On reflection, I think we should not expect a peak but rather a plateau. This reflects the (stochastic) latency of the disease. A plateau over a week or so should likely then be followed by a fall. I think this is where we are in Italy at present.
Are you talking about a peak in total number infected, or number of positive daily tests?
The other problem, of course, in measuring where countries are is the difference in testing regimes. If a country moves to only testing people in hospital with obvious symptoms, then it'll probably see the number of tests decline, and the number of positives decline. Yet that masks underlying deterioration.
To my mind the evidence of getting CV-19 under control in a country is when you get the combination of (a) rising numbers of tests, and (b) falling number of positives.
Which is where Italy was yesterday - all time peak in numbers of administered tests, sixth highest number of positives.
Hopefully today will see another peak in number of administered tests, and the number of positives drop again.
It will also be instructive to see where we are with Lombardy and Veneto, as they are 3-4 days ahead of the rest of Italy.
The medium-term aim won't be a return to track and trace though. Suppression measures will need to continue for a long time.
Yeah, but suppression measures will be a lot less than 18 months of total lockdown.
This is a crisis that we could see coming but failed to prepare for. New cases are bound to plateau or reduce before the end of the year. Once they have come down the lockdown will be eased. This is also an economic crisis and the government will reopen part of the economy at some stage. Then it will have to start to reduce the financial support that it is giving to people and businesses who have been affected. We really need a vaccine as soon as possible and I hope the government will support this as it cannot cost as much as the shutdown.
In all probability, new cases will peak in the next three weeks.
New cases might peak but they could then plateau and not reduce to a low level so the economy will have to remain locked down. I doubt that is sustainable for more than two years at the most. The problem we have is that an effective vaccine may not be available soon enough.
One possibility is that a vaccine is made that halves the sickness caused by the virus but this would still be unacceptable to many people. Even than might not be achievable. I think we need to consider the possibility that there will be no way to suppress this virus long term. It will be interesting to see what happens in countries such as Iran, Sweden, the Netherlands and the US where a full lockdown may never be implemented. This could give us a better idea of what we are dealing with.
The lockdown will probably be around 5 to 6 weeks IMO.
I don't think there's anything in the Chancellor's announcement for people who have their own one-person company and pay themselves mainly by dividends, is there? Normally they'll be paying themselves only the minimum to build up NI contribution years (£5.8K, IIRC).
They were acting perfectly legally and responding exactly to the strong incentives put in place by successive governments. Blame the governments for the wonky tax system, not them for being tilted by it.
Shall I cut an onion ? They won’t starve.
Some of them earn very little.
It is clearly difficult to devise a comprehensive scheme that covers 100 % of cases. There are other welfare options for those in dire need as the Chancellor made clear.
I don't think there's anything in the Chancellor's announcement for people who have their own one-person company and pay themselves mainly by dividends, is there? Normally they'll be paying themselves only the minimum to build up NI contribution years (£5.8K, IIRC).
They were acting perfectly legally and responding exactly to the strong incentives put in place by successive governments. Blame the governments for the wonky tax system, not them for being tilted by it.
Did he say they were acting illegally? I don't see that not feeling a huge burst of sympathy is that objectionable.
It is worth remembering that the idea behind the one man company structure is that you give up the safety net of the state....
On reflection, I think we should not expect a peak but rather a plateau. This reflects the (stochastic) latency of the disease. A plateau over a week or so should likely then be followed by a fall. I think this is where we are in Italy at present.
Are you talking about a peak in total number infected, or number of positive daily tests?
The other problem, of course, in measuring where countries are is the difference in testing regimes. If a country moves to only testing people in hospital with obvious symptoms, then it'll probably see the number of tests decline, and the number of positives decline. Yet that masks underlying deterioration.
To my mind the evidence of getting CV-19 under control in a country is when you get the combination of (a) rising numbers of tests, and (b) falling number of positives.
Which is where Italy was yesterday - all time peak in numbers of administered tests, sixth highest number of positives.
Hopefully today will see another peak in number of administered tests, and the number of positives drop again.
It will also be instructive to see where we are with Lombardy and Veneto, as they are 3-4 days ahead of the rest of Italy.
The medium-term aim won't be a return to track and trace though. Suppression measures will need to continue for a long time.
Yeah, but suppression measures will be a lot less than 18 months of total lockdown.
This is a crisis that we could see coming but failed to prepare for. New cases are bound to plateau or reduce before the end of the year. Once they have come down the lockdown will be eased. This is also an economic crisis and the government will reopen part of the economy at some stage. Then it will have to start to reduce the financial support that it is giving to people and businesses who have been affected. We really need a vaccine as soon as possible and I hope the government will support this as it cannot cost as much as the shutdown.
In all probability, new cases will peak in the next three weeks.
New cases might peak but they could then plateau and not reduce to a low level so the economy will have to remain locked down. I doubt that is sustainable for more than two years at the most. The problem we have is that an effective vaccine may not be available soon enough.
One possibility is that a vaccine is made that halves the sickness caused by the virus but this would still be unacceptable to many people. Even than might not be achievable. I think we need to consider the possibility that there will be no way to suppress this virus long term. It will be interesting to see what happens in countries such as Iran, Sweden, the Netherlands and the US where a full lockdown may never be implemented. This could give us a better idea of what we are dealing with.
Not sure I understand. If we lockdown for 4-6 weeks cases should diminish to a very low level and eventually come close to fizzling out. Now, new cases will arise moving forward, but with better therapies / testing etc. we can squash down on those faster. It does not require a permanent lockdown and no epidemiologist / public health scientist would support that (and indeed they are thinking of alternative strategies).
In fact a Novelist will surely have to delete all words they have authored and subject themselves to a full internal body search to make sure they havent got a memory stick of materials up their ass before receiving their Grant!!
Contrarily, my alcohol consumption has declined since I entered the Covid-19 twilight world. My other half has decided we need to lose weight so the wine has been sparingly opened.
Very wise but I, alas, cannot say the same. I am getting through an awful lot of "Waitrose Italian Red" (£4.95) every evening. "Rich and intense" it says on the label, and it is. It's rich and intense.
Unlike your good self, who is intense but significantly poorer?
On reflection, I think we should not expect a peak but rather a plateau. This reflects the (stochastic) latency of the disease. A plateau over a week or so should likely then be followed by a fall. I think this is where we are in Italy at present.
Are you talking about a peak in total number infected, or number of positive daily tests?
The other problem, of course, in measuring where countries are is the difference in testing regimes. If a country moves to only testing people in hospital with obvious symptoms, then it'll probably see the number of tests decline, and the number of positives decline. Yet that masks underlying deterioration.
To my mind the evidence of getting CV-19 under control in a country is when you get the combination of (a) rising numbers of tests, and (b) falling number of positives.
Which is where Italy was yesterday - all time peak in numbers of administered tests, sixth highest number of positives.
Hopefully today will see another peak in number of administered tests, and the number of positives drop again.
It will also be instructive to see where we are with Lombardy and Veneto, as they are 3-4 days ahead of the rest of Italy.
The medium-term aim won't be a return to track and trace though. Suppression measures will need to continue for a long time.
Yeah, but suppression measures will be a lot less than 18 months of total lockdown.
This is a crisis that we could see coming but failed to prepare for. New cases are bound to plateau or reduce before the end of the year. Once they have come down the lockdown will be eased. This is also an economic crisis and the government will reopen part of the economy at some stage. Then it will have to start to reduce the financial support that it is giving to people and businesses who have been affected. We really need a vaccine as soon as possible and I hope the government will support this as it cannot cost as much as the shutdown.
In all probability, new cases will peak in the next three weeks.
New cases might peak but they could then plateau and not reduce to a low level so the economy will have to remain locked down. I doubt that is sustainable for more than two years at the most. The problem we have is that an effective vaccine may not be available soon enough.
One possibility is that a vaccine is made that halves the sickness caused by the virus but this would still be unacceptable to many people. Even than might not be achievable. I think we need to consider the possibility that there will be no way to suppress this virus long term. It will be interesting to see what happens in countries such as Iran, Sweden, the Netherlands and the US where a full lockdown may never be implemented. This could give us a better idea of what we are dealing with.
The lockdown will probably be around 5 to 6 weeks IMO.
That seems about right - I think perhaps 6 weeks on the longer end of the spectrum so easing restrictions slowly towards the middle of May.
