How much is this all going to cost and who will pay for it ?

kippy

kippy wrote: »

I am assuming that knowing what to do about flu now might be in relation to people having more appreciation for:
Flu vaccines, hand washing, and maybe a bit of distancing. Not necessarily locking down an entire country for the flu virus.
There's no way a government want to 'do this' every year from now on and to suggest it is as daft as it gets tbh. Real tinfoil hat stuff.

And maybe masks. Would you be happy to be required by law to wear a mask and to socially distance every flu season? Would businesses such as nightclubs and theatres be able to operate properly at reduced capacity? I never said they wanted to, but that the option is now there for them to do so because the idea of locking the country may have become normalised.

Timing belt

Wanderer78 wrote: »

yes real economy inflation is, but asset price inflation isnt, far from it in fact! have a guess where all that private sector credit and central bank fiat has gone!

The asset prize inflation you refer to has not been generated by an expansion in private sector credit but by investors chasing yields due to artificially low yields on government debt due to QE.

if the yield on bonds drops from 2% to 0.25% the majority of the money leaves this asset class and goes to another till the yield falls. E.g. money flows into stock market where a higher valuation for a lower return will be accepted generating the price inflation.

kippy

[Deleted User] wrote: »

And maybe masks. Would you be happy to be required by law to wear a mask and to socially distance every flu season? Would businesses such as nightclubs and theatres be able to operate properly at reduced capacity? I never said they wanted to, but that the option is now there for them to do so because the idea of locking the country may have become normalised.

Washing hands more and taking a vaccine that is already there for flu are two things that are hopefully more obvious for people in the long run.
Personally I don't see much of the population happy to wear a mask but for those that are immuno compromised it has made it more socially acceptable for them to do so if they wish. These are all good things....
I don't see those businesses being asked to operate at reduced capacity tbh once covid is under control.
There's nothing normalised around the restrictions we have had for the past few months or this time last year.

Jim2007

Deleted User wrote: »

Life is about taking risks. For me personally case numbers wouldn't be a consideration.

And what about the case number for longer term impact of having had that virus.... oh yea, we have no idea.....

Deleted User wrote: »

What would you suggest an Irish guy who owns a pub who wants to emigrate in order to make a living do? Go somewhere where there's no threat of lockdown, which would mean he'd have no livelihood, or opt for somewhere with low numbers but where the threat of lockdown is constant?

A large dose or reality. You can't out run this virus, nor can you expect to do so with any future one that comes along, which is likely. On top of which governments come and go, people's attitudes change, today's lax lockdown areas can be next weeks most restricted areas....


On top of which nine out of ten businesses fail and without local knowledge of the business and the cultured etc the chances failure increases. And then of course there is the person side of the move, the only truly happy ex-pats are the ones that don't have to be there - the ones that move by choice, they rest usually don't stick it.


The idea that you can somehow find somewhere to avoid the virus and life happily ever after is just a wild dream.


Probably the one that would most likely bring happiness - find a new career.

gozunda

[Deleted User] wrote: »

..

I mentioned the issues that Sweden wouldn't have to deal with. Would you agree with me that huge numbers of Irish people are terrified? And would you also agree with me that it will take a long time for that fear to go away?

No I do not agree that "huge numbers of Irish people are terrified"

Is the majority observing restrictions? Yes I think they are. Are some people not observing restrictions - yes I think they are.

I can understand that there are those of all ages - both young and old - who do face a much higher risk of serious illness and even death who are understandably cautious with regard to catching covid. And those are the people that other people are looking out for when observing our current restrictions.

And again there is no basis in reality for restrictions not to be rolled back once vaccination targets have been met and case numbers can be kept to a minimum.

Jim2007

Deleted User wrote: »

Would businesses such as nightclubs and theatres be able to operate properly at reduced capacity? I never said they wanted to, but that the option is now there for them to do so because the idea of locking the country may have become normalised.

They may never need to. People's attitudes, believes and behavior changes after something like this. I expect we'll see a drop in urban living all across Europe. Office workers don't need to move to the city, students don't need to be physically present in college and so on.


My daughter started her first job last August working for a consulting engineers and she has never been in their premises. And now the owner has decided based on his experience that he will cut office space by 40% as he really does not need those people on site.

