|
Post by starkiller on Sept 24, 2020 14:57:22 GMT
At least 10,000 people have unexpectedly died in their own home since mid-June, official statistics show.
Seven-hundred 'excess deaths' in private homes have been registered each week in England and Wales alone since the pandemic began to die down.
But only an average of 21 each week are down to the coronavirus, according to data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS). And rates have plummeted in recent weeks to as low as seven.
Data shows 30,000 people have died in their homes in the UK since the start of the pandemic in March, and the pattern does not appear to be slowing. For comparison, deaths in hospitals and care homes are currently lower than expected.
Experts say it could be that families are deciding not to admit their elderly relatives into care homes, which were ravaged by the coronavirus during the first wave of the disease in March and April.
It may also be that Britons are still avoiding getting help from the NHS for problems which need urgent care, or have had treatment delayed because of the lockdown, which may be leading to more deaths at home. If we are adding data from up to the end of April, this is around about 30,000 lockdown deaths. And that misses out six or more weeks of data. Truly frightening.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Sept 24, 2020 15:07:33 GMT
It seems to me that in practice England and Sweden have and are doing very similar things despite the supposed difference in approach - with very similar outcomes. The main difference appears to be Sweden have relied more on personal responsibility and the English approach is now relying more on coercion through fines because of (probably justified) fears over non-compliance. In your experience are the Swedish people still voluntarily following restrictions or is non-compliance becoming an issue? Non-compliance has been an issue to some extent right from the start. At the beginning it was the non-European immigrants who didn't understand the queue rules. But they are partly excused, the politicians had fucked up making sure the Corona informative guidelines was presented in different languages in the suburban areas - which they have admitted. So the non-European immigrants were overrepresented at the beginning among the death cases. I must say, over time swedes have tended not to follow the rules as much as before. 20% fail now I would say. That's why I'm one of those who wanted stricter rules from the beginning. Tegnell said it's difficult to hold on to stricter rules for long periods. People tend to be tired of them. Well, yeah ... but if people get tired of rules and lower them it would have been better to start out hard. Or it's simply a personality issue? The same debate went on with our government - the government's advisory board (SAGE) includes behavioural scientists to advise on compliance. The government were actually surprised at the level of voluntary compliance in the first lock down but people are generally getting more and more restless and non-compliance is on the increase - hence the increase in fines. As well as people just getting pissed off (who wouldn't) as you can see from some of the posts on this board increasingly bizarre theories about global plans for a world wide totalitarian state are becoming part of the debate - over here the alt right are using covid as a trojan horse for spreading their nutjob politics (everybody from anti-vaxers to people who think Bill Gates is the devil incarnate are getting in on the act). However the majority of people are just cracking on doing their bit. Thankfully. I think you are right - personality and temperament do have a big effect. Although an extreme form of every one for themselves American individualism is creeping in over here there's still a strong sense of we're all in this together spirit around - people aren't conforming out of fear or sheepish behaviour but because they still give a fuck about their neighbours and to be fair that holds true across the (mainstream) political divide. And long may it continue. I live in Leicester and we've never come out of lockdown - just before restrictions were eased nationally their was a local increase in infections and central government imposed a local lockdown. There have been other lockdowns since but they are being managed locally - we're the only city under central government special measures. Given we're now entering the second wave nationally we'll probably be in lockdown for over a year. Everybody I know is well pissed off but just cracking on. There's talk of an effigy of Matt Hancock replacing Guy Fawkes on bonfire night and Jamie Vardy deposing the Queen as head of state but that's as near as we've got to open rebellion at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by chad on Sept 24, 2020 15:19:52 GMT
