS said:

    Since the lockdown I've eaten less but drunk more. Anyone else with the same experience?

    I'm afraid to say I have drunk more and eaten more. But on the plus side I have exercised more - I have treated the going out once for daily exercise as a requirement rather than a limit.

    Need to curtail the eating and drinking though, having read all these reports of BMI being an indicator of Covid-19 survival!
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195
    So even with all this going on someone still lobbing missiles at Saudi Arabia
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,454
    IshmaelZ said:

    stodge said:


    If we can't guarantee next season can take place uninterrupted then it'd be absurd to void this season. Just continue this season next season. Better one two-year season than no seasons for two years.

    Other sports face similar problems - rugby union, horse racing as well.

    The PL and Championship have nine rounds of matches outstanding which wouldn't be too bad - four weeks of two games a week plus one final round so achievable.

    The problem is you also have three rounds of FA Cup and European matches to complete.

    We're looking at six weeks of 2-3 games per week for some teams and 1-2 for others so start mid May end late June and start the new season without a break. It might be achievable, it might not.

    Matches played behind closed doors under tight security to begin with perhaps with relaxation later on.

    For horse racing the flat season will need to be re-considered. The Guineas looks doubtful (early May) but the Derby and Ascot (which are as much social as sporting occasions and therefore staging them without spectators seems impractical) are June.

    Oddly enough, the large events in each sport look more vulnerable than the day-to-day. Horse racing re-commencing at smaller fixtures behind closed doors in early May looks feasible subject to medical cover so a midweek Lingfield card would be a better option than Chester or the Dante meeting at York?

    No reason FA Cup couldnt be finished next season with a December final with the 2020-21 League cup cancelled. Champs League its realistically just Man City and they can play their first team in that and reserves in Prem games and still finish second. Europa League prem teams have played their reserves in more often than not anyway. Get it done.

    I really am of the opinion football as we know it may not survive covid 19

    Already the broadcasters are seeing a collapse in their sports income and this can only get worse as we emerge into an economic disaster with lost jobs, businesses and confidence

    At the end of June the broadcasters are likely to be locked in a huge legal fight with the football authorities. Clubs will see a collapse in season ticket sales and income from broadcasting

    Players will be seeing large reductions in wages and transfer, as clubs see revenue drop from season ticket sales, broadcast income, and sponsorship

    I see no pathway to football starting before late august but the chaos amongst clubs, players and supporters is going to be catastrophic. Indeed how many clubs will have players fit enough to play at the highest level and indeed how many will still be at the clubs they are today

    I love football, but I believe everyone needs to accept it cannot be the same and even thinking about it is absurd in the context of the people's priorities, and the nations, post covid 19
    Players and agents may well earn less, especially over the next few years, but its probably a blip, the logic of the elite players earning more will continue to be driven by global interest and online pay tv and that will remain the longer term trend.

    Football still would work fine as a spectacle whether the players were amateur or billionaires. The players dont need to be as fit as they would be normally, if the opposition are also less fit, so that part is fine.

    The Soton chairman said the govt were keen on them starting behind closed doors before the lockdown ends. Clubs and TV will also want that. So we will restart as soon as the players can be convinced, which will be the tricky point.
    Re your last paragraph. Purely self interest with no care for those suffering

    If football starts while we are in 12 week lockdown it will see a fury you cannot imagine

    Priorities first, and football is not even on the list
    You often make these sweeping statements Big_G and I have no doubt some will be upset. But many others (myself included) will be happy to watch some live football to take our minds of the relentlessly depressing news.

    Was there fury during the Blitz when cinemas and dance halls were kept open? No, there was not.
    Being bombed is not infectious, and movies and dancing are not as oafishly blokeish as football is.
    Repeatedly ignoring that a third of football fans are women is pretty oafishly sexist.
  • TGOHF666TGOHF666 Posts: 2,052
    edited March 2020
    By June if 22 lads and a referee who have all tested that they have had the virus or don’t have the virus want to have a game filmed for tv - why the hell not ?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    Andy_JS said:

    Since the lockdown I've eaten less but drunk more. Anyone else with the same experience?

    I haven't had a drink in 4 weeks now. I can't say I definitely feel better for it, but it must be doing me some good.

    As a long time WFHer, I think I have long since got past the temptation to graze all, which I think will be the problem a lot of people find during this lockdown. I have done intermittent fasting for a number of years and found having set windows for when to consume food really helpful in that respect.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    @TGOHF666 Are you Donald Trump in disguise :D ?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281
    IshmaelZ said:

    stodge said:


    If we can't guarantee next season can take place uninterrupted then it'd be absurd to void this season. Just continue this season next season. Better one two-year season than no seasons for two years.

    Other sports face similar problems - rugby union, horse racing as well.

    The PL and Championship have nine rounds of matches outstanding which wouldn't be too bad - four weeks of two games a week plus one final round so achievable.

    The problem is you also have three rounds of FA Cup and European matches to complete.

    We're looking at six weeks of 2-3 games per week for some teams and 1-2 for others so start mid May end late June and start the new season without a break. It might be achievable, it might not.

    Matches played behind closed doors under tight security to begin with perhaps with relaxation later on.

    For horse racing the flat season will need to be re-considered. The Guineas looks doubtful (early May) but the Derby and Ascot (which are as much social as sporting occasions and therefore staging them without spectators seems impractical) are June.

    Oddly enough, the large events in each sport look more vulnerable than the day-to-day. Horse racing re-commencing at smaller fixtures behind closed doors in early May looks feasible subject to medical cover so a midweek Lingfield card would be a better option than Chester or the Dante meeting at York?

    No reason FA Cup couldnt be finished next season with a December final with the 2020-21 League cup cancelled. Champs League its realistically just Man City and they can play their first team in that and reserves in Prem games and still finish second. Europa League prem teams have played their reserves in more often than not anyway. Get it done.

