Covid-19 Discussion

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hi,
China has painted itself into a corner in Wuhan!
Whilst the outbreak is largely under control there - enough people left Wuhan before the lockdown to firstly spread it around the world - unfortunately most new cases in China are now from returning citizens or visitors bringing it back into the country.
Once this takes hold in another big city like Shanghai or Beijing - they will be firefighting a big outbreak again.
Don’t forget - the 1918 Spanish flu came in two waves, some months apart - the 2nd wave killed more people than the first!
USA is going to be in a real mess in 15 days time (Trump wants it to open up again in 15 days - no chance!)
Cheers
Steve
 
So, to prosecute an action (whatever that is) to recover damages from China for failures to protect global public health.

Do you think that this couldn't have happened elsewhere in the world.

And suppose it happened in some part of Africa, or Europe, or the Americas, or elsewhere in Asia the result would be any different?

We have a lot of questions to ask ourselves. I think with hindsight that that once the outbreak in Wuhan was reported that the risks to the rest of the world were totally obvious. In some ways SARS had made us complacent. Nobody wanted to face up to it.

Note the other discussion on the pandemic is in the Holiday Cancelled thread.

That kind of says it all.
 
Bit of a thread diversion, but worthy of comment as it affects many people.
We can see what has happened to the airlines now. But if yuo had closed down routes back in January or early February they would have resisted.
The airline industry has its own unique economic issues, but it has an ability to make a bad situation worse in ways that people are unlikely to forget. A couple of examples:
  1. UK back-packers in Australia who are trying to get back to the UK. Flight booked with Etihad now cancelled by the airline, but rather than refund the fare they have issued an account credit for another flight - that won't exist for the foreseeable future. Back-packers unable to book with a different carrier as Etihad have their money
  2. A multitude of airlines refusing to refund fares for return flights that would result in the pax spending the entire length of their stay (say 3, 4 or 5 days) in quarantine at the destination country if they took the outbound flight. "Our contract is to get you there and there's nothing stopping us doing that (even if you might not get back)" seems to be the attitude
  3. EasyJet lay off staff and hold out their hand for State support while paying £170m in dividends to their shareholders
Not exactly covering themselves in glory, are they?
 
Last edited:
A multitude of airlines refusing to refund fares for return flights

Arguably things are that bad the airlines have no money to refund.

They do have IMO a moral responsibility if they have sold a return. They should cooperate with each other to allow rerouting / rebooking of return journeys. In days gone by then many tickets were reroutable in this way - but in modern times tickets aer a lot cheaper and the airlines don't interchange them in the same way.

EasyJet lay off staff and hold out their hand for State support while paying £170m in dividends to their shareholders
Not exactly covering themselves in glory, are they?

No.

The company should have declared exceptional circumstances and withheld it.
 
  1. EasyJet lay off staff and hold out their hand for State support while paying £170m in dividends to their shareholders
Not exactly covering themselves in glory, are they?

No.

The company should have declared exceptional circumstances and withheld it.

Agreed.
But what will happen is when this eventually blows over is the poorest will be picking up the tab again, cue another decade (or more) of austerity. Austerity that reduces the NHS and public services' resilience and forces workers into jobs with no financial security and a repeat of where we are now as soon as another pandemic appears. Paying dividends is the first sign that nothing will really change.
 
Agreed.
But what will happen is when this eventually blows over is the poorest will be picking up the tab again, cue another decade (or more) of austerity. Austerity that reduces the NHS and public services' resilience and forces workers into jobs with no financial security and a repeat of where we are now as soon as another pandemic appears. Paying dividends is the first sign that nothing will really change.
Hi,
Whilst I hate what the airlines and other companies are doing - never forget one important fact.
All companies only actually exist to enhance shareholder value - it’s just some do it in a more friendly and ethical way than others!
Cheers
Steve
 
All companies only actually exist to enhance shareholder value

This isn't an absolute truth.

It is more true for PLCs and some private companies.

It actually is rather less true of smaller companies where the company tends to be more likely to exist as an entity that supports the directors (usually owners) and the staff. That doesn't mean the company doesn't have value to grow - but that its focus is more on its operation and generating a living.

There is a term - 'lifestyle company' that is used (sometimes derisively) by VCs and other investors.
 
Perhaps we could agree that all normal companies exist to make a profit, then?

Yes. But doing so and handing it over to a select amount of people while the wages are being paid by taxpayers isn't the correct way to do it any more than a mugger's profits are legitimate, responsible or respectable.
 
Actually, that's not quite the whole story.

