|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 19, 2020 21:39:32 GMT
Italy is a serious concern and a huge pointer to what is coming if we don't learn from it, and quick. With the level of their deaths it's nigh on impossible to track if the virus has changed to affect younger people with no underlying issues. The worry is ... is the number of people in intensive care aged under 70 due to there being more people under 70 requiring it, or is it because the doctors can't justify making ICU's available to the old and are simply having to let them die? It's one or the other and whichever one it is, it is bloody terrifying.
|
|
|
Post by MilanStokie on Mar 19, 2020 21:39:52 GMT
Wish I could hit the nail on the head mate but for now I can only guess there just aren't enough people follow the rules. I read on a newsfeed that Lombardy had a particularly high proportion of 18-34 year olds that lived with their parents and this could have been factor on while the region was harder hit. Is that an issue being discussed in Italy? Not that I've seen. Today's conference with the civil protection office talked about children and they are safe as can be from this virus. Not 1 death under 19 and not one child in a serious situation.
|
|
|
Post by swampmongrel on Mar 19, 2020 21:40:39 GMT
The news that CoE only allowing five guests at a wedding - should be interesting. Maybe some couples will have to decide what they want - is it a marriage, or is it a wedding?. I’d have loved it if this was in place when I got married. Would have saved a fortune.
|
|
|
Post by somersetstokie on Mar 19, 2020 21:41:06 GMT
I'm far from an expert when it comes to economics and other such subjects, but for me, we should just shut the whole place down. And the government should suspend everything for 2 or 3 months - mortgages/rent, gas/electric, council tax, water etc. Take away everyones bills, support businesses, enforce shutdown and once we start to come out the other end, we can start going back to normality. God I hope so, otherwise the only solution for me sooner or later is some Rope... Excellent solution. We are all in this together. It would help everyone to just shut down. No imperative to travel to work and mix with others. No immediate worries. Just concentrate on beating the virus. Will also address the potential mental health issues from stress etc. Won't happen though.
|
|
|
Post by MilanStokie on Mar 19, 2020 21:42:39 GMT
Italy is a serious concern and a huge pointer to what is coming if we don't learn from it, and quick. With the level of their deaths it's nigh on impossible to track if the virus has changed to affect younger people with no underlying issues. The worry is ... is the number of people in intensive care aged under 70 due to there being more people under 70 requiring it, or is it because the doctors can't justify making ICU's available to the old and are simply having to let them die? It's one or the other and whichever one it is, it is bloody terrifying. There is a lot of talk about hospitals and doctors having to decide who to treat, being left with a decision between young and old and having to choose young. How true this is I can't say. Frightening thought though.
|
|
|
Post by Dr Hesham on Mar 19, 2020 21:42:58 GMT
174 died from total of 11.699 infected in USA 144 died from total of only 3.269 infected in UK I dont know the reason for that, but I think infected people in UK are much more than 3.269 and this small number is due to poor testing.
7 died from total of 256 infected in Egypt, I think numbers are higher than that but when elderly people die in Egypt in ICU for Pneumonia, they dont search a lot about the cause.
44 died from total of 15.320 infected in Germany, this is perfect percentage.
We are not able to judge the efficacy of medical practice in each country because of the vague number of undetected cases.
