So the experts say facemasks are not helpful unless you actually have the disease to protect others. What do the armchair epidemiologists think?
So even from that comment we can conclude that they are helpful then?
Given people are often asymptomatic for the disease early doors and yet people can still spread when asymptomatic then wearing a mask would then be helpful if everyone did it. But we haven't got enough so they aren't recommending it. Fair enough.
In terms of the effectiveness for protecting the wearer, I've studied the review in the BMJ and noted that there is evidence of effectiveness in a community setting. What do you make of the review in the BMJ?
Helpful if you have it. Not helpful, and maybe even an additional risk, if you don't.
So given that spreaders and super-spreaders typically don't know they have it until it's too late.. do you not think if everyone wore the mask as part of their routine then that might reduce spread by a few percentage points?
Why are we so much cleverer than the Chinese, the Koreans, the Taiwanese etc etc. who are used to dealing with pandemics?
Because the extra risk of getting infected because we don't know how to use the things (as explained in the video) is far greater than any beneficial effect?
What extra risk? That's just ludicrous.
If you were around in the 1940s you'd be telling everyone the official government information that carrots improved your eyesight. It's true because the government tells you so!
In times of war, government tells BIG LIES for the greater good. The calculation here is that we'd have a BOG ROLL situation with face-masks because we don't have enough. Fine but don't try and kid me they don't work.
Ah, so it's all a conspiracy?
You might consider it a conspiracy. You might consider it selective information for the greater good. Just as the government might be slowly drip-feeding information into the public consciousness so we don't have carnage down the local supermarkets over night. Slowly slowly catchy monkey.
Although to be fair, before this outbreak there has been a number of academic studies and they have generally not shown to be massively effective against things like flu. And that is mainly because it is believed those who aren't medically trained don't know how to use them properly.
So the experts say facemasks are not helpful unless you actually have the disease to protect others. What do the armchair epidemiologists think?
Eadric has yet to explain what is the point of his orange rubber gloves.
Two purposes: they will prevent you picking up the virus on your physical hands, which is helpful (tho of course you mus ttake the gloves on and off properly).
More important is the psychological effect (and this applies to masks, as well). If you are wearing gloves you are constantly aware that hands are an issue. And when you get back you want to take the gloves off, and you are smartly reminded that you then have to wash your hands again.
If you are still touching your face, then it doesn't matter what you are wearing on your hands. Same applies if you are not touching your face. Probably why it isn't recommended, because the most important thing is just to stop touching your face!
READ WHAT I WROTE
If you are wearing bright orange gloves you keep looking at them and thinking, er, what, and then you remember: Eeeek, Virus. DO NOT TOUCH YOUR FACE.
I don't know about others, but I find not touching my face quite hard. We do it all the time. These gloves remind me.
Fuck it, others may differ. We all have to survive the way that is best for us.
Alternatively, you could wear one of those giant cones that we put on pets. That'd stop us from touching our face.
They would actually be quite helpful. I thought that today.
Awkward when you want to savour the Châteauneuf-du-Pape, though.
So the experts say facemasks are not helpful unless you actually have the disease to protect others. What do the armchair epidemiologists think?
So even from that comment we can conclude that they are helpful then?
Given people are often asymptomatic for the disease early doors and yet people can still spread when asymptomatic then wearing a mask would then be helpful if everyone did it. But we haven't got enough so they aren't recommending it. Fair enough.
In terms of the effectiveness for protecting the wearer, I've studied the review in the BMJ and noted that there is evidence of effectiveness in a community setting. What do you make of the review in the BMJ?
Helpful if you have it. Not helpful, and maybe even an additional risk, if you don't.
So given that spreaders and super-spreaders typically don't know they have it until it's too late.. do you not think if everyone wore the mask as part of their routine then that might reduce spread by a few percentage points?
Why are we so much cleverer than the Chinese, the Koreans, the Taiwanese etc etc. who are used to dealing with pandemics?
Because the extra risk of getting infected because we don't know how to use the things (as explained in the video) is far greater than any beneficial effect?
What extra risk? That's just ludicrous.
If you were around in the 1940s you'd be telling everyone the official government information that carrots improved your eyesight. It's true because the government tells you so!
In times of war, government tells BIG LIES for the greater good. The calculation here is that we'd have a BOG ROLL situation with face-masks because we don't have enough. Fine but don't try and kid me they don't work.
Ah, so it's all a conspiracy?
You might consider it a conspiracy. You might consider it selective information for the greater good. Just as the government might be slowly drip-feeding information into the public consciousness so we don't have carnage down the local supermarkets over night. Slowly slowly catchy monkey.
Although to be fair, before this outbreak there has been a number of academic studies and they have generally not shown to be massively effective against things like flu. And that is mainly because it is believed those who aren't medically trained don't know how to use them properly.
So the experts say facemasks are not helpful unless you actually have the disease to protect others. What do the armchair epidemiologists think?
Eadric has yet to explain what is the point of his orange rubber gloves.
Two purposes: they will prevent you picking up the virus on your physical hands, which is helpful (tho of course you mus ttake the gloves on and off properly).
More important is the psychological effect (and this applies to masks, as well). If you are wearing gloves you are constantly aware that hands are an issue. And when you get back you want to take the gloves off, and you are smartly reminded that you then have to wash your hands again.
If you are still touching your face, then it doesn't matter what you are wearing on your hands. Same applies if you are not touching your face. Probably why it isn't recommended, because the most important thing is just to stop touching your face!
READ WHAT I WROTE
If you are wearing bright orange gloves you keep looking at them and thinking, er, what, and then you remember: Eeeek, Virus. DO NOT TOUCH YOUR FACE.
I don't know about others, but I find not touching my face quite hard. We do it all the time. These gloves remind me.
Fuck it, others may differ. We all have to survive the way that is best for us.
Alternatively, you could wear one of those giant cones that we put on pets. That'd stop us from touching our face.
They would actually be quite helpful. I thought that today.
Awkward when you want to savour the Châteauneuf-du-Pape, though.
Awkward? You just pour it straight in.
I suppose on the upside it would mean your clothes wouldn't get splashed when you're tucking into the moules marinière.
So here's some news from senior folk at the NHS (in Wales).
They must know this is going to leak very soon, so I don't think I am breaking some injunction.
All ICU staff and many NHS staff have been told to go home and order 3 weeks worth of food. The government is going to impose a lockdown in 7-10 days.
If this rumour is correct (and the source is reliable) it's coming quickly now.
7pm tonight.
This is really dumb to announce a lockdown in x days. You do it at 2-3am then and there.