Got any better ideas. Perhaps the Government should just pay everybody their normal wage to stay at home. Even then some buggers would moan about it To be fair though Chad, it doesn't appear to achieve anything. How in any way is it going to protect jobs? I think like a lot of the schemes it will depend on the employer. A good employer will look at as an incentive to keep his employees happy and in a job until things improve. Others will think it’s not worth it. Not the holy grail but I think it will save some jobs And like my original post. Is there anything better given that cash is not limitless
|
|
|
Post by thisisouryear on Sept 24, 2020 15:31:43 GMT
Bang on. It's a job cut scheme. Got any better ideas. Perhaps the Government should just pay everybody their normal wage to stay at home. Even then some buggers would moan about it It's the governments fault these businesses aren't doing more. The knock on effect from entering the lockdown too late, coming out too early, not getting on top of this virus with an efficient Test, Track and Trace, but I bet you every digit on my body they will find money for lucrative contracts for their donors. They have done nothing but milk this pandemic and then moan that they are running out of money. I don't see any point working a third of your hours to get the government pay 22% and further punish your boss. Why not work over 50% of the hours and get the 20% on top up to doing 80% of the hours? I don't agree that bosses should now have to pay any extra on top of what people earn.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Sept 24, 2020 15:41:46 GMT
To be fair though Chad, it doesn't appear to achieve anything. How in any way is it going to protect jobs? I think like a lot of the schemes it will depend on the employer. A good employer will look at as an incentive to keep his employees happy and in a job until things improve. Others will think it’s not worth it. Not the holy grail but I think it will save some jobs And like my original post. Is there anything better given that cash is not limitless If an employer has seen (say) two thirds of his business shrink due to Covid and has been thinking that they're going to have to lay people off because if they don't, then the business will go under completely, then I'm not sure how this scheme is going to save those jobs. To keep the maths simple ... If they're paying 3 staff £10,000 each, all doing exactly the same job but two thirds of that work has dried up, they now need only one person to do that work. However if the employer decides he's going to try and keep all three of them in employment through using this scheme by giving them 33% each of the work available to do, then he's going (under the terms of the scheme) to have to pay each one of them £5,500. Meaning that he'll actually be paying out £16,500 of wages for £10,000 worth of work. You can't do that when your revenue is already down by two thirds and you will have to go back to your original plan and get rid of two employees and keep one, so that you get £10,000 of work for £10,000 worth of pay. I can't see how the scheme helps to save those jobs.
|
|
|
Post by thisisouryear on Sept 24, 2020 15:42:25 GMT
The only other thing would be if there was a way for some people to convert what they would receive if sacked as a weekly wage as long as they keep their job for the next couple of years afterwards. Some people will get a nice payout but it's pretty pointless if you can't get a job afterwards. I'm sure more can be done to help relieve stress on businesses.
|
|
|
Post by southstanddan on Sept 24, 2020 15:44:31 GMT
Got any better ideas. Perhaps the Government should just pay everybody their normal wage to stay at home. Even then some buggers would moan about it Being as though they're the Government, and they're the 1 imposing restrictions that is affecting the trade of the business then they should be the ones with the bigger financial burden, not an equal share between the worker/employer and the Government. There's roughly a 66% wage shortfall based on meeting the minimum requirement. I'd say something like 36% Government 15% Employer 15% employee would have been a much fairer scheme, after all it's the Government that are advertising it as their Jobs Support Scheme so they should be the main supporter. So we print money then?
|
|
|
Post by thebet365 on Sept 24, 2020 16:01:13 GMT
Being as though they're the Government, and they're the 1 imposing restrictions that is affecting the trade of the business then they should be the ones with the bigger financial burden, not an equal share between the worker/employer and the Government. There's roughly a 66% wage shortfall based on meeting the minimum requirement. I'd say something like 36% Government 15% Employer 15% employee would have been a much fairer scheme, after all it's the Government that are advertising it as their Jobs Support Scheme so they should be the main supporter. So we print money then? No you just allow mass reduncancies which will require even more money to be printed in the long run.
