[TobyD]

I wasn't really critising being critical of the government's response, I think the Lancet ed statement is fair, and valuable. I was critising the tone and timing of Corbyns comments, he came across as profoundly self important and seemed to be just trying to bang a drum that socialism was the answer all along rather than addressing the situation at the moment, as though nothing has changed in the last six months.
By all means get at how slow the government were to respond but don't try to use it for some sort of generalised political justification.

[Nigel]

I wasn't really critising being critical of the government's response, I think the Lancet ed statement is fair, and valuable. I was critising the tone and timing of Corbyns comments, he came across as profoundly self important and seemed to be just trying to bang a drum that socialism was the answer all along rather than addressing the situation at the moment, as though nothing has changed in the last six months.
By all means get at how slow the government were to respond but don't try to use it for some sort of generalised political justification.

Do you have a link to Corbyn's comments? I haven't seen / heard them.

[petejh]

The BMA will be in a good position to see across the UK situation for doctors.

The editor of the Lancet was pretty scathing today:

 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/28/chaos-and-panic-lancet-editor-says-nhs-was-left-unprepared-for-covid-19

I hope the front line staff have plenty of  cash and the DIY stores lots of stock at the required standards as PPE is strictly single use for now.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/872745/Infection_prevention_and_control_guidance_for_pandemic_coronavirus.pdf

There will be a shortage of PPE, I think it's well established that we all agree on that.


What's your opinion on vaccine research companies cutting corners in their usual ethical and moral guidelines which normally would place constraints on the timeline of clinical trials? E.g. lab study-animal trial- small scale human trial-phase 1-to-phase 3 trials etc.? Do you think we should follow protocol, or do you think we should cut corners?
If you think we should cut corners, what level of human suffering do you consider is acceptable as an unintended outcome of cutting corners? 1 dead person -10 dead people -1000? 10,000?

[Muenchener]

If you think we should cut corners, what level of human suffering do you consider is acceptable as an unintended outcome of cutting corners? 1 dead person -10 dead people -1000? 10,000?

Anything that's a couple of orders of magnitude less than the expected death rate in the months you're saving. And good luck to the poor bastard who has to come up with that estimate.

[Oldmanmatt]

What's your opinion on vaccine research companies cutting corners in their usual ethical and moral guidelines which normally would place constraints on the timeline of clinical trials? E.g. lab study-animal trial- small scale human trial-phase 1-to-phase 3 trials etc.? Do you think we should follow protocol, or do you think we should cut corners?
If you think we should cut corners, what level of human suffering do you consider is acceptable as an unintended outcome of cutting corners? 1 dead person -10 dead people -1000? 10,000?

Dig out, fill yer boots and have at it.

Mainly because I think the larger numbers (in your suggestion) are hugely unlikely, versus on the low side, when compared with the virus continuing as is.

What ever first appears, is not beyond refinement and replacement, either. Plus, finding knock-ons and treating them, is going to be a slow time exercise.
We’re firefighting, right now, we can look at the buildings structural integrity later.

[Offwidth]

I think its pragmatic to cut corners and  bend ethics when many lives are at stake. In the UK that probably still needs to be within some kind of framework.  I'm sure there will be (or already have been)  ethical committees deciding the amount of acceptable corner cutting.

For pragmatic situations in hospitals etc somewhere in the ECDC EU/UK advice risk update links, that I provided before, even specify what to do when specific items of PPE run out of stock.

https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications-data/rapid-risk-assessment-coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19-pandemic

[Nigel]

I thought Corbyns 'I told you so' sounding interview about Govt spending following their plans to spend spend spend rather distateful and rather reflects why he was such a bad leader.

Whether or not there is any truth in it - now is not the time.

I totally agree with you Tom, it was an idiotic remark. He's totally failed to consider the difference between policies that become necessary in a massive crisis, and policy during relatively normal times. Some things were probably going to happen anyway (railways) but some of them weren't ever considered even in Corbyns wildest dreams (basically nationalising the entire economy). Saying he won the argument is plain foolish, he lead a once effective party to it's worst results in a century and a position of near irrelevance, along with bringing in a reputation for anti-Semitism. That doesn't constitute winning anything.

OK, I haven't managed to find a full version of the Corbyn interview despite trying (link https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p033yynf says "sorry clip unavailable??). So I have no idea what he actually said other than inferring from your post. Nevertheless I'll discuss what you wrote....

