coronavirus impacts on UK economy
226635398
A review of India's response to COVID 19 outbreak and ipmpact of lockdown on Indian economy
The outbreak of coronavirus disease was first noticed in the Wuhan city in Hubei province of Central China This disease has now spread to all over world including USA, Italy, France, UK and India Due to its global effect, World health organization has declared this as pandemic Till date there is no reliable cure and vaccination for this Virus This disease has made a large scale damage to both life and property all over the world To check the community transmission many countries in the world including India have opted for the completed lockdown of all activities for a month or half This sudden lockdown have forced to shutdown all activities of manufacturing, processing, transporation, trade and commerce This loackdown have left many vulnerable grops stranded without food and shelther and livelihood This study has tried to review the preparedness and mitigation effort of Government of India towards COVID 19 and analysed the impact of lockdown on the economy of India This study is entirely based on the secondary sources of data which is further processed and represented using MS office, and ArcGIS After the review and analysis it has been found that the GoI has swiftly acted towards continment and checking of COVID 19 Also, it has been analysed that this lockdown will bring the GDP to as low as 2 5% and there will be a collective loss of more that 43 lakhs crores Moreover, this disease has left many vulnerable groups straded in their places without food and livelihood Finally this study has suggested to provide best possible protective gear and equipments to medical workers who are sacrificing their lives for betterment of humankind (c) 2020 by Advance Scientific Research This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http:/creativecommons org/licenses/by/4 0/
Kajal Kumar Mandal S Alam Avinash Kumar Ranjan K Dharanirajan Pammy Kumari
226453724
A REVIEW OF INDIAS RESPONSE TO COVID 19 OUTBREAK AND THE IMPACT OF LOCKDOWN ON THE INDIAN ECONOMY
The outbreak of coronavirus disease was first noticed in the Wuhan city in Hubei province of Central China. This disease has now spread all over the world, including the USA, Italy, France, UK and India. Due to its global effect, the World Health Organization has declared this as a pandemic. To date, there is no reliable cure and vaccination for this Virus. This disease has made substantial scale damage to both life and property all over the world. To stop the community spread of COVID 19, countries around the world, including India, opted for a complete lockdown of a month or half. This sudden lockdown has forced to shut down all activities of manufacturing, processing, transportation, trade and commerce. This lockdown has left many vulnerable groups stranded without food and shelter and livelihood. This study tried to review the preparedness and mitigation effort of the Government of India towards containment of COVID 19 spread and analyze the impact of lockdown on the economy of India. This study is entirely based on the secondary sources of data, which is further processed and represented using MS office. The data analysis shows that the government of India has acted swiftly towards containing and checking the spread of COVID 19. Moreover, it has been found that this lockdown will bring the GDP to as low as 2.5% and there will be a collective loss of more than Rs. 43 lakhs crores. Further, this disease has left many vulnerable groups stranded in their places without food and livelihood. Finally, this study has suggested providing the best possible protective gear and types of equipment to medical workers who are sacrificing their lives for the betterment of humankind.
Kajal Kumar Mandal S Alam Avinash Kumar Ranjan K Dharanirajan Pammy Kumari
225331470
COVID 19 Futures: A Framework for Exploring Medium and Long Term Impacts
Background: Considering the possible trajectories of the COVID 19 pandemic is important to inform both short and long term responses and to prepare for pandemics of the future. We describe a framework to explore four possible futures of the COVID 19 pandemic over the next five years, examining how each could play out globally. Methods: We have defined four futures based on the biology of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS CoV 2) and its human host, and the scientific responses to it. Rather than predictions, these futures represent plausible possibilities and are used as a framework to help explore what could happen. To investigate the impacts of these four futures in a global context we created five archetypal settings with different social, economic, and political characteristics. We overlaid the four futures across the five settings, taking into consideration how SARS CoV 2 may spread, and behavioural, political and economic factors. Findings: SARS CoV 2 is not globally eradicated within five years in any of these futures, although community transmission could be eliminated within certain national boundaries. Some people and settings are disproportionately adversely affected due to existing and emerging vulnerabilities, but nowhere is unaffected, and all areas are susceptible to the arrival of new infections whilst there are ongoing outbreaks elsewhere. Countries face their own challenges and choices as the world learns to live with COVID 19, particularly in how vaccines, antivirals and non pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) are deployed. Interpretation: More broadly, we explore the profound and long lasting ways in which the pandemic and response to it will shape the world's health, economy, politics and societies. We identify critical lessons learned from these futures so that the profound disruption of COVID 19 can be used as an opportunity to learn, reform and act to create better global outcomes. Funding: The collaborators in this project did not receive specific funding. Declaration of Interests: J. Farrar is a member of the UK Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies. B. Grenfell is a member of the Royal Society's Data Evaluation and Learning for Viral Epidemics (DELVE) group. D. Sridhar is a member of the Scottish Government COVID 19 Advisory Group and the DELVE group. All other authors declare no competing interests.
