Member Info for Kalan

" what is right or wrong in that situation?" - this is what I actually said. It was a question - there are no easy answers.
Merkel orders 10,000 ventilators - she gets praised in Hartlepool.
Boris orders as many as you can manufacture - we will buy them all and he gets criticised in Hartlepool.
They are both trying to get manufacturers to up the production of ventilators - pure political bias does not make for a reasoned discussion Bob.

Hi Topcatz - my parents (77 and 79 with chronic lung disease) are resisting my overtures to isolate - my mum says they will kill each other if they have to spend a fortnight in the same house together. They say life will be hell in isolation and they are carrying on as normal - if they get it they will take their chances - what can you do - it is their lives and they are adamant - my dad has a continuous cough and runny nose - has had for a couple of years - can't see them changing their minds unless someone locks them up.

What would you do gkb47? I think Bluebelly has it right - those making the decisions are there to be shot at - the theory stands up to scrutiny on paper - what would you suggest as an alternative?

My post was about all governments' response - not just European - how we deal with a pandemic (the whole world) is not a European issue. It is a matter of science and the whole world working together. I suppose in the longer run - with more pandemics to come - as a massive experiment we can see which countries approach was better which will inform the whole world's response next time.
This is not Uk v European Union or Tories v Labour. What anyone voted in any election or referendum is of no relevance.

Wow - SAVP appear to have just ignored all law and carried on regardless. On first glance I can only conclude that they think if they plough on that the government will step in to preserve the company. No wonder the sp tanked - why weren't shareholders told of this - do we have recourse?

Rest of World:
There are 10 people living in a block of flats with a communal area. One of them has a poor immune system. The government tells them they must all isolate. After 2 months they come out - poorer, lonely but alive. They go back out into the wider world - none of them have immunity and so they get the virus and pass it to the one with a poor immune system and he dies. The government locks them all down again because the epidemic is starting again.
UK:
The government suggests that the person with a poor immune system isolates and the others carry on as normal and get the virus. They look after the vulnerable one but avoid contact and wash thoroughly when leaving food etc for the one of them who is vulnerable. They go out and work, they aren't lonely or poor, they catch the virus and have various reactions from nothing to a quite ill for 5 days. The one in isolation comes out of isolation and all the others have immunity and so he doesn't catch the disease and lives a healthy life.

Not only is the UK idea better economically, it makes the vulnerable safer and helps the health and wellbeing of everyone in the community over the whole period. The government advisers said it was counter intuitive and it is. The world could have been heading for a short term correction and no recession - the actions of governments is going to turn this into a full scale 3 year bear market which will damage health and well being plus put vulnerable people in more danger. There is nothing so bad that politicians can't make it worse. At this moment I fear the do-gooders are going to persuade the masses to take the wrong path - I hope the UK government stays strong and that the USA follows our lead, otherwise we are putting more vulnerable people in danger and causing a 3 year economic disaster which will impact the health and wellbeing of people as much as the virus will.
All IMO and I could well be wrong.

Rest of World:
There are 10 people living in a block of flats with a communal area. One of them has a poor immune system. The government tells them they must all isolate. After 2 months they come out - poorer, lonely but alive. They go back out into the wider world - none of them have immunity and so they get the virus and pass it to the one with a poor immune system and he dies. The government locks them all down again because the epidemic is starting again.
UK:
The government suggests that the person with a poor immune system isolates and the others carry on as normal and get the virus. They look after the vulnerable one but avoid contact and wash thoroughly when leaving food etc for the one of them who is vulnerable. They go out and work, they aren't lonely or poor, they catch the virus and have various reactions from nothing to a quite ill for 5 days. The one in isolation comes out of isolation and all the others have immunity and so he doesn't catch the disease and lives a healthy life.

Not only is the UK idea better economically, it makes the vulnerable safer and helps the health and wellbeing of everyone in the community over the whole period. The government advisers said it was counter intuitive and it is. The world could have been heading for a short term correction and no recession - the actions of governments is going to turn this into a full scale 3 year bear market which will damage health and well being plus put vulnerable people in more danger. There is nothing so bad that politicians can't make it worse.

For the last 20 years the UK has borrowed money to spend on the population so that we can live above our means - there has been no austerity - we have spent and continue to spend more than we earn as a nation - austerity will start when we start to pay the money back. The Hartlepool bubble still exists it appears- I hope you have stopped hanging monkeys at least.

Well done - lowered this serious situation to a political fight - Universities are full of left wing activist professors - of course they are going to criticise the Government.
Have you all disengaged your brains - do you really think we can sop this virus from infecting the community - it cannot be stopped - it is all about the time frame - no-one wants anyone to die and it is utterly scandalous that any of you say so - wake up for goodness sake - the Government has a measured and thought through approach - anyone who wants to totally isolate themselves can do - anyone. They aren't forcing people to get the virus at gunpoint. If you are concerned - stay away from other people. Isolate yourself - no-one is stopping you. Why do you want the Government to make everyone isolate - why why why?

Pathetic Hartlepoolbob. Utterly pathetic.

Total shutdown - what happens when they declare the confinement period over? Obvious isn't it.

If we follow other countries and restrict the number of people who have the virus to 20% we will be seen as a success and lives will have been saved.
What happens next Winter - we only have 20% of the population with immunity and we have 80% vulnerable to infection - so we have to do the whole thing again - the virus will not go away - it is here forever - in future we will inoculate the vulnerable each Winter and the young will get it and become immune.

Alternatively - we control the spread and 50% of us get it - more deaths in the short term but we can mitigate that by protecting and isolating the vulnerable - they know who they are. Next Winter we have a minor outbreak because 50% of us are barriers to passing on the virus and maybe only another 10% to 15% get it. Ultimately 70% are going to get it in the next 18 months or so - it is all about how we control it.
I can see the balance of arguments to save as many lives up front as we can - I have vulnerable relatives - but if we have a second epidemic this Winter because we did not build up enough herd immunity then we will have such a devastated economy that people will suffer in other ways - reduced benefits, food shortages, medicine shortages, NHS cutbacks and all of these things will add to the health woes.
The Government has to deploy a strategy that will do least damage to the nations health as a whole and I, for one, would back their strategy over that of the WHO - it is a marginal and difficult decision but personally I am 60% to 40% in favour of their strategy. My mum and dad hate the Tories and my dad is 80 years old this year - he has had a triple heart bypass, bowel cancer and has poor circulation, diabetes and chronic lung disease. He got on a bus yesterday and went to Weatherspoons for a couple of hours. I have talked to them about being vulnerable and isolating - they say what sort of life is that - we are going to get the virus as soon as we come out of isolation anyway so may as well get on with it. If we get it we get it. My mum added that if they isolated themselves they would kill each other anyway within a fortnight. There you have it - 70% will get it whatever the strategy - might as well get it over with and live life - the oldest and most vulnerable in my family who hate the Tories are backing Boris's plan. Just booked to take them away for a couple of days in a hotel - they are excited and looking forward to it - their choice - it may not end well but it's their choice. I assume the other politicians would force them to stay in for their own good - what right do politicians have to do that? My wife's friend has been banned from visiting her mother who is in care - she is on an end of life care plan. The virus would kill her but she is dying anyway - she has been banned from seeing her daughter when she knows she is dying - what is right or wrong in that situation? Surely the mother and daughter should decide what they think is best for them.

USA was down 27% Michu - a short term (9 month) event driven bear market typically falls about 29% - they have rallied back up to be 20% down - can't see em being brave enough to take it back above 20% down. They still think this is just a short term event.
If we end up in world recession then 49% to 57% fall is on the cards from historic data.
Here's to SAVP rns and a 100% rise in a day - then I suggest you sell into that strength - at least someone would get a bit of good news.

Brilliant speedy - envious - enjoy the fruits of your labours.

Scenario 1: This is an event driven bear market (e.g. Cuban missile crisis) which passes quickly and does not cause systemic problems. In this case the stock markets fall on average (going back a couple of hundred years) 29%. The S and P 500 fell 27% and then shot back up to be only 20% down i.e. bang on the bear market limit. So many people in the US market believe this to be an event driven sell off and bought just above what they believe to be the bottom. They stopped short of continuing to buy at the bear market limit as they are not certain and anyway it has risen too far too fast. The FTSE has fallen a tad over 30% and may now rally if those in the market think this is the bottom - it could rally to 6000 IMO but it may not.
In any event - IF this is an event driven crisis then it will take a MINIMUM of 9 months (Christmas rally anyone) to play out. There could be great trading opportunities but longer term investors should stay out for most of this year.