|
|
|
Post by terryconroysmagic on Mar 19, 2020 21:45:57 GMT
I read on a newsfeed that Lombardy had a particularly high proportion of 18-34 year olds that lived with their parents and this could have been factor on while the region was harder hit. Is that an issue being discussed in Italy? Not that I've seen. Today's conference with the civil protection office talked about children and they are safe as can be from this virus. Not 1 death under 19 and not one child in a serious situation. Sorry Milan What I meant was the 18-34 year olds were (mainly) unaffected carriers but because of living with their parents the parents were much more exposed
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2020 21:51:05 GMT
174 died from total of 11.699 infected in USA 144 died from total of only 3.269 infected in UK I dont know the reason for that, but I think infected people in UK are much more than 3.269 and this small number is due to poor testing. 7 died from total of 256 infected in Egypt, I think numbers are higher than that but when elderly people die in Egypt in ICU for Pneumonia, they dont search a lot about the cause. 44 died from total of 15.320 infected in Germany, this is perfect percentage. We are not able to judge the efficacy of medical practice in each country because of the vague number of undetected cases. I think the figures are all over the place and far from reliable. The UK for example, we are just testing people in hospital (I.e. seriously ill). All the experts are saying that the majority of people will only have mild symptoms and will recover fine at home (and subsequently not get tested). Also, there was an article yesterday from an area in Italy that carried out 100%, repeat testing on a small town. They found that for every 1 person who tested positive showing symptoms, another 10 tested positive who were asymptomatic. If that figure is remotely accurate, there could be thousands of people in the UK who have already had it, who haven't even been ill or showing any symptoms. They keep referring to it as the "invisible virus". I assume that's because it is spreading far and wide by carriers who have no idea they have it and are showing no symptoms. I think the mortality rate will be dramatically lower than any stats we currently have. I think the problem is, how contagious the virus is and how many people can carry and spread it without any visible signs.
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Mar 19, 2020 21:51:06 GMT
And you dont care who you pass it on to and the consequences of your actions. Where do I say I am not compliant? I am probably more compliant during normal times than most on here right now. My point is : Everyone is (rightly) horrified that there may be 1-2 Million deaths because of this and are going to extreme measures (and cost) to try reduce the number, while every single day 125,000 babies are killed (16 days equals 2 Million) and nobody even raises an eyebrow when it could be immediately reduced at relatively little cost. This is not a crusade for abortion, merely pointing out that no matter what the death toll is due to CoVid-19, it is insignificant compared to other issues in society. It's laudable your passion for saving lives, but from my point of view a fetus is just not a person. They. Are. Not. Babies. They are fetuses. So it's completely different. Right now our choice is to try and stop a lot of living, breathing people from dying in horrible circumstances, many of them facing the terror of feeling the sickness creep into them, or just let them die.
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Mar 19, 2020 21:52:26 GMT
|
|
|
Post by GoBoks on Mar 19, 2020 21:53:32 GMT
Italy is a serious concern and a huge pointer to what is coming if we don't learn from it, and quick. With the level of their deaths it's nigh on impossible to track if the virus has changed to affect younger people with no underlying issues. The worry is ... is the number of people in intensive care aged under 70 due to there being more people under 70 requiring it, or is it because the doctors can't justify making ICU's available to the old and are simply having to let them die? It's one or the other and whichever one it is, it is bloody terrifying. The total number of people 19-70 is probably many times the total number of people 70+. Given that many people in the younger pool have chronic illnesses, I think its purely mathematical and not the causes you suggest.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2020 21:54:58 GMT
Where do I say I am not compliant? I am probably more compliant during normal times than most on here right now. My point is : Everyone is (rightly) horrified that there may be 1-2 Million deaths because of this and are going to extreme measures (and cost) to try reduce the number, while every single day 125,000 babies are killed (16 days equals 2 Million) and nobody even raises an eyebrow when it could be immediately reduced at relatively little cost. This is not a crusade for abortion, merely pointing out that no matter what the death toll is due to CoVid-19, it is insignificant compared to other issues in society. It's laudable your passion for saving lives, but from my point of view a fetus is just not a person. They. Are. Not. Babies. They are fetuses. They. Are. Human. Lives.
|
|
|
Post by MilanStokie on Mar 19, 2020 21:55:13 GMT
Not that I've seen. Today's conference with the civil protection office talked about children and they are safe as can be from this virus. Not 1 death under 19 and not one child in a serious situation. Sorry Milan What I meant was the 18-34 year olds were (mainly) unaffected carriers but because of living with their parents the parents were much more exposed I understood mate, what I meant was that topic hasn't been discussed from what I've seen and instead what topic is currently being discussed.