KyussB

MouseMan01 wrote: »

The EU or rather the Germanic-Franco axis that seems to pull the strings. Is generally hypersensitive to rampant money printing and the inflationary issues as a result.

I believe German hyperinflation during the Weimar republic era less than 100 years ago was one of the main reasons the German people turned to the Nazis.

The Nazi's printed their way through rearmament and WWII, with MEFO bills:
https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/12/philip-pilkington-hjalmar-schacht-mefo-bills-restoration-german-economy-1933-1939.html

Jim2007

Jim2007 wrote: »

They may never need to. People's attitudes, believes and behavior changes after something like this. I expect we'll see a drop in urban living all across Europe. Office workers don't need to move to the city, students don't need to be physically present in college and so on.


My daughter started her first job last August working for a consulting engineers and she has never been in their premises. And now the owner has decided based on his experience that he will cut office space by 40% as he really does not need those people on site.

Congrats to your daughter. I hope she likes the job.

That's something I've been thinking about. If people continue to work from home then that will impact on small businesses such as cafés and newsagents. It would mean fewer people would be going to those places for a coffee or for lunch. David Solomon, the chief executive of Goldman Sachs called WFH an 'aberration' the other day and said the plan was to get people back in the office as soon as possible: https://www.prdaily.com/goldman-sachs-chief-calls-wfh-an-aberration-zoom-adds-closed-captioning-and-mckinsey-ousts-global-managing-partner/. I imagine there will be companies that go for a mix of WFH and work from the office and others such as Goldman Sachs that don't. It'll be interesting to see what happens.

kippy

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Congrats to your daughter. I hope she likes the job.

That's something I've been thinking about. If people continue to work from home then that will impact on small businesses such as cafés and newsagents. It would mean fewer people would be going to those places for a coffee or for lunch. David Solomon, the chief executive of Goldman Sachs called WFH an 'aberration' the other day and said the plan was to get people back in the office as soon as possible: https://www.prdaily.com/goldman-sachs-chief-calls-wfh-an-aberration-zoom-adds-closed-captioning-and-mckinsey-ousts-global-managing-partner/. I imagine there will be companies that go for a mix of WFH and work from the office and others such as Goldman Sachs that don't. It'll be interesting to see what happens.

It will no doubt effect traditional city centre coffeeshops etc but might increase the business in local communities for coffee and lunches etc. Hard to know where the ups and downs will be.
Maybe these mobile barristas etc will start to take off more and more?
People might also change their habits and spending habits in general.

growleaves

Jim2007 wrote: »

They may never need to. People's attitudes, believes and behavior changes after something like this. I expect we'll see a drop in urban living all across Europe. Office workers don't need to move to the city, students don't need to be physically present in college and so on.


My daughter started her first job last August working for a consulting engineers and she has never been in their premises. And now the owner has decided based on his experience that he will cut office space by 40% as he really does not need those people on site.

They do though. Learning from a screen is a poor substitute for a college or university education.

Plumbthedepths

growleaves wrote: »

They do though. Learning from a screen is a poor substitute for a college or university education.

I love the assumption that every part of the country has fibre boardband to the door.

ThunbergsAreGo

Wanderer78 wrote: »

so implement austerity like measures, thats helped us a lot during this crisis, hasnt it, particularly our health system!



...and reduce the overall money supply, how is that gonna help the economy?

Our health system. Isn't under funded, its mis managed, big difference

bosco12345

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Where are you thinking of going? I'm keeping my eye on a few countries.

Canada / Australia / New Zealand

Geuze

Wanderer78 wrote: »

so implement austerity like measures, thats helped us a lot during this crisis, hasnt it, particularly our health system!

Healthcare expenditure has massively increased in recent years.

The exp is too high, relative to the age profile of our population.

We have too many hosps, and massive waste and duplication.

This is all well known.

Health outcomes have improved.

Access and waiting lists / times are still a massive problem.

This problem is not due to too little expenditure.

Geuze

Wanderer78 wrote: »

please explain how stripping our critical public sectors such as the health system, 'didnt hurt'?

H/C staff in the PS got the same 2-3-4 pay cuts as all public servants, during 2009-2012.

If you want to call that austerity, then go ahead.


