Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, dsr-burnley said:

It would be so easy to have a Gestapo with the power to put people in prison for having the wrong paperwork.

 

To what extent do you think the government should be able to control the lives of the people?  This is supposed to be a democracy.  The government governs by consent.  They aren't even talking to Parliament about all these powers.

 

Anyway, it wouldn't be easy to supply a medical mask-free i.d. card because the doctors are all in hiding.  Who is going to certify the need?  And how, if a patient goes in and says they suffer anxiety and panic attacks with a mask on, is the doctor supposed to check?  How can anyone adequately test whether a person needs their companion to be unmasked because of lipreading?  Is there a specific test for a certain percentage of hearing reduction?  What if it depends on the background noise?

Where there is a will,theres a way. You have disabled passes,you have Pensioner passes...

 

I dont care,I live in a free society,that sometimes uses its Common-sense & noggin....

I am disabled,also I have in my pass/id..including with accompanied companion..!!

My pass is recognised World-wide, with the travelling necessities and restrictions...

People can Play dumb...but then take the consequensies....Pendemic is Now 6+ months. Medical History is usually filed.

New Anxiety patients can also go through the admin/specialits,to prove their difficulties...

My relatives in England still go to the doctor....

As they say, it aint rocket-science.

I would say some People have suddenly stopped,or lost the ability to think...I

 

There is a problem ..solve it.!!

UK democrocy doesn't need to be changed...

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8768129/Rishi-Sunak-announces-coronavirus-bailout-business.html

 

I dread to think of the tax we're gonna be paying for the rest of our lives.

And the inevitable impact on our public services.

 

We’re still cleaning up the mess from 2008. There’s an entire generation of people who will be paying higher taxes for worse public services for their entire working lives.

  • Sad 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8768129/Rishi-Sunak-announces-coronavirus-bailout-business.html

 

I dread to think of the tax we're gonna be paying for the rest of our lives.

I fear that this will mean that those on furlough for multiple jobs while also working elsewhere are going to receive another handout. Hopefully the screening will be tighter this time round as I know of several people laughing all the way to the bank due to the Covid crisis.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems the uselessness of the government has infected the Treasury and Sunak. A crap job support scheme that relies on employers' goodwill to keep people in jobs that might actually be viable. I mean in many cases you might as well make someone redundant and recruit someone on a part-time contract. And absolutely nothing on job creation.

Edited by Kopfkino
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8768129/Rishi-Sunak-announces-coronavirus-bailout-business.html

 

I dread to think of the tax we're gonna be paying for the rest of our lives.

I don't find it that crazy, I'd be tempted to be more generous than we are being if I was in the chancellors shoes.

 

Furlough cost estimate of 60bn according to here: https://www.ft.com/content/a39328ac-d998-4e51-a7cb-7b1ea5902856

 

32 million tax payers: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/number-of-individual-income-taxpayers-by-marginal-rate-gender-and-age

 

So £60bn / 32m = £1875

 

Assuming we can get away with an event like this every 40 or so years? Spread that £1875 out across the years and it's about £50 per year per taxpayer.

 

Guess the maths is more complicated than this really but I think it shows the scale of the numbers isn't that mental.

Edited by Magictv
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Magictv said:

I don't find it that crazy, I'd be tempted to be more generous than we are being if I was in the chancellors shoes.

 

Furlough cost estimate of 60bn according to here: https://www.ft.com/content/a39328ac-d998-4e51-a7cb-7b1ea5902856

 

32 million tax payers: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/number-of-individual-income-taxpayers-by-marginal-rate-gender-and-age

 

So £60bn / 32m = £1875

 

Assuming we can get away with an event like this every 40 or so years? Spread that £1875 out across the years and it's about £50 per year per taxpayer.

 

Guess the maths is more complicated than this really but I think it shows the scale of the numbers isn't that mental.

plus the other costs vaccines, test etc  not to mention the loss in tax revenue

 

Edited by twoleftfeet
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Magictv said:

I don't find it that crazy, I'd be tempted to be more generous than we are being if I was in the chancellors shoes.

 

Furlough cost estimate of 60bn according to here: https://www.ft.com/content/a39328ac-d998-4e51-a7cb-7b1ea5902856

 

32 million tax payers: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/number-of-individual-income-taxpayers-by-marginal-rate-gender-and-age

 

So £60bn / 32m = £1875

 

Assuming we can get away with an event like this every 40 or so years? Spread that £1875 out across the years and it's about £50 per year per taxpayer.