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on Mar 19, 2020 21:57:34 GMT
I'm far from an expert when it comes to economics and other such subjects, but for me, we should just shut the whole place down. And the government should suspend everything for 2 or 3 months - mortgages/rent, gas/electric, council tax, water etc. Take away everyones bills, support businesses, enforce shutdown and once we start to come out the other end, we can start going back to normality. I think this is the perfect time to think about introducing “universal income” into the U.K. Stop all benefits,and give everybody a universal income per month. (£1000 ?) There is a lot of evidence that there would be a net saving against what we spend on benefits for those that need it. Everybody would receive it, including those that work. This has already been mooted by this government yesterday old news, £1,000 a month dream on more like £500 if you are lucky, has been trailed before but was not a success.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 19, 2020 21:58:02 GMT
The worry is ... is the number of people in intensive care aged under 70 due to there being more people under 70 requiring it, or is it because the doctors can't justify making ICU's available to the old and are simply having to let them die? It's one or the other and whichever one it is, it is bloody terrifying. The total number of people 19-70 is probably many times the total number of people 70+. Given that many people in the younger pool have chronic illnesses, I think its purely mathematical and not the causes you suggest. Sorry mate, maybe it's me but you're going to have to hit me with that again because I've read it back several times and I'm still not getting the point you're making.
|
|
|
Post by estrangedsonoffaye on Mar 19, 2020 21:58:03 GMT
Where do I say I am not compliant? I am probably more compliant during normal times than most on here right now. My point is : Everyone is (rightly) horrified that there may be 1-2 Million deaths because of this and are going to extreme measures (and cost) to try reduce the number, while every single day 125,000 babies are killed (16 days equals 2 Million) and nobody even raises an eyebrow when it could be immediately reduced at relatively little cost. This is not a crusade for abortion, merely pointing out that no matter what the death toll is due to CoVid-19, it is insignificant compared to other issues in society. It's laudable your passion for saving lives, but from my point of view a fetus is just not a person. They. Are. Not. Babies. They are fetuses. So it's completely different. Right now our choice is to try and stop a lot of living, breathing people from dying in horrible circumstances, many of them facing the terror of feeling the sickness creep into them, or just let them die. Many do not even reach foetal development. The majority in this country are aborted in the embryo stage. That’s not an argument for or against either for clarity, just a statement of fact. Some people view that as a cluster of cells, others as a human life. Either way, you’re right COVID has nothing to do with abortion, and if anything the strain letting it run wild on our health service would put babies and pregnant mothers at critical risk.
|
|
|
Post by prettything on Mar 19, 2020 22:03:57 GMT
I think this is the perfect time to think about introducing “universal income” into the U.K. Stop all benefits,and give everybody a universal income per month. (£1000 ?) There is a lot of evidence that there would be a net saving against what we spend on benefits for those that need it. Everybody would receive it, including those that work. This has already been mooted by this government yesterday old news, £1,000 a month dream on more like £500 if you are lucky, has been trailed before but was not a success. I’m not sure about that? Hasn’t it been trialled somewhere in Canada and the Netherlands,and the results have been positive? It’s been argued that money is saved against the replaced total benefits paid,with the money given through this scheme. Especially during times like this. It could mean that even some small businesses could pay some/most of their outgoings instead of government support.
|
|
|
Post by dutchstokie on Mar 19, 2020 22:09:04 GMT
If anyone wants a pick me up then watch Vic n Bob on BBC2 now..... fuckin crying with laughter here😂😂
|
|
|
Post by ColonelMustard on Mar 19, 2020 22:11:22 GMT
The worry is ... is the number of people in intensive care aged under 70 due to there being more people under 70 requiring it, or is it because the doctors can't justify making ICU's available to the old and are simply having to let them die? It's one or the other and whichever one it is, it is bloody terrifying. There is a lot of talk about hospitals and doctors having to decide who to treat, being left with a decision between young and old and having to choose young. How true this is I can't say. Frightening thought though. It is frightening. Both my folks are over 80, 1 with cancer the other with terrible lungs. I called them today to tell them that it's my assessment that the NHS will start to be overwhelmed in the next week or so and if they take risks and catch it today they will be at the hard end of the symptoms in 10 days to two weeks and be last in a long line for an icu. I was pretty brutal. But something had to stop em "popping to the shops".