Since then, spending has increased.

https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-sha/systemofhealthaccounts2018/healthexpenditureinireland2018/


2014 = 18,850m

2018 = 22,452m

Multi-billion euro expenditure increases over a few years.

Geuze

Wanderer78 wrote: »

...and reduce the overall money supply, how is that gonna help the economy?

Off-topic, but can you explain (exactly) how running a smaller budget deficit will reduce the money stock?


Money supply M1 = cash + current a/c balances

Money supply M3 = M1 plus deposit a/c balances

KyussB

Rather than focus on the money stock, the focus is on money flows - using Sectoral Balances:
Reducing the deficit reduces the flow of money going into the (already depressed/below-capacity) private sector, which hinders the return to maximum-GDP/Full-Output.

Rodin

Those who always pay will be asked to pay more.
Those who never pay (scroungers of the state) will not be asked for a penny more...

It will be as it ever was/is

wes

Deleted User wrote: »

Congrats to your daughter. I hope she likes the job.

That's something I've been thinking about. If people continue to work from home then that will impact on small businesses such as cafés and newsagents. It would mean fewer people would be going to those places for a coffee or for lunch. David Solomon, the chief executive of Goldman Sachs called WFH an 'aberration' the other day and said the plan was to get people back in the office as soon as possible: https://www.prdaily.com/goldman-sachs-chief-calls-wfh-an-aberration-zoom-adds-closed-captioning-and-mckinsey-ousts-global-managing-partner/. I imagine there will be companies that go for a mix of WFH and work from the office and others such as Goldman Sachs that don't. It'll be interesting to see what happens.

I think some employers are going to be in for a bit of a rude awakening, as those who offer the flexible option to work some days from home, will have an easier time of hiring staff.

Company I work for had hybrid before the pandemic, and even the lads who would usually come in 5 days a week, liked that they could do the occasional day from home if they needed to.

I know people who turned down job offers (including myself), as they did not allow at least some days working from home. It really is a very useful option to have.

Geuze

KyussB wrote: »

Rather than focus on the money stock, the focus is on money flows - using Sectoral Balances:
Reducing the deficit reduces the flow of money going into the (already depressed/below-capacity) private sector, which hinders the return to maximum-GDP/Full-Output.

I would be careful with those balances, as Inv is massively distorted by MNC activities.


(S - I) + (T - G) = (Current a/c balance CA BoIP)

I will take an example.

2019

(S - I) + (small GG surplus +1.9bn) = (massive CA deficit of 40,404m)

So (S - I) was -42.3bn in 2019, that is a massive negative figure. This means private inv was way bigger than private saving.

Moving to 2020

(S - I) + (estimated 20bn fiscal deficit) = (CA surplus 16,924m)

So it looks like (S - I) will swing from -42.3 bn to 36.9bn.


MNC activities are causing huge inv flows, as IP is onshored here.

Geuze

KyussB wrote: »

Reducing the deficit reduces the flow of money going into the (already depressed/below-capacity) private sector, which hinders the return to maximum-GDP/Full-Output.

A rebounding economy in the second half of 2021, and 2022 will cause the fiscal deficit to fall.

As we move back towards full output, the deficit will naturally fall.

Tax revenues will rise, expenditure on PUP, EWSS, etc. will fall.

KyussB

What is important in the context of sectoral balances, is that the fiscal deficit is directly related to the speed at which the economy recovers - you reduce the fiscal deficit, you reduce the flow of money going into the private sector, you slow down the recovery.

That the budget is affected by automatic stabilizers like unemployment payments and PUP, and increasing revenue as the economy recovers, doesn't matter. They don't define the budget, the budget still has to be manually managed.

We have ~25% covid-adjusted unemployment. We are nowhere near recovery. We need a bigger fiscal deficit than we currently have, not a smaller one - in order to recover faster. When we're near Full Output i.e. Full Employment, then we pull back the deficit (to inflation target levels).

Jim2007

Deleted User wrote: »

Congrats to your daughter. I hope she likes the job.

That's something I've been thinking about. If people continue to work from home then that will impact on small businesses such as cafés and newsagents. It would mean fewer people would be going to those places for a coffee or for lunch.

It just means they will got to different establishments and probably the rebirth of smaller towns and villages.