|
|
|
Post by chad on Sept 24, 2020 16:05:37 GMT
I think like a lot of the schemes it will depend on the employer. A good employer will look at as an incentive to keep his employees happy and in a job until things improve. Others will think it’s not worth it. Not the holy grail but I think it will save some jobs And like my original post. Is there anything better given that cash is not limitless If an employer has seen (say) two thirds of his business shrink due to Covid and has been thinking that they're going to have to lay people off because if they don't, then the business will go under completely, then I'm not sure how this scheme is going to save those jobs. To keep the maths simple ... If they're paying 3 staff £10,000 each, all doing exactly the same job but two thirds of that work has dried up, they now need only one person to do that work. However if the employer decides he's going to try and keep all three of them in employment through using this scheme by giving them 33% each of the work available to do, then he's going (under the terms of the scheme) to have to pay each one of them £5,500. Meaning that he'll actually be paying out £16,500 of wages for £10,000 worth of work. You can't do that when your revenue is already down by two thirds and you will have to go back to your original plan and get rid of two employees and keep one, so that you get £10,000 of work for £10,000 worth of pay. I can't see how the scheme helps to save those jobs. I agree that financially maybe the scheme could have been more generous but who knows how much cash there is in the kitty ? I still think that many good employers will take up this and keep the staff on until hopefully things get better In spite of what some people think most firms do not want to sack people and will be willing to take a small loss for a while
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Sept 24, 2020 16:06:03 GMT
Selfish selfish fuckers
|
|
|
Post by adri2008 on Sept 24, 2020 16:13:40 GMT
People know they unlikely to die from the virus is the problem and the fear has gone. Add in the general fatigue from the whole thing and you have alot of people thinking 'fuck it, I'll just take my chances'. I'm assuming that's why the government ramped up the 'fear factor' this week in attempt to get more compliance.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Sept 24, 2020 16:14:19 GMT
People know they unlikely to die from the virus is the problem and the fear has gone. Add in the general fatigue from the whole thing and you have alot of people thinking 'fuck it, I'll just take my chances'. I'm assuming that's why the government ramped up the 'fear factor' this week in attempt to get more compliance. Then they are thick selfish fuckers.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Hackett on Sept 24, 2020 16:17:35 GMT
I think like a lot of the schemes it will depend on the employer. A good employer will look at as an incentive to keep his employees happy and in a job until things improve. Others will think it’s not worth it. Not the holy grail but I think it will save some jobs And like my original post. Is there anything better given that cash is not limitless If an employer has seen (say) two thirds of his business shrink due to Covid and has been thinking that they're going to have to lay people off because if they don't, then the business will go under completely, then I'm not sure how this scheme is going to save those jobs. To keep the maths simple ... If they're paying 3 staff £10,000 each, all doing exactly the same job but two thirds of that work has dried up, they now need only one person to do that work. However if the employer decides he's going to try and keep all three of them in employment through using this scheme by giving them 33% each of the work available to do, then he's going (under the terms of the scheme) to have to pay each one of them £5,500. Meaning that he'll actually be paying out £16,500 of wages for £10,000 worth of work. You can't do that when your revenue is already down by two thirds and you will have to go back to your original plan and get rid of two employees and keep one, so that you get £10,000 of work for £10,000 worth of pay. I can't see how the scheme helps to save those jobs. It's not there to save jobs in that scenario. It's there just to protect VIABLE jobs only. If someone's business is only doing a third of their usual turnover then its no longer a viable business. The scenario works fine if turnover is down by a third not down to a third.
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Sept 24, 2020 16:20:27 GMT
A lot of rumours flying about on Twitter that the daily figures are very high hence not out yet🤔
|
|
|
Post by chad on Sept 24, 2020 16:22:38 GMT
Got any better ideas. Perhaps the Government should just pay everybody their normal wage to stay at home. Even then some buggers would moan about it Being as though they're the Government, and they're the 1 imposing restrictions that is affecting the trade of the business then they should be the ones with the bigger financial burden, not an equal share between the worker/employer and the Government. There's roughly a 66% wage shortfall based on meeting the minimum requirement. I'd say something like 36% Government 15% Employer 15% employee would have been a much fairer scheme, after all it's the Government that are advertising it as their Jobs Support Scheme so they should be the main supporter. [/quote Everyone will have a different view on this. Some may say why should the Govt pay anything. Some will think they should pay 100%. We have to trust that the ministers/ treasury know what we can and can’t afford and they have struck the right balance
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Sept 24, 2020 16:26:01 GMT
|
|
|
Post by thebet365 on Sept 24, 2020 16:29:47 GMT
Being as though they're the Government, and they're the 1 imposing restrictions that is affecting the trade of the business then they should be the ones with the bigger financial burden, not an equal share between the worker/employer and the Government. There's roughly a 66% wage shortfall based on meeting the minimum requirement. I'd say something like 36% Government 15% Employer 15% employee would have been a much fairer scheme, after all it's the Government that are advertising it as their Jobs Support Scheme so they should be the main supporter. [/quote Everyone will have a different view on this. Some may say why should the Govt pay anything. Some will think they should pay 100%. We have to trust that the ministers/ treasury know what we can and can’t afford and they have struck the right balance I fully get it's not an easy situation, I don't mean to come across bashing the government for it, I just meant to point out that this isnt going to prevent big redundancy numbers. They've gone from subsidising 80% wages to 70% and 60% next month but then it's gonna drop to 22% max from November. It's not gonna be enough to save jobs imho.
