Fascinating stuff from the Office for National Statistics this morning on Twitter:
What does this say? I suggest three things.
First, much of the country is still locked down.
Second, people do not want to take risks, and are not.
Third, as a result, we have not seen the rises in cases that were expected (the good news) but nor will we see economic recovery.
The country has more sense than the government in other words, and the model of rational people that too many economists use is not rational because it did not predict what rational people might do in the face of misinformation and mismanagement.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Just finished reading a report commissioned by a player in the travel industry.
30 per cent would not travel internationally because of social distancing concerns,
38 per cent because of continually changing rules,
41 per cent because of high cost of testing,
32 per cent because of new passport rules, queues at immigration, pet restrictions, insurance requirements.
The longer of course this goes on, the less likely people will be to change their behaviour as they get used to the new normal.
Presumably many people have more than one reason. The number of people having some reason could be anything from 41% to 100%.
The “guidance” for people who are clinically extremely vulnerable issued by the City of London on the 28th July – yes, it really did take them nine days to notice that perhaps people might expect the City to grapple with this – is mostly a cut and paste job on the “guidance” issued on 19th July which, since that text doesn’t make much sense, results in equally senseless platitudes.
Presumably the City had been so overcome with joy at the vaunted unleashing of the economy in general, and the City in particular, that it had not occurred to those in the upper echelons that people might not share their enthusiasm for entirely ignoring the delta variant, as well as entirely ignoring the fact that anywhere between a quarter of a million and half a million people commuting into the City each day would bring with them all sorts of fascinating opportunities for viruses.
It is hardly surprising therefore that people are voting with their feet on this; their risk analysis is a great deal better than the people who have managed to convince themselves that we can all go back to a pre-pandemic heaven if we just ignore the virus. Meanwhile I don’t venture beyond my front door since I am clinically extremely vulnerable, despite my fully vaccinated status, and I have no desire to offer myself up as a human sacrifice, however much I am told that I should not cower from the virus…
I participated in this, and I do recall that question.
Nice to think I had a part in this!
If one has the choice, surely the safer option is to stay at home. If one has elderly relatives, stay at home in order that one can safely enjoy visits with them. Most people would rather enjoy these simple pleasures than commuting in crowds to create footfall for city based retailers. Was Napoleon correct about the English being a nation of shopkeepers?