Does anyone have a breakdown of which European countries it is standard for students to stay in the parent home while at university and in which it is standard to move to a different location.
It might have an effect on infection patterns.
I am not an expert on these matters but why is the explosion in students testing positive for covid not resulting in more hospital admissions and sadly deaths
The difference in the rate of growth of infections and the rate of hospitalisations has been stark and I, and others, have been pointing this out for weeks.
Various theories exist to explain this. The most popular one is that this wave hasn`t extended to older and more vulnerable age groups - yet. But the "yet" is wearing a bit thin in my view.
Other theories include:
1) infections are not actually going up; the numbers are rising because of increased testing/particular cohort testing 2) the virus is mutating into a less serious form 3) variolation: infections caught via the increased use of masks is resulting in a lower dose which the body can cope with better 4) some of the positive test results are picking up remnants of previous virus infections thus creating an incorrect assumption that the virus is spreading more widely than it is 5) Doctors have better methods of dealing with infections now and are sending people home to manage the virus whereas in the spring they would have been admitted to hospital.
Could be a mixture of the above. And there may be other theories.
1) is disproved by the increase in positivity rates. 2) isn't supported by epidemiological analysis, this virus doesn't mutate very fast (although hopefully future waves of covid will be more akin to the flu). 3) This is definitely possible since recent analysis suggests that wearing a mask can be protective to the user as well as other people. 4) Possibly, but that would be unlikley to show in statistics. Same with the "false positive" wishful thinking. The tests haven't changed, so if you're doing a similar number of tests, but your strike rate is rising then you're seeing a true increase. It's like if you know a pollster has a +4 house effect towards the Tories. If you see a poll that says the Tories are up by +4 then you should be sus. But if two weeks later they release a poll showing a +8 Tory poll, and +12 the week after then you have a trend that's independent of any skew. Yes I'm aware this isn't entirely accurate as an analogy but direction of travel is more important than case count. 5) This is possible, but generally our best treatments have come in the form of hospital administered drugs and treatments. I don't believe we've developed any medication that reduces the chance of being hospitalised.
The general consensus on public health twitter (supported by ScotGov data up here) which shows that the per population rate is much, much higher right now in young people (15-19) who have a lower chance of serious complications. The danger is that the rate amongst all other age groups is increasing slightly, which might lead to hospitalisations as a lagging indicator. We're already seeing signs of increases, although thankfully not at the rate we saw in March.
Does anyone have a breakdown of which European countries it is standard for students to stay in the parent home while at university and in which it is standard to move to a different location.
It might have an effect on infection patterns.
I am not an expert on these matters but why is the explosion in students testing positive for covid not resulting in more hospital admissions and sadly deaths
The difference in the rate of growth of infections and the rate of hospitalisations has been stark and I, and others, have been pointing this out for weeks.
Various theories exist to explain this. The most popular one is that this wave hasn`t extended to older and more vulnerable age groups - yet. But the "yet" is wearing a bit thin in my view.
Other theories include:
1) infections are not actually going up; the numbers are rising because of increased testing/particular cohort testing 2) the virus is mutating into a less serious form 3) variolation: infections caught via the increased use of masks is resulting in a lower dose which the body can cope with better 4) some of the positive test results are picking up remnants of previous virus infections thus creating an incorrect assumption that the virus is spreading more widely than it is 5) Doctors have better methods of dealing with infections now and are sending people home to manage the virus whereas in the spring they would have been admitted to hospital.
Could be a mixture of the above. And there may be other theories.
I'm starting to think that 3 variolation is all important here.
Yes - most people are taking at least some precautions and this means the viral load people are picking up is a whole lot less than the early days, when people were being infected by prolonged close contact with others.
Yes, I think mask wearing is definitely helping reduce initial infection dosage. It makes a lot of logical and scientific sense (they don't always go and in hand).
So actually the detail shows most people are not prepared to pay more tax, less than a third support an increase in income tax or VAT, most voters are however prepared to allow the 10% of the population who have wealth of more than £500 000 to pay more tax with a wealth tax or to increase council tax on properties worth more than £1 million as they will not be paying that tax and it will not effect them
Does anyone have a breakdown of which European countries it is standard for students to stay in the parent home while at university and in which it is standard to move to a different location.
It might have an effect on infection patterns.
I am not an expert on these matters but why is the explosion in students testing positive for covid not resulting in more hospital admissions and sadly deaths
Perhaps because the virus affects younger people much less than older people.
But they must come into contact with older people
Seems strange but then I am not an expert
1. There is a lag between developing symptoms, testing positive and requiring hospitalization, or dying.
2. There is an increase in hospitalizations and deaths, but, because of (1), this will mostly reflect earlier increases in case numbers.
3. If you can hermetically seal the young positive cases from the general population, as Singapore have so far managed with the outbreaks among migrant workers there, then you have a chance to have lots of positive cases and few deaths. In Singapore they currently have 57,830 cases and 27 deaths for this reason. A CFR of ~0.05% at present. University halls of residence are the closest analogue in the UK.
I am grateful for the contributions fellow posters are making to my understanding of this complex issue
If you search on Google there are some good expert articles debating this - there is of course as yet no definitive answer - as well as some relevant previous PB discussions.
Last Friday my better half demonstrated why she is indeed that, by telling me the Trump illness was a scam, a lie, just to get sympathy and votes. I said , no , no, now I am now in agreement with her.
Would need a very elaborate conspiracy theory to arrive at this conclusion. Would mean that many GOP and staffers are lying - and the medical team. And, of course, so many republicans have tested positive also.
No - I think your original reaction is much more likely to be true.
Also given the number of people around Trump ill, its almost non-feasible.
This is a man which hugely dislikes any form of weakness. To be 'ill' is a defect, a failing, and he would hate to be ever be seen in that way.
Trump is ill.
He does have Corona. But what he's doing is milking a (so far) mild case for every ounce of drama and of sympathy and concern and admiration from the simple-minded that he can with a lazer focus on just one thing - the election. He did not need to go to hospital. There was no clinical need for extra oxygen or the cocktail of drugs. It was theatre. "Doctor" Conley is a PR quack taking orders.
The theatrics served another purpose too. Trump's shtick now is "I beat it." For this to support a Strongman image the "it" - his Covid - needs to have been something which really "tested" him. Quietly isolating at the White House for the requisite period, no new fangled treatments, no oxygen boosts, just bed rest and fluids, would not have passed muster. So we have all this crap instead. He has "toughed it out" and "he's back". From this point, rather than playing up his condition he will play it down. He's hoping he will feel ok and if he doesn't he'll pretend he does.
But he does have the virus and the virus is dangerous. It can strike well into the period of infection and lay a person very low indeed. It won't decide not to do that just because this is Donald Trump and he's got an election coming up. It will not be killing him but it could yet make him so ill that it cannot be hidden. Normally I'd be hoping this happens - since nobody deserves a bad case of Covid more than he does - but given the election is so close and he looks a goner I think it best that he gets and stays better. We don't want another drama that sees the betting suspended again.
That requires the drug companies to play ball, which they won't. It's not worth the trouble they'd be in with their shareholders if they allowed authorisation of an ineffective vaccine.
Does anyone have a breakdown of which European countries it is standard for students to stay in the parent home while at university and in which it is standard to move to a different location.
It might have an effect on infection patterns.
I am not an expert on these matters but why is the explosion in students testing positive for covid not resulting in more hospital admissions and sadly deaths
The difference in the rate of growth of infections and the rate of hospitalisations has been stark and I, and others, have been pointing this out for weeks.
Various theories exist to explain this. The most popular one is that this wave hasn`t extended to older and more vulnerable age groups - yet. But the "yet" is wearing a bit thin in my view.
Other theories include:
1) infections are not actually going up; the numbers are rising because of increased testing/particular cohort testing 2) the virus is mutating into a less serious form 3) variolation: infections caught via the increased use of masks is resulting in a lower dose which the body can cope with better 4) some of the positive test results are picking up remnants of previous virus infections thus creating an incorrect assumption that the virus is spreading more widely than it is 5) Doctors have better methods of dealing with infections now and are sending people home to manage the virus whereas in the spring they would have been admitted to hospital.
Could be a mixture of the above. And there may be other theories.
I really appreciate your reply
Thank you
The data is quite clear.
1) The infections are going up (see ONS et al) 2) Even "discounting" by the rise in testing, cases are going up 3) The cases *found* back in the first part of the crisis were heavily biased towards the extremely elderly. 4) The cases *found* now are a more balanced profile - many more young people. 5) The hospitalisations and deaths match the profile of found cases - the younger and healthier groups are much more likely not to need hospitalisation.
The reason for 3) is quite possibly that, at that stage, with testing heavily concentrated around hospitalisation, we were finding the serious cases. At peak, the estimates are that 100K infections per day were happening.
From this follows that 4) is quite possibly due to the testing finding more cases.
In other words, take the following graph. Multiply the the chunk back in April by 20x - that was what happened, really.
The don't knows need to make more of an effort to puzzle this out. Everyone else is.
And why are labour not miles ahead
Because they still have residual Corbyn toxicity. They have four years to detoxify. How long will it take the Tories to detoxify themselves from Johnsonian incompetent populism is anyone's guess.
