Lloyds Banking Share Discussion Threads

[crossing_the_rubicon] 28/2/2020 09:37

Then there is

"Overall, per the CDC, the death rate of those who have been infected with the flu this flu season is 0.05%. According to the research conducted by the Chinese CDC, the case-fatality rate of novel coronavirus in China is 2.3%"

Still think the Covid19 virus isnt that bad compared to the Flu?

[crossing_the_rubicon] 28/2/2020 09:34

So far this flu season, about 0.05% of people who caught the flu have died from the virus in the U.S., according to CDC data.

The death rate for COVID-19 appears to be higher than that of the flu.

In the study published Feb. 18 in the China CDC Weekly, researchers found a death rate from COVID-19 to be around 2.3% in mainland China. That's much higher than the death rate linked to flu, which is typically around 0.1% in the U.S., according to The New York Times.

Death rate far higher.
So it's more dangerous.

The Covid-19 R0 is between 3.7 and 6.

The FLU R0 is 1.3


Not sure why people think Covid19 is no worse than flu frankly as even the "massaged data" points to it being far far worse.

[gaffer73] 28/2/2020 09:24

It's not welcome, but good call.

[crossing_the_rubicon] 28/2/2020 09:16

"mitchy28 Feb '20 - 05:30 - 6728 of 6743
Dude....we are not talking Black Death here. It's only taking out the old and vulnerable and leaving the young and healthy.
The average flu virus is more lethal.


Sorry Mitchy but both of your claims are factually incorrect.

It isnt ONLY taking out the old - there are plenty of young people dying as well.

And it is far more lethal than the average flu virus.

This latter flu comparison is a dangerous lie you're making.

Admittedly that is because you're basing such , as most people are, on the numbers coming out of China being an honest and fair appraisal - which they are not.

[xxxxxy] 28/2/2020 09:09

Mac Sinclair 28 Feb 2020 7:39AMThe economic impact is likely to be severe, projections for containers arriving at UK ports are down by 50% for next month!This is clearly a huge shift.Regardless of how well the virus is controlled, I suspect enough economic damage has already been done to create a severe jolt to overly integrated and interdependent global supply chains.Historians and economists will mostly look back and condemn business practices that expose business and society to terrible risk.  It seems globalisation is great until it creates zero elasticity in the system to the point where if anyone sneezes, we all get economically wiped out. 

[diku] 28/2/2020 09:06

Add the bad weather to that list...

[mitchy] 28/2/2020 09:04

And we have the Brexit debacle to negotiate as well !! DOOMED !

[xxxxxy] 28/2/2020 09:03

This is the problem.....Wibb Ler 28 Feb 2020 8:57AMPeople quoting historical death rates for flu as any sort of comparison against the total number of dead so far form COVID-19 is nonsensical.If the global population is 7 billion then with a historical flu infection rate of 8%, around 560 million get the flu each year around the world. If the worst case figure that  650,000 die from the flu each year is taken that's a death rate of 0.11%.Based on current information COVID-19 appears to be somewhere between 10-20 times more deadly. Clearly the estimated death rates for COVID-19 are going to change as the weeks pass and we collect more statistics are collected. However at the moment COVID-19 looks to be significantly more dangerous than any flu except perhaps the 1919 Spanish flu.

[alphorn] 28/2/2020 08:59

Good morning Minerve. Stay long on the views etc and stay very short on the other bits would be my comments for the day.

[xxxxxy] 28/2/2020 08:49

Coronavirus considerationshtTps://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/02/28/world/coronavirus-news.amp.html

[careful] 28/2/2020 08:43

Shares being hammered again today.
the boris bounce has turned into a Cummings crash.

poor but free.

'you can take our lives but you can't take our freedom'
(Braveheart.)

[scruff1] 28/2/2020 08:39

Maybe. These are not normal times

[xxxxxy] 28/2/2020 08:31

The Economic establishment's errorsBy JOHNREDWOOD | Published: FEBRUARY 28, 2020During my adult life so far I have witnessed three major UK recessions which did great damage to businesses and individuals, all from predictable policy errors. I have also lived through the false forecasts of a large rise in unemployment and fall in activity in the first two years after a Leave vote, where despite unhelpful policy the UK economy did not fall into a recession in those two years.So we need to ask why has the UK economic establishment at the Treasury and Bank had such a bad time of it? One of the recessions occurred under a Conservative government and two under a Labour government. Clearly none of the Chancellors and PMs involved set a policy to have a recession, and in each case they relied on the professional advice at the time. They were told right up until the recession had started that there would be no recession. It is the case the Labour Ministers  made the 1975-6 crisis worse by insisting on very high levels of spending and borrowing, which led to the run on the pound and the visit to the IMF to force a change of economic policy.  In 2007-9 Labour Ministers seemed to be in lock step with official opinion, with both arguing for the wrong  approach to managing banks cash and capital at a time of overextended balance sheets. Conservative Ministers willingly implemented the European Exchange Rate Mechanism policy which led to the humiliation of sterling, basing their case on the official and business  advice in favour of membership. Ironically they called the ERM "the golden scenario", stating it would bring low inflation and growth. Instead it brought an expensive spike in inflation and recession.So we do need to ask if senior officials specialising in economies should be under any pressure to get their forecasts right and to correct their positions if they are going wrong?  I do not recall anyone in the Treasury or Bank  apart from Ministers losing their job as a result of the disasters which hit the UK economy, though many hundreds of thousands of other people lost their jobs as a result of bad policy. In each case the errors were mainly monetary. In the 1970s the UK lurched from too fast a build up of credit and bank lending to too hard a landing, leading to a property crash and a general recession. In the ERM again as I predicted the mechanism encouraged too rapid a build up of credit, triggering inflation, and then forced too rapid a correction, bringing the economy down. In the banking crash the same thing happened. Bank policy was too accommodating in the run up, as the Parliamentary opposition and various commentators warned. Then the authorities switched to too fast a correction, causing a great recession as I feared.Tomorrow I will look at more recent Treasury and Bank thinking on the economy and ask if it is fit for purpose, and question why we have cut ourselves off from what Central Banks in the rest of the world are doing. Meanwhile we are looking at another Establishment error, as they watch and do nothing about the current problems.

[bargainbob] 28/2/2020 08:26

STV swings to profit as margins improve
Scottish broadcaster STV Group swung to a first-half profit, as improving margins buffered the company from falling revenues.

Pre-tax profit for the six months through June amounted to £9.1m, compared to a loss of £4.3m on-year.

The return to profit came despite revenue slipping 5% to £54.9, owing, in part, to the closure of the loss-making STV2 channel.

STV declared an interim dividend of 6.3p per share, up 5% on-year.

'An operating profit increase of 10% when national advertising revenues are down supports the decisions we took to reposition the group for profitable growth,' chief executive Simon Pitts said.

Pitts said the company has focused on its regional strengths and the growth potential offered by its digital and production businesses.

'In the first half of 2019 we have enjoyed the best all time viewing share on STV since 2009 and our total advertising revenue has outperformed the wider TV market,' he added.

The improved performance was driven by continued growth in digital and regional advertising, and by the increasing success of the STV Growth Fund, which has attracted over 100 new Scottish advertisers to television since launch.

'These factors have contributed to a strong first half performance, with a significant improvement in operating margin,' Pitts said.

At 8:04am: (LON:STVG) STV Group PLC share price was +9p at 364p

[gbh2] 28/2/2020 08:24

Back to 50p by the end of the day, traders need to make their daily cash ;)

[bargainbob] 28/2/2020 08:23

Minerve looked at it at Christmas as it went past £4 , new CEO turned things round . Going for local adverts before peak time shows seems to be pulling in revenue . Read Clients are happy with the new format . Looked but did not invest as it looked like , the entry point was missed.

[poikka] 28/2/2020 08:19

"Europe pays billions to Turkey hold them back."

And Turkey says that it's slow in coming and pales into insignificance compared to the E40bn that it's cost them.

Thing is guys, the bureaucrats are too remote from the tragedy that ordinary Syrians are suffering: Brussels decides to pay and forget, while the UN just forgets. What is needed is 'doers', not expense account diners.

[kreature] 28/2/2020 08:19

Good bank. I'm a buyer at 25p. 1 month

[diku] 28/2/2020 08:19

Yesterday I mentioned 50p was a done deal then 48.5p first stop...