I realise I have been going on too much about ventilators and the EU, but this is a new twist. Presumably the "communication problem" in question was something along the lines of "fuck off, EU."
I don't think there's anything in the Chancellor's announcement for people who have their own one-person company and pay themselves mainly by dividends, is there? Normally they'll be paying themselves only the minimum to build up NI contribution years (£5.8K, IIRC).
They were acting perfectly legally and responding exactly to the strong incentives put in place by successive governments. Blame the governments for the wonky tax system, not them for being tilted by it.
I expect post this crisis NI for the self employed, NI payable for all those in work irrespective of age, and 20% pension tax relief for all are 100% certain
On reflection, I think we should not expect a peak but rather a plateau. This reflects the (stochastic) latency of the disease. A plateau over a week or so should likely then be followed by a fall. I think this is where we are in Italy at present.
Are you talking about a peak in total number infected, or number of positive daily tests?
The other problem, of course, in measuring where countries are is the difference in testing regimes. If a country moves to only testing people in hospital with obvious symptoms, then it'll probably see the number of tests decline, and the number of positives decline. Yet that masks underlying deterioration.
To my mind the evidence of getting CV-19 under control in a country is when you get the combination of (a) rising numbers of tests, and (b) falling number of positives.
Which is where Italy was yesterday - all time peak in numbers of administered tests, sixth highest number of positives.
Hopefully today will see another peak in number of administered tests, and the number of positives drop again.
It will also be instructive to see where we are with Lombardy and Veneto, as they are 3-4 days ahead of the rest of Italy.
The medium-term aim won't be a return to track and trace though. Suppression measures will need to continue for a long time.
Yeah, but suppression measures will be a lot less than 18 months of total lockdown.
This is a crisis that we could see coming but failed to prepare for. New cases are bound to plateau or reduce before the end of the year. Once they have come down the lockdown will be eased. This is also an economic crisis and the government will reopen part of the economy at some stage. Then it will have to start to reduce the financial support that it is giving to people and businesses who have been affected. We really need a vaccine as soon as possible and I hope the government will support this as it cannot cost as much as the shutdown.
In all probability, new cases will peak in the next three weeks.
New cases might peak but they could then plateau and not reduce to a low level so the economy will have to remain locked down. I doubt that is sustainable for more than two years at the most. The problem we have is that an effective vaccine may not be available soon enough.
One possibility is that a vaccine is made that halves the sickness caused by the virus but this would still be unacceptable to many people. Even than might not be achievable. I think we need to consider the possibility that there will be no way to suppress this virus long term. It will be interesting to see what happens in countries such as Iran, Sweden, the Netherlands and the US where a full lockdown may never be implemented. This could give us a better idea of what we are dealing with.
Not sure I understand. If we lockdown for 4-6 weeks cases should diminish to a very low level and eventually come close to fizzling out. Now, new cases will arise moving forward, but with better therapies / testing etc. we can squash down on those faster. It does not require a permanent lockdown and no epidemiologist / public health scientist would support that (and indeed they are thinking of alternative strategies).
You will unfortunately see London continue to surge with new cases because the lockdown is weak.
I don't think there's anything in the Chancellor's announcement for people who have their own one-person company and pay themselves mainly by dividends, is there? Normally they'll be paying themselves only the minimum to build up NI contribution years (£5.8K, IIRC).
They were acting perfectly legally and responding exactly to the strong incentives put in place by successive governments. Blame the governments for the wonky tax system, not them for being tilted by it.
And they are not getting bailouts for perfectly legal reasons and the incentives to government. If people want to structure their businesses as limited companies without employees, then they should know they will be thought of as companies with no employees in government responses to events. No employees, no protections for employees. Limited liability, limited access to individual protections. As was said, no sympathy.
Mr. Flashman (deceased), I never said the state gave you paid holidays. Your employer (which may or may not be the state) does. Nobody's going to do that for the self-employed, and nor should they. It's one of the various pros and cons that make working for oneself different to employment.
The absence of paid holidays, sick days, compassionate leave, parental leave, and a company pension, I would argue, justify a lower rate of NI.
If there's going to be a general argument about the need, with the debt hangover, of altering spending, taxation, and borrowing, then that may need to change as part of a wider approach. A piecemeal approach to such changes is, I would contend, unwise.
I don't think there's anything in the Chancellor's announcement for people who have their own one-person company and pay themselves mainly by dividends, is there? Normally they'll be paying themselves only the minimum to build up NI contribution years (£5.8K, IIRC).
They were acting perfectly legally and responding exactly to the strong incentives put in place by successive governments. Blame the governments for the wonky tax system, not them for being tilted by it.
And they are not getting bailouts for perfectly legal reasons and the incentives to government. If people want to structure their businesses as limited companies without employees, then they should know they will be thought of as companies with no employees in government responses to events. No employees, no protections for employees. Limited liability, limited access to individual protections. As was said, no sympathy.
Fine, but why is that any different from a self-employed plumber?
I expect post this crisis NI for the self employed, NI payable for all those in work irrespective of age, and 20% pension tax relief for all are 100% certain
On reflection, I think we should not expect a peak but rather a plateau. This reflects the (stochastic) latency of the disease. A plateau over a week or so should likely then be followed by a fall. I think this is where we are in Italy at present.
Are you talking about a peak in total number infected, or number of positive daily tests?
The other problem, of course, in measuring where countries are is the difference in testing regimes. If a country moves to only testing people in hospital with obvious symptoms, then it'll probably see the number of tests decline, and the number of positives decline. Yet that masks underlying deterioration.
To my mind the evidence of getting CV-19 under control in a country is when you get the combination of (a) rising numbers of tests, and (b) falling number of positives.
Which is where Italy was yesterday - all time peak in numbers of administered tests, sixth highest number of positives.
Hopefully today will see another peak in number of administered tests, and the number of positives drop again.
It will also be instructive to see where we are with Lombardy and Veneto, as they are 3-4 days ahead of the rest of Italy.
The medium-term aim won't be a return to track and trace though. Suppression measures will need to continue for a long time.
Yeah, but suppression measures will be a lot less than 18 months of total lockdown.
This is a crisis that we could see coming but failed to prepare for. New cases are bound to plateau or reduce before the end of the year. Once they have come down the lockdown will be eased. This is also an economic crisis and the government will reopen part of the economy at some stage. Then it will have to start to reduce the financial support that it is giving to people and businesses who have been affected. We really need a vaccine as soon as possible and I hope the government will support this as it cannot cost as much as the shutdown.
In all probability, new cases will peak in the next three weeks.
New cases might peak but they could then plateau and not reduce to a low level so the economy will have to remain locked down. I doubt that is sustainable for more than two years at the most. The problem we have is that an effective vaccine may not be available soon enough.
One possibility is that a vaccine is made that halves the sickness caused by the virus but this would still be unacceptable to many people. Even than might not be achievable. I think we need to consider the possibility that there will be no way to suppress this virus long term. It will be interesting to see what happens in countries such as Iran, Sweden, the Netherlands and the US where a full lockdown may never be implemented. This could give us a better idea of what we are dealing with.
Not sure I understand. If we lockdown for 4-6 weeks cases should diminish to a very low level and eventually come close to fizzling out. Now, new cases will arise moving forward, but with better therapies / testing etc. we can squash down on those faster. It does not require a permanent lockdown and no epidemiologist / public health scientist would support that (and indeed they are thinking of alternative strategies).
You will unfortunately see London continue to surge with new cases because the lockdown is weak.
Not round here.
Virtually 100% compliance if my two trips to the doctors this week are to go by.
TSE has led the way for years giving mainly women the clap i understand
Yeah - I'm going to do it - not the TSE thing :-)
Me too although ironically 8pm is the precise time Mrs BJs Carers come to put her to bed so they might think i am applauding my extra 2 hrs peace each day!!
TSE has led the way for years giving mainly women the clap i understand
Yeah - I'm going to do it - not the TSE thing :-)
Intention good but wont (at somewhere) encourage a gathering ? Just takes one twitter photo to get everybody foaming at the mouth and wailing about others again
I don't think there's anything in the Chancellor's announcement for people who have their own one-person company and pay themselves mainly by dividends, is there? Normally they'll be paying themselves only the minimum to build up NI contribution years (£5.8K, IIRC).