I totally agree with you Tom, it was an idiotic remark. He's totally failed to consider the difference between policies that become necessary in a massive crisis, and policy during relatively normal times.

Would you share what you think the difference actually is?

It seems to me its one of degree. The current situation of a global pandemic *is* indeed exceptional. The fiscal and monetary response however contains a series of measures which are only exceptional by degree and in how they are directed (i.e. novelty value). But in basic terms increasing public spending to sustain / kick start the economy is the underlying concept. That was Corbyn's concept for the so-called "relatively normal times" which I might say is a fairly devious term for a decade of historically low interest rates, historically consistently low GDP growth rates, and historically low public spending following a global financial crisis! If these levers are available now they were available then. I am not saying they are cost / trade-off free but you must allow that if an economy has issues then these concepts are a possibility. A point now ironically proven by their fiercest opponents. The fact that we are all in a massive crisis now does not nullify the fact that a good number of people were in an economic crisis in the "relatively normal times" previously.

Some things were probably going to happen anyway (railways) but some of them weren't ever considered even in Corbyns wildest dreams (basically nationalising the entire economy).

I try to keep my eye in on current affairs and yet at no time in the near future did I anticipate the railways being nationalised. Why do you think that? You make it sound like something as inevitable as the tides. Its not.

The entire economy hasn't been nationalised has it? What will the government shareholding of businesses be after this? Exactly the same as before. The government are subsidising wages for employees temporarily, not taking over businesses.

That sentence attacks Corbyn from two wildly opposing fronts - both for suggesting a policy (railways) which you make sound childishly simple and just plain always going to happen, and for not having enough imagination to suggest in advance something which a) isn't actually happening and b) he had no reason to suggest as coronavirus hadn't happened. Both points are unsupported by facts.

Saying he won the argument is plain foolish, he lead a once effective party to it's worst results in a century and a position of near irrelevance, along with bringing in a reputation for anti-Semitism. That doesn't constitute winning anything.

That is a total non-sequiteur. To make a very strained analogy - you are in a meeting and the boss has what appears to be an appalling plan of their own design, you suggest something different, and despite mocking it to high heaven in front of everyone else, who all agree with them, they then leave the meeting and go right ahead and implement more or less exactly what you said. You would be within your rights to say you won the argument would you not? The fact that the boss and you haven't swapped roles is neither here nor there on that score.

[mrjonathanr]

The problem with  ‘winning the argument’ as a phrase is that it has become so associated with a childish attempt to gloss over a catastrophic defeat with a veneer of moral high ground. It now merely serves as a reminder of political incompetence. 

[Somebody's Fool]

Johnson, Hancock and now Chris Whitty all tested positive.

I reckon it'll only take a couple more awkward press conferences and Gove will shuffle off to the doctors with 'mild symptoms' too.

[petejh]

The problem with  ‘winning the argument’ as a phrase is that it has become so associated with a childish attempt to gloss over a catastrophic defeat with a veneer of moral high ground. It now merely serves as a reminder of political incompetence.

Definitely this.

But also, Nigel I know what you're saying and not saying I disagree entirely,  but... if the tories have shown to the public that they're able to adapt to circumstances - when essential to the welfare of the nation in an existential crisis - by implementing what Corbyn claims are his policies, then doesn't that go some way to negate Corbyn's point about winning the argument?
Unless his argument was that Labour know what economic measures are required during lethal pandemics that threaten the entire world, like some sort of emergency rescue service political party?
Because people might argue that organising our societies by the economic rules of 100-year lethal pandemics isn't the optimal way to organise societies - IF we can adapt our ideology so quickly when they *occasionally* do happen, as we seem to have done.

[tomtom]

Johnson, Hancock and now Chris Whitty all tested positive.

I reckon it'll only take a couple more awkward press conferences and Gove will shuffle off to the doctors with 'mild symptoms' too.

I watched about 30 min of Goves presser - and was pleasantly surprised by how he came over.

In politics he’s been a big eyed back stabbing slime exuder - but when dealing with something that is at present a-political - so not spewing out some party political line of turgid sound bites - err - he sounded quite statesmanlike..

I’ll just go and have a word with myself in a dark room somewhere...

[mrjonathanr]

Make that word ‘academies’. And follow it with ‘over £4bn squandered on free schools with no robust evidence of any benefit’.

[Oldmanmatt]

Make that word ‘academies’. And follow it with ‘over £4bn squandered on free schools with no robust evidence of any benefit’.