    I really am of the opinion football as we know it may not survive covid 19

    Already the broadcasters are seeing a collapse in their sports income and this can only get worse as we emerge into an economic disaster with lost jobs, businesses and confidence

    At the end of June the broadcasters are likely to be locked in a huge legal fight with the football authorities. Clubs will see a collapse in season ticket sales and income from broadcasting

    Players will be seeing large reductions in wages and transfer, as clubs see revenue drop from season ticket sales, broadcast income, and sponsorship

    I see no pathway to football starting before late august but the chaos amongst clubs, players and supporters is going to be catastrophic. Indeed how many clubs will have players fit enough to play at the highest level and indeed how many will still be at the clubs they are today

    I love football, but I believe everyone needs to accept it cannot be the same and even thinking about it is absurd in the context of the people's priorities, and the nations, post covid 19
    Players and agents may well earn less, especially over the next few years, but its probably a blip, the logic of the elite players earning more will continue to be driven by global interest and online pay tv and that will remain the longer term trend.

    Football still would work fine as a spectacle whether the players were amateur or billionaires. The players dont need to be as fit as they would be normally, if the opposition are also less fit, so that part is fine.

    The Soton chairman said the govt were keen on them starting behind closed doors before the lockdown ends. Clubs and TV will also want that. So we will restart as soon as the players can be convinced, which will be the tricky point.
    Re your last paragraph. Purely self interest with no care for those suffering

    If football starts while we are in 12 week lockdown it will see a fury you cannot imagine

    Priorities first, and football is not even on the list
    You often make these sweeping statements Big_G and I have no doubt some will be upset. But many others (myself included) will be happy to watch some live football to take our minds of the relentlessly depressing news.

    Was there fury during the Blitz when cinemas and dance halls were kept open? No, there was not.
    Being bombed is not infectious, and movies and dancing are not as oafishly blokeish as football is.
    You don't like football - I get it.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 24,967
    edited March 2020
    Andy_JS said:

    Since the lockdown I've eaten less but drunk more. Anyone else with the same experience?

    Eaten less, drunk less, exercised more.

    But have been working so don't know how the full lockdown experience will affect me yet.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    From a quick Google search it appears Virgin posted losses in 2017 so I'm assuming its not paid Corporation Tax so should be ineligible to further support under my proposals. It was already a loss-making business so the government isn't responsible for it now being a loss-making business. I think additional support should be available to businesses that have been handing over taxes to the government (and will in the future).

    https://corporate.virginatlantic.com/gb/en/media/press-releases/2018-financial-results.html
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,922
    IshmaelZ said:

    stodge said:


    If we can't guarantee next season can take place uninterrupted then it'd be absurd to void this season. Just continue this season next season. Better one two-year season than no seasons for two years.

    Other sports face similar problems - rugby union, horse racing as well.

    The PL and Championship have nine rounds of matches outstanding which wouldn't be too bad - four weeks of two games a week plus one final round so achievable.

    The problem is you also have three rounds of FA Cup and European matches to complete.

    We're looking at six weeks of 2-3 games per week for some teams and 1-2 for others so start mid May end late June and start the new season without a break. It might be achievable, it might not.

    Matches played behind closed doors under tight security to begin with perhaps with relaxation later on.

    For horse racing the flat season will need to be re-considered. The Guineas looks doubtful (early May) but the Derby and Ascot (which are as much social as sporting occasions and therefore staging them without spectators seems impractical) are June.

    Oddly enough, the large events in each sport look more vulnerable than the day-to-day. Horse racing re-commencing at smaller fixtures behind closed doors in early May looks feasible subject to medical cover so a midweek Lingfield card would be a better option than Chester or the Dante meeting at York?

    No reason FA Cup couldnt be finished next season with a December final with the 2020-21 League cup cancelled. Champs League its realistically just Man City and they can play their first team in that and reserves in Prem games and still finish second. Europa League prem teams have played their reserves in more often than not anyway. Get it done.

    I really am of the opinion football as we know it may not survive covid 19

    Already the broadcasters are seeing a collapse in their sports income and this can only get worse as we emerge into an economic disaster with lost jobs, businesses and confidence

    At the end of June the broadcasters are likely to be locked in a huge legal fight with the football authorities. Clubs will see a collapse in season ticket sales and income from broadcasting

    Players will be seeing large reductions in wages and transfer, as clubs see revenue drop from season ticket sales, broadcast income, and sponsorship

    I see no pathway to football starting before late august but the chaos amongst clubs, players and supporters is going to be catastrophic. Indeed how many clubs will have players fit enough to play at the highest level and indeed how many will still be at the clubs they are today

    I love football, but I believe everyone needs to accept it cannot be the same and even thinking about it is absurd in the context of the people's priorities, and the nations, post covid 19
    Players and agents may well earn less, especially over the next few years, but its probably a blip, the logic of the elite players earning more will continue to be driven by global interest and online pay tv and that will remain the longer term trend.

    Football still would work fine as a spectacle whether the players were amateur or billionaires. The players dont need to be as fit as they would be normally, if the opposition are also less fit, so that part is fine.

    The Soton chairman said the govt were keen on them starting behind closed doors before the lockdown ends. Clubs and TV will also want that. So we will restart as soon as the players can be convinced, which will be the tricky point.
    Re your last paragraph. Purely self interest with no care for those suffering

    If football starts while we are in 12 week lockdown it will see a fury you cannot imagine

    Priorities first, and football is not even on the list
    You often make these sweeping statements Big_G and I have no doubt some will be upset. But many others (myself included) will be happy to watch some live football to take our minds of the relentlessly depressing news.

    Was there fury during the Blitz when cinemas and dance halls were kept open? No, there was not.
    Being bombed is not infectious, and movies and dancing are not as oafishly blokeish as football is.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women's_association_football
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    TGOHF666 said:

    By June if 22 lads and a referee who have all tested that they have had the virus or don’t have the virus want to have a game filmed for tv - why the hell not ?

    If people were rational, perhaps, but no doubt many would use it as an excuse for a piss-up.
  • TGOHF666TGOHF666 Posts: 2,052
    Pulpstar said:

    @TGOHF666 Are you Donald Trump in disguise :D ?

    “Chi - nah”
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281
    edited March 2020
    Are we expecting the Orange Idiot to give a presser in Washington today or is he taking a well-earned weekend off?
  • rcs1000 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Too big to fail?

    Let them go bankrupt, the stadiums will still exist and the demand for football will still be there. The best players will get jobs with the new clubs once normality resumes.

