Behind Closed Doors?

[Guest LondonOwl313]

18 minutes ago, adamwestsleftear said:

 

that's what forecasts are .

predictions based on all the evidence by experts ..

in this case they are predicting that brexit will be twice as bad as the worse pandemic in living history .

 

I could be even worse you are right ..or not quiet as bad but it's around twice as bad a covid economically according the best estimates we have and the reality we have seen so far .

 

just ask the fisherman and farmers how it's going ..

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-fishing-deal-boris-johnson-b1884210.html%3famp

 

https://www.arc2020.eu/things-will-only-get-worse-post-brexit-reality-is-hitting-farmers-hard/

 

my point remains 

 

the far right in the Tory party who didn't care about the economic damage of brexit are screaming about it now 

 

the daily mail ,and other right wing rags who pumped anti EU nonsense in your ear 

are silent of the reality of brexit and it's damaging impact of fisherman and farmers .

yet now it's about protecting your community they want you to care about the economy over human life..disgusting isn't it

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

These projections are how much lower GDP will be in 10 years vs if the pandemic or brexit never happened. They’re spuriously accurate.. 4% over 10 years is just under 0.4% per annum, 2% is under 0.2% per annum. When nominal GDP growth is typically in the range of 3-5% most of the time, these figures are rounding errors. And highly dependent on the assumptions made.

 

Besides, this pandemic scarring 2% lower growth is after all of the government money printing and increase in national debt. We’re already seeing the effects of that with inflation. Let’s not pretend that the pandemic has been less serious economically than brexit because it hasn’t. We’ve borrowed £400bn to keep that 2% from being 10-20%, or whatever the number would be. We can’t keep doing that so any further restrictions would be highly damaging, particularly when we can see the mortality rate is under 0.2% post vaccination 

[adamwestsleftear]

32 minutes ago, onlyonedavidhirst said:

Enjoyed reading this. I wish I had a clear view on vaccines and Covid etc. My position is that I don't fully trust everything I'm told and yet I'm broadly holding the belief that vaccines are the way forward.

vaccines have made a huge positive difference 

32 minutes ago, onlyonedavidhirst said:

 

We have already been told some half truths in my view and we have a government that cannot be trusted.

can you share some of the 'half truths' ?

 

yes the goverment are very untrustworthy 

32 minutes ago, onlyonedavidhirst said:

 

 

Who knows who's pockets are still being lined and it's evidently clear that the government saw Covid as a way of making more money for themselves and their associates. 

 

yes they lined there rich mates pockets for sure .

32 minutes ago, onlyonedavidhirst said:

I would like to see data that shows that populations that have few people jabbed have higher death rates.

the data is available .

just look at the last time the UK had 50k cases ...with no vaccine ..800-1k deaths a day ..

now with 98k cases. but vaccines in 90% of the adult population ..just  111deaths today 

its not the only factor but it's solid  proof that the vaccine work well.

 

 

32 minutes ago, onlyonedavidhirst said:

 

I tried to research Tanzania who I believe have less than 5% of their population jabbed and everything I can find suggests their death rates are much lower per head than ours.

Trouble is I can't tell if the data is accurate.

be very wary of the data coming from poor countries 

very unreliable ..

the above example is much better..

32 minutes ago, onlyonedavidhirst said:

 

I'd like to also know why, if getting as many people vaccinated as possible is the key, then why are we pushing so hard to get folk triple jabbed

 

the anti bodies wane and having the booster greatly improves the protection against hospitalisation and death ..it's that simple.

32 minutes ago, onlyonedavidhirst said:

 when surely a 1st dose for those unjabbed is more effective and furthermore our biggest battle is getting people in poorer countries jabbed for the 1st time,

brilliant point.

we need to get the world jabbed and that will stop wierd varients ruining our progress like now.

 

 

32 minutes ago, onlyonedavidhirst said:

 

after all the new strains are coming from abroad. I'd also like to understand how many lives we are losing to cancer, heart disease etc due to the waiting lists and simple doctor appointments all getting  longer.

the NHS has been unfunded and on its knees by the Tories ..long before covid, ..and the lack of pandemic planning was shocking ...we need greater investment ..

 

 

32 minutes ago, onlyonedavidhirst said:

Is a 3rd jab actually the best thing for the population right now. Everyone I know that has recently caught Covid, me included, have been double jabbed. They then have passed it on, in fact in my case my only symptom was a cough so it seems strange that me getting a 3rd jab is a priority over someone's 1st jab or someone else's cancer appointment. 

we need to get boosters to stop the supply chain and NHS being overrun .

the booster is reduces the chances you will end up on an nhs bed..

90% of the adult population have been vaccinated so you will mostly know people that have been jabbed ...those that are umvaxxedcare more likely to get a serious reaction 

32 minutes ago, onlyonedavidhirst said:

Whilst the scientists that we hear the most from will on the whole will be trustworthy and reliable, they aren't generally given the opportunity to express political opinions or comment on whether they would do things differently.

