20,000 UK high street shops will never reopen

[Eldorado]

"Many brands and retailers that closed their doors this week due to the coronavirus lockdown will never reopen, experts have warned.

"An estimated 20,000 stores will be lost by the end of the year, according to figures from the Centre for Retail Research, a massive jump on the 4,547 that closed in 2019.

"Weeks of lockdown will lead to 235,000 jobs being lost, up from 93,000 in 2019, which was the worst year for retail for a quarter of a century."

Full report at the UK Mirror: Link

And at This is Money UK: Link

Edited March 26, 2020 by Eldorado

[SHaYap]

Inevitable really, quite possibly have to start with a new set of books due to brexit, no better time than now since opportunity presents itself... 

~

[LV-426]

It's certainly possible, but it's worth adding that stores such as Laura Ashley were in serious trouble anyway.

I'd imagine that whether this crisis lasts a few weeks, or a year plus, many businesses will be reevaluating the way high streets have been declining for years.

It'll be interesting to see how online retailers come out of this.

[papageorge1]

I am one to ask the question about the coronavirus being at what point does the cure become worse than the disease in the overall quality of life for society as a whole.  Business, educational, social, etc. losses from this must be considered, I am not even saying I know where the best balancing point is at, but we need to not be afraid to ask the question if we are going to far in our response.

To me, the goal is optimizing the overall quality of life over the population. We in first world countries will get hurt by this lockdown but I wonder if those in the end hit the hardest by the ripple effect will be the poorest people in the poorer countries. What's going to be their misery index from this?

Things to consider.

[SHaYap]

So much for "first" world problems... 

~

[LV-426]

5 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I am one to ask the question about the coronavirus being at what point does the cure become worse than the disease in the overall quality of life for society as a whole.  Business, educational, social, etc. losses from this must be considered, I am not even saying I know where the best balancing point is at, but we need to not be afraid to ask the question if we are going to far in our response.

To me, the goal is optimizing the overall quality of life over the population. We in first world countries will get hurt by this lockdown but I wonder if those in the end hit the hardest by the ripple effect will be the poorest people in the poorer countries. What's going to be their misery index from this?

Things to consider.

 

The point many are overlooking is whether economies would fare any better if we had few or no restrictions.

I watched an interview a few weeks back with one of the scientists who helped identify Ebola. He stated that COVID-19 is far worse than Ebola, not due to the symptoms or the mortality rate, but due to how highly contagious it is. If we didn't have these strict lockdown measures in place, the very best healthcare systems in the world would be obliterated. Those in poorer nations wouldn't stand a chance.

I mean, I'm far from being an economist, but to me it looks like "economic crisis" or "economic crisis plus mass deaths."

[SKINWALKER19]

The crime rates across the globe should be at rock bottom , be interesting to see figures once we get to grips with this corvid 19 .

We may get a shock !

[Tatetopa]

On 3/26/2020 at 8:39 AM, papageorge1 said:

To me, the goal is optimizing the overall quality of life over the population. We in first world countries will get hurt by this lockdown but I wonder if those in the end hit the hardest by the ripple effect will be the poorest people in the poorer countries. What's going to be their misery index from this?

Things to consider.

That is a jumping off point for many different paths papageorge.  I think you are too good a person to go down many of them.

Even before coronavirus, the poorest in our own first world countries suffered the hardest times.  They have the least resources and the least help from society.

Will society open up business so that the wealthy can go about their endeavor of making money unencumbered?  That way the productive middle class can at least survive.  Will we then  push the consequences of the pandemic onto the shoulders of the poor, ill, and elderly and let the rest of us get on with our lives?  Will we assume they will be the fatalities and the rest of us important 15-50 year olds can focus on ourselves again?  It may not work out that sweetly.

If the next pandemic, and there will be another one, preferentially attacks children,  will we be so glib about  2%-4% of babies dying?  We could write it off and say, "Hey, that's better than infant mortality in the Middle Ages."

The president of our company had a sign displayed prominently  in his office  that said, "No sacrifice is too great for the other guy to make."

That summarizes the attitude of a lot of society pretty well.

[spartan max2]

On 3/26/2020 at 12:04 PM, LV-426 said:

 

The point many are overlooking is whether economies would fare any better if we had few or no restrictions.