Juliet Bedford Erik Berglof Caroline O Buckee Jeremy J Farrar Bryan T Grenfell Edward C Holmes C Jessica E Metcalf Devi Sridhar Beth H Thompson
212675692
The pandemic of coronavirus: tackling the latest plague
The world first became aware of the outbreak of coronavirus infection in China early in January, although it probably took root there much earlier. In Europe, where we have become accustomed to good cooperation and data sharing, it is frustrating that we can't be certain of the timelines and the likely shape of what has become a true pandemic. In addition, we look on from a distance with incredulity at the brave postings on social media by those who are prepared to put themselves at risk by chronicling the daily evolution of this modern day plague. We take comfort from our belief in the robustness of our medical and public health institutions and the health of our democracy with its commitment to free speech and openness. But are we deluding ourselves? Over the past 30 years, there has been a succession of new threats to public health from a variety of infectious disease agents. Beginning with Bovine Spongeiform Encephalitis in 1986, followed by Avian flu (1997) Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome in 2002, Swine flu (2009) Ebola (2014) and now Corona (COVID 19) nature reminds us regularly that humans exist on the planet on sufferance. We live in habitats where respect for the relationships between animal, social life and environment is necessary for a species to thrive. Rapid urbanisation with incursion into jungle and wilderness bring exposure to unfamiliar organisms often involving consumption of exotic wildlife species. Mass migration and poor attention to hygienic considerations are familiar factors in the emergence of novel and virulent infections and underlying this is poverty, inequality and subsistence living. With each incident the spectre is raised of the so called Spanish flu of 1919, which swept the world in the aftermath of World War I. With a European population weakened by years of conflict, environmental degradation and poor nutrition, a new virus introduced from North America by troops arriving to join the battle was able to take root and sweep through the continent and beyond with over 100 million victims worldwide. Each of these novel epidemics and Public Health Emergencies of International Concern has a trajectory which is dependent on intrinsic factors of virulence and the resistance of those infected; the problem each time is to predict and model with any reliability the shape and timelines of the epidemic. As a result, policy choices for outbreak management and control are fraught with uncertainty and wrapped up in political risk and the potential for recrimination. In the case of the Avian flu outbreak in Hong Kong, Director of Public Health, Margaret Chan, made the decision to slaughter Hong Kong's entire poultry flock of 1.25 million birds; a decision that was vindicated by the outcome. Twelve years later, by now World Health Organization Director General, Dr Chan declared the World Health Organization's first ever Global Public Health emergency in the face of pandemic swine flu that had originated in Mexico. Eighteen months later, when the epidemic tailed off leaving 17,000 deaths worldwide she was widely criticised with allegations that the World Health Organization had exaggerated the danger and that it had been unduly influenced by the pharmaceutical companies with an interest in anti viral agents. By now caught between a rock and a hard place, when Ebola occurred in West Africa in 2014, the World Health Organization was again criticised for its slowness in taking action. With coronavirus, after some hesitation, the current Director General, Dr Tedros Adhanom, declared a Global Public Health Emergency and spelled out the major threat that this poses to the world community, putting it on a par with that of international terrorism. Within weeks of the world becoming alerted to the situation, and with the death toll rising daily, major waves were beginning to impact on the world economy as well as the world of public health. So how are we in the UK doing? At the time of writing, and with over 50,000 cases and over 1300 deaths in China, dozens of other countries now reporting cases, including the UK (but no deaths so far) we can describe this as Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine; 2020, Vol. 113(3) 123 124
Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine
John Ashton
221882062
The potential health and economic value of SARS CoV 2 vaccination alongside physical distancing in the UK: transmission model based future scenario analysis and economic evaluation