    That is the argument some on here are making for the rest of the economy, for the small business owner and the high street shop. So why not football as well.

    I make that argument about Virgin Atlantic.

    And I make that argument because if you can't ever go bankrupt, because the government will bail you out, then it is an optimal strategy to lever up as much as possible.

    The reason why wealth inequality has increased in the last ten years is because of wealthy people being able to engage in a massive carry trade: borrow at 3%, invest at 5%. Free money. Oodles of free money. The more you leverage yourself, the richer you become.

    If Virgin Atlantic go bust, it is shit for people who have loads of Virgin miles, like me. It's shit for Richard Branson. It's shit for the CEO, and various other people who own shares.

    But it does not affect the productive power of the economy. Someone will come along, and buy Virgin Atlantic out of the administrators or recievers.

    And even if they don't, then someone will lease some planes (they already exist) and setup a new route from LA to London. The amount of work done in the economy will be the same.

    What we will have done, though, is make it clear to the wealthy that they cannot engage, at the public's expense, in a massive carry trade that does nothing for the real economy.

    Bailing out Virgin Atlantic is corporatism. It stunk in the 1970s. And it stinks now. It doesn't save jobs, it merely encourages the uber-wealthy to borrow, borrow, borrow, borrow.
    In normal circumstances I'd 100% agree. When its businesses that have failed they should go under - whether that be Monarch or Thomas Cook or FlyBe or however many others.

    What we're seeing now is a government-mandated shutdown that goes beyond the realms of what businesses or individuals cater for.

    If the government tells a profitable company that it can no longer operate because they're going to build a railway track through the land the company runs on do the shareholders just lose out? No, there has to be a compulsory purchase order with fair market value compensation. This is the same thing but temporary rather than permanent. The businesses haven't failed through any fault or malfeasance, the government has shut them down so the government owes compensation.
    The government will reject on the grounds of 'force majeure' just as insurers are rejecting claims
    The government should take responsibility for the 'force majeure' since its their decision.

    We could have just continued to trade normally, taken the risk, seen plenty of economically inactive elderly folks especially die - many of whom would have died before long anyway - and the collapse of the NHS. If the government wishes to enforce a shutdown then it should take responsibility for its choice.
    Words fail me
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941

    From a quick Google search it appears Virgin posted losses in 2017 so I'm assuming its not paid Corporation Tax so should be ineligible to further support under my proposals. It was already a loss-making business so the government isn't responsible for it now being a loss-making business. I think additional support should be available to businesses that have been handing over taxes to the government (and will in the future).

    https://corporate.virginatlantic.com/gb/en/media/press-releases/2018-financial-results.html

    Depends on the magnitude of the loss. It treats one that is on its last legs the same as one that posted a nominal loss.
  • TGOHF666TGOHF666 Posts: 2,052
    RobD said:

    TGOHF666 said:

    By June if 22 lads and a referee who have all tested that they have had the virus or don’t have the virus want to have a game filmed for tv - why the hell not ?

    If people were rational, perhaps, but no doubt many would use it as an excuse for a piss-up.
    They could have a piss up now with a recording of a match.

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774

    rcs1000 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Too big to fail?

    Let them go bankrupt, the stadiums will still exist and the demand for football will still be there. The best players will get jobs with the new clubs once normality resumes.

    That is the argument some on here are making for the rest of the economy, for the small business owner and the high street shop. So why not football as well.

    I make that argument about Virgin Atlantic.

    And I make that argument because if you can't ever go bankrupt, because the government will bail you out, then it is an optimal strategy to lever up as much as possible.

    The reason why wealth inequality has increased in the last ten years is because of wealthy people being able to engage in a massive carry trade: borrow at 3%, invest at 5%. Free money. Oodles of free money. The more you leverage yourself, the richer you become.

    If Virgin Atlantic go bust, it is shit for people who have loads of Virgin miles, like me. It's shit for Richard Branson. It's shit for the CEO, and various other people who own shares.

    But it does not affect the productive power of the economy. Someone will come along, and buy Virgin Atlantic out of the administrators or recievers.

    And even if they don't, then someone will lease some planes (they already exist) and setup a new route from LA to London. The amount of work done in the economy will be the same.

    What we will have done, though, is make it clear to the wealthy that they cannot engage, at the public's expense, in a massive carry trade that does nothing for the real economy.

    Bailing out Virgin Atlantic is corporatism. It stunk in the 1970s. And it stinks now. It doesn't save jobs, it merely encourages the uber-wealthy to borrow, borrow, borrow, borrow.
    In normal circumstances I'd 100% agree. When its businesses that have failed they should go under - whether that be Monarch or Thomas Cook or FlyBe or however many others.

    What we're seeing now is a government-mandated shutdown that goes beyond the realms of what businesses or individuals cater for.

    If the government tells a profitable company that it can no longer operate because they're going to build a railway track through the land the company runs on do the shareholders just lose out? No, there has to be a compulsory purchase order with fair market value compensation. This is the same thing but temporary rather than permanent. The businesses haven't failed through any fault or malfeasance, the government has shut them down so the government owes compensation.
    Firms can - and should - take out insurance to cover those risks.

    Some airlines and football teams took out insurance to cover these risks. Why should their competitors be bailed out.

    We infantilise all, when we socialise risk.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    Eaten about the same, haven't drunk anything alcoholic whilst on lockdown, exercised a little less than previously - but Jan/Feb was quite an intense block for my half mara.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281
    Why did HMG exempt hardware stores?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    rcs1000 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Too big to fail?

    Let them go bankrupt, the stadiums will still exist and the demand for football will still be there. The best players will get jobs with the new clubs once normality resumes.

    That is the argument some on here are making for the rest of the economy, for the small business owner and the high street shop. So why not football as well.

    I make that argument about Virgin Atlantic.

    And I make that argument because if you can't ever go bankrupt, because the government will bail you out, then it is an optimal strategy to lever up as much as possible.

    The reason why wealth inequality has increased in the last ten years is because of wealthy people being able to engage in a massive carry trade: borrow at 3%, invest at 5%. Free money. Oodles of free money. The more you leverage yourself, the richer you become.

    If Virgin Atlantic go bust, it is shit for people who have loads of Virgin miles, like me. It's shit for Richard Branson. It's shit for the CEO, and various other people who own shares.