They were acting perfectly legally and responding exactly to the strong incentives put in place by successive governments. Blame the governments for the wonky tax system, not them for being tilted by it.
And they are not getting bailouts for perfectly legal reasons and the incentives to government. If people want to structure their businesses as limited companies without employees, then they should know they will be thought of as companies with no employees in government responses to events. No employees, no protections for employees. Limited liability, limited access to individual protections. As was said, no sympathy.
Fine, but why is that any different from a self-employed plumber?
Because one is limited liability and the other isn't.
Slightly shocked to read that 855 nursing home residents in Madrid are amongst those who have died (21% of the total in Spain). That really suggests that once this gets into a nursing home the fatality rate will be extremely high.
I realise I have been going on too much about ventilators and the EU, but this is a new twist. Presumably the "communication problem" in question was something along the lines of "fuck off, EU."
Of course you can make any assumption you like based on your own silly prejudices and be judged accordingly.
I suppose it could have been, with equal probability, the EU laughingly posting the notice in the disused toilet in the basement with "Beware of the Leopard" on the door.. cackling with joy at the thought of lots of dead British pensioners..... and then going off to wax their moustaches in the style of proper villans.
I don't think there's anything in the Chancellor's announcement for people who have their own one-person company and pay themselves mainly by dividends, is there? Normally they'll be paying themselves only the minimum to build up NI contribution years (£5.8K, IIRC).
They were acting perfectly legally and responding exactly to the strong incentives put in place by successive governments. Blame the governments for the wonky tax system, not them for being tilted by it.
Did he say they were acting illegally? I don't see that not feeling a huge burst of sympathy is that objectionable.
It is worth remembering that the idea behind the one man company structure is that you give up the safety net of the state....
Nope, limited companies are used because of the Agency Act 1977 which forbid agencies finding work for self-employed people.
And you don't really give up the safety net of the state, you just rapidly end up with enough money that you can no longer claim..
Oh and it's £8k that is the cut of point for NI now, it hasn't been £5.8k for years.
I expect post this crisis NI for the self employed, NI payable for all those in work irrespective of age, and 20% pension tax relief for all are 100% certain
Certainly, as I have been saying for years, we should change the tax/NI system so that people are not hugely incentivised by the tax system to use one particular structure. The government has been trying to address this by IR35, but that is trying to squash the symptoms rather than addressing the cause of the problem. Above all we certainly shouldn't blame those who have responded perfectly rationally to the incentives governments have created, any more than we should blame someone for responding to Gordon Brown's perverse incentives under the old benefits system.
Slightly shocked to read that 855 nursing home residents in Madrid are amongst those who have died (21% of the total in Spain). That really suggests that once this gets into a nursing home the fatality rate will be extremely high.
A similar thing happened in Seattle with a nursing home.
I realise I have been going on too much about ventilators and the EU, but this is a new twist. Presumably the "communication problem" in question was something along the lines of "fuck off, EU."
Of course you can make any assumption you like based on your own silly prejudices and be judged accordingly.
I suppose it could have been, with equal probability, the EU laughingly posting the notice in the disused toilet in the basement with "Beware of the Leopard" on the door.. cackling with joy at the thought of lots of dead British pensioners..... and then going off to wax their moustaches in the style of proper villans.
I wouldn't put it passed them. After all, they did discuss information that could have changed government policy leading to thousands being saved in a secret meeting without sharing it... allegedly.
Mr. Flashman (deceased), I'm entertained at the thought I could take two weeks off and earn money during that time.
I get paid for doing work. If I don't do work, I don't get paid.
The self-employed don't get paid holidays the way the employed do.
Depends how you look at it. Employed person provides £1k of value per week, off work for 4 weeks holiday, gets paid £48k salary with 4 weeks paid holiday.
Self employed person provides £1k of value per week, earns £48k if they take the same amount of holiday. The difference is it is easier for them to choose to work extra or fewer holidays to vary their income.
Not sure I understand. If we lockdown for 4-6 weeks cases should diminish to a very low level and eventually come close to fizzling out. Now, new cases will arise moving forward, but with better therapies / testing etc. we can squash down on those faster. It does not require a permanent lockdown and no epidemiologist / public health scientist would support that (and indeed they are thinking of alternative strategies).
You will unfortunately see London continue to surge with new cases because the lockdown is weak.
Yes, the idea that new cases will slow to a trickle in only 4-6 weeks is wishful thinking.
On reflection, I think we should not expect a peak but rather a plateau. This reflects the (stochastic) latency of the disease. A plateau over a week or so should likely then be followed by a fall. I think this is where we are in Italy at present.
Are you talking about a peak in total number infected, or number of positive daily tests?
The other problem, of course, in measuring where countries are is the difference in testing regimes. If a country moves to only testing people in hospital with obvious symptoms, then it'll probably see the number of tests decline, and the number of positives decline. Yet that masks underlying deterioration.
To my mind the evidence of getting CV-19 under control in a country is when you get the combination of (a) rising numbers of tests, and (b) falling number of positives.
Which is where Italy was yesterday - all time peak in numbers of administered tests, sixth highest number of positives.
Hopefully today will see another peak in number of administered tests, and the number of positives drop again.
It will also be instructive to see where we are with Lombardy and Veneto, as they are 3-4 days ahead of the rest of Italy.
The medium-term aim won't be a return to track and trace though. Suppression measures will need to continue for a long time.
Yeah, but suppression measures will be a lot less than 18 months of total lockdown.
This is a crisis that we could see coming but failed to prepare for. New cases are bound to plateau or reduce before the end of the year. Once they have come down the lockdown will be eased. This is also an economic crisis and the government will reopen part of the economy at some stage. Then it will have to start to reduce the financial support that it is giving to people and businesses who have been affected. We really need a vaccine as soon as possible and I hope the government will support this as it cannot cost as much as the shutdown.
In all probability, new cases will peak in the next three weeks.
New cases might peak but they could then plateau and not reduce to a low level so the economy will have to remain locked down. I doubt that is sustainable for more than two years at the most. The problem we have is that an effective vaccine may not be available soon enough.
One possibility is that a vaccine is made that halves the sickness caused by the virus but this would still be unacceptable to many people. Even than might not be achievable. I think we need to consider the possibility that there will be no way to suppress this virus long term. It will be interesting to see what happens in countries such as Iran, Sweden, the Netherlands and the US where a full lockdown may never be implemented. This could give us a better idea of what we are dealing with.
Not sure I understand. If we lockdown for 4-6 weeks cases should diminish to a very low level and eventually come close to fizzling out. Now, new cases will arise moving forward, but with better therapies / testing etc. we can squash down on those faster. It does not require a permanent lockdown and no epidemiologist / public health scientist would support that (and indeed they are thinking of alternative strategies).
You will unfortunately see London continue to surge with new cases because the lockdown is weak.
Not round here.
Virtually 100% compliance if my two trips to the doctors this week are to go by.
Proud of my fellow North Walians
I highlighted London based on the pictures of tube trains and site canteens etc earlier this week I’m sure there will be regional variations.
I don't think there's anything in the Chancellor's announcement for people who have their own one-person company and pay themselves mainly by dividends, is there? Normally they'll be paying themselves only the minimum to build up NI contribution years (£5.8K, IIRC).
They were acting perfectly legally and responding exactly to the strong incentives put in place by successive governments. Blame the governments for the wonky tax system, not them for being tilted by it.
Did he say they were acting illegally? I don't see that not feeling a huge burst of sympathy is that objectionable.
It is worth remembering that the idea behind the one man company structure is that you give up the safety net of the state....
Well, yes. It’s then a bit of a stretch to then expect them to pay the same amount for no safety net. As most commentators seem to think. And the strong signal from Rishi indicated. With no help offered to them (and most who are in that position have noted they weren’t expecting it - but were expecting to be insulted, called tax dodgers, and to be told they’re going to be expected to pay the same as the employed but without any of the benefits and still without the State safety net.
And certainly expected to pay an extra year of taxes “on account” still, a concept that is completely unknown to the employed.
Which all looks to be completely and predictably true.
I don't think there's anything in the Chancellor's announcement for people who have their own one-person company and pay themselves mainly by dividends, is there? Normally they'll be paying themselves only the minimum to build up NI contribution years (£5.8K, IIRC).