I watched an interview a few weeks back with one of the scientists who helped identify Ebola. He stated that COVID-19 is far worse than Ebola, not due to the symptoms or the mortality rate, but due to how highly contagious it is. If we didn't have these strict lockdown measures in place, the very best healthcare systems in the world would be obliterated. Those in poorer nations wouldn't stand a chance.

I mean, I'm far from being an economist, but to me it looks like "economic crisis" or "economic crisis plus mass deaths."

The pandemic would hurt all business, yes.

But you can't argue that it would be hurting them just as much as business not being allowed to be opened. You lose money every day you are not open. Restaurants, hotels, plane travel,  large events being canceled, etc. These things have ripple effects. 

Someone being off of their job on sick leave for two weeks compared to someone being fired and then getting sick two months later.

The same amount of people are going to get infected. We are just spreading out the rate. 

 

Edited March 28, 2020 by spartan max2

[spartan max2]

16 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

That is a jumping off point for many different paths papageorge.  I think you are too good a person to go down many of them.

Even before coronavirus, the poorest in our own first world countries suffered the hardest times.  They have the least resources and the least help from society.

Will society open up business so that the wealthy can go about their endeavor of making money unencumbered?  That way the productive middle class can at least survive.  Will we then  push the consequences of the pandemic onto the shoulders of the poor, ill, and elderly and let the rest of us get on with our lives?  Will we assume they will be the fatalities and the rest of us important 15-50 year olds can focus on ourselves again?  It may not work out that sweetly.

If the next pandemic, and there will be another one, preferentially attacks children,  will we be so glib about  2%-4% of babies dying?  We could write it off and say, "Hey, that's better than infant mortality in the Middle Ages."

The president of our company had a sign displayed prominently  in his office  that said, "No sacrifice is too great for the other guy to make."

That summarizes the attitude of a lot of society pretty well.

The elderly and at risk are still going to get the virus. We are just spreading out how many people get it a day.

This is not stopping the elderly from getting the virus, all models still expect them to get it.

Society needs to open up business so that everyone does not suffer from poverty and a great depression. 

We will all get the virus no matter what, so we might as well not screw ourselves in the process.

[Tatetopa]

35 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

The elderly and at risk are still going to get the virus. We are just spreading out how many people get it a day.

This is not stopping the elderly from getting the virus, all models still expect them to get it.

Society needs to open up business so that everyone does not suffer from poverty and a great depression. 

We will all get the virus no matter what, so we might as well not screw ourselves in the process.

Yes true enough.  Yet, too fatalistic at this stage.  I do not think we will all get the virus no matter what.  Maybe I am too gullible but I still believe knowledge, creativity, and determination are some of humanity's best tools to prevent the universal  exposure lottery and damp out the spread of this virus.

Consider it a practice exercise to develop our techniques before we begin training with "live rounds"  We had better learn something.

The next pandemic could have a 10% or a 20% fatality rate.  

[LV-426]

1 hour ago, spartan max2 said:

The pandemic would hurt all business, yes.

But you can't argue that it would be hurting them just as much as business not being allowed to be opened. You lose money every day you are not open. Restaurants, hotels, plane travel,  large events being canceled, etc. These things have ripple effects. 

Someone being off of their job on sick leave for two weeks compared to someone being fired and then getting sick two months later.

The same amount of people are going to get infected. We are just spreading out the rate.

 

Honestly, nobody knows. I hear your point, and I can't argue against it, but we're just too early into the crisis to know the scale of this.

Everyone seems to be an expert at the minute, but logic dictates that the reactions of world leaders say this is serious. Even the most-stoic of them are taking drastic containment measures. They, including your own commander-in-chief - who is notoriously a businessman before a politician - aren't going to throw their economies into the pan based on media sensationalism.

We (humans) keep patting ourselves on the back for our innovations in technology. Maybe for the next year or so we need to be creative in the way we socialize and do business. It'll be challenging and mean tough times for many, but it's better than throwing our most vulnerable to the wolves. What would that say about us as human beings? It's not a world I'd like to live in anyway.

I would also just point out in reference to your reply to Tatetopa, that this general portrayal of "the elderly" seems to view all potential victims as bedridden invalids. This is totally innaccurate. We're talking of people dying here - our parents, our grandparents - many who are fit and lead active lives, many who've recently retired and should be able to look forward to reward for a lifetime of hard work and service. We're also talking about younger people with health conditions that don't overly hinder their lives, that would otherise live many, many years. We are also talking of cases of deaths that just don't fit this picture of "elderly and vulberable." I'm not going to link them all, but stories a 21 year old girl in the UK with no health issues, a 16 year old girl in France, a story today of a 33 year old daughter who died along with her 61 year old dad.