    But it does not affect the productive power of the economy. Someone will come along, and buy Virgin Atlantic out of the administrators or recievers.

    And even if they don't, then someone will lease some planes (they already exist) and setup a new route from LA to London. The amount of work done in the economy will be the same.

    What we will have done, though, is make it clear to the wealthy that they cannot engage, at the public's expense, in a massive carry trade that does nothing for the real economy.

    Bailing out Virgin Atlantic is corporatism. It stunk in the 1970s. And it stinks now. It doesn't save jobs, it merely encourages the uber-wealthy to borrow, borrow, borrow, borrow.
    In normal circumstances I'd 100% agree. When its businesses that have failed they should go under - whether that be Monarch or Thomas Cook or FlyBe or however many others.

    What we're seeing now is a government-mandated shutdown that goes beyond the realms of what businesses or individuals cater for.

    If the government tells a profitable company that it can no longer operate because they're going to build a railway track through the land the company runs on do the shareholders just lose out? No, there has to be a compulsory purchase order with fair market value compensation. This is the same thing but temporary rather than permanent. The businesses haven't failed through any fault or malfeasance, the government has shut them down so the government owes compensation.
    The government will reject on the grounds of 'force majeure' just as insurers are rejecting claims
    The government should take responsibility for the 'force majeure' since its their decision.

    We could have just continued to trade normally, taken the risk, seen plenty of economically inactive elderly folks especially die - many of whom would have died before long anyway - and the collapse of the NHS. If the government wishes to enforce a shutdown then it should take responsibility for its choice.
    Words fail me
    Why?

    I'm saying the right decision was made to put healthcare over the economy - despite all my instincts normally being the opposite. But the government needs to own up to that choice and all it entails.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited March 2020
    For those who think the government should be able to just shut down profitable businesses without consequence - should the same principle apply to the construction of HS2?

    The reason HS2 is so expensive is the compulsory purchase orders required to take the land from homes and businesses along its route. If you just say "sucks to be you" and cease it without recompense then HS2 would be a lot, lot cheaper.

    I think its quite right we offer compensation when a companies land is seized from it. So too when its trade is seized from it in order to protect the nations health.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,069

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    tyson said:

    Foxy said:

    ABZ said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Actually I find that figure a lot more positive than I thought it would be based on some of the news reports from Italy.
    It's very interesting. In essence, seriously obese people clearly have a poorer prognosis once within the ICU and males are much more susceptible. This all confirms reports from other countries. I think the definition of 'very severe comorbidities' they have used is quite narrow - for example, 'standard' hypertension or several other factors that are commonly mentioned as increasing risk are not included. Hence, I suspect the fraction of those who have been in the ICU with one of these milder symptoms would be a bit higher. Given this, I think the report might (although clearly it's not super positive) be better in some sense than at first glance and might reinforce what @SandyRentool said.


    My nephew is really chippy about the results with the next level down...those responding to oxygen and mixed drug therapies (including 90 plus)....

    All the time clinicians are getting experienced in strategies in helping people with a virus that our body has no natural defence against.....

    It's good to see you here...you must be over there worst....

    My other nephew is still spikey (fever)...but less so today....
    Sounds positive.

    A bit tight chested again this evening, but OK.
    Have you managed to get tested yet @Foxy?

    Roll-out of testing seems to be the nub of our current challenge.
    Yes, no result yet though.
    Glad at least to hear that you've been tested. Must be strange awating the outcome. Not sure what result I'd want in your position. If it's positive will you be allowed back into patient contact once your symptoms have gone?
    Indeed, a positive result, and survival lifts a dark cloud, and safe to rejoin the fight.

    Quite a few false negatives though. The test is only about 70% sensitive.
  • AndrewAndrew Posts: 2,900
    edited March 2020
    Floater said:

    Japan apparently only using 15% of its testing capacity of 7k per day.....

    Edmund???????

    They've done a total of 28k tests so far, about 8 times fewer than us per capita.

    Supposedly they have slightly fewer cases than Luxembourg. Hrrrrrm.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    TGOHF666 said:

    RobD said:

    TGOHF666 said:

    By June if 22 lads and a referee who have all tested that they have had the virus or don’t have the virus want to have a game filmed for tv - why the hell not ?

    If people were rational, perhaps, but no doubt many would use it as an excuse for a piss-up.
    They could have a piss up now with a recording of a match.

    Not quite the same, is it?
  • stodge said:


    If we can't guarantee next season can take place uninterrupted then it'd be absurd to void this season. Just continue this season next season. Better one two-year season than no seasons for two years.

    Other sports face similar problems - rugby union, horse racing as well.

    The PL and Championship have nine rounds of matches outstanding which wouldn't be too bad - four weeks of two games a week plus one final round so achievable.

    The problem is you also have three rounds of FA Cup and European matches to complete.

    We're looking at six weeks of 2-3 games per week for some teams and 1-2 for others so start mid May end late June and start the new season without a break. It might be achievable, it might not.

    Matches played behind closed doors under tight security to begin with perhaps with relaxation later on.

    For horse racing the flat season will need to be re-considered. The Guineas looks doubtful (early May) but the Derby and Ascot (which are as much social as sporting occasions and therefore staging them without spectators seems impractical) are June.

    Oddly enough, the large events in each sport look more vulnerable than the day-to-day. Horse racing re-commencing at smaller fixtures behind closed doors in early May looks feasible subject to medical cover so a midweek Lingfield card would be a better option than Chester or the Dante meeting at York?

    No reason FA Cup couldnt be finished next season with a December final with the 2020-21 League cup cancelled. Champs League its realistically just Man City and they can play their first team in that and reserves in Prem games and still finish second. Europa League prem teams have played their reserves in more often than not anyway. Get it done.