No way, they'll need to go through a middle phase first. Tonight we may be told stock up and prepare just in case you need to self isolate. Then when most people have the food, that's when it happens.
I suspect ideally they’d want to pre-announce it on a Friday afternoon too. Give people the chance to get what they need from work and give businesses a couple of days to work out what’s what in time for the Monday.
Of course events could force their hands not to do that, and if they did I could just imagine the supermarkets on the Saturday.
So the experts say facemasks are not helpful unless you actually have the disease to protect others. What do the armchair epidemiologists think?
So even from that comment we can conclude that they are helpful then?
Given people are often asymptomatic for the disease early doors and yet people can still spread when asymptomatic then wearing a mask would then be helpful if everyone did it. But we haven't got enough so they aren't recommending it. Fair enough.
In terms of the effectiveness for protecting the wearer, I've studied the review in the BMJ and noted that there is evidence of effectiveness in a community setting. What do you make of the review in the BMJ?
Helpful if you have it. Not helpful, and maybe even an additional risk, if you don't.
So given that spreaders and super-spreaders typically don't know they have it until it's too late.. do you not think if everyone wore the mask as part of their routine then that might reduce spread by a few percentage points?
Why are we so much cleverer than the Chinese, the Koreans, the Taiwanese etc etc. who are used to dealing with pandemics?
Because the extra risk of getting infected because we don't know how to use the things (as explained in the video) is far greater than any beneficial effect?
What extra risk? That's just ludicrous.
If you were around in the 1940s you'd be telling everyone the official government information that carrots improved your eyesight. It's true because the government tells you so!
In times of war, government tells BIG LIES for the greater good. The calculation here is that we'd have a BOG ROLL situation with face-masks because we don't have enough. Fine but don't try and kid me they don't work.
Ah, so it's all a conspiracy?
You might consider it a conspiracy. You might consider it selective information for the greater good. Just as the government might be slowly drip-feeding information into the public consciousness so we don't have carnage down the local supermarkets over night. Slowly slowly catchy monkey.
Although to be fair, before this outbreak there has been a number of academic studies and they have generally not shown to be massively effective against things like flu. And that is mainly because it is believed those who aren't medically trained don't know how to use them properly.
Yes I know. I have read in detail the review in the BMJ describing the studies. There is evidence of effectiveness in a community setting. They reduce risk, they are not a panacea. But we are talking about a percentage reduction in risk here, a percentage reduction there.
What we do know is that the countries who are used to fighting pandemics wear face masks routinely. We will *never* know for sure whether they work because it is impossible to generate randomised evidence on them in the public.
But again why do we think we are so cleverer than the people who are used to fighting pandemics? It is Western exceptionalism. Misplaced.
So the experts say facemasks are not helpful unless you actually have the disease to protect others. What do the armchair epidemiologists think?
So even from that comment we can conclude that they are helpful then?
Given people are often asymptomatic for the disease early doors and yet people can still spread when asymptomatic then wearing a mask would then be helpful if everyone did it. But we haven't got enough so they aren't recommending it. Fair enough.
In terms of the effectiveness for protecting the wearer, I've studied the review in the BMJ and noted that there is evidence of effectiveness in a community setting. What do you make of the review in the BMJ?
Helpful if you have it. Not helpful, and maybe even an additional risk, if you don't.
So given that spreaders and super-spreaders typically don't know they have it until it's too late.. do you not think if everyone wore the mask as part of their routine then that might reduce spread by a few percentage points?
Why are we so much cleverer than the Chinese, the Koreans, the Taiwanese etc etc. who are used to dealing with pandemics?
Because the extra risk of getting infected because we don't know how to use the things (as explained in the video) is far greater than any beneficial effect?
What extra risk? That's just ludicrous.
If you were around in the 1940s you'd be telling everyone the official government information that carrots improved your eyesight. It's true because the government tells you so!
In times of war, government tells BIG LIES for the greater good. The calculation here is that we'd have a BOG ROLL situation with face-masks because we don't have enough. Fine but don't try and kid me they don't work.
Ah, so it's all a conspiracy?
You might consider it a conspiracy. You might consider it selective information for the greater good. Just as the government might be slowly drip-feeding information into the public consciousness so we don't have carnage down the local supermarkets over night. Slowly slowly catchy monkey.
Although to be fair, before this outbreak there has been a number of academic studies and they have generally not shown to be massively effective against things like flu. And that is mainly because it is believed those who aren't medically trained don't know how to use them properly.
Yes I know. I have read in detail the review in the BMJ describing the studies. There is evidence of effectiveness in a community setting. They reduce risk, they are not a panacea. But we are talking about a percentage reduction in risk here, a percentage reduction there.
What we do know is that the countries who are used to fighting pandemics wear face masks routinely. We will *never* know for sure whether they work because it is impossible to generate randomised evidence on them in the public.
But again why do we think we are so cleverer than the people who are used to fighting pandemics? It is Western exceptionalism. Misplaced.
I definitely think that the fact Asian went through SARS they are much more acutely aware of this kind of disease.
I think even in normal times a sick person wearing a mask as a common curiosity seems very reasonable and hopefully if we get through this it will become commonplace in the West.
So the experts say facemasks are not helpful unless you actually have the disease to protect others. What do the armchair epidemiologists think?
So even from that comment we can conclude that they are helpful then?
Given people are often asymptomatic for the disease early doors and yet people can still spread when asymptomatic then wearing a mask would then be helpful if everyone did it. But we haven't got enough so they aren't recommending it. Fair enough.
In terms of the effectiveness for protecting the wearer, I've studied the review in the BMJ and noted that there is evidence of effectiveness in a community setting. What do you make of the review in the BMJ?
Helpful if you have it. Not helpful, and maybe even an additional risk, if you don't.
So given that spreaders and super-spreaders typically don't know they have it until it's too late.. do you not think if everyone wore the mask as part of their routine then that might reduce spread by a few percentage points?
Why are we so much cleverer than the Chinese, the Koreans, the Taiwanese etc etc. who are used to dealing with pandemics?
Because the extra risk of getting infected because we don't know how to use the things (as explained in the video) is far greater than any beneficial effect?
What extra risk? That's just ludicrous.
If you were around in the 1940s you'd be telling everyone the official government information that carrots improved your eyesight. It's true because the government tells you so!
In times of war, government tells BIG LIES for the greater good. The calculation here is that we'd have a BOG ROLL situation with face-masks because we don't have enough. Fine but don't try and kid me they don't work.