It's more of a general point than a reply to your post in particular, but anyone who is pushing for lockdowns to be removed should be crystal clear about the potential cost.

Edited March 28, 2020 by LV-426

[LV-426]

15 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

Yes true enough.  Yet, too fatalistic at this stage.  I do not think we will all get the virus no matter what.  Maybe I am too gullible but I still believe knowledge, creativity, and determination are some of humanity's best tools to prevent the universal  exposure lottery and damp out the spread of this virus.

Consider it a practice exercise to develop our techniques before we begin training with "live rounds"  We had better learn something.

The next pandemic could have a 10% or a 20% fatality rate.  

 

It's also worth pointing out when drawing comparisons to influenza for exmaple, that it's called the flu "season" for a reason - it tapers off. And it's by no means guaranteed that everyone will get COVID-19 if contained for a few months.

[spartan max2]

16 minutes ago, LV-426 said:

 

Honestly, nobody knows. I hear your point, and I can't argue against it, but we're just too early into the crisis to know the scale of this.

Everyone seems to be an expert at the minute, but logic dictates that the reactions of world leaders say this is serious. Even the most-stoic of them are taking drastic containment measures. They, including your own commander-in-chief - who is notoriously a businessman before a politician - aren't going to throw their economies into the pan based on media sensationalism.

We (humans) keep patting ourselves on the back for our innovations in technology. Maybe for the next year or so we need to be creative in the way we socialize and do business. It'll be challenging and mean tough times for many, but it's better than throwing our most vulnerable to the wolves. What would that say about us as human beings? It's not a world I'd like to live in anyway.

I would also just point out in reference to your reply to Tatetopa, that this general portrayal of "the elderly" seems to view all potential victims as bedridden invalids. This is totally innaccurate. We're talking of many people dying here - our parents, our grandparents - many who are fit and lead active lives, many who've recently retired and should be able to look forward to reward for a lifetime of hard work and service. We're also talking about younger people with health conditions that don't overly hinder their lives, that would otherise live many, many years. We are also talking of cases of deaths that just don't fit this picture of "elderly and vulberable." I'm not going to link them all, but stories a 21 year old girl in the UK with no health issues, a 16 year old girl in France, a story today of a 33 year old daughter who died along with her 61 year old dad.

It's more of a general point than a reply to your post in particular, but anyone who is pushing for lockdowns to be removed should be crystal clear about the potential cost.

Once the hospital capacity is in place and the ventilator supply is increased then there is no longer a purpose to have a lockdown.

Trump wants to start focusing on the economy around Easter time, that seems like a practical move. There will be more beds and supplies by then so we can get it moving.(GM started having their factories make ventilators).

The elderly at risk will still get the virus according to all the models and health professionals. The point of this was simply for hospital capacity and supplies. Once that problem is solved I see no reason to keep it up.

And when I said at risk, I meant at risk. That can be young with asthma or diabetes, or elderly people. You interpreted what I said as meaning all elderly. 

By all means we can keep practing basic precautions, keeping nursing homes quarentined and requring employees who are at risk to work from home. 

But we can't keep a shut down going on for months or it will be an absolute disator.

 

Edited March 28, 2020 by spartan max2

[spartan max2]

3 minutes ago, LV-426 said:

 

It's also worth pointing out when drawing comparisons to influenza for exmaple, that it's called the flu "season" for a reason - it tapers off. And it's by no means guaranteed that everyone will get COVID-19 if contained for a few months.

The most aggressive precautionary models still show that around 50-70 percent of people will get this virus once it's all said and done.

Also, the flu is also seasonal, which means Covid could easily become a seasonal thing.

Will you shut the world down every year? 

[LV-426]

12 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

Once the hospital capacity is in place and the ventilator supply is increased then there is no longer a purpose to have a lockdown.

Trump wants to start focusing on the economy around Easter time, that seems like a practical move. There will be more beds and supplies by then so we can get it moving.(GM started having their factories make ventilators).