    I really am of the opinion football as we know it may not survive covid 19

    Already the broadcasters are seeing a collapse in their sports income and this can only get worse as we emerge into an economic disaster with lost jobs, businesses and confidence

    At the end of June the broadcasters are likely to be locked in a huge legal fight with the football authorities. Clubs will see a collapse in season ticket sales and income from broadcasting

    Players will be seeing large reductions in wages and transfer, as clubs see revenue drop from season ticket sales, broadcast income, and sponsorship

    I see no pathway to football starting before late august but the chaos amongst clubs, players and supporters is going to be catastrophic. Indeed how many clubs will have players fit enough to play at the highest level and indeed how many will still be at the clubs they are today

    I love football, but I believe everyone needs to accept it cannot be the same and even thinking about it is absurd in the context of the people's priorities, and the nations, post covid 19
    Players and agents may well earn less, especially over the next few years, but its probably a blip, the logic of the elite players earning more will continue to be driven by global interest and online pay tv and that will remain the longer term trend.

    Football still would work fine as a spectacle whether the players were amateur or billionaires. The players dont need to be as fit as they would be normally, if the opposition are also less fit, so that part is fine.

    The Soton chairman said the govt were keen on them starting behind closed doors before the lockdown ends. Clubs and TV will also want that. So we will restart as soon as the players can be convinced, which will be the tricky point.
    Re your last paragraph. Purely self interest with no care for those suffering

    If football starts while we are in 12 week lockdown it will see a fury you cannot imagine

    Priorities first, and football is not even on the list
    Of course football is not the national priority.

    I might be missing your point but if its suggesting that anyone who discusses things other than the highest priority issues has no care for others, then that is offensive. People respond in different ways and there is no harm in people thinking about how football might resume.
    No

    I do not want to give offence and please accept my apology if you feel that way

    The point is that vested interests in football are driving an unseemly rush to play again when people are dying and the nation is in lockdown for an indeterminate period
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    TGOHF666 said:
    He's wrong. They are different groups. The 7,000 figure was from a statistician in the college of electrical engineering, IIRC.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,454
    edited March 2020
    TGOHF666 said:
    Wilful misrepresentation and pathetic journalism.

    500k is based on doing nothing at all.
    20k is based on doing what we are currently doing.
    5700 is not from Professor Ferguson.
  • AndreaParma_82AndreaParma_82 Posts: 4,714
    edited March 2020
    Vatican has done 170 tests

    But I think they include also their employees in the 6 figures. One works in their storage department and 2 at the Vatican museums.
  • TGOHF666TGOHF666 Posts: 2,052
    RobD said:

    TGOHF666 said:

    RobD said:

    TGOHF666 said:

    By June if 22 lads and a referee who have all tested that they have had the virus or don’t have the virus want to have a game filmed for tv - why the hell not ?

    If people were rational, perhaps, but no doubt many would use it as an excuse for a piss-up.
    They could have a piss up now with a recording of a match.

    Not quite the same, is it?
    No - but neither is closed doors footballl.

    But we need to take some risks to get back to normality and sport on the tv would help.

    Before the NHS takes command of the country like Skynet or whatever.

    Lock up the boomers and let the rest of us get on with it.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    TGOHF666 said:
    There'll be a ready counterexample in New York City shortly.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited March 2020
    TGOHF666 said:
    Jesus where do I start with that tweet....again morons in the media showing total inability to a) understand the science and maths behind models and predictions and b) shockingly at the same university there are different groups of academics, they don't all work together nor agree.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    eadric said:

    TGOHF666 said:
    Wilful misrepresentation and pathetic journalism.

    500k is based on doing nothing at all.
    20k is based on doing what we are currently doing.
    5700 is not from Professor Ferguson.
    God that is desperately irresponsible. Career ending. Or should be
    What possessed them to write a paper on this when they have zero background in the area. Highly irresponsible.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    TGOHF666 said:
    That is palpable nonsense, the 5,700 figure is from a bloke called Pike whose only connection with Ferguson is that they are both at Imperial. Pike came to prominence via a Jeremy Vine tweet which claimed he is not an epidemiologist but is a statistician, but he is neither - he is an engineer who designs Mars rovers.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,069
    edited March 2020
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Too big to fail?

    Let them go bankrupt, the stadiums will still exist and the demand for football will still be there. The best players will get jobs with the new clubs once normality resumes.

    That is the argument some on here are making for the rest of the economy, for the small business owner and the high street shop. So why not football as well.

    I make that argument about Virgin Atlantic.

    And I make that argument because if you can't ever go bankrupt, because the government will bail you out, then it is an optimal strategy to lever up as much as possible.

    The reason why wealth inequality has increased in the last ten years is because of wealthy people being able to engage in a massive carry trade: borrow at 3%, invest at 5%. Free money. Oodles of free money. The more you leverage yourself, the richer you become.

    If Virgin Atlantic go bust, it is shit for people who have loads of Virgin miles, like me. It's shit for Richard Branson. It's shit for the CEO, and various other people who own shares.

    But it does not affect the productive power of the economy. Someone will come along, and buy Virgin Atlantic out of the administrators or recievers.

    And even if they don't, then someone will lease some planes (they already exist) and setup a new route from LA to London. The amount of work done in the economy will be the same.

    What we will have done, though, is make it clear to the wealthy that they cannot engage, at the public's expense, in a massive carry trade that does nothing for the real economy.

    Bailing out Virgin Atlantic is corporatism. It stunk in the 1970s. And it stinks now. It doesn't save jobs, it merely encourages the uber-wealthy to borrow, borrow, borrow, borrow.
    In normal circumstances I'd 100% agree. When its businesses that have failed they should go under - whether that be Monarch or Thomas Cook or FlyBe or however many others.

    What we're seeing now is a government-mandated shutdown that goes beyond the realms of what businesses or individuals cater for.

    If the government tells a profitable company that it can no longer operate because they're going to build a railway track through the land the company runs on do the shareholders just lose out? No, there has to be a compulsory purchase order with fair market value compensation. This is the same thing but temporary rather than permanent. The businesses haven't failed through any fault or malfeasance, the government has shut them down so the government owes compensation.
    Firms can - and should - take out insurance to cover those risks.

    Some airlines and football teams took out insurance to cover these risks. Why should their competitors be bailed out.

    We infantilise all, when we socialise risk.
    I don't think this an incurable risk though is it.

    I agree with @Philip_Thompson that support should only go to businesses with a history of paying tax. Perhaps limited to the best of the last 3 years?