Well, quite. if they don't work, then why is the government so desperate to stop us buying them so they can reserve them for, uh, health workers?
Why are all those silly nurses and doctors in Italy and China wearing them?
Eadric I was accused of being you this morning. I was referring to the Black Death, unaware that you had done likewise over the weekend. Tragically I don't spend my whole life on here. Apparently the notion that two intelligent people might make a similar comparison with one of the last viruses to sweep the world is lost on myopic and monochromatic brains.
The face mask issue will be buried along with the many dead when this sweeps the country.
And given the oaf across the pond, simply doing it but not making a big deal about it could be a smart move.
Eliminating business rates but having a tax like this replace it is massively productive and beneficial.
And how do we collect/assess this exactly? I mean, don't get me wrong, I think that the mainly US internet giants are parasitical, feeding off our society but putting very little back. I am just not sure how we audit what Google earns off search engines in the UK. They may not even know themselves.
I bet they do know themselves.
I am sure that they can produce accounts showing anything from a loss to a profit of a billion. How will we know if they are right? We cannot audit them. Its not like buying a takeaway and seeing if it shows up in the VAT return.
Is it not? With Making Tax Digital don't the government have all sorts of information it never used to have?
Takeaway reports it in its VAT return that they've paid Google.
Google doesn't report the income in its return.
Google has an issue that HMRC can investigate.
Or is the system not that clever?
I don't think it is now but the Chancellor did give a boost to HMRC in pursuit of "aggressive" tax avoidance. Hopefully they will not spend it all on IR35 cases.
The Government have killed contracting across large swathes of business.
Their own estimates when they prepared the changes were that about 66% of existing contractors were legitimately outside IR35 and 34% inside. The aim was (quite rightly) to catch the 34%.
The end user companies who are now responsible have taken one look at the penalties they would be liable to pay if they incorrectly assess someone as being outside when they should be in and have thought 'bugger that'.
As a result the companies have now said that only 14% of contractors are legitimately outside IR35 and have pulled 86% of them inside. This has often involved going against the advice of the specialist accountancy and legal firms like Qdos who are there to assess all the contractors.
Worse still they have said that those contractors who are inside IR35 will be deducted not only the employees PAYE and NI but also the employers as well.
It is a real cluster and will cost HMRC a very large amount of revenue.
Edit, worth pointing out that I have been assessed as being outside so I am one of the lucky few.
The Government have killed contracting across large swathes of business.
Their own estimates when they prepared the changes were that about 66% of existing contractors were legitimately outside IR35 and 34% inside. The aim was (quite rightly) to catch the 34%.
The end user companies who are now responsible have taken one look at the penalties they would be liable to pay if they incorrectly assess someone as being outside when they should be in and have thought 'bugger that'.
As a result the companies have now said that only 14% of contractors are legitimately outside IR35 and have pulled 86% of them inside. This has often involved going against the advice of the specialist accountancy and legal firms like Qdos who are there to assess all the contractors.
Worse still they have said that those contractors who are inside IR35 will be deducted not only the employees PAYE and NI but also the employers as well.
It is a real cluster and will cost HMRC a very large amount of revenue.
Edit, worth pointing out that I have been assessed as being outside so I am one of the lucky few.
Mrs Stodge has been badly affected by this.
She contracts within the financial sector and has for many years. It works for her and has allowed her the flexibility to visit her family in NZ for an extended period.
What I resent is the notion contractors are somehow tax avoiders. She pays Corporation Tax and has to pay Insurance as well as her Agency. She has no job security, no sick pay, no holiday pay and no pension through her employment.
What she has is years of expertise having worked in financial compliance across a number of large and medium banks including investment banks.
This has upset her and it is absurdly short-sighted and vindictive.
Did you not hear? We want a government that is going to GET IT DONE.
Until we don't of course.
Can it Get Coronavirus Done, please.
That would be nice. If I was a newspaper editor I would be holding the front page until after the 7pm statement. It may prove more dramatic than the budget.
Did you not hear? We want a government that is going to GET IT DONE.
Until we don't of course.
Can it Get Coronavirus Done, please.
That would be nice. If I was a newspaper editor I would be holding the front page until after the 7pm statement. It may prove more dramatic than the budget.
Did you not hear? We want a government that is going to GET IT DONE.
Until we don't of course.
Can it Get Coronavirus Done, please.
That would be nice. If I was a newspaper editor I would be holding the front page until after the 7pm statement. It may prove more dramatic than the budget.
What happens at 7 pm ?
Statement by Hancock in the Commons. Expecting him to announce a series of new measures as we move to phase 2.
So the experts say facemasks are not helpful unless you actually have the disease to protect others. What do the armchair epidemiologists think?
So even from that comment we can conclude that they are helpful then?
Given people are often asymptomatic for the disease early doors and yet people can still spread when asymptomatic then wearing a mask would then be helpful if everyone did it. But we haven't got enough so they aren't recommending it. Fair enough.
In terms of the effectiveness for protecting the wearer, I've studied the review in the BMJ and noted that there is evidence of effectiveness in a community setting. What do you make of the review in the BMJ?
Helpful if you have it. Not helpful, and maybe even an additional risk, if you don't.
So given that spreaders and super-spreaders typically don't know they have it until it's too late.. do you not think if everyone wore the mask as part of their routine then that might reduce spread by a few percentage points?
Why are we so much cleverer than the Chinese, the Koreans, the Taiwanese etc etc. who are used to dealing with pandemics?
Because the extra risk of getting infected because we don't know how to use the things (as explained in the video) is far greater than any beneficial effect?
What extra risk? That's just ludicrous.
If you were around in the 1940s you'd be telling everyone the official government information that carrots improved your eyesight. It's true because the government tells you so!
In times of war, government tells BIG LIES for the greater good. The calculation here is that we'd have a BOG ROLL situation with face-masks because we don't have enough. Fine but don't try and kid me they don't work.
Ah, so it's all a conspiracy?
You might consider it a conspiracy. You might consider it selective information for the greater good. Just as the government might be slowly drip-feeding information into the public consciousness so we don't have carnage down the local supermarkets over night. Slowly slowly catchy monkey.
Although to be fair, before this outbreak there has been a number of academic studies and they have generally not shown to be massively effective against things like flu. And that is mainly because it is believed those who aren't medically trained don't know how to use them properly.
Yes I know. I have read in detail the review in the BMJ describing the studies. There is evidence of effectiveness in a community setting. They reduce risk, they are not a panacea. But we are talking about a percentage reduction in risk here, a percentage reduction there.