(Caveat: hate Gove. Not fond of Tories).

Churchill was largely responsible for the debacle of Gallipoli.

He did fairly well, later, under somewhat testing circumstances.

If (if, maybe, possibly, unexpectedly, improbably) he steps up to the plate and proves useful, he should be given credit for that usefulness.
Past crimes should be dealt with separately.

[Nigel]

But also, Nigel I know what you're saying and not saying I disagree entirely,  but... if the tories have shown to the public that they're able to adapt to circumstances - when essential to the welfare of the nation in an existential crisis - by implementing what Corbyn claims are his policies, then doesn't that go some way to negate Corbyn's point about winning the argument?

Come on Pete, you must see I'm not claiming that the Tories are implementing Corbyn's policies line for line as a response to the coronavirus! As you well know, at the election he was not proposing paying everyone 80% of their wages from the government's pockets for sitting at home.

I did say it was all a question of degree. I am absolutely not claiming that Corbyn's policies were the solution to a public health crisis which hadn't happened yet and were therefore over the top. What I am trying to highlight is the *principle* that essentially the public spending taps can come on or off at will, and fast, as long as inflation is not a big risk or can be relegated to a secondary issue after people's immediate welfare, to be dealt with in the future. National debts and deficits do not stop this happening, full stop. That has long been denied by the Tories.

To clarify a little further. A lot of people have no money at present and so, in a crisis where failure to act would see the whole economy stalling, we see that actually, there is money to keep things going. Its not stashed away, it doesn't come from a hidden box under the floorboards of No. 10, its not saved up in an account. The government just magics it up (simplified!). That is not a problem at all as long as it essentially has a purpose, as it negates the risk of inflation. In this instance the effect is to temporarily support the economy, after which the extra money will be kept around to support growth, or taxed back. I get the feeling that most if not all people support this action.

All Corbyn was proposing was using a similar principal, to a lesser degree to fit with the times, of investing public money for a common good. For those in the public sector whose wages had stagnated for a decade and declined in real terms, and those on universal credit and disability benefits, that would have been welcome. The principle that a) the government can choose to do this if it wants, and b) it is a a beneficial idea is what his contribution was. That's all. If you don't accept that yourself then I trust you are well prepared for the following century of hyper-austerity you must expect after this crisis. My theory - it won't happen.

[mrjonathanr]

Oh we have the administration we have, OMM, let’s hope they excel. Then it’s taxi for Mr Gove, ninth circle please.

[petejh]

You're right I knew you weren't claiming that, bit of a strawman on my part.

I'm trying to think it through. At the moment I'm coming up with:
(simplified) Use a mirror to reflect Labour's argument that tory governments are reluctant to implement 'taps on'; and apply it to the tory argument that Labour governments are reluctant to implement 'taps off'. Isn't the argument the same argument? All that remains is the relative merits of taps on or off. The eternal debate?

As for austerity..
I assume the taxpayer will pay the bill in the long run, because we live in a capitalist economy and the ones with the most capital hold the ultimate power. As the guy below thinks. Seems to be saying what you're saying, but goes further into the future:
https://truepublica.org.uk/united-kingdom/just-another-massive-transfer-of-wealth/

He ends with: It has been widely noted that money is suddenly magically available which was denied to industrial strategy and to the NHS for decades. But do not be fooled; this is not a conversion to Keynes by the Tories. In bailing out the airlines, Branson is not going to be asked to put back one penny of his personal wealth, and nor is David Ross nor any of the other billionaires. Those who have made vast fortunes in our ever-expanding wealth gap are not going to be asked to put anything back into the companies or system which they exploited. Massive state subsidies will predominantly go to the biggest companies and benefit the paid agency of the bankers. You and I will pay. The taxpayer will ultimately pick up the tab through what may prove to be another decade of austerity imposed as a result of another transfer of wealth from us to banks, financial institutions and big companies. The small and medium companies which will go to the wall – and a great many will – are going to provide rich pickings in a few months time for the vultures of the hedge funds and other disaster capitalists.
It is fashionable to write articles at the moment stating the Government has discovered the value of socialist intervention. I suspect history will show that nothing could be further from the truth.


But I hope he's wrong.

[Offwidth]

Sad news

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/28/first-working-nhs-surgeon-dies-from-coronavirus

[TobyD]

 I'd agree that this crisis will be paid for in higher taxes for several generations. It's not really an argument for taps on massive spending though as at the moment it's necessary for survival.