I doubt the performances of Mark Drakeford in Wales, Sadiq Khan in London and Andy Burnham in Greater Manchester are detoxifying Labour.
I don't like any of those, but the reality is that they are no more lightweight (not difficult), and appear a deal more competent (really not difficult) than Boris Johnson and his Brexit-Party-Lite government. Labour has four years. From a selfish point of view I have no desire to see a Labour government, but it really cannot be worse than this one
To me they don't seem to have achieved anything - Sadiq Khan managed to close some tube stations thereby increasing congestion at the others.
The Westminster government has at least managed to increase testing levels to among the highest in major countries and to have sorted the PPE problem.
This government is deeply mediocre but that seems to be the default among every aspect of the UK establishment.
I'm also beginning to worry that the government will introduce low amounts of taxes on ISA funds. It's such an easy target for a 5-10% income tax rate that no one will bother arguing about but would raise billions at a stroke.
That requires the drug companies to play ball, which they won't. It's not worth the trouble they'd be in with their shareholders if they allowed authorisation of an ineffective vaccine.
If they screw this up it will trash their reputation and fuel the antivax movement. Not worth it.
Does anyone have a breakdown of which European countries it is standard for students to stay in the parent home while at university and in which it is standard to move to a different location.
It might have an effect on infection patterns.
I am not an expert on these matters but why is the explosion in students testing positive for covid not resulting in more hospital admissions and sadly deaths
The difference in the rate of growth of infections and the rate of hospitalisations has been stark and I, and others, have been pointing this out for weeks.
Various theories exist to explain this. The most popular one is that this wave hasn`t extended to older and more vulnerable age groups - yet. But the "yet" is wearing a bit thin in my view.
Other theories include:
1) infections are not actually going up; the numbers are rising because of increased testing/particular cohort testing 2) the virus is mutating into a less serious form 3) variolation: infections caught via the increased use of masks is resulting in a lower dose which the body can cope with better 4) some of the positive test results are picking up remnants of previous virus infections thus creating an incorrect assumption that the virus is spreading more widely than it is 5) Doctors have better methods of dealing with infections now and are sending people home to manage the virus whereas in the spring they would have been admitted to hospital.
Could be a mixture of the above. And there may be other theories.
1) is disproved by the increase in positivity rates. 2) isn't supported by epidemiological analysis, this virus doesn't mutate very fast (although hopefully future waves of covid will be more akin to the flu). 3) This is definitely possible since recent analysis suggests that wearing a mask can be protective to the user as well as other people. 4) Possibly, but that would be unlikley to show in statistics. Same with the "false positive" wishful thinking. The tests haven't changed, so if you're doing a similar number of tests, but your strike rate is rising then you're seeing a true increase. It's like if you know a pollster has a +4 house effect towards the Tories. If you see a poll that says the Tories are up by +4 then you should be sus. But if two weeks later they release a poll showing a +8 Tory poll, and +12 the week after then you have a trend that's independent of any skew. Yes I'm aware this isn't entirely accurate as an analogy but direction of travel is more important than case count. 5) This is possible, but generally our best treatments have come in the form of hospital administered drugs and treatments. I don't believe we've developed any medication that reduces the chance of being hospitalised.
The general consensus on public health twitter (supported by ScotGov data up here) which shows that the per population rate is much, much higher right now in young people (15-19) who have a lower chance of serious complications. The danger is that the rate amongst all other age groups is increasing slightly, which might lead to hospitalisations as a lagging indicator. We're already seeing signs of increases, although thankfully not at the rate we saw in March.
Re your point 5) - yes, interesting, Foxy has cited this as an explanation and I assumed he was talking about treatments outside/at the door of hospitals. He must have been or the incidents would be counted in the hospitalisation numbers. I`d like to know more about this.
Does anyone have a breakdown of which European countries it is standard for students to stay in the parent home while at university and in which it is standard to move to a different location.
It might have an effect on infection patterns.
I am not an expert on these matters but why is the explosion in students testing positive for covid not resulting in more hospital admissions and sadly deaths
Perhaps because the virus affects younger people much less than older people.
But they must come into contact with older people
Seems strange but then I am not an expert
As ever I recommend looking at what happened with Geoegia
Does anyone have a breakdown of which European countries it is standard for students to stay in the parent home while at university and in which it is standard to move to a different location.
It might have an effect on infection patterns.
I am not an expert on these matters but why is the explosion in students testing positive for covid not resulting in more hospital admissions and sadly deaths
The difference in the rate of growth of infections and the rate of hospitalisations has been stark and I, and others, have been pointing this out for weeks.
Various theories exist to explain this. The most popular one is that this wave hasn`t extended to older and more vulnerable age groups - yet. But the "yet" is wearing a bit thin in my view.
Other theories include:
1) infections are not actually going up; the numbers are rising because of increased testing/particular cohort testing 2) the virus is mutating into a less serious form 3) variolation: infections caught via the increased use of masks is resulting in a lower dose which the body can cope with better 4) some of the positive test results are picking up remnants of previous virus infections thus creating an incorrect assumption that the virus is spreading more widely than it is 5) Doctors have better methods of dealing with infections now and are sending people home to manage the virus whereas in the spring they would have been admitted to hospital.
Could be a mixture of the above. And there may be other theories.
1) is disproved by the increase in positivity rates. 2) isn't supported by epidemiological analysis, this virus doesn't mutate very fast (although hopefully future waves of covid will be more akin to the flu). 3) This is definitely possible since recent analysis suggests that wearing a mask can be protective to the user as well as other people. 4) Possibly, but that would be unlikley to show in statistics. Same with the "false positive" wishful thinking. The tests haven't changed, so if you're doing a similar number of tests, but your strike rate is rising then you're seeing a true increase. It's like if you know a pollster has a +4 house effect towards the Tories. If you see a poll that says the Tories are up by +4 then you should be sus. But if two weeks later they release a poll showing a +8 Tory poll, and +12 the week after then you have a trend that's independent of any skew. Yes I'm aware this isn't entirely accurate as an analogy but direction of travel is more important than case count. 5) This is possible, but generally our best treatments have come in the form of hospital administered drugs and treatments. I don't believe we've developed any medication that reduces the chance of being hospitalised.
The general consensus on public health twitter (supported by ScotGov data up here) which shows that the per population rate is much, much higher right now in young people (15-19) who have a lower chance of serious complications. The danger is that the rate amongst all other age groups is increasing slightly, which might lead to hospitalisations as a lagging indicator. We're already seeing signs of increases, although thankfully not at the rate we saw in March.
There are now a fair few studies demonstrating that the virus has mutated several times. The European strain was different from the Chinese strain, the North American strain possibly different again, and there was a research study published on CNN just a couple of weeks ago that suggested the second wave strain is different from the first, in particular by being more contagious.
Statistically, both 1 and 4 depend also upon who you are testing, and how those tests that are available are being allocated.
Remember also that in the UK over half of deaths (up to July at least) have been in care homes. Simply taking better precautions there (not least avoiding sending the infected into them) will dramatically affect death rates.
The reason that so many favour wealth taxes, is that it is not just Americans that are pissed off when the conspicuously wealthy pay bugger all income tax, like Donald Trump. Similarly that booming companies like Amazon and other tech giants pay nothing.
When taxes are optional for the rich, it creates a lot of resentment, and rightly so.
Indeed. The problem of course is that whilst any given country can sort out their own tax code to make corporations and individuals pay due taxes, they can't sort everywhere else's tax code. Hence how Starbucks can send all their coffee beans via Luxembourg. I can't see a solution to this that isn't a consumer boycott.
Make tax avoidance an anathema. Make consumers refuse to engage with the likes of Amazon so that paying due taxes is what makes their business viable. I know, it won't work. Because the likes of Amazon are far too useful to be boycotted.
Re your last paragraph boycotting Amazon will not happen, not least because they offer a product and customer service unmatched by anyone.
Covid has entrenched on line shopping and working like nothing else could, and we cannot stop this revolution
Everyone wants Amazon to pay more tax, but the jobs but on the other side of the balance sheet they have created thousands of jobs providing security to their workforce and of course who pay their taxes
What Rochdale is suggesting is like someone standing in a fast moving stream trying to push the water back with their hands. It's simply unrealistic and won't work and will cause more harm than good.
A working solution is needed.
According to Amazon they paid £793mn in taxes in 2018 so it's not nothing. We need to find what works and ensure that applies consistently and fairly to all.
I am *not* suggesting it. Because it won't work. Because I have an Amazon Prime account. People like me *could* sniffily object to Amazon et al as tax-avoiders / job destroyers / whatever. But they're bloody good at what they do. So better to get on board and take as many benefits as possible - Prime deliveries lose them a fortune.
So actually the detail shows most people are not prepared to pay more tax, less than a third support an increase in income tax or VAT, most voters are however prepared to allow the 10% of the population who have wealth of more than £500 000 to pay more tax with a wealth tax or to increase council tax on properties worth more than £1 million as they will not be paying that tax and it will not effect them
If that's 10% of the population, which equates to, maybe 6m people, then even if you charged them £2,000 each that would be only be £12bn raised which isnt huge in the grand scheme of things. Also that wealth is 90% 'tied' up property most likely. in The 'vast' majority of people would only be just over that limit as well.