On reflection, I think we should not expect a peak but rather a plateau. This reflects the (stochastic) latency of the disease. A plateau over a week or so should likely then be followed by a fall. I think this is where we are in Italy at present.
Are you talking about a peak in total number infected, or number of positive daily tests?
The other problem, of course, in measuring where countries are is the difference in testing regimes. If a country moves to only testing people in hospital with obvious symptoms, then it'll probably see the number of tests decline, and the number of positives decline. Yet that masks underlying deterioration.
To my mind the evidence of getting CV-19 under control in a country is when you get the combination of (a) rising numbers of tests, and (b) falling number of positives.
Which is where Italy was yesterday - all time peak in numbers of administered tests, sixth highest number of positives.
Hopefully today will see another peak in number of administered tests, and the number of positives drop again.
It will also be instructive to see where we are with Lombardy and Veneto, as they are 3-4 days ahead of the rest of Italy.
The medium-term aim won't be a return to track and trace though. Suppression measures will need to continue for a long time.
Yeah, but suppression measures will be a lot less than 18 months of total lockdown.
This is a crisis that we could see coming but failed to prepare for. New cases are bound to plateau or reduce before the end of the year. Once they have come down the lockdown will be eased. This is also an economic crisis and the government will reopen part of the economy at some stage. Then it will have to start to reduce the financial support that it is giving to people and businesses who have been affected. We really need a vaccine as soon as possible and I hope the government will support this as it cannot cost as much as the shutdown.
In all probability, new cases will peak in the next three weeks.
New cases might peak but they could then plateau and not reduce to a low level so the economy will have to remain locked down. I doubt that is sustainable for more than two years at the most. The problem we have is that an effective vaccine may not be available soon enough.
One possibility is that a vaccine is made that halves the sickness caused by the virus but this would still be unacceptable to many people. Even than might not be achievable. I think we need to consider the possibility that there will be no way to suppress this virus long term. It will be interesting to see what happens in countries such as Iran, Sweden, the Netherlands and the US where a full lockdown may never be implemented. This could give us a better idea of what we are dealing with.
Not sure I understand. If we lockdown for 4-6 weeks cases should diminish to a very low level and eventually come close to fizzling out. Now, new cases will arise moving forward, but with better therapies / testing etc. we can squash down on those faster. It does not require a permanent lockdown and no epidemiologist / public health scientist would support that (and indeed they are thinking of alternative strategies).
You will unfortunately see London continue to surge with new cases because the lockdown is weak.
Not round here.
Virtually 100% compliance if my two trips to the doctors this week are to go by.
Proud of my fellow North Walians
I highlighted London based on the pictures of tube trains and site canteens etc earlier this week I’m sure there will be regional variations.
We booked a 2nd holiday in last 5 years about 6 weeks ago in a very specialist disabled property with hoists, Carers and other stuff to enable Mrs BJ to get away in the UK. Unfortunately we booked middle of June so expect its unlikely to go ahead and we will lose the deposit.
I don't think there's anything in the Chancellor's announcement for people who have their own one-person company and pay themselves mainly by dividends, is there? Normally they'll be paying themselves only the minimum to build up NI contribution years (£5.8K, IIRC).
I realise I have been going on too much about ventilators and the EU, but this is a new twist. Presumably the "communication problem" in question was something along the lines of "fuck off, EU."
Of course you can make any assumption you like based on your own silly prejudices and be judged accordingly.
The UK government excuse that they didn't notice the email is demonstrably bollocks. When its unwillingness to participate was reported last week, the EU clarified that participation was available at the time. The previous "we're not in the EU" line is at least factually correct.
Despite their "dog ate my homework" excuse, I do actually see this as a positive. To my knowledge this is the first time the Johnson government hasn't ruled out working with the EU on ideological grounds - on anything at all
On topic, I see why Mike has gone for this at 180-1. However, I don't think the chances of Cuomo as nominee are much better than that in reality.
My reading is that Cuomo has to come out swinging against Trump on this. He's in charge of the worst affected state, and frankly has to position himself as the hard working governor, let down by central government. Crudely, he does have to play something of a blame game (which is easier in New York, where Trump is unpopular anyway) and is making a virtue of necessity.
More broadly and nationally, the jury is out on Trump's handling, and indeed polls indicate narrow approval of his response. It's very possible that will go south very quickly (other than the large number of workers immediately laid off, the economic impact hasn't YET hit for a lot of Americans, and the US remains a couple of weeks behind most of Europe in terms of death rates). But people do give some space to leaders in these crises - they will give the strategy a chance to work, and the outcome could be at the less bad end of the range of possibilities (which is still awful but nevertheless).
So I think Biden is right not to go all in on this at this stage. He's sowing the seeds with TV ads, but it wouldn't be wise to bet the farm on making the election a referendum on Trump's handling of Covid-19... not yet, anyway.
I realise I have been going on too much about ventilators and the EU, but this is a new twist. Presumably the "communication problem" in question was something along the lines of "fuck off, EU."
Of course you can make any assumption you like based on your own silly prejudices and be judged accordingly.
The UK government excuse that they didn't notice the email is demonstrably bollocks. When its unwillingness to participate was reported last week, the EU clarified that participation was available at the time. The previous "we're not in the EU" line is at least factually correct.
Despite their "dog eat my homework" excuse, I do actually see this as a positive. To my knowledge this is the first time the Johnson government hasn't ruled out working with the EU on ideological grounds - on anythinh at all
What EU firms have progressed as far as the Uk consortia in the last 2 weeks ?
It is going to be really grim in NY, they are opening 9 "overflow" hospitals i.e like the Excel centre here, each with a minimum of a 1000 patient capacity.
That is addition to double the capacity of the proper hospitals.
And even with all of that, Mayor says it still won't be enough.
It's the total, not the daily number. But remarkably excludes those died at home or in care homes.
The care home bit is, I believe, consistent with the rest of Europe.
I don't think so. My sister, in the last stages of suffering from multiple sclerosis, has been transferring between several care home facilities and hospitals for the last two months. I know for a fact that in two of these care homes CV-related fatalities have occured and were reported to the LBK, and from there to the RKI.
I don't think there's anything in the Chancellor's announcement for people who have their own one-person company and pay themselves mainly by dividends, is there? Normally they'll be paying themselves only the minimum to build up NI contribution years (£5.8K, IIRC).
I think that's wrong. It's based on profits, which are calculated before dividends are taken?
Self employment profits not limited company profits. If you are a director of your own ltd company you will get nothing from the announcement today and probably nothing from the announcement the other day.
To get anything from the previous announcement, the director would have to successfully argue that they have furloughed themselves! and if they succeed in this claim they would then only get 80% of the salary they pay to themself (not dividends).
Italy’s northern Piedmont region said on Thursday that 50 people had died there from coronavirus in the last 24 hours, numbers which were omitted from the national tally released by the Civil Protection Agency because they arrived too late.
On topic, I see why Mike has gone for this at 180-1. However, I don't think the chances of Cuomo as nominee are much better than that in reality.
My reading is that Cuomo has to come out swinging against Trump on this. He's in charge of the worst affected state, and frankly has to position himself as the hard working governor, let down by central government. Crudely, he does have to play something of a blame game (which is easier in New York, where Trump is unpopular anyway) and is making a virtue of necessity.
More broadly and nationally, the jury is out on Trump's handling, and indeed polls indicate narrow approval of his response. It's very possible that will go south very quickly (other than the large number of workers immediately laid off, the economic impact hasn't YET hit for a lot of Americans, and the US remains a couple of weeks behind most of Europe in terms of death rates). But people do give some space to leaders in these crises - they will give the strategy a chance to work, and the outcome could be at the less bad end of the range of possibilities (which is still awful but nevertheless).
So I think Biden is right not to go all in on this at this stage. He's sowing the seeds with TV ads, but it wouldn't be wise to bet the farm on making the election a referendum on Trump's handling of Covid-19... not yet, anyway.
Cuomo won't be nominee now, however Biden could pick him as his running mate
On reflection, I think we should not expect a peak but rather a plateau. This reflects the (stochastic) latency of the disease. A plateau over a week or so should likely then be followed by a fall. I think this is where we are in Italy at present.
Are you talking about a peak in total number infected, or number of positive daily tests?