What we do know is that the countries who are used to fighting pandemics wear face masks routinely. We will *never* know for sure whether they work because it is impossible to generate randomised evidence on them in the public.
But again why do we think we are so cleverer than the people who are used to fighting pandemics? It is Western exceptionalism. Misplaced.
I definitely think that the fact Asian went through SARS they are much more acutely aware of this kind of disease.
I think even in normal times a sick person wearing a mask as a common curiosity seems very reasonable and hopefully if we get through this it will become commonplace in the West.
As I recall, they were doing this long before SARS, and it's to do with the appalling air quality in some large Asian cities.
I don't expect to see mask wearing becoming more common in the West any time soon, past the end of this episode.
Did you not hear? We want a government that is going to GET IT DONE.
Until we don't of course.
Can it Get Coronavirus Done, please.
That would be nice. If I was a newspaper editor I would be holding the front page until after the 7pm statement. It may prove more dramatic than the budget.
So the experts say facemasks are not helpful unless you actually have the disease to protect others. What do the armchair epidemiologists think?
So even from that comment we can conclude that they are helpful then?
Given people are often asymptomatic for the disease early doors and yet people can still spread when asymptomatic then wearing a mask would then be helpful if everyone did it. But we haven't got enough so they aren't recommending it. Fair enough.
In terms of the effectiveness for protecting the wearer, I've studied the review in the BMJ and noted that there is evidence of effectiveness in a community setting. What do you make of the review in the BMJ?
Helpful if you have it. Not helpful, and maybe even an additional risk, if you don't.
So given that spreaders and super-spreaders typically don't know they have it until it's too late.. do you not think if everyone wore the mask as part of their routine then that might reduce spread by a few percentage points?
Why are we so much cleverer than the Chinese, the Koreans, the Taiwanese etc etc. who are used to dealing with pandemics?
Because the extra risk of getting infected because we don't know how to use the things (as explained in the video) is far greater than any beneficial effect?
What extra risk? That's just ludicrous.
If you were around in the 1940s you'd be telling everyone the official government information that carrots improved your eyesight. It's true because the government tells you so!
In times of war, government tells BIG LIES for the greater good. The calculation here is that we'd have a BOG ROLL situation with face-masks because we don't have enough. Fine but don't try and kid me they don't work.
Well, quite. if they don't work, then why is the government so desperate to stop us buying them so they can reserve them for, uh, health workers?
Why are all those silly nurses and doctors in Italy and China wearing them?
Eadric I was accused of being you this morning. I was referring to the Black Death, unaware that you had done likewise over the weekend. Tragically I don't spend my whole life on here. Apparently the notion that two intelligent people might make a similar comparison with one of the last viruses to sweep the world is lost on myopic and monochromatic brains.
The face mask issue will be buried along with the many dead when this sweeps the country.
I'm sorry to sound macabre but it's coming folks.
Only one small mistake - as far as we know the Black Death was bubonic plague, not caused by a virus. Apart from that I salute your superior intelligence on the subject.
The Government have killed contracting across large swathes of business.
Their own estimates when they prepared the changes were that about 66% of existing contractors were legitimately outside IR35 and 34% inside. The aim was (quite rightly) to catch the 34%.
The end user companies who are now responsible have taken one look at the penalties they would be liable to pay if they incorrectly assess someone as being outside when they should be in and have thought 'bugger that'.
As a result the companies have now said that only 14% of contractors are legitimately outside IR35 and have pulled 86% of them inside. This has often involved going against the advice of the specialist accountancy and legal firms like Qdos who are there to assess all the contractors.
Worse still they have said that those contractors who are inside IR35 will be deducted not only the employees PAYE and NI but also the employers as well.
It is a real cluster and will cost HMRC a very large amount of revenue.
Edit, worth pointing out that I have been assessed as being outside so I am one of the lucky few.
Mrs Stodge has been badly affected by this.
She contracts within the financial sector and has for many years. It works for her and has allowed her the flexibility to visit her family in NZ for an extended period.
What I resent is the notion contractors are somehow tax avoiders. She pays Corporation Tax and has to pay Insurance as well as her Agency. She has no job security, no sick pay, no holiday pay and no pension through her employment.
What she has is years of expertise having worked in financial compliance across a number of large and medium banks including investment banks.
This has upset her and it is absurdly short-sighted and vindictive.
IANAE but as I understand it the key is whether you really have a business or are really engaged by a single employer. My understanding is that if you have 4 or 5 clients then you are outside. If you have 1 you are inside. If you are in between it might depend on how material some of them are. Someone who is working as a consultant across several banks should be ok unless they are basically working for them 1 at a time.
And given the oaf across the pond, simply doing it but not making a big deal about it could be a smart move.
Eliminating business rates but having a tax like this replace it is massively productive and beneficial.
And how do we collect/assess this exactly? I mean, don't get me wrong, I think that the mainly US internet giants are parasitical, feeding off our society but putting very little back. I am just not sure how we audit what Google earns off search engines in the UK. They may not even know themselves.
I bet they do know themselves.
I am sure that they can produce accounts showing anything from a loss to a profit of a billion. How will we know if they are right? We cannot audit them. Its not like buying a takeaway and seeing if it shows up in the VAT return.
Is it not? With Making Tax Digital don't the government have all sorts of information it never used to have?
Takeaway reports it in its VAT return that they've paid Google.
Google doesn't report the income in its return.
Google has an issue that HMRC can investigate.
Or is the system not that clever?
I don't think it is now but the Chancellor did give a boost to HMRC in pursuit of "aggressive" tax avoidance. Hopefully they will not spend it all on IR35 cases.
The Government have killed contracting across large swathes of business.
Their own estimates when they prepared the changes were that about 66% of existing contractors were legitimately outside IR35 and 34% inside. The aim was (quite rightly) to catch the 34%.
The end user companies who are now responsible have taken one look at the penalties they would be liable to pay if they incorrectly assess someone as being outside when they should be in and have thought 'bugger that'.
As a result the companies have now said that only 14% of contractors are legitimately outside IR35 and have pulled 86% of them inside. This has often involved going against the advice of the specialist accountancy and legal firms like Qdos who are there to assess all the contractors.
Worse still they have said that those contractors who are inside IR35 will be deducted not only the employees PAYE and NI but also the employers as well.
It is a real cluster and will cost HMRC a very large amount of revenue.
Edit, worth pointing out that I have been assessed as being outside so I am one of the lucky few.
Richard , what makes you inside or outside
A whole host of things.
