COVID-19 — Coronavirus

[blueinsa]

I'm sorry, but stop stating this like its fact. You may be right that it could take time, but the 'if ever' stuff is a helluva leap and contrary to the thoughts of many, many genius level scientists around the world. It's fear-mongering, not realism, and it isn't based on anything other than a personal hunch.

How is saying if ever a fact?

 

[George Hannah]

Just watched a BBC News interview with Phil from Cardiff about death of his mum in a care home. Their pandemic coverage is like a continuous Vox Pop totally bereft of editorial control or context. Obviously he was upset but much of what was said about the intermediate assessment process being changed because of the Covid crisis was highly inaccurate and some serious and totally unsubstantiated allegations were made about the integrity of those involved in testing.

Great care is needed when letting people like him give their opinions and version of events live. The process through which such individuals are selected by the BBC for interview far too often appears to encourage alarmist perspectives and soundbites.

These sort of raw ranting accusations will certainly damage the confidence of those with loved ones in care and homes and hospitals – like yesterday’s interview with a care home proprietor talking about the ‘virus spreading like a Tsunami’ - is their aim to do this?

This terrible crisis is made worse by repeatedly broadcasting such irresponsible and unsupported opinions and remarks – a clear anti-government agenda is continuously in play - the national broadcaster has become an Opinion News channel.

 

[Fame Monster]

Weren't they saying yesterday that once the R was down here and some restrictions lifted that they might then need to look at checking those coming into the UK ?
At least that's what I thought I'd heard.

I don't know, I didn't watch it. Hopefully I'm wrong and we do start to see people flying into the country subject to the same restrictions that those already living here have had to abide by. Long overdue imo

 

[Gaylord du Bois]

I don't know, I didn't watch it. Hopefully I'm wrong and we do start to see people flying into the country subject to the same restrictions that those already living here have had to abide by. Long overdue imo

I think that's their point. People travelling in now will be coming into a social distancing/lockdown environment and have little impact on our current position. When the R is suppressed it's then more likely to be an effective procedure.

 

[blueinsa]

Just watched a BBC News interview with Phil from Cardiff about death of his mum in a care home. Their pandemic coverage is like a continuous Vox Pop totally bereft of editorial control or context. Obviously he was upset but much of what was said about the intermediate assessment process being changed because of the Covid crisis was highly inaccurate and some serious and totally unsubstantiated allegations were made about the integrity of those involved in testing.

Great care is needed when letting people like him give their opinions and version of events live. The process through which such individuals are selected by the BBC for interview far too often appears to encourage alarmist perspectives and soundbites.

These sort of raw ranting accusations will certainly damage the confidence of those with loved ones in care and homes and hospitals – like yesterday’s interview with a care home proprietor talking about the ‘virus spreading like a Tsunami’ - is their aim to do this?

This terrible crisis is made worse by repeatedly broadcasting such irresponsible and unsupported opinions and remarks – a clear anti-government agenda is continuously in play - the national broadcaster has become an Opinion News channel.

"Minister...Minister...are you going to apologise......"

The media see this as yet another opportunity to create a narrative in which they can lay the blame at someones door and then demand they be sacked or resign and then its on the the next....

 

[bluebaja]

Just watched a BBC News interview with Phil from Cardiff about death of his mum in a care home. Their pandemic coverage is like a continuous Vox Pop totally bereft of editorial control or context. Obviously he was upset but much of what was said about the intermediate assessment process being changed because of the Covid crisis was highly inaccurate and some serious and totally unsubstantiated allegations were made about the integrity of those involved in testing.

Great care is needed when letting people like him give their opinions and version of events live. The process through which such individuals are selected by the BBC for interview far too often appears to encourage alarmist perspectives and soundbites.

These sort of raw ranting accusations will certainly damage the confidence of those with loved ones in care and homes and hospitals – like yesterday’s interview with a care home proprietor talking about the ‘virus spreading like a Tsunami’ - is their aim to do this?

This terrible crisis is made worse by repeatedly broadcasting such irresponsible and unsupported opinions and remarks – a clear anti-government agenda is continuously in play - the national broadcaster has become an Opinion News channel.