The other problem, of course, in measuring where countries are is the difference in testing regimes. If a country moves to only testing people in hospital with obvious symptoms, then it'll probably see the number of tests decline, and the number of positives decline. Yet that masks underlying deterioration.
To my mind the evidence of getting CV-19 under control in a country is when you get the combination of (a) rising numbers of tests, and (b) falling number of positives.
Which is where Italy was yesterday - all time peak in numbers of administered tests, sixth highest number of positives.
Hopefully today will see another peak in number of administered tests, and the number of positives drop again.
It will also be instructive to see where we are with Lombardy and Veneto, as they are 3-4 days ahead of the rest of Italy.
The medium-term aim won't be a return to track and trace though. Suppression measures will need to continue for a long time.
Yeah, but suppression measures will be a lot less than 18 months of total lockdown.
This is a crisis that we could see coming but failed to prepare for. New cases are bound to plateau or reduce before the end of the year. Once they have come down the lockdown will be eased. This is also an economic crisis and the government will reopen part of the economy at some stage. Then it will have to start to reduce the financial support that it is giving to people and businesses who have been affected. We really need a vaccine as soon as possible and I hope the government will support this as it cannot cost as much as the shutdown.
In all probability, new cases will peak in the next three weeks.
New cases might peak but they could then plateau and not reduce to a low level so the economy will have to remain locked down. I doubt that is sustainable for more than two years at the most. The problem we have is that an effective vaccine may not be available soon enough.
One possibility is that a vaccine is made that halves the sickness caused by the virus but this would still be unacceptable to many people. Even than might not be achievable. I think we need to consider the possibility that there will be no way to suppress this virus long term. It will be interesting to see what happens in countries such as Iran, Sweden, the Netherlands and the US where a full lockdown may never be implemented. This could give us a better idea of what we are dealing with.
Not sure I understand. If we lockdown for 4-6 weeks cases should diminish to a very low level and eventually come close to fizzling out. Now, new cases will arise moving forward, but with better therapies / testing etc. we can squash down on those faster. It does not require a permanent lockdown and no epidemiologist / public health scientist would support that (and indeed they are thinking of alternative strategies).
It will be impossible to keep the population locked down for more than a few weeks, especially with summer on the way. Just imagine if we got a heatwave like 2018.
he number of people who have died from coronavirus in UK hospitals has risen by 115 in a single day to 578, as of 5pm on Thursday. It is the biggest daily rise in deaths across the country since the outbreak began.
As of 9am on Thursday, 11,658 out of 104,866 people who have been tested for the virus were confirmed as positive cases.
On topic, I see why Mike has gone for this at 180-1. However, I don't think the chances of Cuomo as nominee are much better than that in reality.
My reading is that Cuomo has to come out swinging against Trump on this. He's in charge of the worst affected state, and frankly has to position himself as the hard working governor, let down by central government. Crudely, he does have to play something of a blame game (which is easier in New York, where Trump is unpopular anyway) and is making a virtue of necessity.
More broadly and nationally, the jury is out on Trump's handling, and indeed polls indicate narrow approval of his response. It's very possible that will go south very quickly (other than the large number of workers immediately laid off, the economic impact hasn't YET hit for a lot of Americans, and the US remains a couple of weeks behind most of Europe in terms of death rates). But people do give some space to leaders in these crises - they will give the strategy a chance to work, and the outcome could be at the less bad end of the range of possibilities (which is still awful but nevertheless).
So I think Biden is right not to go all in on this at this stage. He's sowing the seeds with TV ads, but it wouldn't be wise to bet the farm on making the election a referendum on Trump's handling of Covid-19... not yet, anyway.
Cuomo won't be nominee now, however Biden could pick him as his running mate
I don't think there's anything in the Chancellor's announcement for people who have their own one-person company and pay themselves mainly by dividends, is there? Normally they'll be paying themselves only the minimum to build up NI contribution years (£5.8K, IIRC).
I think that's wrong. It's based on profits, which are calculated before dividends are taken?
Self employment profits not limited company profits. If you are a director of your own ltd company you will get nothing from the announcement today and probably nothing from the announcement the other day.
To get anything from the previous announcement, the director would have to successfully argue that they have furloughed themselves! and if they succeed in this claim they would then only get 80% of the salary they pay to themself (not dividends).
In small businesses with a few directors, which have basically shut down, I would expect all but the MD to be furloughed.
On reflection, I think we should not expect a peak but rather a plateau. This reflects the (stochastic) latency of the disease. A plateau over a week or so should likely then be followed by a fall. I think this is where we are in Italy at present.
Are you talking about a peak in total number infected, or number of positive daily tests?
The other problem, of course, in measuring where countries are is the difference in testing regimes. If a country moves to only testing people in hospital with obvious symptoms, then it'll probably see the number of tests decline, and the number of positives decline. Yet that masks underlying deterioration.
To my mind the evidence of getting CV-19 under control in a country is when you get the combination of (a) rising numbers of tests, and (b) falling number of positives.
Which is where Italy was yesterday - all time peak in numbers of administered tests, sixth highest number of positives.
Hopefully today will see another peak in number of administered tests, and the number of positives drop again.
It will also be instructive to see where we are with Lombardy and Veneto, as they are 3-4 days ahead of the rest of Italy.
The medium-term aim won't be a return to track and trace though. Suppression measures will need to continue for a long time.
Yeah, but suppression measures will be a lot less than 18 months of total lockdown.
This is a crisis that we could see coming but failed to prepare for. New cases are bound to plateau or reduce before the end of the year. Once they have come down the lockdown will be eased. This is also an economic crisis and the government will reopen part of the economy at some stage. Then it will have to start to reduce the financial support that it is giving to people and businesses who have been affected. We really need a vaccine as soon as possible and I hope the government will support this as it cannot cost as much as the shutdown.
In all probability, new cases will peak in the next three weeks.
New cases might peak but they could then plateau and not reduce to a low level so the economy will have to remain locked down. I doubt that is sustainable for more than two years at the most. The problem we have is that an effective vaccine may not be available soon enough.
One possibility is that a vaccine is made that halves the sickness caused by the virus but this would still be unacceptable to many people. Even than might not be achievable. I think we need to consider the possibility that there will be no way to suppress this virus long term. It will be interesting to see what happens in countries such as Iran, Sweden, the Netherlands and the US where a full lockdown may never be implemented. This could give us a better idea of what we are dealing with.
Not sure I understand. If we lockdown for 4-6 weeks cases should diminish to a very low level and eventually come close to fizzling out. Now, new cases will arise moving forward, but with better therapies / testing etc. we can squash down on those faster. It does not require a permanent lockdown and no epidemiologist / public health scientist would support that (and indeed they are thinking of alternative strategies).
It will be impossible to keep the population locked down for more than a few weeks, especially with summer on the way. Just imagine if we got a heatwave like 2018.
I don't think there's anything in the Chancellor's announcement for people who have their own one-person company and pay themselves mainly by dividends, is there? Normally they'll be paying themselves only the minimum to build up NI contribution years (£5.8K, IIRC).
I think that's wrong. It's based on profits, which are calculated before dividends are taken?
Self employment profits not limited company profits. If you are a director of your own ltd company you will get nothing from the announcement today and probably nothing from the announcement the other day.
To get anything from the previous announcement, the director would have to successfully argue that they have furloughed themselves! and if they succeed in this claim they would then only get 80% of the salary they pay to themself (not dividends).
In small businesses with a few directors, which have basically shut down, I would expect all but the MD to be furloughed.
It's the total, not the daily number. But remarkably excludes those died at home or in care homes.
The care home bit is, I believe, consistent with the rest of Europe.
I don't think so. My sister, in the last stages of suffering from multiple sclerosis, has been transferring between several care home facilities and hospitals for the last two months. I know for a fact that in two of these care homes CV-related fatalities have occured and were reported to the LBK, and from there to the RKI.
On reflection, I think we should not expect a peak but rather a plateau. This reflects the (stochastic) latency of the disease. A plateau over a week or so should likely then be followed by a fall. I think this is where we are in Italy at present.
Are you talking about a peak in total number infected, or number of positive daily tests?
The other problem, of course, in measuring where countries are is the difference in testing regimes. If a country moves to only testing people in hospital with obvious symptoms, then it'll probably see the number of tests decline, and the number of positives decline. Yet that masks underlying deterioration.
