It's always been detached, and it's always made the real economy worse.

[THREAD] 1/10

We're not doing any of this because a lot of people were going to catch a cold. We're not destroying our economies and societies because a tiny number of people felt tired for a few months after a cough. We aren't allowing babies and children to die because a new strain

of coronavirus is at large. We were told, in no uncertain terms, that this new virus CAUSES a brand new, deadly disease called Covid-19, the like of which we had never seen before. A disease so horrific that doctors were having emotional breakdowns after treating it. That is what

all of this is based on. The reasoning behind a global reaction which may well lead to the permanent destruction of all the things that make life a worthwhile experience.
In nine months of being immersed in this swamp of information, I have still not found an explanation of what

it is about Covid-19 that makes it so different from other respiratory illnesses.
I think the most important question is this:
What scientific or medical reasoning prevented the message to the public being something along these lines:

'There is a new strain of coronavirus spreading around the world. For the vast majority, it's asymptomatic. Most who have symptoms will experience a mild cold. A tiny number will suffer longer-term fatigue (as is the case with many other viruses). However, for the elderly,

The economic impact of the Brexit deal: our

Key points to remember:

1. Leaving Single Market/Customs Union means major new trade barriers - customs and border checks, regulatory barriers, end of rules allowing services to be sold across borders.

2. A deal doesn't change that. It means no tariffs and quotas and *some* provisions that will stop trade breaking down. But the main impacts -on our and the government's own analysis, about two-thirds - happen either way

3. That also means that some disruption is inevitable. You can't introduce new systems/processes overnight. The delay in doing a deal plus covid means some things will go wrong

4. But short term disruption, even if it gets headlines, does *not* mean Brexit is a failure. And when that disruption is resolved and new systems are working, we should*not* conclude it's a success.

Expect to see a lot more stories like this. But let's also use this to have a more sophisticated conversation about why the rising tide of cheaper, cleaner energy - like all prior energy transitions - doesn't necessarily lift all boats. Brief thread:

1/ First to state the obvious: the domestic fossil fuel industry in the US wouldn't exist without massive subsidies. $650B/year according to the IMF.

2/ That in turn means that the transition to cleaner, cheaper energy is delayed by those market distortions. Taking away the subsidies is smart economic and environmental policy. It is FANTASTIC that @POTUS is doing so.

3/ But it is paternalistic and naive to assume that workers in those displaced industries will have an easy transition. Knowing how to run an oil rig is a highly specialized, highly skilled job. Gaining that skill set takes time and is geographically specific

4/ The fact that there will be economic gains in other sectors doesn't imply that a 55 year old who planned to work for another 10 years can simply take a correspondence course in thin film deposition and move to the solar industry.