I'm also beginning to worry that the government will introduce low amounts of taxes on ISA funds. It's such an easy target for a 5-10% income tax rate that no one will bother arguing about but would raise billions at a stroke.
I`m worried about this too. It would be akin to a trap - luring people into a tax efficient government scheme only to allow wealth to emerge and then go on and tax it. Could it be subject to legal challenge?
That requires the drug companies to play ball, which they won't. It's not worth the trouble they'd be in with their shareholders if they allowed authorisation of an ineffective vaccine.
The current fate of the Sackler family must be sharpening minds.
Taking a chainsaw to the drug companies in the US would be extremely popular - they are seen as price gouging scum, nearly universally.
If they went along and it went wrong, they would have no friends to hide behind - at a certain point, even the bought politicians run away.
Does anyone have a breakdown of which European countries it is standard for students to stay in the parent home while at university and in which it is standard to move to a different location.
It might have an effect on infection patterns.
I am not an expert on these matters but why is the explosion in students testing positive for covid not resulting in more hospital admissions and sadly deaths
Perhaps because the virus affects younger people much less than older people.
But they must come into contact with older people
Seems strange but then I am not an expert
As ever I recommend looking at what happened with Geoegia
Even as cases rocketed (mostly amongst the young) deaths fell.
Everyone started formulating complicated theories about how the virus had mutated I to a lesser form.
And then deaths exploded. Makes sure you have the graphs by date of death and date of onset.
I think the explosion is surely down to contact with older people happening in the summer holidays. Students here who are catching it will be mostly in their own bubble of 18-21 year olds. Ideally by the time Christmas rolls around that cohort will have achieved herd immunity so when they come home there no real risk if them spreading it.
Does anyone have a breakdown of which European countries it is standard for students to stay in the parent home while at university and in which it is standard to move to a different location.
It might have an effect on infection patterns.
I am not an expert on these matters but why is the explosion in students testing positive for covid not resulting in more hospital admissions and sadly deaths
Perhaps because the virus affects younger people much less than older people.
But they must come into contact with older people
Seems strange but then I am not an expert
As ever I recommend looking at what happened with Geoegia
Even as cases rocketed (mostly amongst the young) deaths fell.
Everyone started formulating complicated theories about how the virus had mutated I to a lesser form.
And then deaths exploded. Makes sure you have the graphs by date of death and date of onset.
I think the explosion is surely down to contact with older people happening in the summer holidays. Students here who are catching it will be mostly in their own bubble of 18-21 year olds. Ideally by the time Christmas rolls around that cohort will have achieved herd immunity so when they come home there no real risk if them spreading it.
Have we accepted that someone who is immune cannot pick it up and pass it on?
So actually the detail shows most people are not prepared to pay more tax, less than a third support an increase in income tax or VAT, most voters are however prepared to allow the 10% of the population who have wealth of more than £500 000 to pay more tax with a wealth tax or to increase council tax on properties worth more than £1 million as they will not be paying that tax and it will not effect them
If that's 10% of the population, which equates to, maybe 6m people, then even if you charged them £2,000 each that would be only be £12bn raised which isnt huge in the grand scheme of things. Also that wealth is 90% 'tied' up property most likely. in The 'vast' majority of people would only be just over that limit as well.
So there's a lot of practical issues with that.
Which is why the LVT would be my preferred approach - very hard to escape from even if houses did evaporate on being sold (as a lot of BTL landlords seem to believe).
Last Friday my better half demonstrated why she is indeed that, by telling me the Trump illness was a scam, a lie, just to get sympathy and votes. I said , no , no, now I am now in agreement with her.
Would need a very elaborate conspiracy theory to arrive at this conclusion. Would mean that many GOP and staffers are lying - and the medical team. And, of course, so many republicans have tested positive also.
No - I think your original reaction is much more likely to be true.
Also given the number of people around Trump ill, its almost non-feasible.
This is a man which hugely dislikes any form of weakness. To be 'ill' is a defect, a failing, and he would hate to be ever be seen in that way.
Trump is ill.
He does have Corona. But what he's doing is milking a (so far) mild case for every ounce of drama and of sympathy and concern and admiration from the simple-minded that he can with a lazer focus on just one thing - the election. He did not need to go to hospital. There was no clinical need for extra oxygen or the cocktail of drugs. It was theatre. "Doctor" Conley is a PR quack taking orders.
The theatrics served another purpose too. Trump's shtick now is "I beat it." For this to support a Strongman image the "it" - his Covid - needs to have been something which really "tested" him. Quietly isolating at the White House for the requisite period, no new fangled treatments, no oxygen boosts, just bed rest and fluids, would not have passed muster. So we have all this crap instead. He has "toughed it out" and "he's back". From this point, rather than playing up his condition he will play it down. He's hoping he will feel ok and if he doesn't he'll pretend he does.
But he does have the virus and the virus is dangerous. It can strike well into the period of infection and lay a person very low indeed. It won't decide not to do that just because this is Donald Trump and he's got an election coming up. It will not be killing him but it could yet make him so ill that it cannot be hidden. Normally I'd be hoping this happens - since nobody deserves a bad case of Covid more than he does - but given the election is so close and he looks a goner I think it best that he gets and stays better. We don't want another drama that sees the betting suspended again.
The speed with which everything happened - no symptoms to mild symptoms to going to hospital with some more serious issues to apparent recovery - does make you wonder. We're still in the early period where symptoms tend to be mild and the illness is deciding which way to go.
The brave thing to do would be remove higher rate relief on pension contributions. Or certainly cap it.
I don`t think that`s brave. It would be an easy measure to take and should I think have been done long ago. It has to some degree been tackled though via the back door by restricting annual allowance and introducing, and reducing, the lifetime allowance.
I've stopped buying books from Amazon entirely now (which is funny because that's their original business), because they seem to have forgotten how to ship books in a careful and damage-free way.
I've stopped buying books from Amazon entirely now (which is funny because that's their original business), because they seem to have forgotten how to ship books in a careful and damage-free way.
I like buying as new 2nd hand hardbacks from eBay. A lot of good booksellers out there who aren't Amazon.
The reason that so many favour wealth taxes, is that it is not just Americans that are pissed off when the conspicuously wealthy pay bugger all income tax, like Donald Trump. Similarly that booming companies like Amazon and other tech giants pay nothing.
When taxes are optional for the rich, it creates a lot of resentment, and rightly so.
Indeed. The problem of course is that whilst any given country can sort out their own tax code to make corporations and individuals pay due taxes, they can't sort everywhere else's tax code. Hence how Starbucks can send all their coffee beans via Luxembourg. I can't see a solution to this that isn't a consumer boycott.
Make tax avoidance an anathema. Make consumers refuse to engage with the likes of Amazon so that paying due taxes is what makes their business viable. I know, it won't work. Because the likes of Amazon are far too useful to be boycotted.
Re your last paragraph boycotting Amazon will not happen, not least because they offer a product and customer service unmatched by anyone.
Covid has entrenched on line shopping and working like nothing else could, and we cannot stop this revolution
Everyone wants Amazon to pay more tax, but the jobs but on the other side of the balance sheet they have created thousands of jobs providing security to their workforce and of course who pay their taxes
What Rochdale is suggesting is like someone standing in a fast moving stream trying to push the water back with their hands. It's simply unrealistic and won't work and will cause more harm than good.
A working solution is needed.
According to Amazon they paid £793mn in taxes in 2018 so it's not nothing. We need to find what works and ensure that applies consistently and fairly to all.
I am *not* suggesting it. Because it won't work. Because I have an Amazon Prime account. People like me *could* sniffily object to Amazon et al as tax-avoiders / job destroyers / whatever. But they're bloody good at what they do. So better to get on board and take as many benefits as possible - Prime deliveries lose them a fortune.
But it's also why Amazon trumps everyone (and everything) else. I need XYZ well Amazon will be cheap enough and I will have it tomorrow.
I found it hard to deal with in the Europe last year where delivery was 48 hours rather than 24...
Tax increases should fall on the over 60s. Non-primary residential property surcharge, a special higher rate of tax for early retirement, pension income to be taxed as regular income, scrap the triple lock.
I'll use my dad as an example, he's about to turn 66 which means he's of state pension age. He absolutely doesn't need it, his annual earnings from private pensions, his own equity investments and continuing business interests bring in around 15-20x whatever the state pension is. It's a complete waste of money to give it to him along with all of the other bungs, if anything he's absolutely able to pay 10-20% more tax per year because he's got no mortgage, his kids (my sister and I) have flown the nest and has very few ongoing expenses.
Instead I'm sure the tax rises will fall on the working age population.
I think you should be very wary of suggesting things like this for the simple reason you are solving an issue that is fast disappearing. Those scales of pension earning aren't going to be there for my generation (generation x) and most of us are going to have nowhere near that level of pension income I know that despite paying into private pensions all my life and earning fairly decent money for most of the last 25 years that I am wondering if I will be able to afford to retire.