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Mar 19, 2020 22:11:36 GMT
It's laudable your passion for saving lives, but from my point of view a fetus is just not a person. They. Are. Not. Babies. They are fetuses. So it's completely different. Right now our choice is to try and stop a lot of living, breathing people from dying in horrible circumstances, many of them facing the terror of feeling the sickness creep into them, or just let them die. Many do not even reach foetal development. The majority in this country are aborted in the embryo stage. That’s not an argument for or against either for clarity, just a statement of fact. Some people view that as a cluster of cells, others as a human life. Either way, you’re right COVID has nothing to do with abortion, and if anything the strain letting it run wild on our health service would put babies and pregnant mothers at critical risk. That's a good point. My Italian ex knows 4 people who've died from covid so far, plus her friend's mother who died of a different condition because she couldn't get lifesaving care in the hospital. A lot of things can go wrong for new mothers, a mate from my football games was rushed in for a C-section when she had her beautiful baby and I indirectly know another who needed to be put on oxygen after problems during childbirth. If she'd had the baby in a few weeks then maybe there wouldn't be a ventilator for her.
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Mar 19, 2020 22:13:02 GMT
There is a lot of talk about hospitals and doctors having to decide who to treat, being left with a decision between young and old and having to choose young. How true this is I can't say. Frightening thought though. It is frightening. Both my folks are over 80, 1 with cancer the other with terrible lungs. I called them today to tell them that it's my assessment that the NHS will start to be overwhelmed in the next week or so and if they take risks and catch it today they will be at the hard end of the symptoms in 10 days to two weeks and be last in a long line for an icu. I was pretty brutal. But something had to stop em "popping to the shops". You did the best you could mate. Some of us just have bloody stubborn parents, even if they're sharp folk it's hard to take this covid thing seriously when other people are going around like it's not a big deal just yet. I think I got through to mine but I'm just crossing my fingers and hoping.
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on Mar 19, 2020 22:16:02 GMT
This has already been mooted by this government yesterday old news, £1,000 a month dream on more like £500 if you are lucky, has been trailed before but was not a success. I’m not sure about that? Hasn’t it been trialled somewhere in Canada and the Netherlands,and the results have been positive? It’s been argued that money is saved against the replaced total benefits paid,with the money given through this scheme. Especially during times like this. It could mean that even some small businesses could pay some/most of their outgoings instead of government support. Taken from Wiki.
See also: Basic income around the world
The idea of a state-run basic Income dates back to the early 16th century, when Sir Thomas More's Utopia depicted a society in which every person receives a guaranteed income.[5] In the late 18th century, English radical Thomas Spence and American revolutionary Thomas Paine both declared their support for a welfare system that guaranteed all citizens a certain income. Nineteenth-century debate on basic income was limited, but during the early part of the 20th century a basic income called a "state bonus" was widely discussed, and in 1946 the United Kingdom implemented unconditional family allowances for the second and subsequent children of every family. In the 1960s and 1970s, the United States and Canada conducted several experiments with negative income taxation, a related welfare system. From the 1980s and onward, the debate in Europe took off more broadly and since then it has expanded to many countries around the world. A few countries have implemented large-scale welfare systems that have some similarities to basic income, such as Bolsa Família in Brazil. From 2008 onward, several experiments with basic income and related systems have taken place.
Governments can contribute to individual and household income maintenance strategies in three ways: 1.The government can establish a minimum income guarantee and not allow income to fall below levels set for various household types, maintaining these levels by paying means-tested benefits. 2.Social insurance can pay benefits in the case of sickness, unemployment, or old age, on the basis of contributions paid 3.Universal unconditional payments, such as the United Kingdom's Child Benefit for children.[6]
In more detail: 1.A means-tested benefit that raises a household's income to a guaranteed minimum level is unlike a basic income in that income delivered under a system of guaranteed minimum income is reduced proportionally as other sources of income increase whereas income received from a basic income is constant regardless of other sources of income. Johannes Ludovicus Vives (1492–1540), for example, proposed that the municipal government should be responsible for securing a subsistence minimum to all its residents "not on grounds of justice but for the sake of a more effective exercise of morally required charity". However, Vives also argued that to qualify for poor relief the recipient must "deserve the help he or she gets by proving his or her willingness to work".[7] 2.The first to develop the idea of a social insurance was Marquis de Condorcet (1743–1794). After playing a prominent role in the French Revolution, he was imprisoned and sentenced to death. While in prison, he wrote the Esquisse d’un tableau historique des progrès de l’esprit humain (published posthumously by his widow in 1795), whose last chapter described his vision of a social insurance and how it could reduce inequality, insecurity and poverty. Condorcet mentioned, very briefly, the idea of a benefit to all children old enough to start working by themselves and to start up a family of their own. He is not known to have said or written anything else on this proposal, but his close friend and fellow member of the Constitutional Convention Thomas Paine (1737–1809) developed the idea much further, a couple of years after Condorcet's death. 3.The first social movement for Basic Income developed around 1920 in the United Kingdom. Its proponents included Bertrand Russell, Dennis Milner (with his wife Mabel) and C. H. Douglas. Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) argued for a new social model that combined the advantages of socialism and anarchism, and that basic income should be a vital component in that new society. Dennis and Mabel Milner, a Quaker married couple in the Labour Party, published a short pamphlet entitled "Scheme for a State Bonus" (1918) that argued for the "introduction of an income paid unconditionally on a weekly basis to all citizens of the United Kingdom". They considered it a moral right for everyone to have the means to subsistence, and thus it should not be conditional on work or willingness to work. C. H. Douglas was an engineer who became concerned that most British citizens could not afford to buy the goods that were produced, despite the rising productivity in British industry. His solution to this paradox was a new social system he called social credit, a combination of monetary reform and basic income.
In 1944 and 1945, the Beveridge Committee led by the British economist William Beveridge developed a proposal for a comprehensive new welfare system of social insurance, means-tested benefits and unconditional allowances for children. Committee member Lady Rhys-Williams argued that the incomes for adults should be more like a basic income. She was also the first to develop the negative income tax model.[8][9] Her son Brandon Rhys Williams proposed a basic income to a parliamentary committee in 1982 and soon after that in 1984 the Basic Income Research Group, now the Citizen's Basic Income Trust, began to conduct and disseminate research on basic income.[10]
In the 1960s and 1970s, some welfare debates in the United States and Canada included discussions of basic income. Six pilot projects were also conducted with the negative income tax. Then President Richard Nixon once even proposed a negative income tax in a bill to the Congress, but Congress eventually only approved a guaranteed minimum income for the elderly and the disabled, not for all citizens, thus:[11]
Nixon proposed more ambitious programs than he enacted, including the National Health Insurance Partnership Program, which promoted health maintenance organizations (HMOs). He also proposed a massive overhaul of federal welfare programs. The centerpiece of Nixon's welfare reform was the replacement of much of the welfare system with a negative income tax, a favorite proposal of conservative economist Milton Friedman. The purpose of the negative income tax was to provide both a safety net for the poor and a financial incentive for welfare recipients to work.