Basically for me it is the accumulated effect of working on specific projects where I have a scope of work and then have complete freedom over how and where I deliver (barring an agreed delivery date). As I said yesterday this means that I can, if I chose, do 95% of my work from home and, for reasons of practicality, only need to visit the client office for about 5%. I am providing expert advice and reports and the client, other than accepting the reports/advice, has no control over the work I do. They are effectively paying me for the results not for the work done.
There is other stuff that helps. I can, if I wish, walk away and have no requirement to do other work. I can get someone else to do the work and I have no managerial or financial involvement with the client. Apart from paying me for the work already delivered as per the contract, the clients can just dump me at any time and without notice. Something that looks to be a possibility at the moment with the oil price and Covid shutdown looming.
I am at the more extreme end of the Contractor/Employee spectrum but there are a lot of people further along towards the middle. The point of the assessments was supposed to be to make sure people were properly assigned. Unfortunately companies have not taken it that way for fear of the consequences of getting it wrong.
The Government have killed contracting across large swathes of business.
Their own estimates when they prepared the changes were that about 66% of existing contractors were legitimately outside IR35 and 34% inside. The aim was (quite rightly) to catch the 34%.
The end user companies who are now responsible have taken one look at the penalties they would be liable to pay if they incorrectly assess someone as being outside when they should be in and have thought 'bugger that'.
As a result the companies have now said that only 14% of contractors are legitimately outside IR35 and have pulled 86% of them inside. This has often involved going against the advice of the specialist accountancy and legal firms like Qdos who are there to assess all the contractors.
Worse still they have said that those contractors who are inside IR35 will be deducted not only the employees PAYE and NI but also the employers as well.
It is a real cluster and will cost HMRC a very large amount of revenue.
Edit, worth pointing out that I have been assessed as being outside so I am one of the lucky few.
Mrs Stodge has been badly affected by this.
She contracts within the financial sector and has for many years. It works for her and has allowed her the flexibility to visit her family in NZ for an extended period.
What I resent is the notion contractors are somehow tax avoiders. She pays Corporation Tax and has to pay Insurance as well as her Agency. She has no job security, no sick pay, no holiday pay and no pension through her employment.
What she has is years of expertise having worked in financial compliance across a number of large and medium banks including investment banks.
This has upset her and it is absurdly short-sighted and vindictive.
IANAE but as I understand it the key is whether you really have a business or are really engaged by a single employer. My understanding is that if you have 4 or 5 clients then you are outside. If you have 1 you are inside. If you are in between it might depend on how material some of them are. Someone who is working as a consultant across several banks should be ok unless they are basically working for them 1 at a time.
Thats a 'broad' rule. The key is actually the nature of the contract, and the right of subsitution/ requirement for personal service which is the killer.
Their own estimates when they prepared the changes were that about 66% of existing contractors were legitimately outside IR35 and 34% inside. The aim was (quite rightly) to catch the 34%.
So 34% of contractors were basically taking the piss out of the system ? No wonder the Gov't changed it. Laws aren't made up for the law abiding majority...
So the experts say facemasks are not helpful unless you actually have the disease to protect others. What do the armchair epidemiologists think?
Eadric has yet to explain what is the point of his orange rubber gloves.
Two purposes: they will prevent you picking up the virus on your physical hands, which is helpful (tho of course you mus ttake the gloves on and off properly).
More important is the psychological effect (and this applies to masks, as well). If you are wearing gloves you are constantly aware that hands are an issue. And when you get back you want to take the gloves off, and you are smartly reminded that you then have to wash your hands again.
If you are still touching your face, then it doesn't matter what you are wearing on your hands. Same applies if you are not touching your face. Probably why it isn't recommended, because the most important thing is just to stop touching your face!
READ WHAT I WROTE
If you are wearing bright orange gloves you keep looking at them and thinking, er, what, and then you remember: Eeeek, Virus. DO NOT TOUCH YOUR FACE.
I don't know about others, but I find not touching my face quite hard. We do it all the time. These gloves remind me.
Fuck it, others may differ. We all have to survive the way that is best for us.
Alternatively, you could wear one of those giant cones that we put on pets. That'd stop us from touching our face.
On the downside it would prevent Eadric from licking his bollox.
"WHO has been assessing this outbreak around the clock and we are deeply concerned both by the alarming levels of spread and severity, and by the alarming levels of inaction"- @DrTedros #COVID19 4:26 PM · Mar 11, 2020·
Dr Harries is a class act. Interesting in her comments about timing. The lockdown is coming I would say, but she and her colleagues will declare it at some point and I'd back them to make a better job of enforcing it than the Italians.
I wonder if / when they will lock the president down?
They need to pull the 25th on that clown. In a crisis the last thing you need is a leader deliberately sabotaging the response simply to prove a point.
Did you not hear? We want a government that is going to GET IT DONE.
Until we don't of course.
Can it Get Coronavirus Done, please.
That would be nice. If I was a newspaper editor I would be holding the front page until after the 7pm statement. It may prove more dramatic than the budget.
What happens at 7 pm ?
Matt Hancock is giving a statement.
Surely he will try not to steal Sunak's thunder?
He's just been given a £30bn budget and he is going to tell us how he is going to spend it. I expect him to recommend a series of protective measures re crowds, events etc as well which sports authorities will then no doubt follow up.
The Government have killed contracting across large swathes of business.
Their own estimates when they prepared the changes were that about 66% of existing contractors were legitimately outside IR35 and 34% inside. The aim was (quite rightly) to catch the 34%.
The end user companies who are now responsible have taken one look at the penalties they would be liable to pay if they incorrectly assess someone as being outside when they should be in and have thought 'bugger that'.
As a result the companies have now said that only 14% of contractors are legitimately outside IR35 and have pulled 86% of them inside. This has often involved going against the advice of the specialist accountancy and legal firms like Qdos who are there to assess all the contractors.
Worse still they have said that those contractors who are inside IR35 will be deducted not only the employees PAYE and NI but also the employers as well.
It is a real cluster and will cost HMRC a very large amount of revenue.
Edit, worth pointing out that I have been assessed as being outside so I am one of the lucky few.
Mrs Stodge has been badly affected by this.
She contracts within the financial sector and has for many years. It works for her and has allowed her the flexibility to visit her family in NZ for an extended period.
What I resent is the notion contractors are somehow tax avoiders. She pays Corporation Tax and has to pay Insurance as well as her Agency. She has no job security, no sick pay, no holiday pay and no pension through her employment.
What she has is years of expertise having worked in financial compliance across a number of large and medium banks including investment banks.
This has upset her and it is absurdly short-sighted and vindictive.
