To think that the economy won't just bounce back in three months?

[CloudsCanLookLikeSheep]

I am really worried about the long term effects of all this on the economy. BJ has sugarcoated it saying things will just bounce back when this is over and people start getting back to normal life. I think that's overly optimistic in the extreme. The normal flow of money has been seriously disrupted. Even those furloughed will be on 80% of pay not 100% and most people will be wary of spending on anything more than essentials during these uncertain times.

There may not be 'systemic' issues in the economy at the start but there sure will be in a few months time .Many people will default on debts and bills. Many companies will go out of business and it's all a big chain reaction.

We've never dealt with anything like this before in modern times, even during the spanish flu pandemic businesses weren't disrupted like this as there wasn't a welfare state so people had to keep earning.

I think the economic impact will take years to recover from and there will be no bounce back recovery, AIBU?

CloudsCanLookLikeSheep you have a source for Boris saying it will be fine in 3 months? I think perhaps you misunderstood.

A lot of people are sitting on huge amounts of cash right now that they would have otherwise spent on everyday life, holidays, etc

But a lot of businesses have a lot of debt. Businesses that are currently closed and therefore not taking any money. Clothes shops, restaurants, travel companies. Sooner or later those loans will go delinquent or be up for refinacing and the banks may say no. And then the companies will go bust and thousands of people will have no job.

It's already happening to Flybe, Intu, who own some of the countries largest shopping centres and currently have tenants refusing to pay their rent, Chiquitos, Carluccios and Brighthouse and there's probably others.

So while some people will still have an income, many will have no income and be losing their homes, or at least cutting back on non essential spending like eating out and travel to try and keep paying the basics.

If anyone thinks the economy would be trundling along nicely if we let this rip (estimated 2 million deaths in the UK based on 80% infection and 4% mortality rates) then they really don't have a clue about how the economy works.

I'm amused that you come along telling people they're clueless while offering a mortality rate of 4%.

@LastTrainEast

www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/economy-roaring-back-coronavirus-boris-johnson-a4388901.html

"Roaring back" "Short term impact"

Doesn't leave much to be misunderstood......

I'm amused that you come along telling people they're clueless while offering a mortality rate of 4%.

Why? FT has just quoted 4.7% as what it stands at globally right now.

Of reported cases. Even Nial Ferguson now reckons there's 2M British people who have by now had Covid19.

.....because they are basing that on tested cases of CV-19 NOT the actual number of CV-19 infections.

So Imperial advisor to Govt says UK has between 1.3 and 1,9 m infections, deaths at 1300, so 0.1 %, our deaths would need to be 76000 to get to your 4%.

These scary false stats are why we are wrecking the world economy :(

And I feel like this whole 'it will fuck the economy if we do nothing' argument is a weird trap.

On the one hand, we're told it's the vulnerable/elderly/disabled people who will suffer most so we must do this to protect them.

Then on the other hand we're supposed to accept that it will fuck the economy if we let them die.

So here I am, falling into the trap - how is it an economic disaster if a lot of elderly people and people with chronic health conditions i.e. far more likely to be economically inactive, die?

Now come and tell me how heartless I am. Job done!

80% infection, 4% death rate is working off worst case scenario.

But equally, death rates would go up if figures got anywhere close to that point as there would be little to no hospital resources to deal with them.

We can have as many debates about the figures as you want. The underlying point is that we could not have a functioning economy with vast swathes of the population infected and dying from the disease.

So here I am, falling into the trap - how is it an economic disaster if a lot of elderly people and people with chronic health conditions i.e. far more likely to be economically inactive, die?

I'm not going to tell you you're heartless, let's put that to one side.

First of all, Boris and co aren't doing this to save the elderly. They're doing it to save the health system. If the health system gets overwhelmed, workers get sick/die, no treatment for the ill, then we are at anarchy's door.

Secondly, CV does not just kill the elderly. There have been deaths across all age groups from this virus. If 80% of the population get it, the death tolls across all age breaks will be huge and will increase as medical facilities are unable to cope with the numbers of ill people.

Laurie I think you're not very well briefed on the emerging statistical picture.

@CloudsCanLookLikeSheep YANBU.

Life will never be the same again.

It will take a decade to get back to anywhere NEAR normal. Possible two decades if lockdown goes on longer than the 3-6 weeks we are expecting.

The economy will take years to recover. Maybe even decades.

Laurie I think you're not very well briefed on the emerging statistical picture.

Let me get this straight. You think that ...

We should let the disease run its course, which will kill off a lot of elderly and vulnerable (as well as the young and not so vulnerable) but the economy would be functioning just fine in those circumstances.

Is that correct?

Where did you get that idea?

So tell me what your position is then?

Just don't shut down anymore busineses. Stop telling lies about companies like ASOS, for example (a plea to the general public not anyone specific).

The trouble is, a lot of employees want the furlough and are happy to complain about their business if it means they get 80 percent pay for 3 months.

Any business complying with the wfh or 2m distancing should be allowed to continue trading.

That this lockdown should be continuously rationalised and under no circumstances exceed three weeks.

Intermittent social distancing measures, fine, but we cannot forsake the future of so many people.

It has always been the case that we balance lives of people against the economy, I have never seen so much hysterical sentimentalising of death statistics in my life.

"I can't live with the horror of people gasping for air'. Sure, fair enough I can't either, but tell me, how did we all cope with strangers dying of pneumonia before?

I do think not being in the EU might not be a bad thing right now, when you look at Italy and Spain. Those countries were already not in great shape, and the lack of assistance from the EU will cause problems.

Well, how about isolating those at greatest risk? mass testing, more isolation, more testing... and so on.

Global depressions are not great for people's health either and historically can lead to even worse consequences.

If we can have a much more limited lockdown and with testing, we can protect the vulnerable but without economic chaos.

This is the course WHO has suggested in regard to testing.

@anotherlittlechicken @tiredanddangerous

where did you both get your economics degrees?

so many people on here are just desperate for this to be an even bigger disaster than it already is!

^Well, how about isolating those at greatest risk? mass testing, more isolation, more testing... and so on.

Absolutely. We need't spare any expense looking after them, but equally, we need to look after ourselves so we can you know, continue to look after them.

@Tonyaster

If people keep on lambasting businesses that are still trading, therefore leading to all non key worker businesses being shut down, we are fucked

I agree.

In the current climate of fear however acknowledging this simple fact means that you are evil with a deathwish on all mankind..

That this lockdown should be continuously rationalised

Sure

and under no circumstances exceed three weeks.

What if that’s not enough time to get it under control though? Then we’ve taken the hit and are still going to have to cope with enormous numbers of deaths, which as I keep saying, will also ravage the economy.

That’s totally counterproductive. Putting arbitrary deadlines when we know so little about how to tackle this is madness. I agree that it can’t go on for a very extended timeline, but no more than 3 weeks is bonkers. We need to it once and do it properly. Flatten the curve and buy some time.

It has always been the case that we balance lives of people against the economy, I have never seen so much hysterical sentimentalising of death statistics in my life.

we’ve never seen something that has the power to totally overwhelm the health service like this. It’s not about the individual deaths, but total breakdown of the service.

That’s what terrifies the powers that be. I expect if they could sacrifice some old people to keep the show on the road for everyone else, they probably would do that.

But that’s not how this virus works.