Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
filbertway

Coronavirus Thread

By filbertway, in General Chat

Recommended Posts

Alf Bentley

Alf Bentley

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, whoareyaaa said:

It's a joke, a friend of mine has only been self employed for a year or two so because they don't have 3 years of records he gets nothing, presume you are the same not sure if they have changed it this time around, shit really.

 

I think you can still qualify if you've put in a tax return as self-employed for the year 2018-19 (not 2019-20).

 

If you've put in declarations for 3 years, they'll base it on the average of them, but that one year of 2018-19 can be enough.....though other criteria apply (e.g. not if you formed a company and got paid in dividends, I think).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Izzy

Izzy

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I think you can still qualify if you've put in a tax return as self-employed for the year 2018-19 (not 2019-20).

 

If you've put in declarations for 3 years, they'll base it on the average of them, but that one year of 2018-19 can be enough.....though other criteria apply (e.g. not if you formed a company and got paid in dividends, I think).

Yeah, fvck all handouts for the likes of me and @Milo again :(

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Alf Bentley

Alf Bentley

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Izzy said:

Yeah, fvck all handouts for the likes of me and @Milo again :(

 

Those with company director status got corporation tax "handouts" for years, though, didn't they? Whereas the poor old sole traders had to pay more tax and accept personal liability?

 

See your point, though. Just the politics of envy by Red Boris, taking money from the true entrepreneurs and handing it out to scroungers. I'd vote him out of office the next time you get the chance! :whistle:

 

In all seriousness, I hope you and everyone else gets through this alright. I was just trying to offer some helpful info to Comrade Whoareyaaa, not seeking a debate about govt fiscal policy....:D

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WigstonWanderer

WigstonWanderer

Posted
Posted (edited)

The problem with modelling is that when projections indicate possible disaster ahead, governments are forced to take action. Once such action is taken the worst case projections don’t come to pass, so all the sceptical smartarses immediately loudly proclaim that the original modelling was nonsense.

 

Now that’s not to say that models are all accurate. Any sort of modelling is not the same as the real world. Epidemiology appears to have more in common with economics than physics, perhaps not a coincidence as both are attempts to model human behaviour in many ways. Nevertheless, it is the best we’ve got, and I’d trust it more than the gut feel of the armchair experts on YouTube.

 

For what it’s worth, Melbourne went through a mini version of the UK experience in its recent outbreak. Initial attempts to control the spread based on local and regional restrictions resulted in a slowing of the spread, but very slow progress. Once a hard lockdown was introduced infections plummeted, and they are now close to zero local transmission. Their lockdown was much harder than the currently proposed UK one though. Once again, absolutely no question of herd immunity in Melbourne, so please don’t persist with the “lockdowns don’t work” nonsense. Only one case is required to debunk this rubbish.

 

Judging by the infection rates in the UK I’d say it appears that the initial tiered restrictions were working to a degree, but not sufficiently perhaps to avoid future hospitalisation issues. I’m pretty sure that the only criteria that the UK government are now concerned with (in their own incompetent way) is avoiding overwhelming health services. The death rate will be what it will be in their strategy. Perhaps it was so all along. Isn’t this what all the sceptics here wanted? Or are you all prepared to breach hospital capacity limits as well?

Edited by WigstonWanderer
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Fktf

Guest Fktf

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, Legend_in_blue said:

 

"Out by a significant amount".  Really?  Really?  Surely not!  lol

 

 

Get these guys on the BBC.  :thumbup:

 

 

What a balanced line of questioning from the bloke in the second video. He clearly has no bias, unlike those horrible lot at the bbc.