IANAE but as I understand it the key is whether you really have a business or are really engaged by a single employer. My understanding is that if you have 4 or 5 clients then you are outside. If you have 1 you are inside. If you are in between it might depend on how material some of them are. Someone who is working as a consultant across several banks should be ok unless they are basically working for them 1 at a time.
She only works for one client at a time - the agency arranges the contract with the bank. The problem is the banks no longer want to employ people on that basis so she will be forced onto a fixed term contract which is less flexible both for her and the employer.
Under the existing system the bank only needed to provide a week's notice if the work dried up or if the funding for a particular project didn't come through.
The Government have killed contracting across large swathes of business.
Their own estimates when they prepared the changes were that about 66% of existing contractors were legitimately outside IR35 and 34% inside. The aim was (quite rightly) to catch the 34%.
The end user companies who are now responsible have taken one look at the penalties they would be liable to pay if they incorrectly assess someone as being outside when they should be in and have thought 'bugger that'.
As a result the companies have now said that only 14% of contractors are legitimately outside IR35 and have pulled 86% of them inside. This has often involved going against the advice of the specialist accountancy and legal firms like Qdos who are there to assess all the contractors.
Worse still they have said that those contractors who are inside IR35 will be deducted not only the employees PAYE and NI but also the employers as well.
It is a real cluster and will cost HMRC a very large amount of revenue.
Edit, worth pointing out that I have been assessed as being outside so I am one of the lucky few.
Mrs Stodge has been badly affected by this.
She contracts within the financial sector and has for many years. It works for her and has allowed her the flexibility to visit her family in NZ for an extended period.
What I resent is the notion contractors are somehow tax avoiders. She pays Corporation Tax and has to pay Insurance as well as her Agency. She has no job security, no sick pay, no holiday pay and no pension through her employment.
What she has is years of expertise having worked in financial compliance across a number of large and medium banks including investment banks.
This has upset her and it is absurdly short-sighted and vindictive.
IANAE but as I understand it the key is whether you really have a business or are really engaged by a single employer. My understanding is that if you have 4 or 5 clients then you are outside. If you have 1 you are inside. If you are in between it might depend on how material some of them are. Someone who is working as a consultant across several banks should be ok unless they are basically working for them 1 at a time.
Unfortunately not. Each client has to assess their contractors separately. So you can be in a situation where 3 clients say you are legitimately outside IR35 and a 4th decides you are in. It all depends on the specific relationship you have with that client. Or at least it should. What it actually has ended up depending on his how risk averse the clients are.
It's a small consolation that the dissenting voices are gradually falling silent. Debate is great. Stupidity less so.
We all realise we're in a global fuck.
Sodding bastard virus.
Need some humour. Where's Foxy?
I won’t join the chorus of extreme doom, I think it will be rough going for a while and we are going to have to make changes for a time. I am concerned for the elderly and vulnerable and anyone who gets caught up with severe symptoms, but I’m afraid I’m not in the “bring out your dead” zone yet.
Did you not hear? We want a government that is going to GET IT DONE.
Until we don't of course.
Can it Get Coronavirus Done, please.
That would be nice. If I was a newspaper editor I would be holding the front page until after the 7pm statement. It may prove more dramatic than the budget.
What happens at 7 pm ?
Matt Hancock is giving a statement.
Surely he will try not to steal Sunak's thunder?
He's just been given a £30bn budget and he is going to tell us how he is going to spend it. I expect him to recommend a series of protective measures re crowds, events etc as well which sports authorities will then no doubt follow up.
It's actually £12bn (although obviously it's still a lot!)
Did you not hear? We want a government that is going to GET IT DONE.
Until we don't of course.
Can it Get Coronavirus Done, please.
That would be nice. If I was a newspaper editor I would be holding the front page until after the 7pm statement. It may prove more dramatic than the budget.
What happens at 7 pm ?
Matt Hancock is giving a statement.
Surely he will try not to steal Sunak's thunder?
He's just been given a £30bn budget and he is going to tell us how he is going to spend it. I expect him to recommend a series of protective measures re crowds, events etc as well which sports authorities will then no doubt follow up.
It's actually £12bn (although obviously it's still a lot!)
"WHO has been assessing this outbreak around the clock and we are deeply concerned both by the alarming levels of spread and severity, and by the alarming levels of inaction"- @DrTedros #COVID19 4:26 PM · Mar 11, 2020·
White House told federal health agency to classify coronavirus deliberations
The White House has ordered federal health officials to treat top-level coronavirus meetings as classified, an unusual step that has restricted information and hampered the U.S. government’s response to the contagion, according to four Trump administration officials.
Their own estimates when they prepared the changes were that about 66% of existing contractors were legitimately outside IR35 and 34% inside. The aim was (quite rightly) to catch the 34%.
So 34% of contractors were basically taking the piss out of the system ? No wonder the Gov't changed it. Laws aren't made up for the law abiding majority...
No they weren't. That was HMRC's estimate but every time they took cases to court they lost. That was the main driver behind the change. If the law won't back you then find someone you can threaten who will do it instead. In this case it was the clients themselves.
Did you not hear? We want a government that is going to GET IT DONE.
Until we don't of course.
Can it Get Coronavirus Done, please.
That would be nice. If I was a newspaper editor I would be holding the front page until after the 7pm statement. It may prove more dramatic than the budget.
What is incredible about the US is that during the more serious moments of Trump presidency e.g. Iran stuff, it seems like the grown-ups in the room managed to convince him to make the correct decisions.
With this, it is like they choose the worst possible option.
The Government have killed contracting across large swathes of business.
Their own estimates when they prepared the changes were that about 66% of existing contractors were legitimately outside IR35 and 34% inside. The aim was (quite rightly) to catch the 34%.
The end user companies who are now responsible have taken one look at the penalties they would be liable to pay if they incorrectly assess someone as being outside when they should be in and have thought 'bugger that'.
As a result the companies have now said that only 14% of contractors are legitimately outside IR35 and have pulled 86% of them inside. This has often involved going against the advice of the specialist accountancy and legal firms like Qdos who are there to assess all the contractors.
Worse still they have said that those contractors who are inside IR35 will be deducted not only the employees PAYE and NI but also the employers as well.
It is a real cluster and will cost HMRC a very large amount of revenue.
Edit, worth pointing out that I have been assessed as being outside so I am one of the lucky few.
Mrs Stodge has been badly affected by this.
She contracts within the financial sector and has for many years. It works for her and has allowed her the flexibility to visit her family in NZ for an extended period.