In a relatively stable political situation the conservative party has always essentially believed that unrestrained spending leads to financial instability, I don't think they've suddenly been converted, they're just trying to do what's necessary. I'm not lending them my support, other than at the moment when to be honest I'd struggle to imagine how anyone could really do all the right things in a massive crisis that changes and intensifies every day. I don't think this somehow relates to a sensible political and financial strategy in a more normal world.

The US did have an amazing organisation to look into and try to plan for and predict pandemics which would have been better than any other Western countries, but Trump closed it down, because he associated it with Obama.

[Oldmanmatt]

What the government have done, is absolutely necessary.
They need to speed up delivery of the money, though. 30 days will be too late.

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-italy-becoming-impatient-with-lockdown-and-social-unrest-is-brewing-11965122

A lot of people were paid weekly, they will already be feeling it.

[Offwidth]

An interesting Gaurdian 'long read':

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/31/how-will-the-world-emerge-from-the-coronavirus-crisis

[Johnny Brown]

What the government have done, is absolutely necessary.
They need to speed up delivery of the money, though. 30 days will be too late.

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-italy-becoming-impatient-with-lockdown-and-social-unrest-is-brewing-11965122

A lot of people were paid weekly, they will already be feeling it.

Timely, and very worrying. This is why I've been arguing for the least restrictive approach. Thinking we can just embark on months of tight lockdown is a massive gamble on so many levels.

[gme]

We just had our busiest month ever in Holland. Pushed loads of work through in case we have to shut down but it’s not happened. Still totally free to work as before only restrictions are on leisure activities.

Much better approach as far as I can see although time will tell.

[SA Chris]

Could be worse, you could be Iraq. What a shitshow.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/29/world/middleeast/virus-iraq-oil.html

[dunnyg]

Really grim

[Nigel]

You're right I knew you weren't claiming that, bit of a strawman on my part.

I'm trying to think it through. At the moment I'm coming up with:
(simplified) Use a mirror to reflect Labour's argument that tory governments are reluctant to implement 'taps on'; and apply it to the tory argument that Labour governments are reluctant to implement 'taps off'. Isn't the argument the same argument? All that remains is the relative merits of taps on or off. The eternal debate?

No worries on the strawman Pete, helps clear thought sometimes.

Basically yes you are right, this is part of the eternal debate RE public spending, yay or nay. That is a proxy for the root ideology though - how big should the state be? Ultimately the Conservative ideology is to shrink the state to allow the private sector a bigger share of the economy. Labour ideology is that the state should take a bigger share as it is better equipped to run certain elements.

At the last election the argument about amounts of spending was basically: public spending (day-to-day) - tiny increase tories, massive increase labour (funded mainly by tax increase, some borrowing). In addition to that you had borrowing to invest in capital spending - modest but not insignificant increase from tories, huge increase from labour. Despite offering the same justification for the borrowing i.e. that yields on government borrowing were so low that any investment would likely pay for itself even off a tiny return, the tories derided labour's proposed level of borrowing as profligate spending. Obviously we already know how that one panned out...although the now memory-holed “B-word” did have some small effect on the result too I suspect!

Now we have coronavirus the tories have in fact decided that large amounts of borrowing / “profligate spending” to fund state intervention does have a place. They aren’t leaving the solution of this one to the market are they? Yes its a very obvious emergency which is why no-one is questioning the volte-face, it is accepted as necessary. But it is an admission that actually this approach is feasible and in fact in some cases desireable. I guess the difference is, coronavirus aside, at what point do you declare the emergency? Corbyn's labour had assessed that the emergency in provision of public services, public sector wages, stalled growth, stalled private investment etc. had already arrived pre-corona. That is why I think it is a question of degree. Obviously you may disagree with that assessment, as many did at the time, but the fact remains that there are situations where the public sector can be more effective than the private sector as we are seeing right now. We are clearly in such a situation now, but an argument exists that *to some extent* we were in one before. That's all I'm saying.

To summarize I suppose you are saying socialism is good for emergencies. My point is where do you draw the line?

The question of whether we end up paying for all this extra borrowing further down the line is an interesting one. I don't know. £200bn of it is coming from the Bank of England via QE / printing money, so unless and until inflation starts rocketing the answer is not necessarily as we don't owe that to anyone. It just adds to the existing £445bn pile of gilts they own which don't seem to be bothering anyone. If inflation stays unaffected but we get asked to undergo austerity MkII "to pay down the debt" I would start to ask questions...