Hotblack Desiato

punisher5112 wrote: »

Huge tax increases on their way.... USC will never leave us and more levies upon levies and anything else they can think up.....

It will get to the point nobody will be able to afford to retire.....

There will not be huge tax increases, once businesses are open again the government finances will be close to balance, and yes some businesses won't reopen but others will take their place

There is a huge amount of pent-up demand for socialising, eating out, hotel stays etc which people are dying to do (no pun intended) but for much of the last year couldn't! All of these will raise a lot of excise duty and VAT as well as getting people back into work

USC should be kept as it hits unearned income, give workers an increase in the PAYE allowance instead of cutting USC.

As for nobody being able to afford to retire, the issue of pensions needs to be tackled. We still have no auto-enrolment, very poor pension coverage in the private sector, and the issue of pension age needs to be tackled, SF and FF think this issue can be wished away but it can't. The idea isn't that people should get an alternative benefit at 65 until they qualify for OAP, that's still being on social welfare so is only a fudge. The idea behind raising the OAP age is that people will be able to work longer and nobody should be forced to retire at 65 any more.

KyussB

KyussB wrote: »

We need a bigger fiscal deficit than we currently have, not a smaller one - in order to recover faster. When we're near Full Output i.e. Full Employment, then we pull back the deficit (to inflation target levels).

What if we don't get to the point of Full Output due to some other economic shock? How can we pull back the deficit?

What if the virus struck in 2012 while we were up to our necks in debt, how would we have been able to borrow?

The suddenness of this economic shock should have made clear to you why debt should be kept as low as possible to allow for borrowing capacity at times of crisis.

Geuze

KyussB wrote: »

Reducing the deficit reduces the flow of money going into the (already depressed/below-capacity) private sector, which hinders the return to maximum-GDP/Full-Output.

This seems to be based on the presumption that the fiscal expenditure multiplier is high in Ireland.

The evidence on the size of the multipliers here is mixed:

https://www.fiscalcouncil.ie/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Ireland%E2%80%99s-Spending-Multipliers-Final.pdf


Our findings suggest that there is some evidence of positive, significant initial impacts on economic activity associated with fiscal policy, yet
these effects disappear over the longer term.

The estimated impacts are wide-ranging and uncertain, with limited evidence of positive impacts on the economy from government consumption as a whole. Within this, we find broadly negative—though insignificant effects—from public sector wages.

Investment spending tends to have higher short-term multipliers, but the significance disappears over the medium to long term. This is
consistent with theory and with the fact that Ireland’s relatively large dependence on imports leads to high leakages of income (Cronin and
McQuinn, 2014).

KyussB

Geuze wrote: »

This seems to be based on the presumption that the fiscal expenditure multiplier is high in Ireland.

The evidence on the size of the multipliers here is mixed:

https://www.fiscalcouncil.ie/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Ireland%E2%80%99s-Spending-Multipliers-Final.pdf


Our findings suggest that there is some evidence of positive, significant initial impacts on economic activity associated with fiscal policy, yet
these effects disappear over the longer term.

The estimated impacts are wide-ranging and uncertain, with limited evidence of positive impacts on the economy from government consumption as a whole. Within this, we find broadly negative—though insignificant effects—from public sector wages.

Investment spending tends to have higher short-term multipliers, but the significance disappears over the medium to long term. This is
consistent with theory and with the fact that Ireland’s relatively large dependence on imports leads to high leakages of income (Cronin and
McQuinn, 2014).

Multipliers don't come into it, there is no such assumption. The national current account (representing foreign trade) does not matter (particularly in the Euro) - it is a meaningless number of no consequence - we can drive it as far into deficit as we want, and that is a good thing, as it means we have a net-gain of real material assets.

Reducing the government deficit still reduces the flow of money going into the private sector, no matter how much of the money indirectly goes into the foreign sector.

Danzy

lawred2 wrote: »

It's been printing money pretty much non stop for the last decade.

Yet no inflation!?

It's about stopping the Eurozone sinking in to deflation.

Is there a level of printing we'll see that will create problem inflation, probably not, it's years of stimulation now and growth and inflation are weak.

That's frightening.

Geuze

KyussB wrote: »

The national current account (representing foreign trade) does not matter (particularly in the Euro) - it is a meaningless number of no consequence - we can drive it as far into deficit as we want, and that is a good thing, as it means we have a net-gain of real material assets.