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) kept the initial outbreak quiet from the rest of the world for quite a time. They also threatened and silenced those internally who were doing their best to raise a flag to warn both their country folk and those outside China. They continue to oppress anyone who expresses anything other than the "party line" regarding Coronavirus, their handling of the outbreak and subsequent efforts to contain it.

When the disease first started to spread outside China and other countries either ceased flights between China and themselves or suggested that was what they would do, the CCP propaganda machine went into action claiming that it was over-reaction, discriminatory against China, and racist. They backed up that rhetoric with threats of economic actions. Whether severing such transport links between China and the rest of the world at that point would have been effective in halting the spread of the disease is moot (although it probably would have slowed it), but the CCP's stance ensured we didn't get the chance to find out.

Now that CV-19 is "under control" in China (people are free to believe that, I'm not so sure), the CCP propaganda machine is actively sowing false rumours that (variously) the virus was introduced to China by American Service personnel, or that it originated in northern Italy, or... In fact, anything that points the finger of blame away from themselves.

So:
  • Hushing up the outbreak acknowledged as a mistake? Not entirely
  • Water under the bridge? Certainly not - there's significant action being undertaken to muddy those waters
Hygiene and dietary habits notwithstanding, the Chinese people are not responsible for this. However, the despotic, oppressive, CCP regime has far from clean hands and is actively attempting to take advantage of the global situation that their actions (or inactions) have created.

This is the way dictatorships work; we should not be surprised. (Actually, it is usually the way politicians in elected governments work too, as much as they can - why have all those spin doctors - but I digress.) When I say 'water under the bridge', what I mean is not that we should forget, but that the world has to deal with the situation as it is, rather than waste effort on finger-pointing and 'if only' rhetoric.
 
Yes. But doing so and handing it over to a select amount of people while the wages are being paid by taxpayers isn't the correct way to do it any more than a mugger's profits are legitimate, responsible or respectable.

I can't disagree with the sentiment, and can only agree that in the present situation companies receiving State aid should not be paying dividends. The recipients of those dividends, though, might disagree, particularly if those dividends were their main source of income, and so far as I am aware the state is making no specific provision for them. It's complicated...
 
This is the way dictatorships work; we should not be surprised.
Agreed, and I'm not (surprised, that is).

What does concern me is that as China's industrial and financial economy grows many people who should be concerned about it choose to turn a blind eye for reasons of expediency and profit (HMG with Huawei, Apple, etc., etc. the list is almost endless).
 
I can't disagree with the sentiment, and can only agree that in the present situation companies receiving State aid should not be paying dividends. The recipients of those dividends, though, might disagree, particularly if those dividends were their main source of income, and so far as I am aware the state is making no specific provision for them. It's complicated...

It's complicated.

But in a bail-out situation shareholders potentally get the advantage of the value of their shares not being lost.

That I think should be recompense more than the dividend at this point.

Alternatively perhaps HMG could maybe have special preferential stock issued.
 
It's complicated.

But in a bail-out situation shareholders potentially get the advantage of the value of their shares not being lost.

That I think should be recompense more than the dividend at this point.

Alternatively perhaps HMG could maybe have special preferential stock issued.

Naive Question, I don't suppose that will cover the losses to my Pension Pot? :rolleyes::wallbash::dk::doh:
 
Alternatively perhaps HMG could maybe have special preferential stock issued.
I think I read over the weekend that is the intention for some sectors? A sort of "partial nationalisation".
 
I can't disagree with the sentiment, and can only agree that in the present situation companies receiving State aid should not be paying dividends. The recipients of those dividends, though, might disagree, particularly if those dividends were their main source of income, and so far as I am aware the state is making no specific provision for them. It's complicated...

If you are referring to pensions, then the state pension is still there and is more than the SSP that the poorest will receive for staying at home.
 
What u mean “hush it up” thousands have died do you honestly think this is swept under table “I THINK NOT” it may be a mistake but they will pay for it in the long that’s a 100% certainty.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Interesting point of view. How do you think 'they' will pay for it in the long run?
 
The recipients of those dividends, though, might disagree, particularly if those dividends were their main source of income, and so far as I am aware the state is making no specific provision for them. It's complicated..

I'm not sure I share the 'complicated' vision , of this part at least.
You buy shares your gambling. You shouldn't gamble what you can't afford to lose.
To my mind such dividends are a bonus.

The more complicated bit is that we can't afford for insurance companies to fail, like the banks in 2007.
They are the generators of the economy with their gambling in stocks and shares. As artificial as so much of it is, it provides money for companies to grow with, hopefully. Their profits are a dependency of many for their pensions.

The artificial bit can often be that rumours are created to boost values. More is paid for the potential value increase rather than what has changed to demonstrate a higher value.
Followed often by betting slips on the Bookies floor.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom