[ad_1]
As we find out the economic consequences of Covid-19, we must always be aware of the difficulties of making such forecasts. There are the dangers of forecasting in good times, of course, but also the additional dangers involved in observing crystal balls during a time of crisis.
A small example is found in the UK Chancellor’s Eat Out to Help Out program. It clearly exemplifies, in a small but telling way, a key difference between the UK’s response to the crisis and the attitudes taken by officials in Ireland.
The UK wanted people to come out, most obviously to help the hotel industry, but also to send important signals about what is considered safe. Or maybe safe enough. It was not a sign that no one in the government was considering a “Covid zero” policy for Britain.
When the plan was announced, it was widely described as unlikely to make much of a difference to anything – relatively few people would venture out to restaurants to take advantage of a maximum discount of £ 10 (€ 11.20).
The chancellor set aside £ 500 million for the likely cost of the plan. All signs are that Rishi Sunak did his sums roughly right and the cynics were wrong.
Scheme
On average everyone in the UK has used the scheme once. Of course, that’s not literally true – some people will have used the schema multiple times, while others have not. There have even been reports of some people having their starters, main course and dessert at three different restaurants to benefit from three discounts. I’ll label it an urban myth until proven otherwise.
So far, 64 million discounts have been claimed at a total cost of £ 336 million. Not all restaurants have received your complaints and the data does not yet include the last week of August.
The chancellor is said to be resisting calls to extend the scheme, leading some restaurants to offer their own discounts. The socially distanced queues outside restaurants on the main streets across Britain are a testament to success.
Sunak has thrown a lifeline to Britain’s pubs and restaurants that could prove vital. It sent a powerful signal that with proper hygiene, distance, and common sense, some normalcy could be restored to social life. People have responded.
This columnist visited London’s Borough Market pub and restaurant area on a recent Saturday night, a night not covered by the Monday-Wednesday scheme, and the place was buzzing.
It helped that the weather allowed most people to eat outside, but it was clear that younger people, especially while being careful, have stopped unduly worrying about the coronavirus. I was reprimanded to realize that I was probably the oldest person around.
Sunak’s plan seems to have worked. It takes more of that kind of thinking
The behavior is adapting. Coronavirus cases are on the rise across Europe in large part due to such an attitude from young people. While there are clear examples of irresponsible, if not stupid behavior, there seems to be a rational assessment of risk.
The Sardinian nightclub that is feared to have infected hundreds, if not thousands, of people is not, we hope, typical. It is, of course, a reminder that crowded, noisy, and poorly ventilated spaces are high risk. I don’t understand why those places can be opened.
Life lines
If lifeguards are not thrown at many companies, especially tourism and hospitality, they will sink. Some have already done so. The long-term consequences of that are unlikely to be good.
Over time, new businesses will emerge once the crisis passes. But the gap between now and then could be so great that lives will be permanently ruined. That’s not just a comment on rising unemployment, serious as it is. The health consequences of unemployment are as dire as the economic ones.
One or two people have started calling the current phase of the health crisis a “casedemic” rather than a pandemic. That’s to contrast the current data with the numbers for March and April. Back then, too many people, too many, became seriously ill.
More recent figures say there are much less serious illnesses, despite the increase in cases. Doctors and other scientists dismiss this new description as premature and risks a resurgence in hospital admissions and death. That is reasonable and understandable. But you should also consider the possibility that something has changed.
If we treat people as irresponsible and stupid, there will be a reaction. If we inform them of the risks and consider the possibility that our approach to coronavirus is not unique, most of us will think that it is sensible.
The British Medical Journal this week published a grid of activities marked by their potential for low, medium or high risk. It perfectly illustrated the points about the outside versus the inside, the importance of being near adequate ventilation and not near people singing, yelling, or speaking loudly.
It is a grid that should accompany all health press conferences. We have known about these risks since the beginning of the pandemic; they should not simply be found buried in medical journals.
Sunak’s plan seems to have worked. It takes more of that kind of thinking. More generally, we need adult conversations about risks and ending the notion that there is only one uniquely correct path. The pandemic has caused, in some sectors, the guardian of internal traffic present in all of us.
Deal Today
Get the latest business news and commentarySIGN UP HERE
[ad_2]