NEW: @OECD chief economist @LaurenceEco tells me the Omicron variant is an urgent reminder that rich countries need to do more to help poorer countries get vaccinated.
“As long as the global population is not vaccinated, this type of variant can come in and bring restrictions.”
“We G20 countries have spent about $10tr to support our economies in the pandemic – it costs $50bn to bring vaccines to the entire population,” said @LauBooneEco. “As long as the world stays as is we’re going to see countries which are going to have to shut down their economies.”
Full story here: @OECD warns that the rich world must be prepared for more variant-related shocks if it doesn’t help vaccinate poor countries: news.sky.com/story/help-vac…
The @OECD warning comes alongside their forecasts for global growth.
In brief: global economy still rebounding, inflation still rising. Some countries (esp developing economies w/ lower vax rates) being left behind. But NB this was finalised pre-Omicron. Growth forecasts here👇
As ever, some of the best stuff in today’s @OECD report comes in chart form. Here are a few gems from @LauBooneEco’s presentation.
Look: while the US has certainly outperformed Europe on the GDP rebound what’s less discussed is how much Europe outperformed the US on employment.
A couple of good charts on the energy crisis. The one on the right shows you prices which, as we all know, are VERY high at the mo. On the left you see one of the explanations: gas stockpiles are v low in Europe: look how much lower the green bars are than the blue bars.
And NB low gas storage levels in Europe is a big issue for the UK, which has barely any gas storage capacity and hence is deeply reliant on gas imports from the EU. We might have left the EU but we’re still v much in the “single market” for gas!
A couple of good charts on the supply crisis. One on the right shows you how much this is v much an issue for rich countries. On the right you see the sectors which are most exposed. Cars and electrical equipment: unsurprising (semiconductors). But also: rubber & plastics!
Pretty stark chart showing the rise in wait times for semiconductors. Doesn’t seem to be showing much sign of improvement.
And of course one way these supply shortages are manifesting is higher inflation. Just look at how the inflation forecasts from the @OECD (though one could choose pretty much any forecaster) have ratcheted up in recent months.
Really striking chart from the @OECD on vaccination rates. Note the main divide, between rich & upper middle income countries (blue & green, NB upper middle income includes China)…
…and lower middle income (inc India) & low income countries (much of sub-Saharan Africa).
I’ve been banging on abt the paradox that while govts talk a good game on the energy transition/net zero, look at actual spending and you see they’re investing less and less on green energy.
Here’s a good @OECD chart on that. Not sure many have twigged what a big deal this is…
Here’s a longer-run chart of govt investment in energy.
In short, it’s far, far lower now than it was in the 1980s. And note this also goes for investment in renewable energy.
Quite hard to square this with being serious abt net zero. More here: edmundconway.com/why-arent-our-…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
What does the data tell us about #Omicron?
Frustratingly little, if we're being absolutely honest.
Much of what's being written about it at the moment is stabs in the dark, based on anecdote or at best small scraps of data.
No point in pretending otherwise news.sky.com/story/covid-19…
Here's a short video running through some of the data we do actually have on #Omicron.
As I say, uncertainty abounds.
We'll have a lot more data - more reliable, robust stuff - in a week or two. Not that that's all that much help in deciding what policy to enact now.
Problem with charts like this (leaving aside fact that something being 500% higher is NOT the same as it being 500 times higher) is they imply considerably more certainty abt the growth rate of Omicron vs other variants than we really have. Consider…
How many people could still die of #Covid19 in the UK?
It’s an unpalatable question I know, but is worth pondering given cases are on the rise in many parts of Europe.
The good news is that, well, this thread contains better news than you might have thought.
First, the data:
Here’s the big picture. Covid may have been out of the headlines in recent months but the death toll has been creeping higher.
Now up to nearly 168k in the UK, 142k in England.
These are deaths where Covid is mentioned in certificate. Abt 90% were directly attributed to Covid.
You can split it into three broad phases:
1 Wave 1 last spring. 2. Wave 2 (arguably two waves in one) last winter.
3 The period since May.
Here’s the death toll in each (for England). Raising the question: what next. How many more deaths…?
Some 95.8% of adults in England have #Covid19 antibodies, according to @ONS data just released. Figures are broadly similar in Scotland, Wales and NI ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulati…
Couple of striking (if unsurprising) things from age breakdown:
- Among younger people (top row) note how antibodies (green line) is above vaccinations -> immunity from prev infection.
- Among older people (bottom row) you can see the “booster effect” pushing antibodies back up
Apologies I took the number from the wrong line here. Antibodies levels in England are 92.8% of adult population - that 95.8% was the number with 1 or more vaccination. Still very, very high.
CLIMATE FINANCE THREAD
Let's start with a simple question: how much is UK donating to poorer countries to help with climate change?
It's an important question given rich countries collective pledges are falling short of goals. That's been one of the big disappointments of #COP26
So: is the UK a leader or laggard when it comes to the $100bn?
Short answer: we give surprisingly little, given our typical leadership role in international development. But getting to the bottom of this involves diving deep inside a climate finance wormhole. Deep breath...
Let's start with the big picture. The idea behind climate finance is that rich countries should help poorer countries both to adapt to higher temperatures and to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels.
The target was to get to $100bn a year by 2020.
We failed.
Might hit it by 2023
BLOG: The $130 trillion climate finance figure bandied around at #COP26 today is utterly meaningless.
It is “numberism” - an attempt to deploy big numbers as symbols rather than data.
Here’s my attempt to explain what’s really going on (excerpt below): edmundconway.com/the-curse-of-b…
Given there are so many numbers flying around, let’s consider what they actually mean.
First @MarkJCarney’s $130 trillion.
You might, from the noises made at #COP26, have been left with the impression that this is a new fund which will help combat climate change.
It’s not.
It’s not an actual pot of money dedicated to combatting climate change.
Instead it’s more like saying: here’s how incredibly rich these financial firms which have now signed our climate change pledge are.
Might help divert more money to energy transition. But not quite the same.
As @COP26 gets going in Glasgow, if you’re wondering where the world’s emissions actually come from, here’s a primer I made recently for @SkyNews
Here is one big problem overshadowing the discussions at @COP26.
The targets you’ll mostly hear about this fortnight (NDCs) are based on domestic emissions.
On this front the UK, for instance, has done brilliantly, bringing them down 35% since 1990
But consider how much carbon this country is not just emitting in its borders but is RESPONSIBLE for, via imported goods, and the total is much higher - the dark line here.
This is our FOOTPRINT.
It’s going down, but not as fast. And it’s not due to hit net zero til after 2050