Background In response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID 19) the UK adopted mandatory physical distancing measures in March 2020. Vaccines against the newly emerged severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS CoV 2) may become available as early as late 2020. We explored the health and economic value of introducing SARS CoV 2 immunisation alongside physical distancing scenarios in the UK. Methods We used an age structured dynamic transmission and economic model to explore different scenarios of immunisation programmes over ten years. Assuming vaccines are effective in 5 64 year olds, we compared vaccinating 90% of individuals in this age group to no vaccination. We assumed either vaccine effectiveness of 25% and 1 year protection and 90% re vaccinated annually, or 75% vaccine effectiveness and 10 year protection and 10% re vaccinated annually. Natural immunity was assumed to last 45 weeks in the base case. We also explored the additional impact of physical distancing. We considered benefits from disease prevented in terms of quality adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs to the healthcare payer versus the national economy. We discounted at 3.5% annually and monetised health impact at 20,000 per QALY to obtain the net monetary value, which we explored in sensitivity analyses. Findings Without vaccination and physical distancing, we estimated 147.9 million COVID 19 cases (95% uncertainty interval: 48.5 million, 198.7 million) and 2.8 million (770,000, 4.2 million) deaths in the UK over ten years. Vaccination with 75% vaccine effectiveness and 10 year protection may stop community transmission entirely for several years, whereas SARS CoV 2 becomes endemic without highly effective vaccines. Introducing vaccination compared to no vaccination leads to economic gains (positive net monetary value) of 0.37 billion to +1.33 billion across all physical distancing and vaccine effectiveness scenarios from the healthcare perspective, but net monetary values of physical distancing scenarios may be negative from societal perspective if the daily national economy losses are persistent and large. Interpretation Our model findings highlight the substantial health and economic value of introducing SARS CoV 2 vaccination. Given uncertainty around both characteristics of the eventually licensed vaccines and long term COVID 19 epidemiology, our study provides early insights about possible future scenarios in a post vaccination era from an economic and epidemiological perspective.
medRxiv
Frank G Sandmann Nicholas G Davies Anna Vassall W John Edmunds Mark Jit
221669915
Coronavirus Pandemic Opportunities and Challenges for Energy and Low carbon Transition
p.125 The outbreak of COVID 19 has become the biggest crisis for the world since World War II and there is little doubt that the world has entered a global economic recession. Currently, there are more than 2,160,000 confirmed cases and more than 145,000 deaths across the world (JHU, 2020) The impact of this pandemic is dramatic: cities or countries are in lockdown, factories or stores are shut down, and bars and schools are closed. Coronavirus has led to an astonishing shutdown of economic activity, which would lower energy use, just as every recession did in the history. The 2008 financial crisis and the Great Recession that followed, had a profound effect on the energy sectors in the world, with decreasing the price of crude oil from about $150/bbl. to $35/bbl. in only a few months. Many economists expect that the COVID 19 pandemic would have a much larger effect on economic activity than the 2008 financial crisis. Therefore, it would be important to quantitatively investigate what this pandemic implies for the energy market and low carbon transition for different regions as well as the whole world. The typical approach, i.e. input output (IO) models have been used widely to examine the effect of economic crisis or policies in response to the crisis. For instance, David et al. (1995) used a 10 sector input output model of the UK to simulate the effects of a variety of policies issues connected with energy use and environmental impacts; and the short term economic damage of the novel virus outbreak has also been estimated based on such methods (Duan et al. 2020) However, the IO models fail to consider the optimization or adjustments that the economy can reach by its own in response to the crisis. Further, the changes in dynamic interactions among various countries resulting from the crisis are beyond the capability of the I O model framework. In contrast, computable general equilibrium (CGE) models have the benefits of enabling active adjustments by consumers, producers, or policy makers, and thus they have been used to generate insights into the impacts of economic crises (see, e.g. Burfisher, 2017; Cui et al. 2019) With regarding to the impact of the epidemic, it would be valuable to capture the roles of the supply chains and international trades, given the increasing trends of globalization (Mukhopadhyay and Thomassin, 2009) In this context, we use a dynamic version of the Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP) model, in this paper, to see how the COVID 19 pandemic has affect the energy transition and carbon emissions across countries, where one is able to see the dynamic effect of this pandemic. According to the severity of the COVID 19 pandemic, we re divided the world of the GTAP model into 7 regions, i.e. China, the