What I resent is the notion contractors are somehow tax avoiders. She pays Corporation Tax and has to pay Insurance as well as her Agency. She has no job security, no sick pay, no holiday pay and no pension through her employment.
What she has is years of expertise having worked in financial compliance across a number of large and medium banks including investment banks.
This has upset her and it is absurdly short-sighted and vindictive.
IANAE but as I understand it the key is whether you really have a business or are really engaged by a single employer. My understanding is that if you have 4 or 5 clients then you are outside. If you have 1 you are inside. If you are in between it might depend on how material some of them are. Someone who is working as a consultant across several banks should be ok unless they are basically working for them 1 at a time.
Unfortunately not. Each client has to assess their contractors separately. So you can be in a situation where 3 clients say you are legitimately outside IR35 and a 4th decides you are in. It all depends on the specific relationship you have with that client. Or at least it should. What it actually has ended up depending on his how risk averse the clients are.
Some of my friends do work for various professional disciplinary bodies. They are getting dragged into this and they are not even incorporated. It’s a mess.
The number of positive cases of the coronavirus in Scotland was 36 as of Wednesday morning, including the first case of the virus being transmitted within the community, up nine in 24 hours.
Previously, the cases of the virus have been traced to people travelling to affected areas.
Hyperbole much. Why does everything these days have to be the worst ever?
If this turns out to be worse than the black death i'll eat a hat.
Can you not actually read?
He doesn't say it's the "worst thing ever", he says we haven't seen anything like before, which is precisely and scientifically true: we have not seen a coronavirus with this toxic combination of lethality, contagiousness, persistence in the body, and aysymptomatic transmission. All these taken together make it a unique threat.
I had assumed "nothing like this" refers to all types of diseases, not a specific type of disease. Of course it is the worst ever of this type of coronavirus.
I'd say I'm a professional mask wearer. I've spent fecking hours in various types, from the simple paper dust mask type right up to full GTS. We use personalised respirators now, face fitted individually to ensure a correct fit, with replaceable filters depending on the hazard we're facing. . Most people don't know how to wear even the most simple style and soon get fed up and end up wearing it half arsed. Even a correctly fitted mask is uncomfortable after just a few minutes and Joe Public just won't have the discipline to keep it on. I'd say SeanT is correct that it would help stop the spread of bodily fluids as they are excellent at catching snot and corruption, but once you've sneezed or vomited in a mask, it soon comes off. It feels like the wheels are gonna come off at any moment to me. I expect we will be on emergency calls only very soon, and if it hits hard, rural areas will have bugger all fire cover.
Dr Harries is a class act. Interesting in her comments about timing. The lockdown is coming I would say, but she and her colleagues will declare it at some point and I'd back them to make a better job of enforcing it than the Italians.
Indeed. That's what the people insisting "shutdown now!" don't grasp - the Italians did that and it backfired terrible.
The UK has slowed the curve compared to other countries already with our testing and tracing and isolation. No doubt they're planning for a shutdown too which is coming - but when it comes expect it to be implemented better.
While cases are so miniscule at the minute taking time to plan to do this properly is smart.
Mr. Stodge, I know very little of this sort of thing, but the mismanagement of the policy sounds utterly unnecessary and horrendous.
Reminds me, writ large, of when the EU's VATmess (as it was dubbed) tried to gouge money from the likes of Amazon but ended up causing micro-businesses and SMEs to flock to marketplaces. Like Amazon.
Dr Harries is a class act. Interesting in her comments about timing. The lockdown is coming I would say, but she and her colleagues will declare it at some point and I'd back them to make a better job of enforcing it than the Italians.
And they'll get pilloried for not doing it sooner no matter the reasoning. And people will pretend those saying listen to advice were claiming it would never happen.
Italy numbers today are really important, if sub 2k then it's pretty good news. If 3k+ then very bad.
I fear that they are going to be bad. The indication yesterday was that the numbers were not in fact complete, bad as they were.
Containment only really started in Italy a day or two ago. Early days to say it has or hasn't worked.
There was a virologist on yesterday morning. His assumption was still that about 80% of us were going to get this, maybe over as long as 4 years. It put the containment into perspective. What China and SK have done is bring the spread now to a virtual stop by aggressive action. But the virus is still there. When the containment slides it will, if that virologist is right, pick up again. In this scenario the Chinese etc are not so much flattening the curve as creating a series of humps.
This seems to be the government's assumption too. Talking of having 20% of our workforce off "at any one time" as the Chancellor did today indicates more than 6m people of working age either infected or contained to prevent spread. This is vastly bigger than anything seen in any country to date in terms of cases if not lock down. Italy currently has 168 cases per million. The government are indicating scenarios when that might be in the low hundreds of thousands.
My imagination fails me at that point. When you see what has happened in Italy at the current level of infection I cannot imagine 10 or 100 times more. I just don't believe it but it may be because I just don't want to.
And given the oaf across the pond, simply doing it but not making a big deal about it could be a smart move.
Eliminating business rates but having a tax like this replace it is massively productive and beneficial.
And how do we collect/assess this exactly? I mean, don't get me wrong, I think that the mainly US internet giants are parasitical, feeding off our society but putting very little back. I am just not sure how we audit what Google earns off search engines in the UK. They may not even know themselves.
I bet they do know themselves.
I am sure that they can produce accounts showing anything from a loss to a profit of a billion. How will we know if they are right? We cannot audit them. Its not like buying a takeaway and seeing if it shows up in the VAT return.
Is it not? With Making Tax Digital don't the government have all sorts of information it never used to have?
Takeaway reports it in its VAT return that they've paid Google.
Google doesn't report the income in its return.
Google has an issue that HMRC can investigate.
Or is the system not that clever?
I don't think it is now but the Chancellor did give a boost to HMRC in pursuit of "aggressive" tax avoidance. Hopefully they will not spend it all on IR35 cases.
The Government have killed contracting across large swathes of business.
Their own estimates when they prepared the changes were that about 66% of existing contractors were legitimately outside IR35 and 34% inside. The aim was (quite rightly) to catch the 34%.
The end user companies who are now responsible have taken one look at the penalties they would be liable to pay if they incorrectly assess someone as being outside when they should be in and have thought 'bugger that'.
As a result the companies have now said that only 14% of contractors are legitimately outside IR35 and have pulled 86% of them inside. This has often involved going against the advice of the specialist accountancy and legal firms like Qdos who are there to assess all the contractors.
Worse still they have said that those contractors who are inside IR35 will be deducted not only the employees PAYE and NI but also the employers as well.
