|
Post by henry on Dec 18, 2020 7:39:24 GMT
Almost like the politicians don't believe in all this bollocks. It will be an error of judgement.
|
|
|
Post by yeswilko on Dec 18, 2020 8:00:38 GMT
Farage rimmers moaning about economic harm is properly funny. Dude, you keep losing, don't blame Big Nige and Ricky T for your failures 😉 You don't half moan a lot for someone constantly winning duck.
|
|
|
Post by yeswilko on Dec 18, 2020 8:05:38 GMT
He thinks people are thick because he constantly lies to them. I only think brexiters are thick is if they're still clinging on to the belief that its remotely good for the country. Everyone I know with a business knows its horrific apart from the odd racist There’s nothing so sad as someone who can’t accept a democratic result Though sad maybe be not the right term pathetic maybe Its not to do with the result, its the fact that voting for economic damage and for thousands of people to lose jobs a few years ago was a price worth paying, and now its apparently outrageous during a public health crisis.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Dec 18, 2020 8:05:42 GMT
Already 1million gone. One million families fucked before Christmas never mind wearing a mask they won't have money to buy any. Indeed. Furlough is hoax of the decade. Anyone with half a brain can see that furlough is postponing redundancy, not eradicating it. The government know full well that without furlough we'd easily be into the worst unemployment numbers on record and the anger and hatred of lockdowns would be at breaking point. Give it a few months when the redundancy really kicks in. You can't postpone this chaos forever and it will come to a head. We'll see civil unrest in this country (and other parts of Europe) like we haven't seen in a very long time. On a side note, I found out today (to my horror) a bunch of Spanish friends I have are currently back in Spain but claiming furlough from various British firms they work for in the city. Government handouts are great aren't they. Is that shit legal? Don't blame them for taking advantage of it. Why wouldn't you take advantage of such a painfully dumb scheme? So you want the government to end furlough now in order to create mass unemployment in time for Xmas? You really do have a hard on for civil unrest don't you? What exactly do you think it will achieve? Are your rioters going to storm Parliament and install a new government with the wisdom of Solomon and the integrity of Ghandi or do what they usually do - injure an innocent bystander, burn the odd car and nick a telly from Currys? Given the ethical principles of your mates I'm going for the latter.
|
|
|
Post by chad on Dec 18, 2020 8:10:32 GMT
Already 1million gone. One million families fucked before Christmas never mind wearing a mask they won't have money to buy any. Indeed. Furlough is hoax of the decade. Anyone with half a brain can see that furlough is postponing redundancy, not eradicating it. The government know full well that without furlough we'd easily be into the worst unemployment numbers on record and the anger and hatred of lockdowns would be at breaking point. Give it a few months when the redundancy really kicks in. You can't postpone this chaos forever and it will come to a head. We'll see civil unrest in this country (and other parts of Europe) like we haven't seen in a very long time. On a side note, I found out today (to my horror) a bunch of Spanish friends I have are currently back in Spain but claiming furlough from various British firms they work for in the city. Government handouts are great aren't they. Is that shit legal? Don't blame them for taking advantage of it. Why wouldn't you take advantage of such a painfully dumb scheme? So what would be the alternative to the painfully dull furlough scheme ?
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Dec 18, 2020 8:11:48 GMT
[snip] about 42k admitted with Covid 122k were discharged Covid patients !!! Edit PS I only did England to get 70% the remainder are Wales, Scotland and NI gets you to 74% as per the tweet. Can you find out how may tested positive on the initial test at hospital after testing negative just before admission? Most of my gf's covid patients were admitted with "respiratory distress" or similar but hadn't had a positive test before arriving. They tested positive at the hospital as soon as they could get a test. So you might count them as catching it in the hospital, even though they almost certainly came in with it.
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Dec 18, 2020 8:15:43 GMT
Arizona is now seeing the sorts of things I was worried about. Southern AZ hospitals are over capacity and triaging patients which means many will miss routine (or even sometimes quite important) care, so if you were concerned about e.g. missing cancer treatment during lockdowns, you should be very upset about how hospitals getting overwhelmed with covid will mean a lot of extra sickness and suffering because there are no doctors or rooms to care for them. When hospitals hit 90% capacity back in mid-November that was much higher than normal, even during flu season. Now hospitals are reporting things like 130% of capacity. On the plus side, they're vaccinating their staff - the gf should get her jab next week at the latest.
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Dec 18, 2020 8:19:43 GMT
|
|
|
Post by andystokey on Dec 18, 2020 8:34:53 GMT
[snip] about 42k admitted with Covid 122k were discharged Covid patients !!! Edit PS I only did England to get 70% the remainder are Wales, Scotland and NI gets you to 74% as per the tweet. Can you find out how may tested positive on the initial test at hospital after testing negative just before admission? Most of my gf's covid patients were admitted with "respiratory distress" or similar but hadn't had a positive test before arriving. They tested positive at the hospital as soon as they could get a test. So you might count them as catching it in the hospital, even though they almost certainly came in with it. In this data set they don't seperate out the orange line data with that granularity. The orange line includes new positive tests within 24h (as inpatients) so the example you give will be somewhere in that data, if that makes sense. If I get time later I'll calculate the discharge dwell time. I assume if a patient is asymptomatic they want them out of hospital quickly to recover at home. Those that are staying in are probably chronic with Covid or chronic with another condition not poorly enough to be in ventilator beds but not well enough to be discharged. That's the delta that shows the stress on the system. Unfortunately the rich data isn't due to be published again until 14th Jan. The basic weekly and daily set is published every day but no detail. 👍
|
|
|
Post by thebet365 on Dec 18, 2020 8:35:50 GMT
Already 1million gone. One million families fucked before Christmas never mind wearing a mask they won't have money to buy any. Indeed. Furlough is hoax of the decade. Anyone with half a brain can see that furlough is postponing redundancy, not eradicating it. The government know full well that without furlough we'd easily be into the worst unemployment numbers on record and the anger and hatred of lockdowns would be at breaking point. Give it a few months when the redundancy really kicks in. You can't postpone this chaos forever and it will come to a head. We'll see civil unrest in this country (and other parts of Europe) like we haven't seen in a very long time. On a side note, I found out today (to my horror) a bunch of Spanish friends I have are currently back in Spain but claiming furlough from various British firms they work for in the city. Government handouts are great aren't they. Is that shit legal? Don't blame them for taking advantage of it. Why wouldn't you take advantage of such a painfully dumb scheme? A scheme that has saved millions of jobs is a hoax ? If you where in a job that paid 25K PA would you prefer to get 85% (roughly after the tax and NI reduction) net pay with the warning of possible redundancy at the end giving you time to cut your cloth accordingly or organinse a back up plan where possible. Or would you rather it just be sorted straight away, lose your job, possibly no redundancy if the business goes under completely, and end up on benefits which will be nowhere near your 85% ? What does it matter where the worker resides currently ? IF they're employed by a business in this country but can't work because the government have shut them down then why shouldn't they get help?
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Dec 18, 2020 8:48:06 GMT
The situation is so grave in Switzerland that mannequins are catching Covid.
|
|
|
Post by ColonelMustard on Dec 18, 2020 8:59:32 GMT
Furlough is not meant solely as a job retainer but also to prevent the whole fragile souffle of our economy from collapsing in one go.
It is far from perfect but of all the things to criticise this government for, the economic measures have been the least of it.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Dec 18, 2020 9:04:20 GMT
I think that the lawyer at the heart of this action against Drosten is the same man who brought the legal proceedings against Volkswagen over the emissions scandal. Here's the summary of the case. I posted this way back, but obviously got laughed out of town. And he was dismissed as a crank by the usual suspects. This is a re-upload because it's often taken down. Clearly, genocidal maniac Tedros doesn't like it, as he's named in this too. So you're basically a social media conduit for Bobby Kennedy Jnr and his anti vaxxer cronies: Bobby Kennedy JnrAnti-Vaxxer MovementAnti Vaxxer ConspiracySerious question - why have you chosen to believe this stuff?
|
|
|
Post by ColonelMustard on Dec 18, 2020 9:06:16 GMT
The situation is so grave in Switzerland that mannequins are catching Covid. Nice of Darren from Plymouth to take such interest in a nurse training publicity shot from Switzerland. Everyone has their fetish I guess.
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Dec 18, 2020 9:43:45 GMT
There’s nothing so sad as someone who can’t accept a democratic result Though sad maybe be not the right term pathetic maybe Its not to do with the result, its the fact that voting for economic damage and for thousands of people to lose jobs a few years ago was a price worth paying, and now its apparently outrageous during a public health crisis. Who’s suddenly saying it’s outrageous now who didn’t earlier
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Dec 18, 2020 9:49:45 GMT
Already 1million gone. One million families fucked before Christmas never mind wearing a mask they won't have money to buy any. Indeed. Furlough is hoax of the decade. Anyone with half a brain can see that furlough is postponing redundancy, not eradicating it. The government know full well that without furlough we'd easily be into the worst unemployment numbers on record and the anger and hatred of lockdowns would be at breaking point. Give it a few months when the redundancy really kicks in. You can't postpone this chaos forever and it will come to a head. We'll see civil unrest in this country (and other parts of Europe) like we haven't seen in a very long time. On a side note, I found out today (to my horror) a bunch of Spanish friends I have are currently back in Spain but claiming furlough from various British firms they work for in the city. Government handouts are great aren't they. Is that shit legal? Don't blame them for taking advantage of it. Why wouldn't you take advantage of such a painfully dumb scheme? Thats a simple one for me really they work for a UK based company and they can't work so it's right for me regardless of nationality.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Hackett on Dec 18, 2020 9:50:26 GMT
The situation is so grave in Switzerland that mannequins are catching Covid. Nice of Darren from Plymouth to take such interest in a nurse training publicity shot from Switzerland. Everyone has their fetish I guess. Why do people feel the need to post any old shit from Twitter and take it as gospel.
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Dec 18, 2020 10:04:01 GMT
Indeed. Furlough is hoax of the decade. Anyone with half a brain can see that furlough is postponing redundancy, not eradicating it. The government know full well that without furlough we'd easily be into the worst unemployment numbers on record and the anger and hatred of lockdowns would be at breaking point. Give it a few months when the redundancy really kicks in. You can't postpone this chaos forever and it will come to a head. We'll see civil unrest in this country (and other parts of Europe) like we haven't seen in a very long time. On a side note, I found out today (to my horror) a bunch of Spanish friends I have are currently back in Spain but claiming furlough from various British firms they work for in the city. Government handouts are great aren't they. Is that shit legal? Don't blame them for taking advantage of it. Why wouldn't you take advantage of such a painfully dumb scheme? A scheme that has saved millions of jobs is a hoax ? If you where in a job that paid 25K PA would you prefer to get 85% (roughly after the tax and NI reduction) net pay with the warning of possible redundancy at the end giving you time to cut your cloth accordingly or organinse a back up plan where possible. Or would you rather it just be sorted straight away, lose your job, possibly no redundancy if the business goes under completely, and end up on benefits which will be nowhere near your 85% ? What does it matter where the worker resides currently ? IF they're employed by a business in this country but can't work because the government have shut them down then why shouldn't they get help? But it isn't going to save millions of jobs is it? That's the whole point. Let's see then. If in 12 months, furlough proves to be a master stroke that saved millions of jobs and hasn't left us with wartime levels of debt, I'll happily concede it was a success. Amazed you think otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Dec 18, 2020 10:08:41 GMT
Nice of Darren from Plymouth to take such interest in a nurse training publicity shot from Switzerland. Everyone has their fetish I guess. Why do people feel the need to post any old shit from Twitter and take it as gospel. It's obviously a joke. Unless you're that thick you think mannequins can actually catch a virus?