To my mind the evidence of getting CV-19 under control in a country is when you get the combination of (a) rising numbers of tests, and (b) falling number of positives.
Which is where Italy was yesterday - all time peak in numbers of administered tests, sixth highest number of positives.
Hopefully today will see another peak in number of administered tests, and the number of positives drop again.
It will also be instructive to see where we are with Lombardy and Veneto, as they are 3-4 days ahead of the rest of Italy.
The medium-term aim won't be a return to track and trace though. Suppression measures will need to continue for a long time.
Yeah, but suppression measures will be a lot less than 18 months of total lockdown.
This is a crisis that we could see coming but failed to prepare for. New cases are bound to plateau or reduce before the end of the year. Once they have come down the lockdown will be eased. This is also an economic crisis and the government will reopen part of the economy at some stage. Then it will have to start to reduce the financial support that it is giving to people and businesses who have been affected. We really need a vaccine as soon as possible and I hope the government will support this as it cannot cost as much as the shutdown.
In all probability, new cases will peak in the next three weeks.
New cases might peak but they could then plateau and not reduce to a low level so the economy will have to remain locked down. I doubt that is sustainable for more than two years at the most. The problem we have is that an effective vaccine may not be available soon enough.
One possibility is that a vaccine is made that halves the sickness caused by the virus but this would still be unacceptable to many people. Even than might not be achievable. I think we need to consider the possibility that there will be no way to suppress this virus long term. It will be interesting to see what happens in countries such as Iran, Sweden, the Netherlands and the US where a full lockdown may never be implemented. This could give us a better idea of what we are dealing with.
Not sure I understand. If we lockdown for 4-6 weeks cases should diminish to a very low level and eventually come close to fizzling out. Now, new cases will arise moving forward, but with better therapies / testing etc. we can squash down on those faster. It does not require a permanent lockdown and no epidemiologist / public health scientist would support that (and indeed they are thinking of alternative strategies).
It will be impossible to keep the population locked down for more than a few weeks, especially with summer on the way. Just imagine if we got a heatwave like 2018.
Why? You just have to do what your told.
Exactly - do you want to risk killing people? No - then stay the fuck indoors unless you have to be out
I don't think there's anything in the Chancellor's announcement for people who have their own one-person company and pay themselves mainly by dividends, is there? Normally they'll be paying themselves only the minimum to build up NI contribution years (£5.8K, IIRC).
I think that's wrong. It's based on profits, which are calculated before dividends are taken?
Self employment profits not limited company profits. If you are a director of your own ltd company you will get nothing from the announcement today and probably nothing from the announcement the other day.
To get anything from the previous announcement, the director would have to successfully argue that they have furloughed themselves! and if they succeed in this claim they would then only get 80% of the salary they pay to themself (not dividends).
In small businesses with a few directors, which have basically shut down, I would expect all but the MD to be furloughed.
I was referring to one-man ltd companies.
Ah, yes, that would be a difficult position to justify I imagine....
I don't think there's anything in the Chancellor's announcement for people who have their own one-person company and pay themselves mainly by dividends, is there? Normally they'll be paying themselves only the minimum to build up NI contribution years (£5.8K, IIRC).
They were acting perfectly legally and responding exactly to the strong incentives put in place by successive governments. Blame the governments for the wonky tax system, not them for being tilted by it.
Shall I cut an onion ? They won’t starve.
Some of them earn very little.
It is clearly difficult to devise a comprehensive scheme that covers 100 % of cases. There are other welfare options for those in dire need as the Chancellor made clear.
The comprehensive scheme would have been a universal basic income - but the government have decided upon two complicated schemes that between them don't even manage to support everyone and even for the people they will support won't come up with any money for a long time.
HMG are too worried about making mistakes to do what is required.
On topic, I see why Mike has gone for this at 180-1. However, I don't think the chances of Cuomo as nominee are much better than that in reality.
My reading is that Cuomo has to come out swinging against Trump on this. He's in charge of the worst affected state, and frankly has to position himself as the hard working governor, let down by central government. Crudely, he does have to play something of a blame game (which is easier in New York, where Trump is unpopular anyway) and is making a virtue of necessity.
More broadly and nationally, the jury is out on Trump's handling, and indeed polls indicate narrow approval of his response. It's very possible that will go south very quickly (other than the large number of workers immediately laid off, the economic impact hasn't YET hit for a lot of Americans, and the US remains a couple of weeks behind most of Europe in terms of death rates). But people do give some space to leaders in these crises - they will give the strategy a chance to work, and the outcome could be at the less bad end of the range of possibilities (which is still awful but nevertheless).
So I think Biden is right not to go all in on this at this stage. He's sowing the seeds with TV ads, but it wouldn't be wise to bet the farm on making the election a referendum on Trump's handling of Covid-19... not yet, anyway.
Cuomo won't be nominee now, however Biden could pick him as his running mate
Biden has committed to a lady running mate iirc.
He could say the coronavirus crisis requires a proven leader on tackling it to join the ticket, regardless of gender
I don't think there's anything in the Chancellor's announcement for people who have their own one-person company and pay themselves mainly by dividends, is there? Normally they'll be paying themselves only the minimum to build up NI contribution years (£5.8K, IIRC).
They were acting perfectly legally and responding exactly to the strong incentives put in place by successive governments. Blame the governments for the wonky tax system, not them for being tilted by it.
Did he say they were acting illegally? I don't see that not feeling a huge burst of sympathy is that objectionable.
It is worth remembering that the idea behind the one man company structure is that you give up the safety net of the state....
Well, yes. It’s then a bit of a stretch to then expect them to pay the same amount for no safety net. As most commentators seem to think. And the strong signal from Rishi indicated. With no help offered to them (and most who are in that position have noted they weren’t expecting it - but were expecting to be insulted, called tax dodgers, and to be told they’re going to be expected to pay the same as the employed but without any of the benefits and still without the State safety net.
And certainly expected to pay an extra year of taxes “on account” still, a concept that is completely unknown to the employed.
Which all looks to be completely and predictably true.
NI should have been rolled into income tax long ago. Mind you, my world would be pretty radical -
1) UBI = National Minimum Wage * 8 * 220 2) paid to *eveyone* alive, UK citizen over 18 - direct by the government. 3) As a result of 1 & 2 - abolish the actual National Minimum Wage - the number used in 1 would be a yearly budget item 4) Most benefits replaced with 2) 5) NI and income tax merged. 6) As a result of 2) no tax free allowance - the UBI paid by the government would replace it.
The advantages of this would include -
a) No poverty trap - all employment would be better than nothing. b) Very simple administration c) No signing on/off gaps - your UBI comes on the 1st of the month. Unless you are dead.
Data collected gathered via the NHS's 111 telephone service is to be mixed with other sources to help predict where ventilators, hospital beds, and medical staff will be most in need.
The goal is to help health chiefs model the consequences of moving resources to best tackle the coronavirus pandemic.
Three US tech firms are aiding the effort - Amazon, Microsoft and Palantir - as well as London-based Faculty AI.
I don't think there's anything in the Chancellor's announcement for people who have their own one-person company and pay themselves mainly by dividends, is there? Normally they'll be paying themselves only the minimum to build up NI contribution years (£5.8K, IIRC).
They were acting perfectly legally and responding exactly to the strong incentives put in place by successive governments. Blame the governments for the wonky tax system, not them for being tilted by it.
Shall I cut an onion ? They won’t starve.
Some of them earn very little.
It is clearly difficult to devise a comprehensive scheme that covers 100 % of cases. There are other welfare options for those in dire need as the Chancellor made clear.
The comprehensive scheme would have been a universal basic income - but the government have decided upon two complicated schemes that between them don't even manage to support everyone and even for the people they will support won't come up with any money for a long time.
HMG are too worried about making mistakes to do what is required.
I don't think there's anything in the Chancellor's announcement for people who have their own one-person company and pay themselves mainly by dividends, is there? Normally they'll be paying themselves only the minimum to build up NI contribution years (£5.8K, IIRC).
I think that's wrong. It's based on profits, which are calculated before dividends are taken?
Self employment profits not limited company profits. If you are a director of your own ltd company you will get nothing from the announcement today and probably nothing from the announcement the other day.
To get anything from the previous announcement, the director would have to successfully argue that they have furloughed themselves! and if they succeed in this claim they would then only get 80% of the salary they pay to themself (not dividends).