Scenario 2 - this started out as an event driven crisis but the actions taken by Governments have caused it to become systemic (apologies to those on here with small businesses as you are already seeing this in action) which will cause a recession and kill off income in a shrinking world economy. - Boris is trying to walk the tightrope of protecting businesses by not closing everything down but other countries and the Labour Party, Lib Dems and Scot Nats are pressuring him to make the economy worse and put short term health first. So if we end up with recession and shrinking economies we can look forward to stock market falls of between 49% and 57% on past bear market performance. Oh and it will be 3 years before we see an upward momentum in stock markets again.

My ten pennorth for what it's worth - I think we will see something in between the 29% and the 57% with different markets having different magnitudes of fall. I have been working on 40% as a time when it may be safe to dip a toe or two but this may be too optimistic given the above info. I think the USA has been behind the curve all along. Trump has played it down to try and keep things buoyant for his re-election. The cases over there are behind those of other countries so they believe it is event driven and are acting accordingly for the time being. Not buying until the virus peak in the USA and if the S and P 500 is down only 30% it may be worth getting back in. If it's down more than that then the further shock waves of the government actions will kick in to send it lower for longer. Going to spend my time exercising, living more healthily, spending time with my family and renovating my home from top to bottom and see how it plays out - caution is the watchword - no rush to get back in, especially as the next wave of infection should sweep the world in the Winter of 2020/2021. GLA and each to their own - take care and enjoy life.

Hi speadiemeady - I see the way to think of gold is that IT IS currency. It never goes up or down. It is the currencies that move relative to gold The paper money or Fiat currency are just built on the promises of the governments that print them (they are no longer backed by gold).
So if governments print lots of money (once called inflation) then each piece of that currency becomes worth less in it's ability to buy gold. Gold appears to rise but it is the currency that is being devalued. Inflation is nowadays used for the effect that printing more money has i.e. things cost more. So if we have inflation our money will not buy as much so we go into gold which preserves our buying power as it stays still.
if we have deflation and we hold onto our fiat money (pound notes in our case) then we will be able to buy more with it but gold should still buy the same so it appears to go down relative to the fiat money but really it always stays still.
At this time everyone was thinking that the reaction of governments would cause inflation so things cost more and you can't get a decent return on your fiat money so we would all run to gold. In the short term at least the big money sees the demand destruction as being deflationary (well that is my conclusion given the fall in gold) and/or some are forced to sell gold as it did hold up better than other assets so they could hold onto their assets that have tanked - gold gives them more cash now than the shares they should have sold earlier i.e. it's too late for them to get their share money out.
the final outcome of this may well be inflation and then folks will swiftly move back to gold and we may see another bull run - a tentative one was starting before Covid-19 and could resume once things cool off.
Thinking of gold standing still at all times gives you a better chance of understanding the complexities but you still have to factor in human emotions. Done some more research into bear markets which I will share in another post.

Only reduced from 3.07% to 2.99%, only one in 1250 shares in issue.
The rise is more puzzling.

Strange move in sp at SAVP snaffleman - sell into strength looks well done by you. PGM's including gold and silver getting smashed in late trade - my only thought is they think the world is heading for deflation rather than inflation - otherwise a fall yes ok but silver has a 14 handle when folks were looking for 19p breakout.
Watching SAVP for news on Monday - otherwise just as perplexing as the fall.

Hi Robinhood - your relentless optimism is a credit to you - unfortunately for me I don't share it. Today's temporary bounce was entirely predictable - much further to go and this share has 25p written all over it - good luck - buy low and sell high.

The stock that was up 12% is now up 3% and JLP which was up 6% is now up less than 3% - the charts and indicators are working fine. Apple CEO says he expects another 20% drop from here.
See you with your cash later - picking the right level to get back in is now the game and how to distribute your money.
All the best to you and your family.