These taxes will hit people like your dad for a few years yes but they will still be there when my generation retires and we will already be on frugal incomes and often without the benefit of owning our own homes if we have worked most of our time in the south east.
Does anyone have a breakdown of which European countries it is standard for students to stay in the parent home while at university and in which it is standard to move to a different location.
It might have an effect on infection patterns.
I am not an expert on these matters but why is the explosion in students testing positive for covid not resulting in more hospital admissions and sadly deaths
The difference in the rate of growth of infections and the rate of hospitalisations has been stark and I, and others, have been pointing this out for weeks.
Various theories exist to explain this. The most popular one is that this wave hasn`t extended to older and more vulnerable age groups - yet. But the "yet" is wearing a bit thin in my view.
Other theories include:
1) infections are not actually going up; the numbers are rising because of increased testing/particular cohort testing 2) the virus is mutating into a less serious form 3) variolation: infections caught via the increased use of masks is resulting in a lower dose which the body can cope with better 4) some of the positive test results are picking up remnants of previous virus infections thus creating an incorrect assumption that the virus is spreading more widely than it is 5) Doctors have better methods of dealing with infections now and are sending people home to manage the virus whereas in the spring they would have been admitted to hospital.
Could be a mixture of the above. And there may be other theories.
1) is disproved by the increase in positivity rates. 2) isn't supported by epidemiological analysis, this virus doesn't mutate very fast (although hopefully future waves of covid will be more akin to the flu). 3) This is definitely possible since recent analysis suggests that wearing a mask can be protective to the user as well as other people. 4) Possibly, but that would be unlikley to show in statistics. Same with the "false positive" wishful thinking. The tests haven't changed, so if you're doing a similar number of tests, but your strike rate is rising then you're seeing a true increase. It's like if you know a pollster has a +4 house effect towards the Tories. If you see a poll that says the Tories are up by +4 then you should be sus. But if two weeks later they release a poll showing a +8 Tory poll, and +12 the week after then you have a trend that's independent of any skew. Yes I'm aware this isn't entirely accurate as an analogy but direction of travel is more important than case count. 5) This is possible, but generally our best treatments have come in the form of hospital administered drugs and treatments. I don't believe we've developed any medication that reduces the chance of being hospitalised.
The general consensus on public health twitter (supported by ScotGov data up here) which shows that the per population rate is much, much higher right now in young people (15-19) who have a lower chance of serious complications. The danger is that the rate amongst all other age groups is increasing slightly, which might lead to hospitalisations as a lagging indicator. We're already seeing signs of increases, although thankfully not at the rate we saw in March.
Re your point 5) - yes, interesting, Foxy has cited this as an explanation and I assumed he was talking about treatments outside/at the door of hospitals. He must have been or the incidents would be counted in the hospitalisation numbers. I`d like to know more about this.
On 5 there is also some simpler stuff like getting people lying face down, and not being so keen to get people on ventilators. The greater expertise medics now have about the progress of the disease will have led to better decision making on who and when to admit.
I've stopped buying books from Amazon entirely now (which is funny because that's their original business), because they seem to have forgotten how to ship books in a careful and damage-free way.
That's odd, I just ordered the Secret Commonwealth and it came in pristine condition.
Does anyone have a breakdown of which European countries it is standard for students to stay in the parent home while at university and in which it is standard to move to a different location.
It might have an effect on infection patterns.
I am not an expert on these matters but why is the explosion in students testing positive for covid not resulting in more hospital admissions and sadly deaths
The difference in the rate of growth of infections and the rate of hospitalisations has been stark and I, and others, have been pointing this out for weeks.
Various theories exist to explain this. The most popular one is that this wave hasn`t extended to older and more vulnerable age groups - yet. But the "yet" is wearing a bit thin in my view.
Other theories include:
1) infections are not actually going up; the numbers are rising because of increased testing/particular cohort testing 2) the virus is mutating into a less serious form 3) variolation: infections caught via the increased use of masks is resulting in a lower dose which the body can cope with better 4) some of the positive test results are picking up remnants of previous virus infections thus creating an incorrect assumption that the virus is spreading more widely than it is 5) Doctors have better methods of dealing with infections now and are sending people home to manage the virus whereas in the spring they would have been admitted to hospital.
Could be a mixture of the above. And there may be other theories.
I really appreciate your reply
Thank you
The data is quite clear.
1) The infections are going up (see ONS et al) 2) Even "discounting" by the rise in testing, cases are going up 3) The cases *found* back in the first part of the crisis were heavily biased towards the extremely elderly. 4) The cases *found* now are a more balanced profile - many more young people. 5) The hospitalisations and deaths match the profile of found cases - the younger and healthier groups are much more likely not to need hospitalisation.
The reason for 3) is quite possibly that, at that stage, with testing heavily concentrated around hospitalisation, we were finding the serious cases. At peak, the estimates are that 100K infections per day were happening.
From this follows that 4) is quite possibly due to the testing finding more cases.
In other words, take the following graph. Multiply the the chunk back in April by 20x - that was what happened, really.
The implication of your x20 for cases is that we're currently at ~1/8th of the spring peak in cases (maybe a bit more because we still won't be identifying all cases), and from your hospitalization graph we're at 1/8th of the peak too.
So there really isn't a discrepancy when you account for the testing system being overwhelmed in the spring.
That requires the drug companies to play ball, which they won't. It's not worth the trouble they'd be in with their shareholders if they allowed authorisation of an ineffective vaccine.
I honestly don't know - but there's speculation about that. And it's not as though some pharmas haven't made stupid decisions before.
I'm also beginning to worry that the government will introduce low amounts of taxes on ISA funds. It's such an easy target for a 5-10% income tax rate that no one will bother arguing about but would raise billions at a stroke.
I`m worried about this too. It would be akin to a trap - luring people into a tax efficient government scheme only to allow wealth to emerge and then go on and tax it. Could it be subject to legal challenge?
No more than the WASPI situation, where legal challenges failed.
The brave thing to do would be remove higher rate relief on pension contributions. Or certainly cap it.
And basic rate relief on buy to let.
Higher rate relief is already removed on mortgage interest for BTL. I think that's enough.
No, it's not. That plus an annual surcharge for owning a non-primary residential property would work very nicely.
It's nice to see someone else who agrees with me that it's the asset type (in this case Residential Property) that is important when deciding whether loans should be tax deductible or not.
For me the only valid reason for mortgage interest relief on BTL property should be for Build to Rent (i.e. a different market).
So actually the detail shows most people are not prepared to pay more tax, less than a third support an increase in income tax or VAT, most voters are however prepared to allow the 10% of the population who have wealth of more than £500 000 to pay more tax with a wealth tax or to increase council tax on properties worth more than £1 million as they will not be paying that tax and it will not effect them
The council tax idea I am ok with, but re the wealth tax above £500K particularly for those retired or planning properly for retirement:
Are you including DB pensions in that wealth total? For a public sector pension a value of several million will result in a very moderate pension. How about DC pensions, particularly those in drawdown? If not (which would be a reasonable response) what about those who have provided for their own pension by other means eg shares, property, etc. Why are they being treated differently.
Off the top of my head I am guessing £500,000 saved for a pension in whatever form would provide a pension of about £15 - £20K only and I am guessing for most people much of that £500K will be tied up in the house they live in. Do you think it is fair to tax these people as wealthy?
He looked a bit breathless after climbing the stairs, and a faster respiratory rate. What struck me though were his restless, fidgety movements. Restlessness is often a sign of hypoxia, but it could also be steroid induced. He hasn't beaten this yet.
I think you'd have to compare with pre-infection behaviour though. He's been odd, restless and wobbly (remember the ramp ?) for some time now.
Wow. He looked really unsteady in that and I thought at one point he was going to pass out...
I think we must be watching different clips. Seems fine to me, a bit studied but he has just had the pox.
As @Nigelb notes - have you studied so closely his pre-infection behaviour?
That requires the drug companies to play ball, which they won't. It's not worth the trouble they'd be in with their shareholders if they allowed authorisation of an ineffective vaccine.
If they screw this up it will trash their reputation and fuel the antivax movement. Not worth it.
The Russians have a vaccine, what if Trump imported that?
So actually the detail shows most people are not prepared to pay more tax, less than a third support an increase in income tax or VAT, most voters are however prepared to allow the 10% of the population who have wealth of more than £500 000 to pay more tax with a wealth tax or to increase council tax on properties worth more than £1 million as they will not be paying that tax and it will not effect them
The council tax idea I am ok with, but re the wealth tax above £500K particularly for those retired or planning properly for retirement:
Are you including DB pensions in that wealth total? For a public sector pension a value of several million will result in a very moderate pension. How about DC pensions, particularly those in drawdown? If not (which would be a reasonable response) what about those who have provided for their own pension by other means eg shares, property, etc. Why are they being treated differently.
Off the top of my head I am guessing £500,000 saved for a pension in whatever form would provide a pension of about £15 - £20K only and I am guessing for most people much of that £500K will be tied up in the house they live in. Do you think it is fair to tax these people as wealthy?
It would be worth informing yourself by checking some stats on how small a proportion of the population has wealth at that sort of level.