    Edit: should read "insurable risk"
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    tyson said:

    Foxy said:

    ABZ said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Actually I find that figure a lot more positive than I thought it would be based on some of the news reports from Italy.
    It's very interesting. In essence, seriously obese people clearly have a poorer prognosis once within the ICU and males are much more susceptible. This all confirms reports from other countries. I think the definition of 'very severe comorbidities' they have used is quite narrow - for example, 'standard' hypertension or several other factors that are commonly mentioned as increasing risk are not included. Hence, I suspect the fraction of those who have been in the ICU with one of these milder symptoms would be a bit higher. Given this, I think the report might (although clearly it's not super positive) be better in some sense than at first glance and might reinforce what @SandyRentool said.


    My nephew is really chippy about the results with the next level down...those responding to oxygen and mixed drug therapies (including 90 plus)....

    All the time clinicians are getting experienced in strategies in helping people with a virus that our body has no natural defence against.....

    It's good to see you here...you must be over there worst....

    My other nephew is still spikey (fever)...but less so today....
    Sounds positive.

    A bit tight chested again this evening, but OK.
    Have you managed to get tested yet @Foxy?

    Roll-out of testing seems to be the nub of our current challenge.
    Yes, no result yet though.
    Glad at least to hear that you've been tested. Must be strange awating the outcome. Not sure what result I'd want in your position. If it's positive will you be allowed back into patient contact once your symptoms have gone?
    Indeed, a positive result, and survival lifts a dark cloud, and safe to rejoin the fight.

    Quite a few false negatives though. The test is only about 70% sensitive.
    Let's hope the antibody tests can be rolled out in quick order.

    I remain in awe of what you and your colleagues across the NHS are doing for the nation - thanks.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited March 2020
    eadric said:

    TGOHF666 said:
    Wilful misrepresentation and pathetic journalism.

    500k is based on doing nothing at all.
    20k is based on doing what we are currently doing.
    5700 is not from Professor Ferguson.
    God that is desperately irresponsible. Career ending. Or should be
    As well as the naughty / nice list for businesses, we need the same for journalists....some are showing themselves to not only suffer BDS, but actually as thick as two short planks and unable to even read any sort of academic paper or do any research about the ideas behind it.

    There is no excuse, on YouTube alone there are loads of really great videos explaining things like SIR modelling, the way the time lags from infection to death work with this virus etc.
  • glwglw Posts: 9,535

    TGOHF666 said:
    Wilful misreprentation and pathetic journalism.

    500k is based on doing nothing at all.
    20k is based on doing what we are currently doing.
    5700 is not from Professor Ferguson.
    ++

    Hitchens is a complete fucking idiot.

    500k was doing nothing "herd immunity".
    250k was for mitigation, which was ditched when the government got those figures.
    20k was for suppression.

    If the figures change it will be because the data going into the model improves. We should pray that the forecasts do come down, because we surely do not want them to go upwards.
  • rcs1000 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Too big to fail?

    Let them go bankrupt, the stadiums will still exist and the demand for football will still be there. The best players will get jobs with the new clubs once normality resumes.

    That is the argument some on here are making for the rest of the economy, for the small business owner and the high street shop. So why not football as well.

    I make that argument about Virgin Atlantic.

    And I make that argument because if you can't ever go bankrupt, because the government will bail you out, then it is an optimal strategy to lever up as much as possible.

    The reason why wealth inequality has increased in the last ten years is because of wealthy people being able to engage in a massive carry trade: borrow at 3%, invest at 5%. Free money. Oodles of free money. The more you leverage yourself, the richer you become.

    If Virgin Atlantic go bust, it is shit for people who have loads of Virgin miles, like me. It's shit for Richard Branson. It's shit for the CEO, and various other people who own shares.

    But it does not affect the productive power of the economy. Someone will come along, and buy Virgin Atlantic out of the administrators or recievers.

    And even if they don't, then someone will lease some planes (they already exist) and setup a new route from LA to London. The amount of work done in the economy will be the same.

    What we will have done, though, is make it clear to the wealthy that they cannot engage, at the public's expense, in a massive carry trade that does nothing for the real economy.

    Bailing out Virgin Atlantic is corporatism. It stunk in the 1970s. And it stinks now. It doesn't save jobs, it merely encourages the uber-wealthy to borrow, borrow, borrow, borrow.
    In normal circumstances I'd 100% agree. When its businesses that have failed they should go under - whether that be Monarch or Thomas Cook or FlyBe or however many others.

    What we're seeing now is a government-mandated shutdown that goes beyond the realms of what businesses or individuals cater for.

    If the government tells a profitable company that it can no longer operate because they're going to build a railway track through the land the company runs on do the shareholders just lose out? No, there has to be a compulsory purchase order with fair market value compensation. This is the same thing but temporary rather than permanent. The businesses haven't failed through any fault or malfeasance, the government has shut them down so the government owes compensation.
    The government will reject on the grounds of 'force majeure' just as insurers are rejecting claims
    The government should take responsibility for the 'force majeure' since its their decision.

    We could have just continued to trade normally, taken the risk, seen plenty of economically inactive elderly folks especially die - many of whom would have died before long anyway - and the collapse of the NHS. If the government wishes to enforce a shutdown then it should take responsibility for its choice.
    Words fail me
    Why?

    I'm saying the right decision was made to put healthcare over the economy - despite all my instincts normally being the opposite. But the government needs to own up to that choice and all it entails.
    I really do not see how you can expect HMG to bail out companies because of a pandemic
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Too big to fail?

    Let them go bankrupt, the stadiums will still exist and the demand for football will still be there. The best players will get jobs with the new clubs once normality resumes.

    That is the argument some on here are making for the rest of the economy, for the small business owner and the high street shop. So why not football as well.

    I make that argument about Virgin Atlantic.

    And I make that argument because if you can't ever go bankrupt, because the government will bail you out, then it is an optimal strategy to lever up as much as possible.

    The reason why wealth inequality has increased in the last ten years is because of wealthy people being able to engage in a massive carry trade: borrow at 3%, invest at 5%. Free money. Oodles of free money. The more you leverage yourself, the richer you become.

    If Virgin Atlantic go bust, it is shit for people who have loads of Virgin miles, like me. It's shit for Richard Branson. It's shit for the CEO, and various other people who own shares.