 

Guess the maths is more complicated than this really but I think it shows the scale of the numbers isn't that mental.

How much will coronavirus cost the UK?

 

We won't know how big the final bill will be until after the crisis is over. But the government will certainly have to borrow enormous amounts of money.

 

For the current financial year (April 2020 to April 2021), it could be anywhere from £263bn to £391bn, according to the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), which keeps tabs on government spending.

 

To put it into context: before the crisis, the government was expecting to borrow about £55bn for the whole financial year, but it borrowed £128bn in the first three months alone.

 

----

That was last months estimate. ^

 

The cost of furlough is only one segment of what we've had to borrow to deal with this crap. 

 

Plus we're probably still going to be splashing cash into next year on various schemes, and then we've still got the economy to fix, so will probably resort to investing money which will quickly run into billions creating some form of jobs for the hundreds of thousands lost. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Innovindil said:

How much will coronavirus cost the UK?

 

We won't know how big the final bill will be until after the crisis is over. But the government will certainly have to borrow enormous amounts of money.

 

For the current financial year (April 2020 to April 2021), it could be anywhere from £263bn to £391bn, according to the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), which keeps tabs on government spending.

 

To put it into context: before the crisis, the government was expecting to borrow about £55bn for the whole financial year, but it borrowed £128bn in the first three months alone.

 

----

That was last months estimate. ^

 

The cost of furlough is only one segment of what we've had to borrow to deal with this crap. 

 

Plus we're probably still going to be splashing cash into next year on various schemes, and then we've still got the economy to fix, so will probably resort to investing money which will quickly run into billions creating some form of jobs for the hundreds of thousands lost. 

We (and about 190 other countries) should sent a bill to China at the end of this.

Edited by Nalis
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Nalis said:

We (and about 190 other countries) should sent a bill to China at the end of this.

Why? Once the virus had gone international, the Chinese didn't make various world governments act like idiots while others did rather well.

 

Isn't it a hallmark of national sovereignty that the response to everything that goes on within the borders of a nation is the responsibility of that nation?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Pardon my ignorance but regarding track and trace in pubs, would the following be correct?
 

  • I give my details to a pub as standard track & trace procedure
  • Somebody who happened to be in the pub on the same day has since tested positive for coronavirus
  • I get a phone-call informing me of that
  • I now have to self-isolate and would not be allowed to travel abroad etc
     

As you've probably guessed, I'm planning on going on holiday in the coming weeks but don't want to risk heading to the pub if it can **** up my trip.

Edited by RonnieTodger
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, RonnieTodger said:

Pardon my ignorance but regarding track and trace in pubs, would the following be correct?
 

  • I give my details to a pub as standard track & trace procedure
  • Somebody who happened to be in the pub on the same day has since tested positive for coronavirus
  • I get a phone-call informing me of that
  • I now have to self-isolate and would not be allowed to travel abroad etc
     

As you've probably guessed, I'm planning on going on holiday in the coming weeks but don't want to risk heading to the pub if it can **** up my trip.

I think in that case you wouldnt be asked to self isolate but more likely told to look out for symptoms. Much like you would be doing anyway haha

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've only been asked to give arrival time when going to the pub, but never asked to give anyone my departure. I would hope that if any track and trace contacted, they would give me an idea of when infected person was in the premises. 

Edited by RowlattsFox
Link to post
Share on other sites

Slightly off topic, but a member of staff was off from Monday - Wednesday feeling shite, but tested negative. She came back in today and I felt fairly uncomfortable her being in. Even if it wasn't Covid, chances are she can still transmit the cold she had and any one who gets it is then off for a test etc and causing more work for others 

 

Wouldn't have been ridiculous for her to wait to return until Monday. 

Edited by UniFox21
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kopfkino said:

But I feel it is pretty clear that false positives is just the latest in a long line of, quite frankly, nonsense used by people desperately seeking to deny a problem or pretend that problem away. It started with 'it's just the flu' and has taken on many different iterations over the last 6 months. It's exactly the same as 'they would have died anyway', it exists to make everything so much easier and to avoid having to discuss and properly debate the rotten tradeoffs we face. False positives, something which can be a genuine problem but rarely in the way invoked, has been weaponised and it could well be detrimental if people start using it as a comfort blanket to ignore their positive test. 