In the late 1970s and the 1980s, basic income was more or less forgotten in the United States, but it started to gain some traction in Europe. Basic Income European Network, later renamed to Basic Income Earth Network, was founded in 1986 and started to arrange international conferences every two years.[2] From the 1980s, some people outside party politics and universities took interest. In West Germany, groups of unemployed people took a stance for the reform.[12]
From 2010 onwards, Basic Income again became an active topic in many countries. Basic income is currently discussed from a variety of perspectives—including in the context of ongoing automation and robotisation, often with the argument that these trends mean less paid work in the future, which would create a need for a new welfare model. Several countries are planning for local or regional experiments with basic income or related welfare systems. For example, experiments in Canada, Finland, India and Namibia have received international media attention. The first and only national referendum about basic income was held in Switzerland in 2016. The result was a rejection of the basic income proposal by a vote of 76.9% to 23.1%.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 19, 2020 22:18:19 GMT
There is a lot of talk about hospitals and doctors having to decide who to treat, being left with a decision between young and old and having to choose young. How true this is I can't say. Frightening thought though. It is frightening. Both my folks are over 80, 1 with cancer the other with terrible lungs. I called them today to tell them that it's my assessment that the NHS will start to be overwhelmed in the next week or so and if they take risks and catch it today they will be at the hard end of the symptoms in 10 days to two weeks and be last in a long line for an icu. I was pretty brutal. But something had to stop em "popping to the shops". Good for you mate. My parents are divorced and have remarried, so I've now got two sets, both over 80, one set are listening (I gave them the similar brutal advice as you) the other set aren't. This is why I said that I thought the government were being irresponsible by not closing all pubs and restaurants now. Allowing Mother's Day to go ahead on Sunday could have catastrophic consequences, all those generations mingling together in celebration and then returning the eldest generation back to care homes all over the country ... what could possibly go wrong?
|
|
|
Post by madnellie on Mar 19, 2020 22:19:31 GMT
“We don’t need to flatten the curve, we need to plank it.” A little humour from our Chief Public Health Officer, Dr. Theresa Tam.
She's basically saying that she's hoping we managed to get on top of it quickly enough here, and if we all do our bit now and social distance we may actually save a lot of lives. Count me in!
|
|
|
Post by neworleanstokie on Mar 19, 2020 22:22:44 GMT
It is frightening. Both my folks are over 80, 1 with cancer the other with terrible lungs. I called them today to tell them that it's my assessment that the NHS will start to be overwhelmed in the next week or so and if they take risks and catch it today they will be at the hard end of the symptoms in 10 days to two weeks and be last in a long line for an icu. I was pretty brutal. But something had to stop em "popping to the shops". You did the best you could mate. Some of us just have bloody stubborn parents, even if they're sharp folk it's hard to take this covid thing seriously when other people are going around like it's not a big deal just yet. I think I got through to mine but I'm just crossing my fingers and hoping. Thank you both for sharing. My mum is 80 and (I hope) now taking this very seriously. Rather than saying the government is advising etc. I told her my doctor friends have all told me WE ALL must self isolate no matter what your age is immediately. I think that generation trust doctors more than the govt.
|
|
|
Post by prettything on Mar 19, 2020 22:22:57 GMT
I’m not sure about that? Hasn’t it been trialled somewhere in Canada and the Netherlands,and the results have been positive? It’s been argued that money is saved against the replaced total benefits paid,with the money given through this scheme. Especially during times like this. It could mean that even some small businesses could pay some/most of their outgoings instead of government support. Taken from Wiki.
See also: Basic income around the world
The idea of a state-run basic Income dates back to the early 16th century, when Sir Thomas More's Utopia depicted a society in which every person receives a guaranteed income.[5] In the late 18th century, English radical Thomas Spence and American revolutionary Thomas Paine both declared their support for a welfare system that guaranteed all citizens a certain income. Nineteenth-century debate on basic income was limited, but during the early part of the 20th century a basic income called a "state bonus" was widely discussed, and in 1946 the United Kingdom implemented unconditional family allowances for the second and subsequent children of every family. In the 1960s and 1970s, the United States and Canada conducted several experiments with negative income taxation, a related welfare system. From the 1980s and onward, the debate in Europe took off more broadly and since then it has expanded to many countries around the world. A few countries have implemented large-scale welfare systems that have some similarities to basic income, such as Bolsa Família in Brazil. From 2008 onward, several experiments with basic income and related systems have taken place.
Governments can contribute to individual and household income maintenance strategies in three ways: 1.The government can establish a minimum income guarantee and not allow income to fall below levels set for various household types, maintaining these levels by paying means-tested benefits. 2.Social insurance can pay benefits in the case of sickness, unemployment, or old age, on the basis of contributions paid 3.Universal unconditional payments, such as the United Kingdom's Child Benefit for children.[6]
In more detail: 1.A means-tested benefit that raises a household's income to a guaranteed minimum level is unlike a basic income in that income delivered under a system of guaranteed minimum income is reduced proportionally as other sources of income increase whereas income received from a basic income is constant regardless of other sources of income. Johannes Ludovicus Vives (1492–1540), for example, proposed that the municipal government should be responsible for securing a subsistence minimum to all its residents "not on grounds of justice but for the sake of a more effective exercise of morally required charity". However, Vives also argued that to qualify for poor relief the recipient must "deserve the help he or she gets by proving his or her willingness to work".[7] 2.The first to develop the idea of a social insurance was Marquis de Condorcet (1743–1794). After playing a prominent role in the French Revolution, he was imprisoned and sentenced to death. While in prison, he wrote the Esquisse d’un tableau historique des progrès de l’esprit humain (published posthumously by his widow in 1795), whose last chapter described his vision of a social insurance and how it could reduce inequality, insecurity and poverty. Condorcet mentioned, very briefly, the idea of a benefit to all children old enough to start working by themselves and to start up a family of their own. He is not known to have said or written anything else on this proposal, but his close friend and fellow member of the Constitutional Convention Thomas Paine (1737–1809) developed the idea much further, a couple of years after Condorcet's death. 3.The first social movement for Basic Income developed around 1920 in the United Kingdom. Its proponents included Bertrand Russell, Dennis Milner (with his wife Mabel) and C. H. Douglas. Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) argued for a new social model that combined the advantages of socialism and anarchism, and that basic income should be a vital component in that new society. Dennis and Mabel Milner, a Quaker married couple in the Labour Party, published a short pamphlet entitled "Scheme for a State Bonus" (1918) that argued for the "introduction of an income paid unconditionally on a weekly basis to all citizens of the United Kingdom". They considered it a moral right for everyone to have the means to subsistence, and thus it should not be conditional on work or willingness to work. C. H. Douglas was an engineer who became concerned that most British citizens could not afford to buy the goods that were produced, despite the rising productivity in British industry. His solution to this paradox was a new social system he called social credit, a combination of monetary reform and basic income.
In 1944 and 1945, the Beveridge Committee led by the British economist William Beveridge developed a proposal for a comprehensive new welfare system of social insurance, means-tested benefits and unconditional allowances for children. Committee member Lady Rhys-Williams argued that the incomes for adults should be more like a basic income. She was also the first to develop the negative income tax model.[8][9] Her son Brandon Rhys Williams proposed a basic income to a parliamentary committee in 1982 and soon after that in 1984 the Basic Income Research Group, now the Citizen's Basic Income Trust, began to conduct and disseminate research on basic income.[10]
In the 1960s and 1970s, some welfare debates in the United States and Canada included discussions of basic income. Six pilot projects were also conducted with the negative income tax. Then President Richard Nixon once even proposed a negative income tax in a bill to the Congress, but Congress eventually only approved a guaranteed minimum income for the elderly and the disabled, not for all citizens, thus:[11]
Nixon proposed more ambitious programs than he enacted, including the National Health Insurance Partnership Program, which promoted health maintenance organizations (HMOs). He also proposed a massive overhaul of federal welfare programs. The centerpiece of Nixon's welfare reform was the replacement of much of the welfare system with a negative income tax, a favorite proposal of conservative economist Milton Friedman. The purpose of the negative income tax was to provide both a safety net for the poor and a financial incentive for welfare recipients to work.
In the late 1970s and the 1980s, basic income was more or less forgotten in the United States, but it started to gain some traction in Europe. Basic Income European Network, later renamed to Basic Income Earth Network, was founded in 1986 and started to arrange international conferences every two years.[2] From the 1980s, some people outside party politics and universities took interest. In West Germany, groups of unemployed people took a stance for the reform.[12]
From 2010 onwards, Basic Income again became an active topic in many countries. Basic income is currently discussed from a variety of perspectives—including in the context of ongoing automation and robotisation, often with the argument that these trends mean less paid work in the future, which would create a need for a new welfare model. Several countries are planning for local or regional experiments with basic income or related welfare systems. For example, experiments in Canada, Finland, India and Namibia have received international media attention. The first and only national referendum about basic income was held in Switzerland in 2016. The result was a rejection of the basic income proposal by a vote of 76.9% to 23.1%.