That is a very good point mate. The Guardian website seems to have the same issue, 'writers' posting articles that have little, if any, basis in facts, and are nothing more that alarmist opinions. Unfortunately, they also peddle their particular bias in virtually every piece.

 

[blueinsa]

 

[Gaylord du Bois]

I don't know, I didn't watch it. Hopefully I'm wrong and we do start to see people flying into the country subject to the same restrictions that those already living here have had to abide by. Long overdue imo

It's mentioned at 47mins.

 

[Fame Monster]

I think that's their point. People travelling in now will be coming into a social distancing/lockdown environment and have little impact on our current position. When the R is suppressed it's then more likely to be an effective procedure.

True, those measures will be less effective now but they won't be ineffective because passenger travel is still a mass gathering. If I had a party with 300 people in my back garden, it wouldn't be as damaging as if I had it when we weren't in lockdown but it'd still be potentially very damaging and allows for the virus to spread to quite a few people. The same principle should apply to airline travel unless the people flying have got a very good reason to fly here (I.e. British nationals) and the airlines apply appropriate distancing measures in the airports and on the plane.

 

[Jimmieblue]

Just watched a BBC News interview with Phil from Cardiff about death of his mum in a care home. Their pandemic coverage is like a continuous Vox Pop totally bereft of editorial control or context. Obviously he was upset but much of what was said about the intermediate assessment process being changed because of the Covid crisis was highly inaccurate and some serious and totally unsubstantiated allegations were made about the integrity of those involved in testing.

Great care is needed when letting people like him give their opinions and version of events live. The process through which such individuals are selected by the BBC for interview far too often appears to encourage alarmist perspectives and soundbites.

These sort of raw ranting accusations will certainly damage the confidence of those with loved ones in care and homes and hospitals – like yesterday’s interview with a care home proprietor talking about the ‘virus spreading like a Tsunami’ - is their aim to do this?

This terrible crisis is made worse by repeatedly broadcasting such irresponsible and unsupported opinions and remarks – a clear anti-government agenda is continuously in play - the national broadcaster has become an Opinion News channel.

I don’t often post, but l’ve followed this thread since the outset of the lockdown and in all honesty there has been more information given, more common sense talked, more uplifting anecdotes shared than the whole of the MSM put together. The BBC have been a washout completely, putting the fear of God into everyone sharing their misery. They have never once tried to bring the country together, just pick, pick picking at every point. Rant over now, but do keep up the fabulous work on here and stay safe, we’ll and strong.

 

[Uncle Wally One Ball]

She is a horrible fucker

 

[Bazzmand Show]

I saw an Australian tv interview with a Swedish scientist and I have to say he is right, unfortunately we are just going to have to accept the deaths, 90-95% will get this without symptoms or very mild and recover, of the others then yes they will suffer and unfortunately a few will die.

It's never been about stopping people dying, the whole point of this lockdown is to spread the extremely terrible death toll out over a more manageable period of time.

We've had social distancing in place in the UK now for several months and are currently at 26,000 deaths. If there had not been measures put in place, I think it's safe to say we would be a lot higher than that, is that really acceptable or something we want?

 

[Uncle Wally One Ball]

My first experience of testing of key workers has been pretty positive. Lad who works for me lives with a girl also from work and she got a cough and was unwell. They were sent for a test and told the results would be 2 days. That day I had an email booking him as self isolating, and today work rang them up to tell the results were all clear and they are good to come in. It has put his nose out that the results went to the employer first and not them, but I think that is a good thing. Takes overall isolating from others out of the hands and responsibility for it direct to work. Not a bad shout.

 

[Claytop]

If anyone wants abit more positivity then go watch the BBC coverage of Tom Moore’s birthday, the videos of him watching the fly past makes it get abit dusty in the room.

 

[kevin horlocks wand]

The professor in charge of testing was saying they should have a reliable antibody test ready in late May or June which they want to roll out, I think we are creating our own. I imagine society will then split into 3 groups

group A : old and vulnerable who will have to stay in their house until a vaccine is found or they pass the antibody test

group B : who will live like we are living now. Working from home and allowed out once a day for exercise or food until they pass.

group C : who pass the antibody test who get some sort of ID confirming this and then basically live their lives like it’s a combination of the swinging 60s and 90s , shagging and raving like it’s 1999.

the people in group b will think should I take my chances......