U.S. European Union (28 countries included, EU_28) Japan, South Korea (SKorea) the Middle East and North Africa (MES) and rest of world (ROW) We consider epidemic shocks for all the regions from both production and consumption sides, and three scenarios are designed, i.e. the Base case scenario, the Conservative scenario and Pessimistic scenario. Based on the historical economic, energy and carbon emission data, we calibrate the GTAP model and project the critical indicators in 2020; then mpacts of the pandemic are measured by comparing the corresponding results under the epidemic shocks with the 2020 projections. Under the Base case scenario, the pandemic will damage the world economy by 2.1% given the 2.9% projection without epidemic, the real GDP growth of 2020 could be 0.8% which is largely in line with the estimate of the IHS Markit (Behravesh and Johnson, 2020) As for China and the US, the negative shocks to economy reach 2.6% and 2.4% which are Coronavirus Pandemic: Opportunities and Challenges for Energy and Low carbon Transition
Hongbo Duan Lianbiao Cui Lei Zhu Xiaobing Zhang
231774848
Sumner, Rachel C ORCID: 0000 0002 2421 7146 and Kinsella, Elaine L. (2020) Grace under pressure: Resilience, burnout, and wellbeing in frontline workers in the UK and Republic of Ireland during the SARS Cov
The coronavirus pandemic has necessitated extraordinary human resilience in order to preserve and prolong life and social order. Risks to health and even life are being confronted by workers in health and social care, as well as those in roles previously never defined as "frontline" such as individuals working in community supply chain sectors. The strategy adopted by the UK government in facing the challenges of the pandemic was markedly different from other countries. The present study set out to examine what variables were associated with resilience, burnout, and wellbeing in all sectors of frontline workers, and whether or not these differed between the UK and Republic of Ireland (RoI) Individuals were eligible if they were a frontline worker (in health and social care, community supply chain, or other emergency services) in the UK or RoI during the pandemic. Part of a larger, longitudinal study, the participants completed an online survey to assess various aspects of their daily and working lives, along with their attitudes towards their government's handling of the crisis, and measurement of psychological variables associated with heroism (altruism, meaning in life, and resilient coping) A total of 1305 participants (N=869, 66.6% from the UK) provided sufficient data for analysis. UK based workers reported lower wellbeing than the RoI based participants. In multivariate models, both psychological and pandemic related variables were associated with levels of resilience, burnout, and wellbeing in these workers, but which pandemic related variables were associated with outcomes differed depending on the country. The judgment of lower timeliness in their government's response to the pandemic appeared to be a key driver of each outcome for the UK based frontline workers. These findings provide initial evidence that the different strategies adopted by each country may be associated with the overall wellbeing of frontline workers, with higher detriment observed in the UK. The judgment of the relatively slow response of the UK government to instigate their pandemic measures appears to be associated with lower resilience, higher burnout, and lower wellbeing in frontline workers in the UK. Introduction Keeping economies and societies afloat during crisis is a delicate balance between urging caution and responsibility, and deterring panic. In 2019, the first case of the Covid 19 disease (caused by the virus Resilience, burnout, and wellbeing in frontline workers 2 SARSCoV 2) was diagnosed, and by 11 March 2020 the World Health Organisation (WHO) declared a global pandemic. Since then, most countries of the world have faced an unprecedented public health care crisis, where human behaviour plays a critical role not only in the spread of disease, but also, in response to the crisis. After the WHO declared Covid 19 to be a pandemic on 11 March 2020, the leaders of many European governments addressed their countries to announce their strategies to take on the challenges of the pandemic. The leader of the United Kingdom (UK) government (Prime Minister Boris Johnson) advised that anyone with a new or persistent cough or fever should self isolate; on this day, the approximate number of infections was 590, with a recorded eight deaths. The advice at this time was not to minimise gatherings of people, nor to close schools or businesses. On the same day, the leader (Taoiseach) of the Republic of Ireland (RoI) government, Dr Leo Varadkar, announced the immediate closure of schools, colleges, and universities, and the limiting of public gatherings to those under 100 attendees in the case of indoor events, and under 500 in the case of outdoor events. At this point in RoI, the approximate number of infections was 70, with one recorded death. The UK government