I guess the logic is that dividends are associated with income from capital not labour. The tax system has weakened that association but it is still there to an extent. The schemes are all designed to support labour.
As for sole directors furloughing the details will be key. It may be that you could furlough for 6 weeks, work 1 week to fulfil obligations, then furlough for 6 weeks again. I think furloughing all office holders for a ltd company for an ongoing long period would be tricky to justify unless the rules specifically allow it.
On topic, I see why Mike has gone for this at 180-1. However, I don't think the chances of Cuomo as nominee are much better than that in reality.
My reading is that Cuomo has to come out swinging against Trump on this. He's in charge of the worst affected state, and frankly has to position himself as the hard working governor, let down by central government. Crudely, he does have to play something of a blame game (which is easier in New York, where Trump is unpopular anyway) and is making a virtue of necessity.
More broadly and nationally, the jury is out on Trump's handling, and indeed polls indicate narrow approval of his response. It's very possible that will go south very quickly (other than the large number of workers immediately laid off, the economic impact hasn't YET hit for a lot of Americans, and the US remains a couple of weeks behind most of Europe in terms of death rates). But people do give some space to leaders in these crises - they will give the strategy a chance to work, and the outcome could be at the less bad end of the range of possibilities (which is still awful but nevertheless).
So I think Biden is right not to go all in on this at this stage. He's sowing the seeds with TV ads, but it wouldn't be wise to bet the farm on making the election a referendum on Trump's handling of Covid-19... not yet, anyway.
Cuomo won't be nominee now, however Biden could pick him as his running mate
Biden has committed to a lady running mate iirc.
He could say the coronavirus crisis requires a proven leader on tackling it to join the ticket, regardless of gender
Yes, he could, but the GOP attack ads write themselves. Biden could pledge to make Cuomo head of the Presidential Task Force on Pandemics or whatever.
Data collected gathered via the NHS's 111 telephone service is to be mixed with other sources to help predict where ventilators, hospital beds, and medical staff will be most in need.
The goal is to help health chiefs model the consequences of moving resources to best tackle the coronavirus pandemic.
Three US tech firms are aiding the effort - Amazon, Microsoft and Palantir - as well as London-based Faculty AI.
Good news but to be churlish, it is a shame it could not be an all-British effort. We will never have a British hyperscale cloud provider, for instance, while the government persists in patronising American giants.
I don't think there's anything in the Chancellor's announcement for people who have their own one-person company and pay themselves mainly by dividends, is there? Normally they'll be paying themselves only the minimum to build up NI contribution years (£5.8K, IIRC).
They were acting perfectly legally and responding exactly to the strong incentives put in place by successive governments. Blame the governments for the wonky tax system, not them for being tilted by it.
Did he say they were acting illegally? I don't see that not feeling a huge burst of sympathy is that objectionable.
It is worth remembering that the idea behind the one man company structure is that you give up the safety net of the state....
Well, yes. It’s then a bit of a stretch to then expect them to pay the same amount for no safety net. As most commentators seem to think. And the strong signal from Rishi indicated. With no help offered to them (and most who are in that position have noted they weren’t expecting it - but were expecting to be insulted, called tax dodgers, and to be told they’re going to be expected to pay the same as the employed but without any of the benefits and still without the State safety net.
And certainly expected to pay an extra year of taxes “on account” still, a concept that is completely unknown to the employed.
Which all looks to be completely and predictably true.
NI should have been rolled into income tax long ago. Mind you, my world would be pretty radical -
1) UBI = National Minimum Wage * 8 * 220 2) paid to *eveyone* alive, UK citizen over 18 - direct by the government. 3) As a result of 1 & 2 - abolish the actual National Minimum Wage - the number used in 1 would be a yearly budget item 4) Most benefits replaced with 2) 5) NI and income tax merged. 6) As a result of 2) no tax free allowance - the UBI paid by the government would replace it.
The advantages of this would include -
a) No poverty trap - all employment would be better than nothing. b) Very simple administration c) No signing on/off gaps - your UBI comes on the 1st of the month. Unless you are dead.
On topic, I see why Mike has gone for this at 180-1. However, I don't think the chances of Cuomo as nominee are much better than that in reality.
My reading is that Cuomo has to come out swinging against Trump on this. He's in charge of the worst affected state, and frankly has to position himself as the hard working governor, let down by central government. Crudely, he does have to play something of a blame game (which is easier in New York, where Trump is unpopular anyway) and is making a virtue of necessity.
More broadly and nationally, the jury is out on Trump's handling, and indeed polls indicate narrow approval of his response. It's very possible that will go south very quickly (other than the large number of workers immediately laid off, the economic impact hasn't YET hit for a lot of Americans, and the US remains a couple of weeks behind most of Europe in terms of death rates). But people do give some space to leaders in these crises - they will give the strategy a chance to work, and the outcome could be at the less bad end of the range of possibilities (which is still awful but nevertheless).
So I think Biden is right not to go all in on this at this stage. He's sowing the seeds with TV ads, but it wouldn't be wise to bet the farm on making the election a referendum on Trump's handling of Covid-19... not yet, anyway.
Cuomo won't be nominee now, however Biden could pick him as his running mate
Biden has committed to a lady running mate iirc.
He could say the coronavirus crisis requires a proven leader on tackling it to join the ticket, regardless of gender
Or he could just forget that he promised a female running mate...
Incidentally, what is the process if Biden/Sanders dies, or withdraws as nominee between the convention and the election? Does the VP candidate then get promoted and name a new running mate?
On topic, I see why Mike has gone for this at 180-1. However, I don't think the chances of Cuomo as nominee are much better than that in reality.
My reading is that Cuomo has to come out swinging against Trump on this. He's in charge of the worst affected state, and frankly has to position himself as the hard working governor, let down by central government. Crudely, he does have to play something of a blame game (which is easier in New York, where Trump is unpopular anyway) and is making a virtue of necessity.
More broadly and nationally, the jury is out on Trump's handling, and indeed polls indicate narrow approval of his response. It's very possible that will go south very quickly (other than the large number of workers immediately laid off, the economic impact hasn't YET hit for a lot of Americans, and the US remains a couple of weeks behind most of Europe in terms of death rates). But people do give some space to leaders in these crises - they will give the strategy a chance to work, and the outcome could be at the less bad end of the range of possibilities (which is still awful but nevertheless).
So I think Biden is right not to go all in on this at this stage. He's sowing the seeds with TV ads, but it wouldn't be wise to bet the farm on making the election a referendum on Trump's handling of Covid-19... not yet, anyway.
Cuomo won't be nominee now, however Biden could pick him as his running mate
Biden has committed to a lady running mate iirc.
He could say the coronavirus crisis requires a proven leader on tackling it to join the ticket, regardless of gender
Or he could just forget that he promised a female running mate...
Incidentally, what is the process if Biden/Sanders dies, or withdraws as nominee between the convention and the election? Does the VP candidate then get promoted and name a new running mate?
No, we go back to the party establishment deciding the nominee at a special convention behind closed doors, as happened before the mid 1970s
Interesting @felix intends to spend, spend, spend when this is all over. I was wondering earlier if the public would take the opportunity to go crazy with their freedom when we are allowed, or whether the quiet, frugal existence might make them appreciate the best things in life are free.
I hope for the latter, but am probably wrong
Interesting post. I think it will be party-and-splurge (taking the huge assumption that most keep some sort of earning during the lockdown)
That means that the proportion of positive tests actually declined yesterday to 17%.
The proportion of positive tests has been on a steady downward path in Italy. It suggests that the Italians were almost certainly undercounting CV-19 cases in the recent past.
If these people have been locked away for 17 days who are they catching Covid-19 from?
Three things:
1. The time from infection to symptoms is 5 to 9 days, and the time before symptoms become sufficiently severe that hospitalisation is required is even longer. Many people going to hospitals now likely got the disease more than two weeks ago.
2. The lockdown was partial at first.
3. If you live in a house with someone, and you get it, they're pretty likely to get it to. Ditto people in old peoples' homes.
Data collected gathered via the NHS's 111 telephone service is to be mixed with other sources to help predict where ventilators, hospital beds, and medical staff will be most in need.
The goal is to help health chiefs model the consequences of moving resources to best tackle the coronavirus pandemic.