|
|
|
Post by ColonelMustard on Dec 18, 2020 10:10:09 GMT
Indeed. Furlough is hoax of the decade. Anyone with half a brain can see that furlough is postponing redundancy, not eradicating it. The government know full well that without furlough we'd easily be into the worst unemployment numbers on record and the anger and hatred of lockdowns would be at breaking point. Give it a few months when the redundancy really kicks in. You can't postpone this chaos forever and it will come to a head. We'll see civil unrest in this country (and other parts of Europe) like we haven't seen in a very long time. On a side note, I found out today (to my horror) a bunch of Spanish friends I have are currently back in Spain but claiming furlough from various British firms they work for in the city. Government handouts are great aren't they. Is that shit legal? Don't blame them for taking advantage of it. Why wouldn't you take advantage of such a painfully dumb scheme? Thats a simple one for me really they work for a UK based company and they can't work so it's right for me regardless of nationality. Indeed, cant stop paying people if they go abroad. Although I think some interest in fiscal patriotism can be useful going forward. Thats if set its sights on trans nationals, biillaires and tax havens. And the links to politicians and parties. Then we'll see some progress.
|
|
|
Post by ColonelMustard on Dec 18, 2020 10:12:55 GMT
Why do people feel the need to post any old shit from Twitter and take it as gospel. It's obviously a joke. Unless you're that thick you think mannequins can actually catch a virus? In the spirit of much of the posting on twitter and this thread, it's not hard to believe Darren really believed it was a conspiratorial shot. I mean the mannequins faces were highlighted as though in a gotcha. I haven't checked Darren's other posts to see context.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Dec 18, 2020 10:13:27 GMT
The situation is so grave in Switzerland that mannequins are catching Covid. Selfish cunts not wearing masks They will be passing it on around Ethel Austin
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Dec 18, 2020 10:14:27 GMT
Indeed. Furlough is hoax of the decade. Anyone with half a brain can see that furlough is postponing redundancy, not eradicating it. The government know full well that without furlough we'd easily be into the worst unemployment numbers on record and the anger and hatred of lockdowns would be at breaking point. Give it a few months when the redundancy really kicks in. You can't postpone this chaos forever and it will come to a head. We'll see civil unrest in this country (and other parts of Europe) like we haven't seen in a very long time. On a side note, I found out today (to my horror) a bunch of Spanish friends I have are currently back in Spain but claiming furlough from various British firms they work for in the city. Government handouts are great aren't they. Is that shit legal? Don't blame them for taking advantage of it. Why wouldn't you take advantage of such a painfully dumb scheme? So you want the government to end furlough now in order to create mass unemployment in time for Xmas? You really do have a hard on for civil unrest don't you? What exactly do you think it will achieve? Are your rioters going to storm Parliament and install a new government with the wisdom of Solomon and the integrity of Ghandi or do what they usually do - injure an innocent bystander, burn the odd car and nick a telly from Currys? Given the ethical principles of your mates I'm going for the latter. As usual, missing the point. So let me ask you the question - do you think furlough is anything other than kicking the can down the road? Will we or won't we see a similar redundancy bloodbath in the next 12 months as we would have seen without furlough? Will it leave us saddled with horrifying debt levels? We know the answer to all three don't we. History tells us that people turn hostile when they lose their jobs. That's just how the world works. The government aren't stupid (well they are), they know that without furlough, there would be zero appetite for lockdown because you'd have millions unemployed. Instead, we'll have millions unemployed in 12 months. As I've said, I'm happy to concede on 12 months if furlough proves a master stroke. From speaking to other colleagues and friends who run businesses, we all know where our own furlough schemes are going to end up - its not pretty. The vast majority will be made redundant. In hospitality and travel many will be and are being made redundant by default because their businesses have already gone under. Its tragic.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Hackett on Dec 18, 2020 10:18:17 GMT
It's obviously a joke. Unless you're that thick you think mannequins can actually catch a virus? In the spirit of much of the posting on twitter and this thread, it's not hard to believe Darren really believed it was a conspiratorial shot. I mean the mannequins faces were highlighted as though in a gotcha. I haven't checked Darren's other posts to see context. Exactly, unfortunately Davef didnt realise this before he posted it and is now backtracking and calling people thick. The irony.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Dec 18, 2020 10:20:52 GMT