Perhaps the Conservatives should come up with a new tax, one that this is a fixed annual sum levied on every individual?
Taxes are things that lots of people (particularly on the left) think should be increased but only for other people. I always think there should be a "voluntary tax" to see how many people genuinely want to pay more. It would be the ultimate in virtue signalling, with those that are paying more voluntarily publishing their extra funding that they are paying over so doctors and public "servants" can have even bigger pensions.
Can be turned on its head somewhat. The warm glow one feels through donating to charity actually detracts from the tax-take as these days each donation can be offset against income tax (Gift Aid). Blair policy I think. I`d like to see this practice ended.
If you recall, the coalition government tried to restrict it. There was a tsunami of indignation from the luvvies and Guardian-reading classes generally, and they had to give up the idea:
Last Friday my better half demonstrated why she is indeed that, by telling me the Trump illness was a scam, a lie, just to get sympathy and votes. I said , no , no, now I am now in agreement with her.
Would need a very elaborate conspiracy theory to arrive at this conclusion. Would mean that many GOP and staffers are lying - and the medical team. And, of course, so many republicans have tested positive also.
No - I think your original reaction is much more likely to be true.
Also given the number of people around Trump ill, its almost non-feasible.
This is a man which hugely dislikes any form of weakness. To be 'ill' is a defect, a failing, and he would hate to be ever be seen in that way.
Trump is ill.
He does have Corona. But what he's doing is milking a (so far) mild case for every ounce of drama and of sympathy and concern and admiration from the simple-minded that he can with a lazer focus on just one thing - the election. He did not need to go to hospital. There was no clinical need for extra oxygen or the cocktail of drugs. It was theatre. "Doctor" Conley is a PR quack taking orders.
The theatrics served another purpose too. Trump's shtick now is "I beat it." For this to support a Strongman image the "it" - his Covid - needs to have been something which really "tested" him. Quietly isolating at the White House for the requisite period, no new fangled treatments, no oxygen boosts, just bed rest and fluids, would not have passed muster. So we have all this crap instead. He has "toughed it out" and "he's back". From this point, rather than playing up his condition he will play it down. He's hoping he will feel ok and if he doesn't he'll pretend he does.
But he does have the virus and the virus is dangerous. It can strike well into the period of infection and lay a person very low indeed. It won't decide not to do that just because this is Donald Trump and he's got an election coming up. It will not be killing him but it could yet make him so ill that it cannot be hidden. Normally I'd be hoping this happens - since nobody deserves a bad case of Covid more than he does - but given the election is so close and he looks a goner I think it best that he gets and stays better. We don't want another drama that sees the betting suspended again.
The speed with which everything happened - no symptoms to mild symptoms to going to hospital with some more serious issues to apparent recovery - does make you wonder. We're still in the early period where symptoms tend to be mild and the illness is deciding which way to go.
And also there's the wildcard of the Regeneron antibodies. There's not as yet much evidence of their efficacy in terms of disease modification, but they certainly do what they're supposed to in binding to the virus RBD, and if administered early (as in Trump's case) might have a significant effect.
Worth noting that they're not going to be available to the average patient for some time, if at all.
So actually the detail shows most people are not prepared to pay more tax, less than a third support an increase in income tax or VAT, most voters are however prepared to allow the 10% of the population who have wealth of more than £500 000 to pay more tax with a wealth tax or to increase council tax on properties worth more than £1 million as they will not be paying that tax and it will not effect them
The council tax idea I am ok with, but re the wealth tax above £500K particularly for those retired or planning properly for retirement:
Are you including DB pensions in that wealth total? For a public sector pension a value of several million will result in a very moderate pension. How about DC pensions, particularly those in drawdown? If not (which would be a reasonable response) what about those who have provided for their own pension by other means eg shares, property, etc. Why are they being treated differently.
Off the top of my head I am guessing £500,000 saved for a pension in whatever form would provide a pension of about £15 - £20K only and I am guessing for most people much of that £500K will be tied up in the house they live in. Do you think it is fair to tax these people as wealthy?
As you point out, wealth isn't always held in liquid assets.
Does anyone have a breakdown of which European countries it is standard for students to stay in the parent home while at university and in which it is standard to move to a different location.
It might have an effect on infection patterns.
I am not an expert on these matters but why is the explosion in students testing positive for covid not resulting in more hospital admissions and sadly deaths
The difference in the rate of growth of infections and the rate of hospitalisations has been stark and I, and others, have been pointing this out for weeks.
Various theories exist to explain this. The most popular one is that this wave hasn`t extended to older and more vulnerable age groups - yet. But the "yet" is wearing a bit thin in my view.
Other theories include:
1) infections are not actually going up; the numbers are rising because of increased testing/particular cohort testing 2) the virus is mutating into a less serious form 3) variolation: infections caught via the increased use of masks is resulting in a lower dose which the body can cope with better 4) some of the positive test results are picking up remnants of previous virus infections thus creating an incorrect assumption that the virus is spreading more widely than it is 5) Doctors have better methods of dealing with infections now and are sending people home to manage the virus whereas in the spring they would have been admitted to hospital.
Could be a mixture of the above. And there may be other theories.
1) is disproved by the increase in positivity rates. 2) isn't supported by epidemiological analysis, this virus doesn't mutate very fast (although hopefully future waves of covid will be more akin to the flu). 3) This is definitely possible since recent analysis suggests that wearing a mask can be protective to the user as well as other people. 4) Possibly, but that would be unlikley to show in statistics. Same with the "false positive" wishful thinking. The tests haven't changed, so if you're doing a similar number of tests, but your strike rate is rising then you're seeing a true increase. It's like if you know a pollster has a +4 house effect towards the Tories. If you see a poll that says the Tories are up by +4 then you should be sus. But if two weeks later they release a poll showing a +8 Tory poll, and +12 the week after then you have a trend that's independent of any skew. Yes I'm aware this isn't entirely accurate as an analogy but direction of travel is more important than case count. 5) This is possible, but generally our best treatments have come in the form of hospital administered drugs and treatments. I don't believe we've developed any medication that reduces the chance of being hospitalised.
The general consensus on public health twitter (supported by ScotGov data up here) which shows that the per population rate is much, much higher right now in young people (15-19) who have a lower chance of serious complications. The danger is that the rate amongst all other age groups is increasing slightly, which might lead to hospitalisations as a lagging indicator. We're already seeing signs of increases, although thankfully not at the rate we saw in March.
There are now a fair few studies demonstrating that the virus has mutated several times. The European strain was different from the Chinese strain, the North American strain possibly different again, and there was a research study published on CNN just a couple of weeks ago that suggested the second wave strain is different from the first, in particular by being more contagious.
Statistically, both 1 and 4 depend also upon who you are testing, and how those tests that are available are being allocated.
Remember also that in the UK over half of deaths (up to July at least) have been in care homes. Simply taking better precautions there (not least avoiding sending the infected into them) will dramatically affect death rates.
The reason that so many favour wealth taxes, is that it is not just Americans that are pissed off when the conspicuously wealthy pay bugger all income tax, like Donald Trump. Similarly that booming companies like Amazon and other tech giants pay nothing.
When taxes are optional for the rich, it creates a lot of resentment, and rightly so.
Indeed. The problem of course is that whilst any given country can sort out their own tax code to make corporations and individuals pay due taxes, they can't sort everywhere else's tax code. Hence how Starbucks can send all their coffee beans via Luxembourg. I can't see a solution to this that isn't a consumer boycott.
Make tax avoidance an anathema. Make consumers refuse to engage with the likes of Amazon so that paying due taxes is what makes their business viable. I know, it won't work. Because the likes of Amazon are far too useful to be boycotted.
Re your last paragraph boycotting Amazon will not happen, not least because they offer a product and customer service unmatched by anyone.
Covid has entrenched on line shopping and working like nothing else could, and we cannot stop this revolution
Everyone wants Amazon to pay more tax, but the jobs but on the other side of the balance sheet they have created thousands of jobs providing security to their workforce and of course who pay their taxes
What Rochdale is suggesting is like someone standing in a fast moving stream trying to push the water back with their hands. It's simply unrealistic and won't work and will cause more harm than good.
A working solution is needed.
According to Amazon they paid £793mn in taxes in 2018 so it's not nothing. We need to find what works and ensure that applies consistently and fairly to all.
I am *not* suggesting it. Because it won't work. Because I have an Amazon Prime account. People like me *could* sniffily object to Amazon et al as tax-avoiders / job destroyers / whatever. But they're bloody good at what they do. So better to get on board and take as many benefits as possible - Prime deliveries lose them a fortune.
But it's also why Amazon trumps everyone (and everything) else. I need XYZ well Amazon will be cheap enough and I will have it tomorrow.
I found it hard to deal with in the Europe last year where delivery was 48 hours rather than 24...
Absolutely. It doesn't matter that Amazon has to invest to cover delivery costs. It doesn't matter that its bottom line profit margins would be thin on many products they sell. Because they sell them on a vast scale the cash profit is large. And they have found all kinds of added value services they can sell which don't run at thin margins.
I just want them to rename as Buy'n'Large like on WALL-E. Because that's who they are.