 

[bluebaja]

Just got a positive test result this morning.

Best wishes to you mate. Let us all know how you are getting on if you can.

 

[twosips]

It's never been about stopping people dying, the whole point of this lockdown is to spread the extremely terrible death toll out over a more manageable period of time.

We've had social distancing in place in the UK now for several months and are currently at 26,000 deaths. If there had not been measures put in place, I think it's safe to say we would be a lot higher than that, is that really acceptable or something we want?

Yep, agreed. It was about shutting up shop while also buying time for greater understanding of the virus, waiting for clinical results of drugs already out there for better treatments and, ultimately, a potential vaccine. That's all we can do. That's been my issue with the Swedish approach from day one. They basically said 'we are all fucked, let's just accept it' immediately. If a treatment like remdesivir (or something else) is found to be really useful and available any time soon they could have a lot of death on their hands that just wasn't necessary.

I really feel like we all owe it to each other to try and save as many lives as we can and bide our time for as long as realistically possible before we go back to work. I accept we will have to do that, but any time we bought was worth it IMO. It could be the difference between preventing an extra tens of thousands of deaths.

 

[Bazzmand Show]

The professor in charge of testing was saying they should have a reliable antibody test ready in late May or June which they want to roll out, I think we are creating our own. I imagine society will then split into 3 groups

group A : old and vulnerable who will have to stay in their house until a vaccine is found or they pass the antibody test

group B : who will live like we are living now. Working from home and allowed out once a day for exercise or food until they pass.

group C : who pass the antibody test who get some sort of ID confirming this and then basically live their lives like it’s a combination of the swinging 60s and 90s , shagging and raving like it’s 1999.

the people in group b will think should I take my chances......

Again, I really don't see how you manage this. The reason for the blanket approach is that logistically, it is actually manageable. The ID will only come into effect with overseas travel.

 

[hampshireblue]

Apologies as I've not read all of this thread but there's an interesting view on a site called Head for Points that shows how reduced seats on an aircraft may pan out. i hope this formats OK:

Why cheap air travel is NOT going away, despite what you may read
Is social distancing on aircraft going to mean the end of cheap air travel? If you believe certain travel and media figures in recent days, the answer is undoubtedly yes.

We shouldn’t necessary expect travel or indeed newspaper professionals to have a strong grounding in economics. However, some recent thinking has shown that even concepts such as supply and demand seem to have passed them by.

This applies even at the top. Welcome Alexandre de Juniac, CEO of airline body the International Air Transport Association (IATA).

“If social distancing is imposed, cheap travel is over. Voila” he announced in a well publicised media briefing on Monday.

He bases this on two factors:

• the need to ‘neutralise’ a third of seats on short and medium haul aircraft
• a break-even level of 70-72% seats sold

Let’s ignore the most obvious point here. If break-even at current fare levels is 70-72% and for a couple of years you can only sell 66% of seats, you’re nearly there already.

Break-even isn’t the same as making huge profits, of course, but I think most airlines will settle for a couple of years of break-even.

Let’s also ignore the fact that keeping the middle seat empty isn’t going to make much difference, based on the SARS case I wrote about yesterday that led to five deaths from a single flight. Michael O’Leary of Ryanair agrees on this point.

There is a fundamental failure to understand airline economics
The following example is how most people are thinking about the airline industry. These numbers are roughly accurate – the average easyJet one way fare is £50 plus ancilliary revenue:

‘easyJet sells 171 seats per flight (92% load factor) at an average of £75 each including baggage and seat fees, for a total of £12,825. If it cannot sell the middle seat, revenue will fall to £9,300 (124 seats x £75) and this is not profitable. Fares will therefore rise to (£12,825 / 124) £103 to compensate.’

This is how the world of selling a ‘one price’ product works, and even then it only applies when selling something which people must buy and cannot substitute for a cheaper alternative.

In the real world, there are very few products like this. It certainly isn’t how airline seats work.

In reality, easyJet would sell its flights like this, assuming 180 seats sold:

• 30 seats sold at £35
• 30 seats sold at £45
• 30 seats sold at £60
• 30 seats sold at £75
• 30 seats sold at £105
• 30 seats sold at £130

…. for an average fare of £75.