Interesting . I think it’s something well worth looking at during times like these. Reminds of “The New Deal”, during Roosevelt’s era.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2020 22:25:27 GMT
It is frightening. Both my folks are over 80, 1 with cancer the other with terrible lungs. I called them today to tell them that it's my assessment that the NHS will start to be overwhelmed in the next week or so and if they take risks and catch it today they will be at the hard end of the symptoms in 10 days to two weeks and be last in a long line for an icu. I was pretty brutal. But something had to stop em "popping to the shops". You did the best you could mate. Some of us just have bloody stubborn parents, even if they're sharp folk it's hard to take this covid thing seriously when other people are going around like it's not a big deal just yet. I think I got through to mine but I'm just crossing my fingers and hoping. i wouldn't get too stressed about them. At the end of the day they are just a large cluster of cells.
|
|
|
Post by madnellie on Mar 19, 2020 22:26:21 GMT
This has already been mooted by this government yesterday old news, £1,000 a month dream on more like £500 if you are lucky, has been trailed before but was not a success. I’m not sure about that? Hasn’t it been trialled somewhere in Canada and the Netherlands,and the results have been positive? It’s been argued that money is saved against the replaced total benefits paid,with the money given through this scheme. Especially during times like this. It could mean that even some small businesses could pay some/most of their outgoings instead of government support. They did a pilot somewhere here in Ontario, Canada (I can't recall the exact area sorry) and it was well received. It would have continued but a year into it the provincial government changed from Liberal to Conservative and they immediately cancelled it along with loads of other stuff that supports the most needy in society. Ironically, as a result of COVID, many of the things they took away from Ontarians (sick pay and rights for part time and casual workers for example) they're now having to give back many times over. In all fairness they have gone up massively in my estimation during these unprecedented times. Party politics become pretty much irrelevant I think.
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Mar 19, 2020 22:32:07 GMT
Disgusting - a politician who was given the secret preparedness information in the US dumped up to $1.6 million of his stocks on February 13th, which is most of his wealth. At the same time he was parroting the Trump party's talking points about how it wasn't going to be a big deal. He also gave bigger warnings to a bunch of folk who could afford the (up to) $10k entry fee to the rich folk club. Makes a bit more sense now as to why the Trump administration started classifying Covid information back in January. They knew this was coming and they lied to people while they were bailing themselves out. I know that this is what Trump voters voted for, but it still horrifies me.
|
|
|
Post by Pretty Little Boother on Mar 19, 2020 22:43:31 GMT
Teachers all around the world are delivering online lessons to timetable, yet the British lot will just be dumping a pile of sheets. Why aren't they being instructed by government to deliver live online lessons? Quite a few reasons. One is underinvestment of equipment, one is that it relies on an excellent Wifi connection. There's also safeguarding to consider when it comes to monitoring electronic communications between staff and students; this all has to have crystal clear visibility which means it would all have to go through school systems. Mine, for instance, doesn't have this capacity in place. Apart from that it's a thoroughly crap way of teaching, you can't lecture to kids because they don't listen. Lessons are actually very carefully structured to involve an arseload of questioning and built up conversations, you simply can't do that as a teacher unless you can see all of the kids and they can all see and hear each other too; which then obviously assumes all kids have the facilities to engage in this at home. Otherwise there'd be fuck all differentiation of support and no summative assessment for learning either, and if you can't be sure that every student has made progress in every lesson, it's a total waste of time anyway. On top of that, if a teacher has kids to look after at home then they can't teach Skyped lessons anyway, and all the other teachers (such as yours truly) will still be in school looking after vulnerable / EHCP / Key Worker kids. Some may still be able to do it but there's then no consistency between different classes and teachers which leads to problems in differentiation in targeting and outcome later down the line. I know some schools such as Painsley and Denstone are experimenting with it locally, fair play to them, but also look at how dripping in cash those two places are.
|
|