Time to reduce benefits, there's no greater incentive to get a job than having no or small benefits. The state pension is a good place to start.
Taxes should be cut not increased.
So those who rely on just the state pension should be made sufficiently poor that they have to to go back to work, whatever their age? Hm, I can see a few problems with that.
Time to reduce benefits, there's no greater incentive to get a job than having no or small benefits. The state pension is a good place to start.
Taxes should be cut not increased.
So those who rely on just the state pension should be made sufficiently poor that they have to to go back to work, whatever their age? Hm, I can see a few problems with that.
Not quite, they were protected with things like the triple lock, they should have it removed as a minimum.
The news says that Shagger will announce that off-shore wind will power the UK in its entirety from 2030. A big, bold policy lift from the LibDems - glad he is listening.
The brave thing to do would be remove higher rate relief on pension contributions. Or certainly cap it.
And basic rate relief on buy to let.
Higher rate relief is already removed on mortgage interest for BTL. I think that's enough.
No, it's not. That plus an annual surcharge for owning a non-primary residential property would work very nicely.
It's nice to see someone else who agrees with me that it's the asset type (in this case Residential Property) that is important when deciding whether loans should be tax deductible or not.
For me the only valid reason for mortgage interest relief on BTL property should be for Build to Rent (i.e. a different market).
Yes, it's exactly the same as entrepreneurs and investors benefitting from starting new businesses vs investors in existing companies are taxed differently. Build to rent is a laudable aim and should be encouraged through the tax system, buying up property that already exists shouldn't.
So actually the detail shows most people are not prepared to pay more tax, less than a third support an increase in income tax or VAT, most voters are however prepared to allow the 10% of the population who have wealth of more than £500 000 to pay more tax with a wealth tax or to increase council tax on properties worth more than £1 million as they will not be paying that tax and it will not effect them
For a public sector pension a value of several million will result in a very moderate pension.
How about DC pensions, particularly those in drawdown? If not (which would be a reasonable response) what about those who have provided for their own pension by other means eg shares, property, etc. Why are they being treated differently.
Off the top of my head I am guessing £500,000 saved for a pension in whatever form would provide a pension of about £15 - £20K only and I am guessing for most people much of that £500K will be tied up in the house they live in. Do you think it is fair to tax these people as wealthy?
Altered quote only to highlight the piece I wanted to comment on
What planet are you on? I can only imagine you consider almost 100k a year to be a moderate pension.
He plays for Liverpool FC, it confirms my theory that the only reason Liverpool got shellacked on Sunday was that the team contained a lot of undiagnosed plague carriers.
He plays for Liverpool FC, it confirms my theory that the only reason Liverpool got shellacked on Sunday was that the team contained a lot of undiagnosed plague carriers.
Whereas my theory as to why United got shellacked was that Spurs played well and they played shit. Every team can beat any other team in this league, you don't have to blame the pox for a bad day out...
I've stopped buying books from Amazon entirely now (which is funny because that's their original business), because they seem to have forgotten how to ship books in a careful and damage-free way.
I like buying as new 2nd hand hardbacks from eBay. A lot of good booksellers out there who aren't Amazon.
Pre Covid, I used to use Charity shops as a library. Buy a book for 50p read it and return it to the shop so they can sell it again. It works for DVD "rental" too
He plays for Liverpool FC, it confirms my theory that the only reason Liverpool got shellacked on Sunday was that the team contained a lot of undiagnosed plague carriers.
3 confirmed now. Surely postponing matches must be considered soon?
Perhaps the Conservatives should come up with a new tax, one that this is a fixed annual sum levied on every individual?
Taxes are things that lots of people (particularly on the left) think should be increased but only for other people. I always think there should be a "voluntary tax" to see how many people genuinely want to pay more. It would be the ultimate in virtue signalling, with those that are paying more voluntarily publishing their extra funding that they are paying over so doctors and public "servants" can have even bigger pensions.
Can be turned on its head somewhat. The warm glow one feels through donating to charity actually detracts from the tax-take as these days each donation can be offset against income tax (Gift Aid). Blair policy I think. I`d like to see this practice ended.
If you recall, the coalition government tried to restrict it. There was a tsunami of indignation from the luvvies and Guardian-reading classes generally, and they had to give up the idea:
Wow is there nothing that isn't blamed on (a) Tony Blair or (b) "Luvvies"/Guardian readers in PB Tory Land? Gift Aid was actually introduced by the Tories in 1990, but rather characteristically they thought it should only be available to those rich enough to be giving away £600 or more. Labour simply made it available to all taxpayers by abolishing the lower limit, perhaps that is what irks people on here. Personally I think charity is something that should be encouraged.
Does anyone have a breakdown of which European countries it is standard for students to stay in the parent home while at university and in which it is standard to move to a different location.
It might have an effect on infection patterns.
I don't have figures, but I have talked to a lot of people who have studied in other countries and I work in a German Uni, and have worked in research at an Australian Uni campus.
It seems to me that the idea that almost all students study a long way from the parenal home is a very British approach.
A more typical model is a third to a half of students go to a uni within commuting distance from the parental house (A). It is then a choice for these students whether they live with their parents, in halls or in a shared house. About half of the remaining students do not live near to a good uni and so go to the nearest large city (B). That leaves about a quarter of students who move cross country (C). The motivation for (C) can be very varied, based on an excellent uni (Heidelburg), quality of a specific degree programme (Statistics at Munich) or the reputation of the city life (Berlin).
The proportions do vary quite a bit between country, e.g. in Australia the interstate distances are so large the proportion of (B) Students is higher and (C) lower.
On the other hand, it seems to me that the proportion of students who spend one or two semesters studying in a different country is quite a bit higher than for UK students (except for UK language students who almost always spend on year abroad).
BTW in Berlin we are just starting our second online semester. So any second wave (it is coming) won't be student driven.
The news says that Shagger will announce that off-shore wind will power the UK in its entirety from 2030. A big, bold policy lift from the LibDems - glad he is listening.
No. He’s going to say “every household” which I presume means only domestic supply and not commercial/transport/industry.
Trump really didn't look well to me on the balcony. Like a fish gasping out of water.
I note those that think he looked 'fine' are all in the 'we need to "live with"' covid camp
Indeed, watch that tosser completely screw up Betfair again.
If he goes south like Boris did 7-10 days into his infection that's surely going to destroy his credibility now after his bizarre triumphalist messages and videos?
Oh sorry, he'd need to have credibility to have it destroyed.
The news says that Shagger will announce that off-shore wind will power the UK in its entirety from 2030. A big, bold policy lift from the LibDems - glad he is listening.
So actually the detail shows most people are not prepared to pay more tax, less than a third support an increase in income tax or VAT, most voters are however prepared to allow the 10% of the population who have wealth of more than £500 000 to pay more tax with a wealth tax or to increase council tax on properties worth more than £1 million as they will not be paying that tax and it will not effect them
The council tax idea I am ok with, but re the wealth tax above £500K particularly for those retired or planning properly for retirement:
Are you including DB pensions in that wealth total? For a public sector pension a value of several million will result in a very moderate pension. How about DC pensions, particularly those in drawdown? If not (which would be a reasonable response) what about those who have provided for their own pension by other means eg shares, property, etc. Why are they being treated differently.
Off the top of my head I am guessing £500,000 saved for a pension in whatever form would provide a pension of about £15 - £20K only and I am guessing for most people much of that £500K will be tied up in the house they live in. Do you think it is fair to tax these people as wealthy?
It would be worth informing yourself by checking some stats on how small a proportion of the population has wealth at that sort of level.
I'm familiar (ball park) with the wealth distribution and took HYUFD's figure at face value (they seem reasonable). That does not negate any of the arguments made? Do you include DB pensions? Do you include DC pensions? If not why not (the reasons are obvious). If so why are you penalising (significantly and which they will not be able to afford in their long term retirement) someone who has a pension in another form who appears on the surface to be moderately wealthy. What about liquidity?
He plays for Liverpool FC, it confirms my theory that the only reason Liverpool got shellacked on Sunday was that the team contained a lot of undiagnosed plague carriers.
3 confirmed now. Surely postponing matches must be considered soon?
Well no, for domestic and UEFA sanctioned matches if you can't turn out to play your opponents are awarded the match 3 nil.
There's no time in the calendar for rescheduling more than 2 matches, and none if a team goes far in the FA Cup & the Champions League/Europa League.
He plays for Liverpool FC, it confirms my theory that the only reason Liverpool got shellacked on Sunday was that the team contained a lot of undiagnosed plague carriers.
3 confirmed now. Surely postponing matches must be considered soon?
Think it's forfeits if a team can't be fielded due to the virus. I'm sure Liverpool could scare up 13 players to put together a match day squad.
The news says that Shagger will announce that off-shore wind will power the UK in its entirety from 2030. A big, bold policy lift from the LibDems - glad he is listening.
No. He’s going to say “every household” which I presume means only domestic supply and not commercial/transport/industry.
I hope they've factored in the significantly increased electrical load from heat pumps in the winter if that's where we are going with domestic heating.
I've stopped buying books from Amazon entirely now (which is funny because that's their original business), because they seem to have forgotten how to ship books in a careful and damage-free way.