It is a real cluster and will cost HMRC a very large amount of revenue.
Edit, worth pointing out that I have been assessed as being outside so I am one of the lucky few.
Richard , what makes you inside or outside
A whole host of things.
Basically for me it is the accumulated effect of working on specific projects where I have a scope of work and then have complete freedom over how and where I deliver (barring an agreed delivery date). As I said yesterday this means that I can, if I chose, do 95% of my work from home and, for reasons of practicality, only need to visit the client office for about 5%. I am providing expert advice and reports and the client, other than accepting the reports/advice, has no control over the work I do. They are effectively paying me for the results not for the work done.
There is other stuff that helps. I can, if I wish, walk away and have no requirement to do other work. I can get someone else to do the work and I have no managerial or financial involvement with the client. Apart from paying me for the work already delivered as per the contract, the clients can just dump me at any time and without notice. Something that looks to be a possibility at the moment with the oil price and Covid shutdown looming.
I am at the more extreme end of the Contractor/Employee spectrum but there are a lot of people further along towards the middle. The point of the assessments was supposed to be to make sure people were properly assigned. Unfortunately companies have not taken it that way for fear of the consequences of getting it wrong.
Comments
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/coronavirus-police-thailand-discover-used-face-masks-re-packaged/
Of course events could force their hands not to do that, and if they did I could just imagine the supermarkets on the Saturday.
What we do know is that the countries who are used to fighting pandemics wear face masks routinely. We will *never* know for sure whether they work because it is impossible to generate randomised evidence on them in the public.
But again why do we think we are so cleverer than the people who are used to fighting pandemics? It is Western exceptionalism. Misplaced.
https://twitter.com/IsaacDovere/status/1237753726489841674
https://twitter.com/laurenegambino/status/1237769432342167552
I think even in normal times a sick person wearing a mask as a common curiosity seems very reasonable and hopefully if we get through this it will become commonplace in the West.
The face mask issue will be buried along with the many dead when this sweeps the country.
I'm sorry to sound macabre but it's coming folks.
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1237731072009535488?s=20
She contracts within the financial sector and has for many years. It works for her and has allowed her the flexibility to visit her family in NZ for an extended period.
What I resent is the notion contractors are somehow tax avoiders. She pays Corporation Tax and has to pay Insurance as well as her Agency. She has no job security, no sick pay, no holiday pay and no pension through her employment.
What she has is years of expertise having worked in financial compliance across a number of large and medium banks including investment banks.
This has upset her and it is absurdly short-sighted and vindictive.
I don't expect to see mask wearing becoming more common in the West any time soon, past the end of this episode.
Basically for me it is the accumulated effect of working on specific projects where I have a scope of work and then have complete freedom over how and where I deliver (barring an agreed delivery date). As I said yesterday this means that I can, if I chose, do 95% of my work from home and, for reasons of practicality, only need to visit the client office for about 5%. I am providing expert advice and reports and the client, other than accepting the reports/advice, has no control over the work I do. They are effectively paying me for the results not for the work done.
There is other stuff that helps. I can, if I wish, walk away and have no requirement to do other work. I can get someone else to do the work and I have no managerial or financial involvement with the client. Apart from paying me for the work already delivered as per the contract, the clients can just dump me at any time and without notice. Something that looks to be a possibility at the moment with the oil price and Covid shutdown looming.
I am at the more extreme end of the Contractor/Employee spectrum but there are a lot of people further along towards the middle. The point of the assessments was supposed to be to make sure people were properly assigned. Unfortunately companies have not taken it that way for fear of the consequences of getting it wrong.
@DrTedros
#COVID19
4:26 PM · Mar 11, 2020·
https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1237776967526764544
We all realise we're in a global fuck.
Sodding bastard virus.
Need some humour. Where's Foxy?
Under the existing system the bank only needed to provide a week's notice if the work dried up or if the funding for a particular project didn't come through.
See here: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2020/mar/11/budget-2020-rishi-sunak-pmqs-boris-johnson-chairs-cabinet-ahead-of-rishi-sunak-unveiling-his-first-budget-live-newsrish?page=with:block-5e68f9068f087df56e4c6829#block-5e68f9068f087df56e4c6829
Pulling the pandemic card out two weeks ago might have prompted more action and less inaction?
White House told federal health agency to classify coronavirus deliberations
The White House has ordered federal health officials to treat top-level coronavirus meetings as classified, an unusual step that has restricted information and hampered the U.S. government’s response to the contagion, according to four Trump administration officials.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-secrecy-exclusive/exclusive-white-house-told-federal-health-agency-to-classify-coronavirus-deliberations-sources-idUSKBN20Y2LM
So worse than 2018-19?
But they are stupid and do daft things like wearing masks.
If this turns out to be worse than the black death i'll eat a hat.
With this, it is like they choose the worst possible option.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrsu5OVlGvg
And Trump is a bigger danger than anyone on the planet to life in the US and worldwide
Previously, the cases of the virus have been traced to people travelling to affected areas.
However, without wanting to sound morbid, I'm particularly interested in the death rates from Italy.
Down 4.60% to 23,865
All the reports from Italy is people still are taking his "lock-down" as kinda of optional. And then you have the US....
It feels like the wheels are gonna come off at any moment to me. I expect we will be on emergency calls only very soon, and if it hits hard, rural areas will have bugger all fire cover.
US considering total ban on flights between the EU and US
The UK has slowed the curve compared to other countries already with our testing and tracing and isolation. No doubt they're planning for a shutdown too which is coming - but when it comes expect it to be implemented better.
While cases are so miniscule at the minute taking time to plan to do this properly is smart.
Reminds me, writ large, of when the EU's VATmess (as it was dubbed) tried to gouge money from the likes of Amazon but ended up causing micro-businesses and SMEs to flock to marketplaces. Like Amazon.
If hypothetically they one day had 97 cases then the next day had 156 cases then they'd start at 156.
https://twitter.com/wallaceme/status/1237690769240195072?s=21
This seems to be the government's assumption too. Talking of having 20% of our workforce off "at any one time" as the Chancellor did today indicates more than 6m people of working age either infected or contained to prevent spread. This is vastly bigger than anything seen in any country to date in terms of cases if not lock down. Italy currently has 168 cases per million. The government are indicating scenarios when that might be in the low hundreds of thousands.
My imagination fails me at that point. When you see what has happened in Italy at the current level of infection I cannot imagine 10 or 100 times more. I just don't believe it but it may be because I just don't want to.
Also the Japanese line seems to have what I would describe as the equivalent of an asterisk next to it.