did not limit gatherings of any kind until an announcement on the evening of the 23 March 2020, after which many large scale sporting events were cancelled by organisers, but others went ahead (such as The Cheltenham Festival, a four day horseracing event attended by approximately 251,684 individuals) The so called "lockdown" measures limiting individuals to working from home where possible, introducing furlough support to business, and limiting opportunities to leave the house for anything other than work or provisions to one outing for exercise only were described by Prime Minister Johnson, to be a core component of the "delay" phase of the pandemic. These restrictions were placed in the UK on the evening of the 23 March 2020, where the approximate number of infections were 6650, with an approximate number of hospital fatalities at 335 (0.49/100,000) In contrast, similar measures were put in place in RoI on the 27 March 2020, when the approximate number of infections was 2121 and the approximate number of fatalities was 22 (0.44/100,000) To provide a point of equal comparison, by the 22 April 2020, the approximate morbidity rate in the UK was 133,495 to RoI's 16,671, and the approximate mortality rate in the UK was 18,738 (27.61/100,000) to RoI's 769 (15.57/100,000) See Figure 1 for an overview of the cumulative morbidity and mortality rate in the UK and RoI from the 12 March 2020 to 15 May 2020 derived from published government data. It is worth noting that on 5 May 2020, the death toll in the UK (29,427; 43.34/100,000) became the highest in Europe, and the second highest in the world at that point in time in the pandemic. Both countries have adopted markedly different public health strategies in relation to managing the outbreak of the disease, with the UK adopting an approach many have likened to a "herd immunity" strategy (Jetten et al. 2020) whereas the RoI adopted a more conservative approach more in line with WHO guidance. For our purpose, these strategic differences provide interesting comparative contexts for examining the psychological impact of working in a frontline capacity during the COVID 19 crisis. [Figure 1 around here] During Covid 19, and other health crises, the term frontline workers (or frontline heroes) has been applied to workers that provide an essential service during the pandemic and lockdown periods across the world (Hsin and Macer, 2004; Smith et al. 2020) Frontline workers, health care workers in particular, have been likened in the media to combat veterans: minimising their own distress in order to care for others, and hailed as heroes. The frontline workers in this global pandemic, predominantly in health and care settings, emergency services and community supply chain, have faced increased risks of contracting the virus themselves and spreading it to their significant others (Liu et al. 2020) They have also needed to navigate a range of exceptional challenges ranging from increased exposure to death in health and care home settings, increased hours and pressures at work, dealing with challenging situations brought on from contact with members of the public, and social isolation from colleagues and loved ones (Lai et al. 2020; Liu et al. 2020; Stuijfzand et Resilience, burnout, and wellbeing in frontline workers 3 al. 2020; The Lancet, 2020) The physical and psychological impact of working during the Covid 19 pandemic have been significant: globally, thousands of frontline workers have died from contracting SARS CoV 2, and some have committed suicide (World Health Organization, 2020; Zaka et al. 2020) We know from previous research that there are significant mental health consequences associated with disasters (see Goldmann and Galea, 2014 for review) and for healthcare crises, the mental health fallout for healthcare professionals is likely to last beyond the physical threat of the virus itself (Maunder et al. 2006) Existing research with frontline workers during health crises has been conducted almost exclusively with healthcare professionals. Experience with previous epidemics show that dealing with infected patients can cause considerable mental stress, high anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) for healthcare workers, especially nurses (Chersich et al. 2020; Tsamakis et al. 2020) Work carried out during the HIV/AIDS outbreak showed that anxiety, depression, and various personality factors associated with emotional processing and management of interpersonal relationships were some of the significant risk factors of highly "burned out" healthcare workers (Bellani et al. 1996) Many healthcare workers reported feelings of extreme vulnerability, uncertainty, psychological distress, and symptoms of anxiety during the outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) (Tam et al. 2004) Most recently, research conducted during COVID 19 to date indicates that those frontline healthcare workers are experiencing high rates of depression, distress, anxiety and insomnia (Lai et al. 2020) Longitudinal data from previous health crises indicate that the psychological impact