I like buying as new 2nd hand hardbacks from eBay. A lot of good booksellers out there who aren't Amazon.
Pre Covid, I used to use Charity shops as a library. Buy a book for 50p read it and return it to the shop so they can sell it again. It works for DVD "rental" too
That requires the drug companies to play ball, which they won't. It's not worth the trouble they'd be in with their shareholders if they allowed authorisation of an ineffective vaccine.
If they screw this up it will trash their reputation and fuel the antivax movement. Not worth it.
The Russians have a vaccine, what if Trump imported that?
So actually the detail shows most people are not prepared to pay more tax, less than a third support an increase in income tax or VAT, most voters are however prepared to allow the 10% of the population who have wealth of more than £500 000 to pay more tax with a wealth tax or to increase council tax on properties worth more than £1 million as they will not be paying that tax and it will not effect them
The council tax idea I am ok with, but re the wealth tax above £500K particularly for those retired or planning properly for retirement:
Are you including DB pensions in that wealth total? For a public sector pension a value of several million will result in a very moderate pension. How about DC pensions, particularly those in drawdown? If not (which would be a reasonable response) what about those who have provided for their own pension by other means eg shares, property, etc. Why are they being treated differently.
Off the top of my head I am guessing £500,000 saved for a pension in whatever form would provide a pension of about £15 - £20K only and I am guessing for most people much of that £500K will be tied up in the house they live in. Do you think it is fair to tax these people as wealthy?
It would be worth informing yourself by checking some stats on how small a proportion of the population has wealth at that sort of level.
Wealth is a tricky subject. What is the real wealth of a couple aged 66 both entitled to £9,000+ per annum state pension (inflation proofed) and no other income or assets. They would pay no income tax or NI. Their 'wealth' on one basis is nil. But to buy a guaranteed income of £18000 per annum would cost several hundred thousand pounds. Which is their real wealth. You would have a difficult task taxing it.
Far easier to tax those who have the same wealth saved up in a visible non tax- payer funded form. But could it truly be fair?
Does anyone have a breakdown of which European countries it is standard for students to stay in the parent home while at university and in which it is standard to move to a different location.
It might have an effect on infection patterns.
I am not an expert on these matters but why is the explosion in students testing positive for covid not resulting in more hospital admissions and sadly deaths
The difference in the rate of growth of infections and the rate of hospitalisations has been stark and I, and others, have been pointing this out for weeks.
Various theories exist to explain this. The most popular one is that this wave hasn`t extended to older and more vulnerable age groups - yet. But the "yet" is wearing a bit thin in my view.
Other theories include:
1) infections are not actually going up; the numbers are rising because of increased testing/particular cohort testing 2) the virus is mutating into a less serious form 3) variolation: infections caught via the increased use of masks is resulting in a lower dose which the body can cope with better 4) some of the positive test results are picking up remnants of previous virus infections thus creating an incorrect assumption that the virus is spreading more widely than it is 5) Doctors have better methods of dealing with infections now and are sending people home to manage the virus whereas in the spring they would have been admitted to hospital.
Could be a mixture of the above. And there may be other theories.
I really appreciate your reply
Thank you
The data is quite clear.
1) The infections are going up (see ONS et al) 2) Even "discounting" by the rise in testing, cases are going up 3) The cases *found* back in the first part of the crisis were heavily biased towards the extremely elderly. 4) The cases *found* now are a more balanced profile - many more young people. 5) The hospitalisations and deaths match the profile of found cases - the younger and healthier groups are much more likely not to need hospitalisation.
The reason for 3) is quite possibly that, at that stage, with testing heavily concentrated around hospitalisation, we were finding the serious cases. At peak, the estimates are that 100K infections per day were happening.
From this follows that 4) is quite possibly due to the testing finding more cases.
In other words, take the following graph. Multiply the the chunk back in April by 20x - that was what happened, really.
The implication of your x20 for cases is that we're currently at ~1/8th of the spring peak in cases (maybe a bit more because we still won't be identifying all cases), and from your hospitalization graph we're at 1/8th of the peak too.
So there really isn't a discrepancy when you account for the testing system being overwhelmed in the spring.
This is going against my better judgement.... BUT
The following scales the cases, using the testing capacity 4th October as 1.0 - at the beginning of this, testing capacity was 50x less, so multiply the first numbers by that etc...
We are in the early stages of a second peak, I think.
How’s the return to school going, doesn’t seem to feature in the news coming out of the UK, full marks to the teachers who have had to manage this on their own. It doesn’t seem to be a big issue out here in Spain either although could be hidden behind the Madrid shenanigans.
Perhaps the Conservatives should come up with a new tax, one that this is a fixed annual sum levied on every individual?
Taxes are things that lots of people (particularly on the left) think should be increased but only for other people. I always think there should be a "voluntary tax" to see how many people genuinely want to pay more. It would be the ultimate in virtue signalling, with those that are paying more voluntarily publishing their extra funding that they are paying over so doctors and public "servants" can have even bigger pensions.
Can be turned on its head somewhat. The warm glow one feels through donating to charity actually detracts from the tax-take as these days each donation can be offset against income tax (Gift Aid). Blair policy I think. I`d like to see this practice ended.
If you recall, the coalition government tried to restrict it. There was a tsunami of indignation from the luvvies and Guardian-reading classes generally, and they had to give up the idea:
Wow is there nothing that isn't blamed on (a) Tony Blair or (b) "Luvvies"/Guardian readers in PB Tory Land? Gift Aid was actually introduced by the Tories in 1990, but rather characteristically they thought it should only be available to those rich enough to be giving away £600 or more. Labour simply made it available to all taxpayers by abolishing the lower limit, perhaps that is what irks people on here. Personally I think charity is something that should be encouraged.
I think it should be encouraged too, but not at the expense of the exchequer.
The news says that Shagger will announce that off-shore wind will power the UK in its entirety from 2030. A big, bold policy lift from the LibDems - glad he is listening.
No. He’s going to say “every household” which I presume means only domestic supply and not commercial/transport/industry.
Which as I said last night is eminently achievable. Indeed I'd expect it to be achieved this Parliament let alone this decade.
UK households in 2010 consumed 10,218 ktoe of electricity which to my reckoning was 118,720 GWh UK households in 2018 consumed 9,034 ktoe of electricity which to my reckoning was 105,070 GWh
2010 UK produced 5,357 GWh of wind electricity 2018 UK produced 57,100 GWH of wind electricity
So in 2010 UK wind generation was 4.5% of household electricity consumption. By 2018 wind generation was 54.3% of household electricity consumption.
I see no reason it shouldn't reach 100% and beyond.
Wow is there nothing that isn't blamed on (a) Tony Blair or (b) "Luvvies"/Guardian readers in PB Tory Land? Gift Aid was actually introduced by the Tories in 1990, but rather characteristically they thought it should only be available to those rich enough to be giving away £600 or more. Labour simply made it available to all taxpayers by abolishing the lower limit, perhaps that is what irks people on here. Personally I think charity is something that should be encouraged.
What are you going on about? The coalition-led government, in Osborne's budget, tried to limit it. I wasn't actually expressing an opinion on the merits or otherwise of the idea, I was merely responding to the original suggestion that Gift Aid should be limited. Maybe it should, but last time it was tried, there was, as I said, a tsunami of opposition to the idea and it had to be abandoned - and that opposition didn't come from Conservative Party activists or Tory MPs.
Perhaps the Conservatives should come up with a new tax, one that this is a fixed annual sum levied on every individual?
Taxes are things that lots of people (particularly on the left) think should be increased but only for other people. I always think there should be a "voluntary tax" to see how many people genuinely want to pay more. It would be the ultimate in virtue signalling, with those that are paying more voluntarily publishing their extra funding that they are paying over so doctors and public "servants" can have even bigger pensions.
Can be turned on its head somewhat. The warm glow one feels through donating to charity actually detracts from the tax-take as these days each donation can be offset against income tax (Gift Aid). Blair policy I think. I`d like to see this practice ended.
If you recall, the coalition government tried to restrict it. There was a tsunami of indignation from the luvvies and Guardian-reading classes generally, and they had to give up the idea:
So actually the detail shows most people are not prepared to pay more tax, less than a third support an increase in income tax or VAT, most voters are however prepared to allow the 10% of the population who have wealth of more than £500 000 to pay more tax with a wealth tax or to increase council tax on properties worth more than £1 million as they will not be paying that tax and it will not effect them
For a public sector pension a value of several million will result in a very moderate pension.
How about DC pensions, particularly those in drawdown? If not (which would be a reasonable response) what about those who have provided for their own pension by other means eg shares, property, etc. Why are they being treated differently.
Off the top of my head I am guessing £500,000 saved for a pension in whatever form would provide a pension of about £15 - £20K only and I am guessing for most people much of that £500K will be tied up in the house they live in. Do you think it is fair to tax these people as wealthy?
Altered quote only to highlight the piece I wanted to comment on
What planet are you on? I can only imagine you consider almost 100k a year to be a moderate pension.