    But it does not affect the productive power of the economy. Someone will come along, and buy Virgin Atlantic out of the administrators or recievers.

    And even if they don't, then someone will lease some planes (they already exist) and setup a new route from LA to London. The amount of work done in the economy will be the same.

    What we will have done, though, is make it clear to the wealthy that they cannot engage, at the public's expense, in a massive carry trade that does nothing for the real economy.

    Bailing out Virgin Atlantic is corporatism. It stunk in the 1970s. And it stinks now. It doesn't save jobs, it merely encourages the uber-wealthy to borrow, borrow, borrow, borrow.
    In normal circumstances I'd 100% agree. When its businesses that have failed they should go under - whether that be Monarch or Thomas Cook or FlyBe or however many others.

    What we're seeing now is a government-mandated shutdown that goes beyond the realms of what businesses or individuals cater for.

    If the government tells a profitable company that it can no longer operate because they're going to build a railway track through the land the company runs on do the shareholders just lose out? No, there has to be a compulsory purchase order with fair market value compensation. This is the same thing but temporary rather than permanent. The businesses haven't failed through any fault or malfeasance, the government has shut them down so the government owes compensation.
    Firms can - and should - take out insurance to cover those risks.

    Some airlines and football teams took out insurance to cover these risks. Why should their competitors be bailed out.

    We infantilise all, when we socialise risk.
    If insurance firms are paying out then that is fine by me.

    It was my understanding (as someone else also said earlier) that insurance firms were refusing to pay out on grounds of 'force majeure' because of the government's actions. If that's the case then HMG should act like an insurer of last resort for those who've been paying their taxes.
  • TGOHF666TGOHF666 Posts: 2,052

    eadric said:

    TGOHF666 said:
    Wilful misrepresentation and pathetic journalism.

    500k is based on doing nothing at all.
    20k is based on doing what we are currently doing.
    5700 is not from Professor Ferguson.
    God that is desperately irresponsible. Career ending. Or should be
    As well as the naughty / nice list for businesses, we need the same for journalists....some are showing themselves to not only suffer BDS, but actually as thick as two short planks.
    Yeah - make them wear yellow stars. How dare they have free speech.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Too big to fail?

    Let them go bankrupt, the stadiums will still exist and the demand for football will still be there. The best players will get jobs with the new clubs once normality resumes.

    That is the argument some on here are making for the rest of the economy, for the small business owner and the high street shop. So why not football as well.

    I make that argument about Virgin Atlantic.

    And I make that argument because if you can't ever go bankrupt, because the government will bail you out, then it is an optimal strategy to lever up as much as possible.

    The reason why wealth inequality has increased in the last ten years is because of wealthy people being able to engage in a massive carry trade: borrow at 3%, invest at 5%. Free money. Oodles of free money. The more you leverage yourself, the richer you become.

    If Virgin Atlantic go bust, it is shit for people who have loads of Virgin miles, like me. It's shit for Richard Branson. It's shit for the CEO, and various other people who own shares.

    But it does not affect the productive power of the economy. Someone will come along, and buy Virgin Atlantic out of the administrators or recievers.

    And even if they don't, then someone will lease some planes (they already exist) and setup a new route from LA to London. The amount of work done in the economy will be the same.

    What we will have done, though, is make it clear to the wealthy that they cannot engage, at the public's expense, in a massive carry trade that does nothing for the real economy.

    Bailing out Virgin Atlantic is corporatism. It stunk in the 1970s. And it stinks now. It doesn't save jobs, it merely encourages the uber-wealthy to borrow, borrow, borrow, borrow.
    In normal circumstances I'd 100% agree. When its businesses that have failed they should go under - whether that be Monarch or Thomas Cook or FlyBe or however many others.

    What we're seeing now is a government-mandated shutdown that goes beyond the realms of what businesses or individuals cater for.

    If the government tells a profitable company that it can no longer operate because they're going to build a railway track through the land the company runs on do the shareholders just lose out? No, there has to be a compulsory purchase order with fair market value compensation. This is the same thing but temporary rather than permanent. The businesses haven't failed through any fault or malfeasance, the government has shut them down so the government owes compensation.
    Firms can - and should - take out insurance to cover those risks.

    Some airlines and football teams took out insurance to cover these risks. Why should their competitors be bailed out.

    We infantilise all, when we socialise risk.
    If insurance firms are paying out then that is fine by me.

    It was my understanding (as someone else also said earlier) that insurance firms were refusing to pay out on grounds of 'force majeure' because of the government's actions. If that's the case then HMG should act like an insurer of last resort for those who've been paying their taxes.
    Wasn't it said in one of the first press conferences that the government had been working with the insurance industry and that they will pay out on policies, rather than hiding behind the small print in their policies?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281
    RobD said:

    TGOHF666 said:
    He's wrong. They are different groups. The 7,000 figure was from a statistician in the college of electrical engineering, IIRC.

    Seismic engineer produces an earthshattering Covid-19 report...

    https://www.imperial.ac.uk/people/w.t.pike
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    TGOHF666 said:

    eadric said:

    TGOHF666 said:
    Wilful misrepresentation and pathetic journalism.

    500k is based on doing nothing at all.
    20k is based on doing what we are currently doing.
    5700 is not from Professor Ferguson.
    God that is desperately irresponsible. Career ending. Or should be
    As well as the naughty / nice list for businesses, we need the same for journalists....some are showing themselves to not only suffer BDS, but actually as thick as two short planks.
    Yeah - make them wear yellow stars. How dare they have free speech.
    Free speech is fine, but getting simple facts straight seems like a prerequisite.
  • JohnOJohnO Posts: 4,211
    FWIW - Someone earlier was asking about polls. Tonight's Opinium also gives the Tories a 26% lead with them on 54, Lab 28, LD 6, Green 3. Mirrors yesterday's from NCPolitics.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    TGOHF666 said:

    eadric said:

    TGOHF666 said:
    Wilful misrepresentation and pathetic journalism.