 

Henegan was interesting, though. 'Wait a week and see'. I fear that's what we've been trying, with some success in the local lockdowns, but that the driver for the national current lockdown is timing. If we keep waiting a week, and it does end up bad everywhere, we're locked down over xmas. Get cases down now, Boris can say - we're in a position where we can 'allow' you to have xmas with the family. Vote winner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pliskin

Pliskin

Posted
Posted

The problem has always been the initial reaction. Bozz was too busy boasting about shaking coronavirus patients hands and slinging his sausage up his Mrs. He should have started to act as soon as this virus was spreading across borders and more importantly into other islands. It was evident early on that the rate this virus was spreading problems would follow. Everything done has been a reaction, a very late, and very costly reaction. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark 'expert' Lawrenson

Mark 'expert' Lawrenson

Posted
Posted
15 hours ago, Legend_in_blue said:

Of course, reading between the lines, one could start to argue that they're following some sort of agenda.  Heneghan absolutely nails it for me in that interview.

They’re selling is the worst case scenario of 4 thousand deaths a day, 28000 a week and 112.000 a month dying of COVID? Absolutely preposterous figures.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dsr-burnley

dsr-burnley

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, Fktf said:

What a balanced line of questioning from the bloke in the second video. He clearly has no bias, unlike those horrible lot at the bbc.

 

Henegan was interesting, though. 'Wait a week and see'. I fear that's what we've been trying, with some success in the local lockdowns, but that the driver for the national current lockdown is timing. If we keep waiting a week, and it does end up bad everywhere, we're locked down over xmas. Get cases down now, Boris can say - we're in a position where we can 'allow' you to have xmas with the family. Vote winner.

We get lockdown either way.  If cases drop, they say lockdown is working so we stay in it; if cases don't drop, they say we need more lockdown.  This will continue for ever as long as (1) lockdown is seen as the only successful treatment (with no proof of success needed!); (2) the negative consequences of lockdown are to be ignored.

 

They ought to declare now that there will be no restriction on seeing families over Christmas.  Whatever household Christmas parties you normally go to, will be allowed to happen again.  Why not?  If we are still under lockdown, then lockdown clearly isn't working.  If we are out of lockdown, then let's have a party for once.  I'm not talking about a works Christmas party, because workers see each other every day unless working from home.  I'm talking about domestic, family parties.

 

If we don't do that, what's the message for old people?  If the message is "it's been a rotten year, but at least you have Christmas to look forward to" is a poor sort of message.  But it's infinitely better than "it's been a rotten year, and you have nothing to look forward to".

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Fktf

Guest Fktf

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

We get lockdown either way.  If cases drop, they say lockdown is working so we stay in it; if cases don't drop, they say we need more lockdown.  This will continue for ever as long as (1) lockdown is seen as the only successful treatment (with no proof of success needed!); (2) the negative consequences of lockdown are to be ignored.

 

They ought to declare now that there will be no restriction on seeing families over Christmas.  Whatever household Christmas parties you normally go to, will be allowed to happen again.  Why not?  If we are still under lockdown, then lockdown clearly isn't working.  If we are out of lockdown, then let's have a party for once.  I'm not talking about a works Christmas party, because workers see each other every day unless working from home.  I'm talking about domestic, family parties.

 

If we don't do that, what's the message for old people?  If the message is "it's been a rotten year, but at least you have Christmas to look forward to" is a poor sort of message.  But it's infinitely better than "it's been a rotten year, and you have nothing to look forward to".

Of course, lockdowns are not seen as a treatment, but a way of suppressing the virus through cutting transmission chains. And we've already spoke about a weight of evidence showing lockdowns do work, but I see you still want to claim they don't - despite the evidence base.

 

In 4 weeks we will suppress this virus, but only reduce the numbers, not eradicate it. So having loads of parties only throws away the effort of lockdown, as you reintroduce a whole load of new transmission chains. We'll see a relaxation for xmas, but numbers in households will still be limited.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dsr-burnley

dsr-burnley

Posted
Posted (edited)
48 minutes ago, Fktf said:

Of course, lockdowns are not seen as a treatment, but a way of suppressing the virus through cutting transmission chains. And we've already spoke about a weight of evidence showing lockdowns do work, but I see you still want to claim they don't - despite the evidence base.