Three US tech firms are aiding the effort - Amazon, Microsoft and Palantir - as well as London-based Faculty AI.
Good news but to be churlish, it is a shame it could not be an all-British effort. We will never have a British hyperscale cloud provider, for instance, while the government persists in patronising American giants.
I would be shocked if we don't hear DeepMind* haven't got something to bring to the party. They have been working with medical data for a bit, I am sure what is a substantial team of some incredible talent could be used for something.
I don't think there's anything in the Chancellor's announcement for people who have their own one-person company and pay themselves mainly by dividends, is there? Normally they'll be paying themselves only the minimum to build up NI contribution years (£5.8K, IIRC).
On topic, I see why Mike has gone for this at 180-1. However, I don't think the chances of Cuomo as nominee are much better than that in reality.
My reading is that Cuomo has to come out swinging against Trump on this. He's in charge of the worst affected state, and frankly has to position himself as the hard working governor, let down by central government. Crudely, he does have to play something of a blame game (which is easier in New York, where Trump is unpopular anyway) and is making a virtue of necessity.
More broadly and nationally, the jury is out on Trump's handling, and indeed polls indicate narrow approval of his response. It's very possible that will go south very quickly (other than the large number of workers immediately laid off, the economic impact hasn't YET hit for a lot of Americans, and the US remains a couple of weeks behind most of Europe in terms of death rates). But people do give some space to leaders in these crises - they will give the strategy a chance to work, and the outcome could be at the less bad end of the range of possibilities (which is still awful but nevertheless).
So I think Biden is right not to go all in on this at this stage. He's sowing the seeds with TV ads, but it wouldn't be wise to bet the farm on making the election a referendum on Trump's handling of Covid-19... not yet, anyway.
Cuomo won't be nominee now, however Biden could pick him as his running mate
Biden has committed to a lady running mate iirc.
He could say the coronavirus crisis requires a proven leader on tackling it to join the ticket, regardless of gender
Or he could just forget that he promised a female running mate...
Incidentally, what is the process if Biden/Sanders dies, or withdraws as nominee between the convention and the election? Does the VP candidate then get promoted and name a new running mate?
No, we go back to the party establishment deciding the nominee at a special convention behind closed doors, as happened before the mid 1970s
No, my question was after the convention. Surely it could not reconvene?
Comments
Just kidding Mr Dancer
Thought you would be rejoicing TBF
Although I suspect this won't earn me an exemption from increased taxation...
On bins: had a thought. Maybe don gloves when moving them as the binmen will be handling a lot of bins and that could be a means of infection?
Anyway, I must be off. Play nicely, everyone.
Edited extra bit: added a question mark.
TSE has led the way for years giving mainly women the clap i understand
As was said, no sympathy.
Not round here.
Virtually 100% compliance if my two trips to the doctors this week are to go by.
Proud of my fellow North Walians
And you don't really give up the safety net of the state, you just rapidly end up with enough money that you can no longer claim..
Oh and it's £8k that is the cut of point for NI now, it hasn't been £5.8k for years.
Self employed person provides £1k of value per week, earns £48k if they take the same amount of holiday. The difference is it is easier for them to choose to work extra or fewer holidays to vary their income.
Overheard in 12 weeks time in high streets up and down the country
https://twitter.com/DHSCgovuk/status/1243237209039396872?s=20
Virtually 100% compliance if my two trips to the doctors this week are to go by.
Proud of my fellow North Walians
I highlighted London based on the pictures of tube trains and site canteens etc earlier this week I’m sure there will be regional variations.
It’s then a bit of a stretch to then expect them to pay the same amount for no safety net. As most commentators seem to think.
And the strong signal from Rishi indicated.
With no help offered to them (and most who are in that position have noted they weren’t expecting it - but were expecting to be insulted, called tax dodgers, and to be told they’re going to be expected to pay the same as the employed but without any of the benefits and still without the State safety net.
And certainly expected to pay an extra year of taxes “on account” still, a concept that is completely unknown to the employed.
Which all looks to be completely and predictably true.
London is a different world to us
But these daily figure tweets are meaningless - we need the graph / delta in a 5 day rolling average.
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1243230011735359490?s=20
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1243231532417941505?s=20
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1243223617439178752?s=20
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1243208701168758786?s=20
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1243209353395605504?s=20
Despite their "dog ate my homework" excuse, I do actually see this as a positive. To my knowledge this is the first time the Johnson government hasn't ruled out working with the EU on ideological grounds - on anything at all
My reading is that Cuomo has to come out swinging against Trump on this. He's in charge of the worst affected state, and frankly has to position himself as the hard working governor, let down by central government. Crudely, he does have to play something of a blame game (which is easier in New York, where Trump is unpopular anyway) and is making a virtue of necessity.
More broadly and nationally, the jury is out on Trump's handling, and indeed polls indicate narrow approval of his response. It's very possible that will go south very quickly (other than the large number of workers immediately laid off, the economic impact hasn't YET hit for a lot of Americans, and the US remains a couple of weeks behind most of Europe in terms of death rates). But people do give some space to leaders in these crises - they will give the strategy a chance to work, and the outcome could be at the less bad end of the range of possibilities (which is still awful but nevertheless).
So I think Biden is right not to go all in on this at this stage. He's sowing the seeds with TV ads, but it wouldn't be wise to bet the farm on making the election a referendum on Trump's handling of Covid-19... not yet, anyway.
Answers on a DIN specification.
That is addition to double the capacity of the proper hospitals.
And even with all of that, Mayor says it still won't be enough.
This is Wuhan #2.
To get anything from the previous announcement, the director would have to successfully argue that they have furloughed themselves! and if they succeed in this claim they would then only get 80% of the salary they pay to themself (not dividends).
Italy’s northern Piedmont region said on Thursday that 50 people had died there from coronavirus in the last 24 hours, numbers which were omitted from the national tally released by the Civil Protection Agency because they arrived too late.
As of 9am on Thursday, 11,658 out of 104,866 people who have been tested for the virus were confirmed as positive cases.
Why? You just have to do what your told.
I think that most of the Coronavirus dead will be dying in hospital, but there have already been reports of some in the papers of those who haven't.
Exactly - do you want to risk killing people? No - then stay the fuck indoors unless you have to be out
So rate little changed.
HMG are too worried about making mistakes to do what is required.
1) UBI = National Minimum Wage * 8 * 220
2) paid to *eveyone* alive, UK citizen over 18 - direct by the government.
3) As a result of 1 & 2 - abolish the actual National Minimum Wage - the number used in 1 would be a yearly budget item
4) Most benefits replaced with 2)
5) NI and income tax merged.
6) As a result of 2) no tax free allowance - the UBI paid by the government would replace it.
The advantages of this would include -
a) No poverty trap - all employment would be better than nothing.
b) Very simple administration
c) No signing on/off gaps - your UBI comes on the 1st of the month. Unless you are dead.
NHS uses tech giants to plan crisis response
Data collected gathered via the NHS's 111 telephone service is to be mixed with other sources to help predict where ventilators, hospital beds, and medical staff will be most in need.
The goal is to help health chiefs model the consequences of moving resources to best tackle the coronavirus pandemic.
Three US tech firms are aiding the effort - Amazon, Microsoft and Palantir - as well as London-based Faculty AI.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-52053565
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8156641/Sweden-considers-cutting-Stockholm-dramatic-coronavirus-restriction-U-turn.html
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
I suspect that rather than being a few percent on expected deaths, we will see a big blip, but many not officially COVID19.
As for sole directors furloughing the details will be key. It may be that you could furlough for 6 weeks, work 1 week to fulfil obligations, then furlough for 6 weeks again. I think furloughing all office holders for a ltd company for an ongoing long period would be tricky to justify unless the rules specifically allow it.
Incidentally, what is the process if Biden/Sanders dies, or withdraws as nominee between the convention and the election? Does the VP candidate then get promoted and name a new running mate?
1. The time from infection to symptoms is 5 to 9 days, and the time before symptoms become sufficiently severe that hospitalisation is required is even longer. Many people going to hospitals now likely got the disease more than two weeks ago.
2. The lockdown was partial at first.
3. If you live in a house with someone, and you get it, they're pretty likely to get it to. Ditto people in old peoples' homes.
* Yes I know they are owned by Google.