Actually "they would have died anyway" is used the other way round.  I have never heard that phrase used by someone who wants restrictions relaxed; that phrase is used by people who don't want to discuss how many of the deaths would have been preventable.  As you say, it makes it easier to avoid having to discuss something - in this case, the value of the measures we are taking.

 

The point of your phrase "they would have died anyway" is that we do not know how many of these deaths were preventable.  If someone has terminal cancer and has 5 weeks to live, and after 5 weeks they catch coronavirus and die, that is not something that we need to wreck our economy to prevent.  If someone is fit and well and expected to live for fifty years but catches coronavirus and dies, that is something to be concerned about.  We are never told how many of the deaths were preventable.  To make proper decisions, the government needs useful, as opposed to blunt instrument, statistics.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Kopfkino said:

Being flippant was unnecessary on my part, apologies. 

 

But I feel it is pretty clear that false positives is just the latest in a long line of, quite frankly, nonsense used by people desperately seeking to deny a problem or pretend that problem away. It started with 'it's just the flu' and has taken on many different iterations over the last 6 months. It's exactly the same as 'they would have died anyway', it exists to make everything so much easier and to avoid having to discuss and properly debate the rotten tradeoffs we face. False positives, something which can be a genuine problem but rarely in the way invoked, has been weaponised and it could well be detrimental if people start using it as a comfort blanket to ignore their positive test. 

 

The last thing I will say on false positives, as I've just seen the most recent commentary from the ONS from it, is that the ONS's maximum possible FPR, based on their random testing, is 0.08% and that's if every single positive result they identified was false, though it could be higher than that. Given that most people getting a test in the UK are doing so because they have symptoms, the likelihood that a positive test is a genuine case is near as damn it guaranteed. Moreover, the proportion of people testing positive with no symptoms has remained stable. I know that you know that false positives is somewhat of a red herring and I also know that you know that detecting the virus at higher cycle does not necessarily mean it's not a genuine case, nor does it explain recent changes. What you rightfully did was agree with the exact details but you also end up amplifying the conclusions. The details exist to obfuscate and be seen to legitimise the conclusions but they more often than not don't support the conclusion because the conclusion was predetermined many moons ago. 

 

It particularly winds me up because I am of the mind that we need to face up to living with the virus before a vaccine comes on stream. Something along the lines of shielding the vulnerable but it's incumbent on people that think like that to show that is actually viable rather than just pretending various problems away. I recognise that so much is still uncertain and so I'm also uncertain as to whether that is the wisest move, I can't speak with the certainty that many seem to be able to. Many of the saner voices advocating for at least a robust debate on a less timid approach are drowned out by heaps of incognisant people regurgitating whatever drivel is flavour of the month that inevitably gets shown to be nonsense, adds absolutely nothing of substance and probably makes further restrictions far more likely. 

Only reason I mentioned FP is having done the PCR protocol a fair amount in my master's year, I'd personally experienced the phenomena in a similar context and understood why it was occurring etc.

You're right, however, it's being used as a scapegoat, just as many other things have been over the past few months. 

 

Your stats make sense, especially with our testing levels now compared to say April. Where instead of 22% of tests being positive it's down to around 1.7%.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RonnieTodger said:

Pardon my ignorance but regarding track and trace in pubs, would the following be correct?
 

  • I give my details to a pub as standard track & trace procedure
  • Somebody who happened to be in the pub on the same day has since tested positive for coronavirus
  • I get a phone-call informing me of that
  • I now have to self-isolate and would not be allowed to travel abroad etc
     

As you've probably guessed, I'm planning on going on holiday in the coming weeks but don't want to risk heading to the pub if it can **** up my trip.

 

1 hour ago, filbertway said:

I think in that case you wouldnt be asked to self isolate but more likely told to look out for symptoms. Much like you would be doing anyway haha


The two occasions we have had to track and trace when going out for food, once you’ve given your details, you’re then given a time slot. I am only assuming, but if then somebody else was in the same place as you, during the same time slot, and they later tested positive, you would be informed and told to self isolate until the 14 days are up since they tested positive. 
 

That’s what happened to us anyway. Luckily, we only had to self isolate for 4 days, so I am again, only assuming, that the person that tested positive, did so 14 days previous to our “release date”

Edited by stix
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mark 'expert' Lawrenson said:

750000 jobs already lost according to a report on the news, very worrying times for numerous reasons.

So many jobs and lives being lost to this damn virus.

Sadly, there's no perfect solution, even if people (unrealistically, IMHO) demand Governments around the world should be providing one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...