|
|
|
Post by noustie on Sept 24, 2020 16:47:50 GMT
I think like a lot of the schemes it will depend on the employer. A good employer will look at as an incentive to keep his employees happy and in a job until things improve. Others will think it’s not worth it. Not the holy grail but I think it will save some jobs And like my original post. Is there anything better given that cash is not limitless If an employer has seen (say) two thirds of his business shrink due to Covid and has been thinking that they're going to have to lay people off because if they don't, then the business will go under completely, then I'm not sure how this scheme is going to save those jobs. To keep the maths simple ... If they're paying 3 staff £10,000 each, all doing exactly the same job but two thirds of that work has dried up, they now need only one person to do that work. However if the employer decides he's going to try and keep all three of them in employment through using this scheme by giving them 33% each of the work available to do, then he's going (under the terms of the scheme) to have to pay each one of them £5,500. Meaning that he'll actually be paying out £16,500 of wages for £10,000 worth of work. You can't do that when your revenue is already down by two thirds and you will have to go back to your original plan and get rid of two employees and keep one, so that you get £10,000 of work for £10,000 worth of pay. I can't see how the scheme helps to save those jobs. 'Lets Play Numberwang!'
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Sept 24, 2020 16:51:48 GMT
People know they unlikely to die from the virus is the problem and the fear has gone. Add in the general fatigue from the whole thing and you have alot of people thinking 'fuck it, I'll just take my chances'. I'm assuming that's why the government ramped up the 'fear factor' this week in attempt to get more compliance. If you have the virus or have come into contact with someone who has it then it's not taking your own chances (I agree - that's your call) - you're playing roulette with someone else's chances (which you have no right to do). Its irresponsible.
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Sept 24, 2020 16:52:36 GMT
Bang on. It's a job cut scheme. Got any better ideas. Perhaps the Government should just pay everybody their normal wage to stay at home. Even then some buggers would moan about it You wasting your time If sunak had guaranteed everyone's wages for two years some of them on here would be complaining it wasn't for three years The government has been paying a couple of million people for over six months To do the square root of piss all Whilst others have been risking there lives daily Yet for some this isn't enough
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Sept 24, 2020 16:56:13 GMT
If an employer has seen (say) two thirds of his business shrink due to Covid and has been thinking that they're going to have to lay people off because if they don't, then the business will go under completely, then I'm not sure how this scheme is going to save those jobs. To keep the maths simple ... If they're paying 3 staff £10,000 each, all doing exactly the same job but two thirds of that work has dried up, they now need only one person to do that work. However if the employer decides he's going to try and keep all three of them in employment through using this scheme by giving them 33% each of the work available to do, then he's going (under the terms of the scheme) to have to pay each one of them £5,500. Meaning that he'll actually be paying out £16,500 of wages for £10,000 worth of work. You can't do that when your revenue is already down by two thirds and you will have to go back to your original plan and get rid of two employees and keep one, so that you get £10,000 of work for £10,000 worth of pay. I can't see how the scheme helps to save those jobs. It's not there to save jobs in that scenario. It's there just to protect VIABLE jobs only. If someone's business is only doing a third of their usual turnover then its no longer a viable business. The scenario works fine if turnover is down by a third not down to a third. Okay maybe I took the example too far to illustrate the point I was making. So my mistake for the long winded example but why then, would an employer pay 55% of wages for 33% of work, when their business is taking a significant hit already?
|
|
|
Post by thisisouryear on Sept 24, 2020 17:03:33 GMT
With the new app running from Bluetooth, doesn't that mean you are more likely to get hacked?