A scheme that has saved millions of jobs is a hoax ? If you where in a job that paid 25K PA would you prefer to get 85% (roughly after the tax and NI reduction) net pay with the warning of possible redundancy at the end giving you time to cut your cloth accordingly or organinse a back up plan where possible. Or would you rather it just be sorted straight away, lose your job, possibly no redundancy if the business goes under completely, and end up on benefits which will be nowhere near your 85% ? What does it matter where the worker resides currently ? IF they're employed by a business in this country but can't work because the government have shut them down then why shouldn't they get help? But it isn't going to save millions of jobs is it? That's the whole point. Let's see then. If in 12 months, furlough proves to be a master stroke that saved millions of jobs and hasn't left us with wartime levels of debt, I'll happily concede it was a success. Amazed you think otherwise. Furlough has saved jobs - without it millions would have been made redundant already. No doubt some jobs will be lost once it's removed but millions will still be employed who otherwise wouldn't. A furlough scheme that both saves jobs AND incurs no debt is a logical impossibility. There are 3 choices: 1 Don't lock down, don't incur debt and allow people to die of covid 2 Lock down with no furlough, save lives, incur no debt and make people redundant 3 Lock down with a furlough, save lives, save jobs and incur debt The government went for option 3. And you choice is?
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Dec 18, 2020 10:31:26 GMT
So you want the government to end furlough now in order to create mass unemployment in time for Xmas? You really do have a hard on for civil unrest don't you? What exactly do you think it will achieve? Are your rioters going to storm Parliament and install a new government with the wisdom of Solomon and the integrity of Ghandi or do what they usually do - injure an innocent bystander, burn the odd car and nick a telly from Currys? Given the ethical principles of your mates I'm going for the latter. As usual, missing the point. So let me ask you the question - do you think furlough is anything other than kicking the can down the road? Will we or won't we see a similar redundancy bloodbath in the next 12 months as we would have seen without furlough? Will it leave us saddled with horrifying debt levels? We know the answer to all three don't we. History tells us that people turn hostile when they lose their jobs. That's just how the world works. The government aren't stupid (well they are), they know that without furlough, there would be zero appetite for lockdown because you'd have millions unemployed. Instead, we'll have millions unemployed in 12 months. As I've said, I'm happy to concede on 12 months if furlough proves a master stroke. From speaking to other colleagues and friends who run businesses, we all know where our own furlough schemes are going to end up - its not pretty. The vast majority will be made redundant. In hospitality and travel many will be and are being made redundant by default because their businesses have already gone under. Its tragic. There is an argument on where it might have been better spent im not sure on the total figure but its many hundreds of billions and that could have been better spent in the NHS rather than closing the country down. I know they might have been staffing issues but they could have spent more of that on increasing capacity in hospitals etc.
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Dec 18, 2020 10:37:10 GMT
But it isn't going to save millions of jobs is it? That's the whole point. Let's see then. If in 12 months, furlough proves to be a master stroke that saved millions of jobs and hasn't left us with wartime levels of debt, I'll happily concede it was a success. Amazed you think otherwise. Furlough has saved jobs - without it millions would have been made redundant already. No doubt some jobs will be lost once it's removed but millions will still be employed who otherwise wouldn't. A furlough scheme that both saves jobs AND incurs no debt is a logical impossibility. There are 3 choices: 1 Don't lock down, don't incur debt and allow people to die of covid 2 Lock down with no furlough, save lives, incur no debt and make people redundant 3 Lock down with a furlough, save lives, save jobs and incur debt The government went for option 3. And you choice is? None of these. Have a targeted lockdown which shelters the vulnerable, no furlough needed (except for the tiny proportion of vulnerable of a working age), incur no debt. Saving hundreds of thousands of lives in the process because as we know, suicides, untreated illness and death by numerous other causes related to economic hardship will be devestating over the next couple of years. Before you come back with your stock answer (no country has sheltered the vulnerable therefore its impossible). We already know it is possible because over 90% of working British citizens do NOT live with an elderly family number as Paul Spencer has repeatedly posted. Blanket lockdowns are lazy, massively costly (in jobs, livelihoods and lives), and astoundingly short sighted.