 

In 4 weeks we will suppress this virus, but only reduce the numbers, not eradicate it. So having loads of parties only throws away the effort of lockdown, as you reintroduce a whole load of new transmission chains. We'll see a relaxation for xmas, but numbers in households will still be limited.

But I don't see the evidence base.  I see that if you get hold of the disease early, and lockdown early with an efficient test and trace system, that it works.  Well, it's too late to do that.  No point wasting time on what could have been.  Whether we could have been Australia or New Zealand back in February, we can't be now.

 

But see a set of anonymised graphs showing the spring coronavirus deaths in countries with strict lockdown, partial lockdown, and no lockdown, and it will be hard to tell which is which.  We started lockdown on 23rd March, and the peak date for coronavirus deaths was 8th April, 16 days later.  But how long is the normal period from first infection to death?  This study used 23 days and estimated peak infection time was 18th March and the rate was already falling.  The suggestion being that banning large crowds and social distancing would have been enough.

 

This isn't proof that lockdown didn't cause the drop in infections.  What proof is there that it did?

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8391141/Did-UKs-coronavirus-crisis-peak-lockdown.html

 

And I don't believe this lockdown will suppress the virus.  If workplaces and schools and colleges are open, then the virus will still spread there; closing pubs and restaurants is playing about atthe edges.  For lockdown to work (if it does work) it would have to be proper.  The average working person spends something like 10 hours at the office, 8 hours in bed, and the other 6 eating, washing and dressing, cooking, cleaning, and socialising.  Take out the socialising element is not going to make a big difference.

Edited by dsr-burnley
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Milo

Milo

Posted
Posted
13 hours ago, Izzy said:

Yeah, fvck all handouts for the likes of me and @Milo again :(

It's not good. 

 

I've more or less written this year off - I had a good January and February and then zero income until August. Below average September and October and had a bumper November scheduled, and now this. I won't have anything until January now. 

 

Need uncle Rishi to shake his magic money stick this way a little... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
yorkie1999

yorkie1999

Posted
Posted

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-confusion-over-furlough-scheme-in-scotland-after-minister-rows-back-on-extension-promise-12122417

 

Nicola Nicola Nicola....Didn't you realise that after years of slagging off the Union and wanting to take your country out of it, that the point of a Union is that everyone gets the same benefits. Maybe next time you should think about what the full consequences of independence actually are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Fktf

Guest Fktf

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

But I don't see the evidence base.  I see that if you get hold of the disease early, and lockdown early with an efficient test and trace system, that it works.  Well, it's too late to do that.  No point wasting time on what could have been.  Whether we could have been Australia or New Zealand back in February, we can't be now.

 

But see a set of anonymised graphs showing the spring coronavirus deaths in countries with strict lockdown, partial lockdown, and no lockdown, and it will be hard to tell which is which.  We started lockdown on 23rd March, and the peak date for coronavirus deaths was 8th April, 16 days later.  But how long is the normal period from first infection to death?  This study used 23 days and estimated peak infection time was 18th March and the rate was already falling.  The suggestion being that banning large crowds and social distancing would have been enough.

 

This isn't proof that lockdown didn't cause the drop in infections.  What proof is there that it did?

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8391141/Did-UKs-coronavirus-crisis-peak-lockdown.html

 

And I don't believe this lockdown will suppress the virus.  If workplaces and schools and colleges are open, then the virus will still spread there; closing pubs and restaurants is playing about atthe edges.  For lockdown to work (if it does work) it would have to be proper.  The average working person spends something like 10 hours at the office, 8 hours in bed, and the other 6 eating, washing and dressing, cooking, cleaning, and socialising.  Take out the socialising element is not going to make a big difference.

Let's hope you're not right, as it will a big waste of time otherwise. We know enough about restrictions/lockdowns and how they stop transmission vectors with other infectious diseases to have more hope that it will work than it won't. But I take your caveat on it being a half lockdown this time around, that concerns me too.

Link to comment
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...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...