Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

HovelinHove

Members
  • Posts

    2,212
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by HovelinHove

  1. I think that recall is far too pleasant, I fantasise about his head on a pole
  2. It really is beyond belief. However, can they leave a Tier 4 area to view a house in another Tier?
  3. You need to add in gearing up the deposit with mortgage. If you put aside 10k for SD, that then becomes 40k of geared up money to buy a nicer house than you could previously.
  4. Precisely, Rishi “10 homes” Sunak has lots of property. It is a massive conflict of interests him being in any position of power at all.
  5. I think what Sunak will do is say that people only need to have exchanged contracts by March 31st. I think he will make this announcement early in the New Year to give the market legs during the next lockdowns, however, I think that many people who were going to buy, have already bought, and that very few new purchases will go through due to any extension. It does make sense to make it on exchange of contracts, rather than creating an administrative lottery. Personally I think a mutant strain that is resistant to the vaccine will kill every asset market at some point in the New year. This will be followed by more QE, more UBI more socialism, and the destruction of everything that was good about ours lives, then the rising up of the masses in protest, with politicians heads on spikes, so buying a house will become somewhat of a minor thing.
  6. I think that is admirable, where the issue gets complicated is if everyone things like you (and my 80 year old Mum who goes down the pub more than me!) and then we do end up in a situation where the health system is overcome. My way of handling of this, an what I wrote to my MP and advised back at the beginning of April, was for the elderly to be issued with FFP2 masks, told ow to wear them properly, and take them off, how long before recycling etc. Be provided with 70% alcohol gel. Provided with a box of latex gloves and told how they should use them correctly. Then also told to avoid unnecessary social contact, unless outdoors, or if wearing their mask. Then warned that if the get COVID, and teh health system is nearing capacity, they would go to the back of the queue.
  7. It’s a classic ploy of Marxists. It’s like Capitalism or “social democracy” or now, with the nasty reset, “stakeholder capitalism”. We have never really experienced true capitalism! I would argue that a well designed focused protection of the old and vulnerable might have resulted in less lives lost than the chaotic stop start of lockdowns.
  8. I guess it depends on how common and how severe Long COVID is. The CDC has yet to publish anything on it, the only thing we really have is the King’s study which she’d data from an App. In general, again it s older patients who were most affected. A small percentage still had symptoms after 3 months, but these were of those who ere tested. The fact is there are many who have had COVID who have never been tested, largely because they never showed symptoms. On the other hand I know someone who lost his sense his smell and taste in March but never had a test, who has never fully recovered those senses. I am on the fence about whether I will have the vaccine personally. I don’t want to get it, but at the same time we really don’t know whether there are any long term side effects. Going by past studies, it is unlikely there will be, but they have occurred, so it is impossible to say for sure.
  9. Do I ever say we should have done nothing? No. It’s the false dichotomy that the Lockdown purists keep presenting. I have repeatedly said that we should have adopted an alternative strategy that focused on protecting the the over 65s. You keep saying lockdown vs nothing.
  10. Anyway, it’s all a bit moot now, people like you won the battle (if not the argument) and as a result our country is much poorer now. Personally I will be mostly fine, but if in the future you have less work, or less access to good health care etc, look in the mirror before you blame anyone else because it is the public who have driven the lockdowns as they are very popular.
  11. If you actually read my post instead of ranting at first sight, I suggest that it might have been as high 250k if you don’t have the 20% pre-immunity, and that the health system becomes stretched.
  12. Taking the vaccine should be a personal choice, particularly once all those over 65 have had it, and since they will get it before you anyway, it really is down to your own personal appetite of well understood risk of death, and less well understood risk of long term complications, from COVID vs unknown long term risks from the vaccine (I am inclined to say that the long term risks are very low, but the fact is I do not know, and no one does). These are IFRs in percentages by age, sex, country and comorbidity status from the BMJ in September. I’d say you could probably halve these now since we have better treatments available, but even using these numbers I really don’t see any reason for anyone under 40 without a comorbidity to have the vaccine, and in my professional view as a scientist who works with clinical data every day of his life, it is unethical at this stage to give it to under 20s until we have at least 2 years safety data. Link to BMJ article on IFR