This statement is false.

If we drive our current account of the BoIP into deficit, we are borrowing from the rest of the world.

We would be accumulating debt, and reducing our assets.

Countries that run CA deficits are spending more than their income, and so are accumulating liabilities.

KyussB

The current account deficit is merely a tally with no specific limit or due date, it is wrong to compare it to private sector or even public sector debt, despite being a net liability. Every note and coin in your wallet is a net liability to the state, yet pushing to 'balance the books' there would eliminate all currency, which would obviously be silly.

Debt is defined by the legal contract we associate with it. A debt with no contract can remain unbalanced forever with no legal consequence.

Current account 'debt' has no associated contract, it's just a tally. Private sector debts typically have a contract specifying terms of repayment. Government debts have their own type of contract specifying separate terms of repayment. Money is a net liability to the state i.e. debt and has a contract defining it as legal tender, allowing its use as a means of exchange and for paying taxes/debts etc..

We gain material assets with a current account deficit, we don't reduce our assets.

There are good macroeconomic reasons not to run up a large imbalance of payments with the current account long-term - but the same way you let the fiscal deficit wax and wane to allow the economy to recover, you let the balance of payments wax and wane to allow the economy to recover as well.

The US, having the worlds reserve currency, is able to run a permanent current account deficit - and if the US suddenly balanced that deficit, the world economy would collapse because exporting nations depend on the US/reserve-currency running a massive deficit.

Fairly impressed with the responses here.

GazzaL

Any chance the pro lockdown crowd would agree to pay say 60-70% tax for the foreseeable future to cover the economic cost of the lockdowns? Chances are this crowd have been earning full whack for the duration so it's time for them to put on the green jersey and think of what they can do for their country. Any volunteers on here?

I was disappointed that more people, including the NPHET and TDs, didn't forfeit their salaries to take home just €350 in solidarity with the people that they forced out of work.

Red Silurian

I don't think there will be much of a bill to pay. When we exit this lockdown we will have a substantial public debt for sure but it will be an almost immediate case of everybody going back to work in the space of 6 months, wage subsidy and PUP figures will mostly be gone other than for certain industries such as international tourism of course...

This means we will go back to 100% employment and those who were unemployed will have been supported in some way all along. By comparison after the money was spent on the bank bailout in 2008 we had an almost 30% unemployment figure

is_that_so

One interesting effect of COVID and no construction, low supply and higher house prices.

House prices in Ireland have increased by an average of €20,000 in the past year, according to property website Daft.ie.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/house-prices-jump-by-20-000-amid-covid-supply-shock-1.4524301

Plumbthedepths

Red Silurian wrote: »

I don't think there will be much of a bill to pay. When we exit this lockdown we will have a substantial public debt for sure but it will be an almost immediate case of everybody going back to work in the space of 6 months, wage subsidy and PUP figures will mostly be gone other than for certain industries such as international tourism of course...

This means we will go back to 100% employment and those who were unemployed will have been supported in some way all along. By comparison after the money was spent on the bank bailout in 2008 we had an almost 30% unemployment figure

Your optimism is endearing, sadly reality will not be as rosy.

Danzy

Red Silurian wrote: »

I don't think there will be much of a bill to pay. When we exit this lockdown we will have a substantial public debt for sure but it will be an almost immediate case of everybody going back to work in the space of 6 months, wage subsidy and PUP figures will mostly be gone other than for certain industries such as international tourism of course...

This means we will go back to 100% employment and those who were unemployed will have been supported in some way all along. By comparison after the money was spent on the bank bailout in 2008 we had an almost 30% unemployment figure

There are reasons to be optimistic but the debt is already massive

The wider continental EU attitude to Vaccination rollout means that much of the EU will be enduring restrictions for months to come.

It's going to take massive stimulus from the ECB to solve the debt crisis incurred.

In some ways the prognosis is much better than the last crash but in others there is a compounding.

That said a boom decade is also possible.

alentejo

The main issue is that all EU countries will be massively in debt this time round.

Pussyhands

https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2021/0331/1207173-brendan-mcgrath-on-covid-spending/

Covid spending will reach 28bn at the end of 2021.