    500k is based on doing nothing at all.
    20k is based on doing what we are currently doing.
    5700 is not from Professor Ferguson.
    God that is desperately irresponsible. Career ending. Or should be
    As well as the naughty / nice list for businesses, we need the same for journalists....some are showing themselves to not only suffer BDS, but actually as thick as two short planks.
    Yeah - make them wear yellow stars. How dare they have free speech.
    Its not about free speech, it is the fact they are dangerously spreading absolute horseshit in a time when accuracy and cutting confusion saves lives.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842

    If that's the case then HMG should act like an insurer of last resort for those who've been paying their taxes.

    This is PRECISELY what it is doing with business and particularly the self employed.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,454

    stodge said:


    If we can't guarantee next season can take place uninterrupted then it'd be absurd to void this season. Just continue this season next season. Better one two-year season than no seasons for two years.

    Other sports face similar problems - rugby union, horse racing as well.

    The PL and Championship have nine rounds of matches outstanding which wouldn't be too bad - four weeks of two games a week plus one final round so achievable.

    The problem is you also have three rounds of FA Cup and European matches to complete.

    We're looking at six weeks of 2-3 games per week for some teams and 1-2 for others so start mid May end late June and start the new season without a break. It might be achievable, it might not.

    Matches played behind closed doors under tight security to begin with perhaps with relaxation later on.

    For horse racing the flat season will need to be re-considered. The Guineas looks doubtful (early May) but the Derby and Ascot (which are as much social as sporting occasions and therefore staging them without spectators seems impractical) are June.

    Oddly enough, the large events in each sport look more vulnerable than the day-to-day. Horse racing re-commencing at smaller fixtures behind closed doors in early May looks feasible subject to medical cover so a midweek Lingfield card would be a better option than Chester or the Dante meeting at York?

    No reason FA Cup couldnt be finished next season with a December final with the 2020-21 League cup cancelled. Champs League its realistically just Man City and they can play their first team in that and reserves in Prem games and still finish second. Europa League prem teams have played their reserves in more often than not anyway. Get it done.

    I really am of the opinion football as we know it may not survive covid 19

    Already the broadcasters are seeing a collapse in their sports income and this can only get worse as we emerge into an economic disaster with lost jobs, businesses and confidence

    At the end of June the broadcasters are likely to be locked in a huge legal fight with the football authorities. Clubs will see a collapse in season ticket sales and income from broadcasting

    Players will be seeing large reductions in wages and transfer, as clubs see revenue drop from season ticket sales, broadcast income, and sponsorship

    I see no pathway to football starting before late august but the chaos amongst clubs, players and supporters is going to be catastrophic. Indeed how many clubs will have players fit enough to play at the highest level and indeed how many will still be at the clubs they are today

    I love football, but I believe everyone needs to accept it cannot be the same and even thinking about it is absurd in the context of the people's priorities, and the nations, post covid 19
    Players and agents may well earn less, especially over the next few years, but its probably a blip, the logic of the elite players earning more will continue to be driven by global interest and online pay tv and that will remain the longer term trend.

    Football still would work fine as a spectacle whether the players were amateur or billionaires. The players dont need to be as fit as they would be normally, if the opposition are also less fit, so that part is fine.

    The Soton chairman said the govt were keen on them starting behind closed doors before the lockdown ends. Clubs and TV will also want that. So we will restart as soon as the players can be convinced, which will be the tricky point.
    Re your last paragraph. Purely self interest with no care for those suffering

    If football starts while we are in 12 week lockdown it will see a fury you cannot imagine

    Priorities first, and football is not even on the list
    Of course football is not the national priority.

    I might be missing your point but if its suggesting that anyone who discusses things other than the highest priority issues has no care for others, then that is offensive. People respond in different ways and there is no harm in people thinking about how football might resume.
    No

    I do not want to give offence and please accept my apology if you feel that way

    The point is that vested interests in football are driving an unseemly rush to play again when people are dying and the nation is in lockdown for an indeterminate period
    I think all employers should be looking at how and when they can restart their businesses. We cant all be doctors and nurses, and businesses including football face tremendous challenges, it would be a dereliction of their duty as employers if they werent contingency planning for various scenarios.

    Ultimately it will be down to the government and the players, clubs and tv will inevitably want to go ahead as soon as govt allow it and players are willing to play.

    When this is over we will need tax receipts to fund the NHS and pay back debt from this crisis, to do that businesses need to think about what the future holds and how to restart as quickly as the situation allows.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941

    RobD said:

    TGOHF666 said:
    He's wrong. They are different groups. The 7,000 figure was from a statistician in the college of electrical engineering, IIRC.

    Seismic engineer produces an earthshattering Covid-19 report...

    https://www.imperial.ac.uk/people/w.t.pike
    Quite possible worse than letter from maths PhD students and astronomy professors lecturing the government on what to do.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281
    TGOHF666 said:

    eadric said:

    TGOHF666 said:
    Wilful misrepresentation and pathetic journalism.

    500k is based on doing nothing at all.
    20k is based on doing what we are currently doing.
    5700 is not from Professor Ferguson.
    God that is desperately irresponsible. Career ending. Or should be
    As well as the naughty / nice list for businesses, we need the same for journalists....some are showing themselves to not only suffer BDS, but actually as thick as two short planks.
    Yeah - make them wear yellow stars. How dare they have free speech.
    Never mind yellow stars, Hitchens should wear a conical hat with a big D on it.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    IshmaelZ said:

    TGOHF666 said:
    That is palpable nonsense, the 5,700 figure is from a bloke called Pike whose only connection with Ferguson is that they are both at Imperial. Pike came to prominence via a Jeremy Vine tweet which claimed he is not an epidemiologist but is a statistician, but he is neither - he is an engineer who designs Mars rovers.
    Its like journalists think there are as few academics at universities as there are journalists at the same newspaper and that they all crib each others homework like they do when writing stories.
  • TGOHF666 said:

    eadric said:

    TGOHF666 said:
    Wilful misrepresentation and pathetic journalism.

    500k is based on doing nothing at all.
    20k is based on doing what we are currently doing.
    5700 is not from Professor Ferguson.
    God that is desperately irresponsible. Career ending. Or should be
    As well as the naughty / nice list for businesses, we need the same for journalists....some are showing themselves to not only suffer BDS, but actually as thick as two short planks.
    Yeah - make them wear yellow stars. How dare they have free speech.
    Words fail me
This discussion has been closed.