  13. Just a reminder for those who are not familiar with demographic facts of this disease. We had very early data from Wuhan in March that hinted at this, but since August when the CDC published data like this, and definitely since September, when this was published in the BMJ, any talk of lockdowns should have been completely crushed if we were using scientific reasoning. There should have been well resourced targeted shielding, providing high quality PPE etc to those at most risk, along with an acceptance that more elderly would die this year than in a normal year. The numbers in the table are percentage chance of death if you catch COVID by age, sex and comorbidity (e.g. cardiovascular disease, serious pulmonary disease, certain cancers). The overall cIFR for HIC countries is about 0.5%, the number I used in my calculation. Link to September BMJ article)
  14. I’m going by the 0.5% IFR, 20% T-cell immunity and 65% herd immunity required, and 169k would have died. It may have been as high as 250k if the health system had been maxed out, and no one had pre-existing immunity, but even then you are still looking at well over a million per life saved of government money alone, not taking into account drop in GDP etc. As Captainb pointed out, at some point the virus has infected as many as it can.
  15. I agree to a point. People died earlier than they would have and life expectancy stats will fall slightly over the next year or two because people who might have lived till they were 90, died at 85. Also, while it is true that many diseases affect the older more than the young, COVID is even more extreme in the way that IFRs are distributed across age groups. Whatever way you look at it, as you allude to in your first line, we spent extreme amounts of money to basically keep very old people alive for a “bit” longer, and in my view that was the wrong thing to do.
  16. What has amused me on this thread is the way that people just snipe, or pick at details, but do not address the fundamental question at hand...was lockdown a proportionate and cost effective method of confronting an infectious disease with an IFR of about 0.5% and which mostly affects the elderly? Yes, I loaded it, but the fact is that before you even take into account effect on GDP, the government has spent hundreds of billions to save the lives of less than 100,000 people who were statically due to die around now anyway.
  17. Your last line is kind of an oxymoron. People are lazy when there is no incentive, or no punishment. This is why all those loons that think socialism will work need to be locked up in an asylum until they come to their senses. Without the reward of money, people do not go the extra mile, it is why regulated free market “capitalism” works. It is why so many people are pro-lockdown...they haven’t had to worry about money because the government has been giving it out,
  18. I have experienced first hand the difference. The lab I did my Ph.D. in was obviously a University government funded lab.Our group developed a technology that massively enhanced the selectivity of anti-viral drugs. This technology was actually used in the rather useless Remdesivir, but prior to that it was used in a drug that generated tens of billions in revenue for a certain Bay Area Biotech, not unrelated to Remdesivir. The lab I did my Ph.D. got nothing for it. Make of that what you will!
  19. In a word, yes. I have worked in both. huge difference. Also, I don’t think she really had an argument, I wasn’t that impressed with her ability to reason.
  20. Of course it is more nuanced than that, but the difference is they still get a pay cheque whether they are productive or not, the understanding that ingenuity and industry is what drives growth and their salaries is completely lost on many of these people. I work in pharma, and spent many years in HIV research and bringing new therapies to market, and I met a very angry nurse who said my company was evil because we didn’t give our drugs away. Just didn’t understand it. So I said to her “Go to work for free”...she walked off.
  21. Amen to that. Most of those who are most vocal in support of lockdowns do not have to generate wealth, they are usually public sector or living off the gift of others...that is something I have noticed.
  22. I think of it in terms of a family. Scenario. You live in a house that through HPI is worth 1 million pounds. Your initial mortgage was 100k, but due to your profligate family, is now 500k. Yesterday you found out your 5 year old has been diagnosed with a rare cancer. The treatment will cost 500k. Will you mortgage the house to pay for his cancer treatment? This morning you found out your 82 year old mother has been diagnosed with cancer. The NHS, because it has no money left after COVID, can’t afford to give her an aspirin, let alone a 500k super duper cancer treatment. She phones you up, citing the fancy house you live in. Would you mortgage your house to pay for her cancer treatment. The latter is kind of what we have done as a Nation, but obviously we have not borrowed half the net worth of the country, however we have squandered vast amounts of wealth to keep people alive who were “due to die” anyway. I know there are young people who have died, I know some have Long COVID etc, but on balance the vast majority of severe outcomes have been experienced by people who in general would suffer severe outcomes from the next thing that came along.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.