of frontline healthcare workers is long lasting, and that they are at increased risk of burnout, depression, anxiety, substance misuse, and PTSD over the longer term across epidemic surges and several years beyond (e.g. Ho et al. 2005; Wu et al. 2008) It is perhaps not too surprising that negative psychological outcomes are common in frontline HCWs during both acute and post acute phases of health crises. However, not all workers experience equal levels of distress, and some patterns of influencing factors have been identified. For example, the extent that healthcare workers perceive sufficiency of information during an influenza outbreak has been shown to relate to psychological distress (Goulia et al. 2010) In addition, workers' appraisal of their own working conditions as high risk relates to decreased levels of psychological resilience (Son et al. 2019) Some protective factors have been noted. For example, higher levels of social support have been associated with greater resilience and positive mental health in healthcare
Rachel C Sumner Elaine Louise Kinsella
229272479
How local industrial strategies are helping shape the UK's economic recovery
The purpose of this paper is to show how Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) approached the development of their Local Industrial Strategies (LIS) and what determined the local priorities and concepts that underpin them It presents a detailed insight into the processes involved, and demonstrates how the unique partnership of LEPs, a combination of business, local government, academia and the third sector, generated local engagement and buy in from all areas of the community Since the paper was written, LEPs have started to capitalise on the work of their LIS in the community and are working to adapt LIS to Local Industrial Recovery Strategies (LIRS) as we move on from the impact of coronavirus and seek to rebuild our local economies As with the original LIS process set out below, this will involve extensive collaboration with our Business Representative Organisations, Local Authorities, Higher and Further Education sectors, and the nine mayors from the combined authorities to help invest in and build local areas for the future (c) Henry Stewart Publications 1752 9638 (2020)
Marc Bretton
220403687
The initial impact of COVID 19 and policy responses on household incomes
Abstract As soon as the scale of the coronavirus shock to the economy became clear, the UK government introduced three policies to protect directly household incomes: a Job Retention Scheme, to pay the wages of employees who were temporarily furloughed; a Self Employment Income Support Scheme, to give grants to established self employed people whose businesses had been affected; and a package of increases to entitlements to social security benefits, with Universal Credit at the core, that bolstered the UK's means tested 'safety net' This paper analyses the design and beneficiaries of these policies and, given the distributional pattern of the labour market shock, considers the emerging overall impact on living standards, particularly of low income households.
Oxford Review of Economic Policy
Mike Brewer Laura Gardiner
221348441
COVID 19 pandemic in the United Kingdom
Objectives To describe epidemiological data on cases of COVID 19 and the spread of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 in the United Kingdom (UK) and the subsequent policy and technological response to the pandemic, including impact on healthcare, business and the economy. Methods Epidemiological, business and economic data were extracted from official government sources covering the period 31st January to 13th August 2020; healthcare system data up to end of June 2019. Results UK wide COVID 19 cases and deaths were 313,798 and 46,706 respectively (472 cases and 70 deaths per 100,000 population) by 12th August. There were regional variations in England, with London and North West (756 and 666 cases per 100,000 population respectively) disproportionately affected compared with other regions. As of 11th August, 13,618,470 tests had been conducted in the UK. Increased risk of mortality was associated with age =60 years) gender (male) and BAME groups. Since onset of the pandemic, emergency department attendance, primary care utilisation and cancer referrals and inpatient/outpatient referrals have declined; emergency ambulance and NHS111 calls increased. Business sectors most impacted are the arts, entertainment and recreation, followed by accommodation and food services. Government interventions aimed at curtailing the business and economic impact have been implemented, but applications for state benefits have increased. Conclusions The impact of COVID 19 on the UK population, health system and economy has been profound. More data are needed to implement the optimal policy and technological responses to preventing further spikes in COVID 19 cases, and to inform strategic planning to manage future pandemics.
Health Policy and Technology
Darren Flynn Eoin Moloney Nawaraj Bhattarai Jason Scott Matthew Breckons Leah Avery Naomi Moy