 

agree. its clear that the experts want us to go further but the mad far right want to pretend restrictions are 'like Nazi Germany ' whilst spreading propaganda that kills vulnerable people...which is much more like something that the nazis would do 

[adamwestsleftear]

12 minutes ago, LondonOwl313 said:

These projections are how much lower GDP will be in 10 years vs if the pandemic or brexit never happened. They’re spuriously accurate.. 4% over 10 years is just under 0.4% per annum, 2% is under 0.2% per annum. When nominal GDP growth is typically in the range of 3-5% most of the time, these figures are rounding errors. And highly dependent on the assumptions made.

 

Besides, this pandemic scarring 2% lower growth is after all of the government money printing and increase in national debt. We’re already seeing the effects of that with inflation. Let’s not pretend that the pandemic has been less serious economically than brexit because it hasn’t. We’ve borrowed £400bn to keep that 2% from being 10-20%, or whatever the number would be. We can’t keep doing that so any further restrictions would be highly damaging, particularly when we can see the mortality rate is under 0.2% post vaccination 

where did you study economics ?

your not making any sense..

 

the prediction is that brexit is twice as bad the worst pandemic in modern history ..

for the rest of our lives we will be feeling that effect..

[Guest LondonOwl313]

9 minutes ago, adamwestsleftear said:

where did you study economics ?

your not making any sense..

 

the prediction is that brexit is twice as bad the worst pandemic in modern history ..

for the rest of our lives we will be feeling that effect..

I’m an investment consultant, i work in the city and do this kind of stochastic modelling at work quite a bit. Got 12 years experience and went to Sheffield uni

 

Like I said, you’re not taking in to account the stimulus effect of the extra government borrowing. The figures would be much different without that. And, the figures are a nonsense really as you could make all sorts of other assumptions that would turn them from net negatives into net positives. Sorry if this doesn’t make sense if you’re trained to just think Brexit is bad 

[@owlstalk]

5 minutes ago, LondonOwl313 said:

  Sorry if this doesn’t make sense if you’re trained to just think Brexit is bad 

Trained

 

 

[Guest LondonOwl313]

7 minutes ago, @owlstalk said:

Trained

 

 

Seriously though, forget numbers for a minute. How can anyone say brexit has been worse economically than the pandemic. Brexit has caused a few sector specific issues but other than that most people wouldn’t notice much difference. The pandemic has hurt so many people economically I think we all know someone who’s suffered because of it 

[@owlstalk]

3 minutes ago, LondonOwl313 said:

 How can anyone say brexit has been worse economically than the pandemic. Brexit has caused a few sector specific issues but other than that most people wouldn’t notice much difference.  

 

[torryowl]

Just now, LondonOwl313 said:

I’m an investment consultant, i work in the city and do this kind of stochastic modelling at work quite a bit. Got 12 years experience and went to Sheffield uni

 

Like I said, you’re not taking in to account the stimulus effect of the extra government borrowing. The figures would be much different without that. And, the figures are a nonsense really as you could make all sorts of other assumptions that would turn them from net negatives into net positives. Sorry if this doesn’t make sense if you’re trained to just think Brexit is bad 

 an investment consultant , 12 years experience in the city and a stochastic modeller to boot .......wow thats impressive 

[adamwestsleftear]

1 hour ago, LondonOwl313 said:

I’m an investment consultant, i work in the city and do this kind of stochastic modelling at work quite a bit. Got 12 years experience and went to Sheffield uni

 

Like I said, you’re not taking in to account the stimulus effect of the extra government borrowing. The figures would be much different without that. And, the figures are a nonsense really as you could make all sorts of other assumptions that would turn them from net negatives into net positives. Sorry if this doesn’t make sense if you’re trained to just think Brexit is bad 

 

so you have better judgement than the OBR?

 

and your 'expert' opinion  is brexit is going well?

 

I'll stick with the head of the OBR pointing out that the reality of brexit is a estimated 4% hit . twice that of the pandemic .

 

I voted for brexit but I'm not going to pretend I didn't get conned.

maybe you are not ready yet...

 

in the meantime people can see for themselves how good your judgement is ..

 

 

[Guest LondonOwl313]

2 minutes ago, adamwestsleftear said:

 

so you have better judgement than the OBR?

 

and your 'expert' opinion  is brexit is going well?

 

I'll stick with the head of the OBR pointing out that the reality of brexit is a estimated 4% hit . twice that of the pandemic .

 

I voted for brexit but I'm not going to pretend I didn't get conned.

maybe you are not ready yet...

 

in the meantime people can see for themselves how good your judgement is ..

 

 

You’re conflating things here, my opinion is it will turn out positive in the long run but with short term disruption. Some of the benefits aren’t quantifiable and/or are unknown and/or probably beyond the run off period of the modelling.

 

But irrespective of what I think about it, commenting only on the modelling I’m saying 4% over 10 years isn’t statistically significant. The OBR use a best case estimate, and the civil service are very much against brexit so a lot of government data is skewed that way. I’m saying you can make small changes to the inputs that will give you any answer you want really. It’s not very useful to look at.

 

I’m not an expert on brexit but I do use models a lot so know their limitations. Like I said, have to adjust for the amount borrowed to fix the problem and we’ve borrowed £400bn for the pandemic. That’s far more economically harmful than brexit.. imagine if we’d spent £400bn on fixing any brexit related issues, like on infrastructure in Northern Ireland or on improving border monitoring. The cost of brexit isn’t in the same league as the pandemic.

[@owlstalk]

 

NO POLITICS