With 60 seats removed from sale, it is the cheapest 60 seats which disappear. easyJet will start selling the flight at £60 including ancilliaries and not at £35. The 60 people who are not prepared to pay £60 will no longer be flying.

Let’s look at the revenue again.

With all 180 seats sold using the distribution above, revenue is £13,500.

If you don’t sell the 30 seats @ £35 and the 30 seats @ £45, to keep occupancy to 120 seats, your revenue is still £11,100.

You have emptied 33% of your seats but only sacrificed 18% of your revenue.

Supply and demand works both ways
As you can see above, you can empty 1/3rd of your seats without losing 1/3rd of your revenue. You also are not putting up prices for anyone except the 60 people who previously expected to pay £35 or £45 all-in and will now choose not to fly.

For 2/3rd of passengers, fares have not gone up.

Let’s look at another reason why fares won’t go up.

Aircraft are a fixed cost. You are paying the lease, or the loan, irrespective of whether it flies or not.

Irrespective of your fixed costs, you operate the asset as long as your marginal costs are covered. Let’s assume the apportioned lease cost for an aircraft for a flight is 100 units and the marginal costs of crew, fuel, airport charges etc are 35 units.

You might think at first that is isn’t worth flying unless you get 135 units in fare revenue. Not true. Because you are paying 100 units for the aircraft regardless of whether it flies or not, airlines will operate aircraft as long as the fare revenue is higher than 35 units.

As long as enough tickets are sold to pay for the VARIABLE costs of fuel (Brent Crude is now $20 vs $65 for most of last year), crew etc, then it makes sense to put more aircraft in the air. The flight is at least making a small contribution to the 100 units fixed costs of the aircraft, and so reducing losses. This means that airlines will put as many aircraft back in the skies as quickly as they can, and the more aircraft that are in the air, the lower fares will be.

We will, of course, see some airlines scrapping older aircraft such as Virgin’s A340s and BA’s Boeing 747s. This is only a small percentage of their fleets, however, and these aircraft are already depreciated. The aircraft that remain are newer, far more likely to have leases or debt attached to them, and so need to be in the air.

In the medium term, planes will come to the end of their leases and more capacity could be taken out of the market. By this point, however, we should be back to 2019 levels of travel and it won’t be necessary.

Is ‘cheap’ travel over?
Not when you look at the numbers like this.

Of course, if by ‘cheap’ you mean the £5 Ryanair flight I took to Porto in February then, yes, that’s over. Ryanair won’t be selling £5 seats now to guarantee that it fills every seat because – despite the Michael O’Leary quote above – it won’t want to. It is more likely that Ryanair adds an option to guarantee an empty seat next to you, for an additional fee of course.

Similarly, those £35 and £45 easyJet seats in our example above are gone.

This isn’t ‘cheap’ travel though. This is just seat-filling promotional activity.

If it turns out that easyJet won’t be selling any seats for less than £60 one-way in the future, I don’t call that the end of ‘cheap’ travel. £125 return to fly to Europe – on a $42 million aircraft, which is what easyJet is paying for its next batch of deliveries – is not, by any stretch of the imagination, expensive.

When I was growing up, even flying to Paris was outside the dreams of my parents. For a family of four, very much on the average British wage, it simply wasn’t even a consideration in the late 1970s and early 1980s, pre easyJet.

It’s worth remember that it has always cost £2,000 for four economy seats to a European ski resort over February half term, and anyone who has flown to European beach resorts in August will know that you were paying similar silly prices. This wasn’t ‘cheap’ travel in the first place and I don’t see those prices getting much higher.

If we end up back at a point where a family of four has to pay £2,000 to fly to Berlin for a weekend break in rainy November then I will happily admit that we are the end of ‘cheap’ air travel. I don’t see that happening, however, and I think the economists would agree with me.

 

[Bazzmand Show]

That's been my issue with the Swedish approach from day one. They basically said 'we are all fucked, let's just accept it' immediately. If a treatment like remdesivir (or something else) is found to be really useful and available any time soon they could have a lot of death on their hands that just wasn't necessary.

Yeah agreed, I've not been a fan of the Swedish approach and it seems neither is the rest of the world.

There is also an element now where they are not willing to maybe accept the approach they took was wrong - so people need to take that into consideration before they continue to talk about they took.