This is horrific news lads and it's frightening that most people don't know what's coming down the tracks.

Government are announcing millions a day in funding for groups. 17 million yesterday willy nilly for outdoor dining.

Squeezed middle are going to be shafted again paying for this.

screamer

alentejo wrote: »

The main issue is that all EU countries will be massively in debt this time round.

Which might mean they won’t crucify uswith rules and demands this time as they’re up **** creek themselves

is_that_so

Pussyhands wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2021/0331/1207173-brendan-mcgrath-on-covid-spending/

Covid spending will reach 28bn at the end of 2021.

This is horrific news lads and it's frightening that most people don't know what's coming down the tracks.

Government are announcing millions a day in funding for groups. 17 million yesterday willy nilly for outdoor dining.

Squeezed middle are going to be shafted again paying for this.

We, the public, have €128bn in the bank, so I wouldn't be too concerned just yet! It's good to point it out but I doubt they have plans to reach the total if they can avoid it.

Danzy

Pussyhands wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2021/0331/1207173-brendan-mcgrath-on-covid-spending/

Covid spending will reach 28bn at the end of 2021.

This is horrific news lads and it's frightening that most people don't know what's coming down the tracks.

Government are announcing millions a day in funding for groups. 17 million yesterday willy nilly for outdoor dining.

Squeezed middle are going to be shafted again paying for this.

Funding like that is so the squeezed Middle don't collapse, Can afford electricity and food.

is_that_so

is_that_so wrote: »

We, the public, have €128bn in the bank, so I wouldn't be too concerned just yet! It's good to point it out but I doubt they have plans to reach the total if they can avoid it.

What are you suggesting, that the government takes 30% of everyone's savings to pay for this?

Plumbthedepths

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What are you suggesting, that the government takes 30% of everyone's savings to pay for this?

Well there was a private pension money grab the last time we had a financial crisis, I wouldn't be surprised if they targeted savings tbh but it may be more problematic that taking money from a private pension.

Plumbthedepths

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Well there was a private pension money grab the last time we had a financial crisis, I wouldn't be surprised if they targeted savings tbh but it may be more problematic that taking money from a private pension.

They raided people's savings in Cyprus during the last crisis, and to be fair there have been so many things that happened during COVID that I thought would be impossible in a democracy, that this would be trivial to do.

The only way out I see is either the ECB writes off a load of sovereign debt, or inflates it away. The former is vastly preferable, but I don't see "ze Germans" or the others in the frugal four agreeing to it.

Imagine if there is a pandemic in two years time with an IFR of 10% across the board. We have nothing left.

I still continue to say this lockdown is a total overreaction and many businesses that are closed could be safely open. Pubs being about the only exception.

We were always going to get a surge over Christmas.

political analyst

Obviously, the national debt has been increased by the borrowing that our government has been doing and the fact that the shutdown of many businesses means that there is less revenue for the Department of Finance.

Of course, the debt must be paid in the future. Given that the austerity brought about by the economic crisis into which Ireland was plunged just over a decade ago led to cutbacks in the health service and other public services, why would the government think that these onerous restrictions on businesses are helpful to the health service or to this country's welfare in general?

After all, the increasing of debt is never good for any country. I'm not sure that the lockdown's effect on the public finances has been sufficiently discussed.

Bit cynical

I think there will be problems in the Eurozone when the virus eventually recedes from front-page news. Although all countries have suffered economically, the amount that each economy has suffered and the amount of borrowing varies from country to country. Normally this would entail different monetary policies but, of course, this is not possible in the Eurozone. We may get a repeat of some of the stuff we saw in the financial crisis.

Captcha

we can just sell a few houses to cover it

Beasty

Threads merged

completedit

I personally believe this decade will end the Euro if decisions are taken which heighten unrest to a tipping point. Brexit gives a precedent now and Brussels knows this. The next few years will be very interesting. It's make or break imo. As someone who is in favour of closer integration I really hope that the outcome will be a good one.

The prevailing mood is that austerity doesn't work. There's too much at stake this time and the memory of the GFC too clear in the memory for a return to measures which only worked to worsen and prolong the last crisis.

My hunch is that public debt will be swept aside as a conversation for the next few years before remerging again when Covid has become a memory.