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Dec 18, 2020 11:02:17 GMT
[snip] Furlough has saved jobs - without it millions would have been made redundant already. No doubt some jobs will be lost once it's removed but millions will still be employed who otherwise wouldn't. A furlough scheme that both saves jobs AND incurs no debt is a logical impossibility. There are 3 choices: 1 Don't lock down, don't incur debt and allow people to die of covid 2 Lock down with no furlough, save lives, incur no debt and make people redundant 3 Lock down with a furlough, save lives, save jobs and incur debt The government went for option 3. And you choice is? I don't think option 1 would happen. Lots of people stopped going out and spending anyway, even before the lockdowns. Maybe instead of enough drinkers for 10 pubs it's more like 6. Landlords go to the banks but the government is saying they won't control covid so the bankers won't lend, four pubs go bump and fire their staff. Then those staff are broke and their local shuts down, and so on. The government is now seeing a crash in revenue and huge debt anyway, although probably less in the short term than with furlough. I think it's too complicated for me to work out but furlough seems like a reasonable gamble. If you can keep people employed through vaccinations, then that's the point where the banks will have the confidence to lend and businesses can stay alive. And pre-vaccine there's more spending to prop up other businesses. There will still be job losses, but it will be far less bad than without help for those who can't work.
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Dec 18, 2020 11:03:44 GMT
[snip]None of these. Have a targeted lockdown which shelters the vulnerable, no furlough needed (except for the tiny proportion of vulnerable of a working age), incur no debt. Saving hundreds of thousands of lives in the process because as we know, suicides, untreated illness and death by numerous other causes related to economic hardship will be devestating over the next couple of years. Before you come back with your stock answer (no country has sheltered the vulnerable therefore its impossible). We already know it is possible because over 90% of working British citizens do NOT live with an elderly family number as Paul Spencer has repeatedly posted. Blanket lockdowns are lazy, massively costly (in jobs, livelihoods and lives), and astoundingly short sighted. Who counts as "the vulnerable" and is "shelter" something like locking them completely away from any human contact? Or what, specifically?
|
|
|
Post by thebet365 on Dec 18, 2020 11:07:42 GMT
A scheme that has saved millions of jobs is a hoax ? If you where in a job that paid 25K PA would you prefer to get 85% (roughly after the tax and NI reduction) net pay with the warning of possible redundancy at the end giving you time to cut your cloth accordingly or organinse a back up plan where possible. Or would you rather it just be sorted straight away, lose your job, possibly no redundancy if the business goes under completely, and end up on benefits which will be nowhere near your 85% ? What does it matter where the worker resides currently ? IF they're employed by a business in this country but can't work because the government have shut them down then why shouldn't they get help? But it isn't going to save millions of jobs is it? That's the whole point. Let's see then. If in 12 months, furlough proves to be a master stroke that saved millions of jobs and hasn't left us with wartime levels of debt, I'll happily concede it was a success. Amazed you think otherwise. Yes it is, that's the point. As much as you like to paint the bleak picture, many many businesses are surviving purely because of the measures been put in place. Some have gone to the wall yes but a lot are effectively on pause ready to go when they can. Without Furlough that wouldn't have been possible. Making redundancies is an expensive thing to businesses that involves staff that have been there for a few years, it's the last thing they'll want to do and the Furlough scheme has so far prevented a big number of them. I work in Payroll for a lot of businesses in Stoke, I've so far seen 6 redundancies and a couple of early retirements. The furlough scheme has been brilliant for a lot of workers.
|
|