 

I can pretty much quote myself word for word in a reply to stevewinn from another thread on this one:

 

6 hours ago, LV-426 said:

Well, unlike most things on UM that are hard to prove one way or the other, we'll know in three weeks whether you're right or not.

I can't say I'm optimistic with Italy deaths currently at 9,134 and Spain at 5,690 (JHU) and still seeing record daily increases.

I can guarantee now that I won't be saying "told you so" though if you're wrong. I absolutely hope you're right.

 

For accuracy, those figures are now updated to 10,023 deaths for Italy, and 5,812 for Spain.

Edited March 28, 2020 by LV-426

[LV-426]

14 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

The most aggressive precautionary models still show that around 50-70 percent of people will get this virus once it's all said and done.

Also, the flu is also seasonal, which means Covid could easily become a seasonal thing.

Will you shut the world down every year? 

 

Quoting myself again:

23 hours ago, LV-426 said:

I watched an interview with a British scientist working in the US the other day, and she said that within three hours of receiving the DNA sequence from China, her company had submitted their vaccine candidate for testing. Maybe in a few months we'll have a vaccine, and towards the end of the year will be able to start production for those most in need. You have to hold onto something.

I mean, what's the alternative? Governements are not going to ease lockdown measures until the outbreak is under a reasonable degree of control, regardless of whether some would rather just remove them altogether and accept the body count.

[spartan max2]

5 minutes ago, LV-426 said:

 

I can pretty much quote myself word for word in a reply to stevewinn from another thread on this one:

 

 

For accuracy, those figures are now updated to 10,023 deaths for Italy, and 5,812 for Spain.

I apologize, I'm honestly not sure what point you are trying to make with these figures ?

[spartan max2]

5 minutes ago, LV-426 said:

 

Quoting myself again:

 

 

I sincerely hope we will get a vaccine in a few months, most of what I have seen says it will probably be towards the end of this year or early next year.

By then the virus will have ran through the population, even with the lockdown, according to the health department our cases should peak mid-april to early May (in Ohio). 

The point of a vaccine is mostly just to help on the future if this mutates and becomes a seasonal thing.

Edited March 28, 2020 by spartan max2

[LV-426]

1 minute ago, spartan max2 said:

I apologize, I'm honestly not sure what point you are trying to make with these figures ?

 

Sorry, the figures might be a bit out of context, they were in reply to a post suggesting that the overall UK death toll might be as low as 7,000.

The general point was that by Easter we'll know exacty where we are with the possibility of releasing lockdowns, and that, although I think it's highly unlikely, I will be more than happy if I'm wrong.

We'll see.

[spartan max2]

6 minutes ago, LV-426 said:

 

Sorry, the figures might be a bit out of context, they were in reply to a post suggesting that the overall UK death toll might be as low as 7,000.

The general point was that by Easter we'll know exacty where we are with the possibility of releasing lockdowns, and that, although I think it's highly unlikely, I will be more than happy if I'm wrong.

We'll see.

Where would we have to be at to release lockdowns and what would keeping the lockdowns accomplish in your eyes ?

[LV-426]

8 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

Where would we have to be at to release lockdowns and what would keeping the lockdowns accomplish in your eyes ?

 

I'd say at the very least that the number of confirmed infections and deaths would have to be in decline. Any leader releasing measures without being beyond the peak would probably be committing political suicide, even in those where capitalism is king. In the case of your country, I'm not prepared to believe that America is ready to accept abandoning millions to their fate just yet, whichever side of the political spectrum loyalties lie. Same goes for mine.

Could there be middleground? Perhaps. The suggestion from the UK government has been that lockdown measures could be relaxed and tightened in a reactive manner, to flatten the curve and protect the NHS, while giving us more time to develop a vaccine.

Personally, I don't know what to think. When I'm in a vulnerable group myself, even though I'm sub-50 - I've been type I diabetic since childhood - and my septuagenarian parents - who still hopefully have many healthy years ahead of them - are at risk too, it's hard to read posts worrying about economics when your lives are at stake.

Can I understand the logic of your arguments? Sure. It's pretty hard to swallow though, when you are sat isolated at home, doing your best to cope with this surreal situation, and reading arguments weighing up business versus lives. I'm sure you can understand that.

[spartan max2]

7 minutes ago, LV-426 said:

 

I'd say at the very least that the number of confirmed infections and deaths would have to be in decline. Any leader releasing measures without being beyond the peak would probably be committing political suicide, even in those where capitalism is king. In the case of your country, I'm not prepared to believe that America is ready to accept abandoning millions to their fate just yet, whichever side of the political spectrum loyalties lie. Same goes for mine.