|
|
|
Post by adri2008 on Sept 24, 2020 17:07:32 GMT
People know they unlikely to die from the virus is the problem and the fear has gone. Add in the general fatigue from the whole thing and you have alot of people thinking 'fuck it, I'll just take my chances'. I'm assuming that's why the government ramped up the 'fear factor' this week in attempt to get more compliance. If you have the virus or have come into contact with someone who has it then it's not taking your own chances (I agree - that's your call) - you're playing roulette with someone else's chances (which you have no right to do). Its irresponsible. Not saying its right, but attitudes are a mile away from where they were in March when there was genuine fear. The government is going to have huge problems suppressing a second wave (if it occurs) as people simply aren't as receptive now.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Sept 24, 2020 17:10:21 GMT
With the new app running from Bluetooth, doesn't that mean you are more likely to get hacked? No clue sorry. I don’t have my Bluetooth because it kills my phone 🤦♂️😂
|
|
|
Post by southstanddan on Sept 24, 2020 17:11:38 GMT
With the new app running from Bluetooth, doesn't that mean you are more likely to get hacked? I would only find it a concern if I had information worth hacking on my phone mate. If having it on alerts me of possible contact with the infected then it outweighs the thought of criminals targeting me for pictures of me holding carp or the password to my FaceBook. But that’s just me of course...
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Sept 24, 2020 17:18:32 GMT
If you have the virus or have come into contact with someone who has it then it's not taking your own chances (I agree - that's your call) - you're playing roulette with someone else's chances (which you have no right to do). Its irresponsible. Not saying its right, but attitudes are a mile away from where they were in March when there was genuine fear. The government is going to have huge problems suppressing a second wave (if it occurs) as people simply aren't as receptive now. There was a research study that concluded that the reason the majority of people complied with lockdown wasn't because of fear - it was because they recognised that it was for the common good. I agree the consensus is fraying at the edges but the success of the government's public health strategy relies heavily on people not behaving like selfish dickheads. There's no question about there being a second wave (it's happening now). The issue is how many die of covid - and if people insist on behaving selfishly there will be far more.
|
|
|
Post by thisisouryear on Sept 24, 2020 17:18:35 GMT
With the new app running from Bluetooth, doesn't that mean you are more likely to get hacked? I would only find it a concern if I had information worth hacking on my phone mate. If having it on alerts me of possible contact with the infected then it outweighs the thought of criminals targeting me for pictures of me holding carp or the password to my FaceBook. But that’s just me of course... A lot of people do banking on their phones and they can even use it like a debit card too. It used to be common to make sure it was turned off when not using it because it used to be risky.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Sept 24, 2020 17:20:33 GMT
|
|
|
Post by southstanddan on Sept 24, 2020 17:27:43 GMT
I would only find it a concern if I had information worth hacking on my phone mate. If having it on alerts me of possible contact with the infected then it outweighs the thought of criminals targeting me for pictures of me holding carp or the password to my FaceBook. But that’s just me of course... A lot of people do banking on their phones and they can even use it like a debit card too. It used to be common to make sure it was turned off when not using it because it used to be risky. No I get that mate and I do the same but banks are good now at stopping this sort of thing or getting your money back if the worst comes to the worst. Thing is though chances are percentage wise you probably have more chance of catching COVID than having your card hacked by having your Bluetooth on. The irony!
|
|
|
Post by adri2008 on Sept 24, 2020 17:32:04 GMT
Not saying its right, but attitudes are a mile away from where they were in March when there was genuine fear. The government is going to have huge problems suppressing a second wave (if it occurs) as people simply aren't as receptive now. There was a research study that concluded that the reason the majority of people complied with lockdown wasn't because of fear - it was because they recognised that it was for the common good. I agree the consensus is fraying at the edges but the success of the government's public health strategy relies heavily on people not behaving like selfish dickheads. There's no question about there being a second wave (it's happening now). The issue is how many die of covid - and if people insist on behaving selfishly there will be far more. There is a question of severity though. Its going to require far more draconian measures than appealing to people's good will which is now in short supply. With regards severity, I think London is going to be the key indicator - it has the highest infection rate from the previous wave and is high density. Cases are increasing there but not like areas in the North right now. If they don't explode, it suggests it may be a lower threshold for community immunity than expected. If it explodes, we are in for a very tough autumn and winter.
|
|