Could there be middleground? Perhaps. The suggestion from the UK government has been that lockdown measures could be relaxed and tightened in a reactive manner, to flatten the curve and protect the NHS, while giving us more time to develop a vaccine.

Personally, I don't know what to think. When I'm in a vulnerable group myself, even though I'm sub-50 - I've been type I diabetic since childhood - and my septuagenarian parents - who still hopefully have many healthy years ahead of them - are at risk too, it's hard to read posts worrying about economics when your lives are at stake.

Can I understand the logic of your arguments? Sure. It's pretty hard to swallow though, when you are sat isolated at home, doing your best to cope with this surreal situation, and reading arguments weighing up business versus lives. I'm sure you can understand that.

I think you misunderstand. If I believed that prolonged lock downs would save lives then I wouldn't be arguing this.

But flatten the curve just slows the spread to preserve hospital supplies and capacity. Once we have our supplies and capacity ready then I don't see what the benefit of flattering the curve is.

So from my view prolonged lock down just hurts people by nuking the economy while not leading to any different health outcomes. 

I think the precautions up to this point in the U.S have been fine because it is giving us time to get the supplies and hospitals ready. But in a few weeks once that is all set I think we need to start freeing up the economy. Obviously we should still have some levels of precautions. 

I'm just going off the models all the health offiicals keep showing me.

Edited March 28, 2020 by spartan max2

[LV-426]

11 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

I think you misunderstand. If I believed that prolonged lock downs would save lives then I wouldn't be arguing this.

But flatten the curve just slows the spread to preserve hospital supplies and capacity. Once we have our supplies and capacity ready then I don't see what the benefit of flattering the curve is.

So from my view prolonged lock down just hurts people by nuking the economy while not leading to any different health outcomes. 

I think the precautions up to this point in the U.S have been fine because it is giving us time to get the supplies and hospitals ready. But in a few weeks once that is all set I think we need to start freeing up the economy. Obviously we should still have some levels of precautions. 

I'm just going off the models all the health office keep showing me.

 

Surely, it's just logic that lockdowns will prevent the spread? You can't catch the virus if you aren't exposed to it. This is how China has successfully managed to contain it, if you believe their statistics that is.

If their numbers are reliable, it shows that a few months of strict measures will save many lives. I guess the jury is still out, as they're currently relaxing the lockdown in Wuhan:

Coronavirus cradle Wuhan partly reopens after lockdown

Could western nations cope with more stringent measures? They might have to.

Edited March 28, 2020 by LV-426

[spartan max2]

8 minutes ago, LV-426 said:

 

Surely, it's just logic that lockdowns will prevent the spread? You can't catch the virus if you aren't exposed to it. This is how China has successfully managed to contain it, if you believe their statistics that is.

If their numbers are reliable, it shows that a few months of strict measures will save many lives. I guess the jury is still out, as they're currently relaxing the lockdown in Wuhan:

Coronavirus cradle Wuhan partly reopens after lockdown

Could western nations cope with more stringent measures. They might have to.

 

The point of flatten the curve just is not prevention. The health offiicals have been open about that from the start. It's just a sad fact due to how contagious this virus is (plus there is the chunk of people who are asymptomatic). And at the end of the day even in lock downs there are segments of society who have to work and interact with people.

Quote

While flattening the curve may not be able to reduce the number of people who get infected with COVID-19, it ensures that the number of people dealing with it at any one time is limited. 

 

https://www-health-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.health.com/condition/infectious-diseases/coronavirus/flatten-the-curve-meaning?amp_js_v=a3&amp_gsa=1&amp=true&usqp=mq331AQFKAGwASA%3D#aoh=15854310030343&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From %1%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.health.com%2Fcondition%2Finfectious-diseases%2Fcoronavirus%2Fflatten-the-curve-meaning

 

As for China, I am skeptical of their numbers due to their initial attempts to hide the outbreak and their more current actions of kicking out our journalist.

Though I know China has the capacity to do things more strictly then most other nations.

But even according to their own number they are still getting around 50 new diagnosed cases a day. (Have to look towards the bottom of the link)

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/china/

Edited March 28, 2020 by spartan max2