Pagen, You are misunderstanding the point I am making (I have probably expressed it badly) as I agree with you re public sector pensions. I am not referring to the contributions made but if the value of the pension was taken into account for a wealth calculation. People with public sector DB pensions are exceedingly lucky and probably in most cases do not appreciate the extra benefit of their pension.
The words in the link make my point very well - 'worth 20 times the value of the contributions'.
So the point is someone on a very moderate public sector salary who will get a moderate pension will have a pension pot that is very large (if valued for wealth tax purposes).
Does anyone have a breakdown of which European countries it is standard for students to stay in the parent home while at university and in which it is standard to move to a different location.
It might have an effect on infection patterns.
I am not an expert on these matters but why is the explosion in students testing positive for covid not resulting in more hospital admissions and sadly deaths
Perhaps because the virus affects younger people much less than older people.
But they must come into contact with older people
Seems strange but then I am not an expert
As ever I recommend looking at what happened with Geoegia
Even as cases rocketed (mostly amongst the young) deaths fell.
Everyone started formulating complicated theories about how the virus had mutated I to a lesser form.
And then deaths exploded. Makes sure you have the graphs by date of death and date of onset.
And that the hospitalisation rate has started to accelerate faster than the growth rate, which matches the hypothesis that it's been spreading from young to old.
The ONS stats showed the infection rate stalling, but other than a brief plateau, the hospitalisation rate has marched upwards, accelerating in recent days back up to the fastest acceleration since the start of September. It has doubled three times since the trough. Three more doublings sees us back at the peak.
(Figures for England only, 7 day average is naturally a bit lagged):
Wow is there nothing that isn't blamed on (a) Tony Blair or (b) "Luvvies"/Guardian readers in PB Tory Land? Gift Aid was actually introduced by the Tories in 1990, but rather characteristically they thought it should only be available to those rich enough to be giving away £600 or more. Labour simply made it available to all taxpayers by abolishing the lower limit, perhaps that is what irks people on here. Personally I think charity is something that should be encouraged.
What are you going on about? The coalition-led government, in Osborne's budget, tried to limit it. I wasn't actually expressing an opinion on the merits or otherwise of the idea, I was merely responding to the original suggestion that Gift Aid should be limited. Maybe it should, but last time it was tried, there was, as I said, a tsunami of opposition to the idea and it had to be abandoned - and that opposition didn't come from Conservative Party activists or Tory MPs.
My fault for suggesting it was a Blair policy (though I did say "I think"). No matter who brought it in, it seriously needs looking at in my opinion, along with a redefining of what is categorised as a charity. Costs the exchequer a fortune. I suspect that it was only envisaged to cost a fairly small amount, but it has mushroomed dramatically.
He plays for Liverpool FC, it confirms my theory that the only reason Liverpool got shellacked on Sunday was that the team contained a lot of undiagnosed plague carriers.
Whereas my theory as to why United got shellacked was that Spurs played well and they played shit. Every team can beat any other team in this league, you don't have to blame the pox for a bad day out...
United have been shit under OGS for years, the result wasn't unexpected, the result at Villa Park was.
Remember Villa wouldn't be in the Premier League if Michael Oliver's watch had worked, whereas this Liverpool team is one of the greatest teams in history, the result was unexpected.
How’s the return to school going, doesn’t seem to feature in the news coming out of the UK, full marks to the teachers who have had to manage this on their own. It doesn’t seem to be a big issue out here in Spain either although could be hidden behind the Madrid shenanigans.
There are plenty schools affected here in the NE. Here is a live blog from last week.
Does anyone have a breakdown of which European countries it is standard for students to stay in the parent home while at university and in which it is standard to move to a different location.
It might have an effect on infection patterns.
I am not an expert on these matters but why is the explosion in students testing positive for covid not resulting in more hospital admissions and sadly deaths
Perhaps because the virus affects younger people much less than older people.
But they must come into contact with older people
Seems strange but then I am not an expert
As ever I recommend looking at what happened with Geoegia
Even as cases rocketed (mostly amongst the young) deaths fell.
Everyone started formulating complicated theories about how the virus had mutated I to a lesser form.
And then deaths exploded. Makes sure you have the graphs by date of death and date of onset.
And that the hospitalisation rate has started to accelerate faster than the growth rate, which matches the hypothesis that it's been spreading from young to old.
The ONS stats showed the infection rate stalling, but other than a brief plateau, the hospitalisation rate has marched upwards, accelerating in recent days back up to the fastest acceleration since the start of September. It has doubled three times since the trough. Three more doublings sees us back at the peak.
(Figures for England only, 7 day average is naturally a bit lagged):
Given that hospitalisations is a lagging indicator, if the virus had plateaued you'd still expect hospitalisations to continue to increase for a week or two would you not? It was only the most recent ONS survey that showed a the infection rate stalling.
Perhaps the Conservatives should come up with a new tax, one that this is a fixed annual sum levied on every individual?
Taxes are things that lots of people (particularly on the left) think should be increased but only for other people. I always think there should be a "voluntary tax" to see how many people genuinely want to pay more. It would be the ultimate in virtue signalling, with those that are paying more voluntarily publishing their extra funding that they are paying over so doctors and public "servants" can have even bigger pensions.
Can be turned on its head somewhat. The warm glow one feels through donating to charity actually detracts from the tax-take as these days each donation can be offset against income tax (Gift Aid). Blair policy I think. I`d like to see this practice ended.
If you recall, the coalition government tried to restrict it. There was a tsunami of indignation from the luvvies and Guardian-reading classes generally, and they had to give up the idea:
Wow is there nothing that isn't blamed on (a) Tony Blair or (b) "Luvvies"/Guardian readers in PB Tory Land? Gift Aid was actually introduced by the Tories in 1990, but rather characteristically they thought it should only be available to those rich enough to be giving away £600 or more. Labour simply made it available to all taxpayers by abolishing the lower limit, perhaps that is what irks people on here. Personally I think charity is something that should be encouraged.
I am genuinely in many minds over charity.
I like the idea of people coming together to achieve good independent of the state. There's an important aspect of being able to take action without having permission from others.
However, our society is so unequal that most charitable activity is controlled by a small minority, and so charity becomes another way for that minority to express their power. And, unfortunately, most people are bad at deciding where to direct their charitable donations, so in the UK we have, in my view, disproportionate donations for animal causes, which at least is harmless, and to other things, like orphanages, which sometimes has distorting effects in the recipient countries, and may cause more harm than good.
Comments
2) isn't supported by epidemiological analysis, this virus doesn't mutate very fast (although hopefully future waves of covid will be more akin to the flu).
3) This is definitely possible since recent analysis suggests that wearing a mask can be protective to the user as well as other people.
4) Possibly, but that would be unlikley to show in statistics. Same with the "false positive" wishful thinking. The tests haven't changed, so if you're doing a similar number of tests, but your strike rate is rising then you're seeing a true increase. It's like if you know a pollster has a +4 house effect towards the Tories. If you see a poll that says the Tories are up by +4 then you should be sus. But if two weeks later they release a poll showing a +8 Tory poll, and +12 the week after then you have a trend that's independent of any skew. Yes I'm aware this isn't entirely accurate as an analogy but direction of travel is more important than case count.
5) This is possible, but generally our best treatments have come in the form of hospital administered drugs and treatments. I don't believe we've developed any medication that reduces the chance of being hospitalised.
The general consensus on public health twitter (supported by ScotGov data up here) which shows that the per population rate is much, much higher right now in young people (15-19) who have a lower chance of serious complications. The danger is that the rate amongst all other age groups is increasing slightly, which might lead to hospitalisations as a lagging indicator. We're already seeing signs of increases, although thankfully not at the rate we saw in March.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/covid-scandal-mp-read-mass-22797894
However the timing and details of conversations with SNP leaders remains shrouded in mystery.
The theatrics served another purpose too. Trump's shtick now is "I beat it." For this to support a Strongman image the "it" - his Covid - needs to have been something which really "tested" him. Quietly isolating at the White House for the requisite period, no new fangled treatments, no oxygen boosts, just bed rest and fluids, would not have passed muster. So we have all this crap instead. He has "toughed it out" and "he's back". From this point, rather than playing up his condition he will play it down. He's hoping he will feel ok and if he doesn't he'll pretend he does.
But he does have the virus and the virus is dangerous. It can strike well into the period of infection and lay a person very low indeed. It won't decide not to do that just because this is Donald Trump and he's got an election coming up. It will not be killing him but it could yet make him so ill that it cannot be hidden. Normally I'd be hoping this happens - since nobody deserves a bad case of Covid more than he does - but given the election is so close and he looks a goner I think it best that he gets and stays better. We don't want another drama that sees the betting suspended again.
1) The infections are going up (see ONS et al)
2) Even "discounting" by the rise in testing, cases are going up
3) The cases *found* back in the first part of the crisis were heavily biased towards the extremely elderly.
4) The cases *found* now are a more balanced profile - many more young people.
5) The hospitalisations and deaths match the profile of found cases - the younger and healthier groups are much more likely not to need hospitalisation.
The reason for 3) is quite possibly that, at that stage, with testing heavily concentrated around hospitalisation, we were finding the serious cases. At peak, the estimates are that 100K infections per day were happening.
From this follows that 4) is quite possibly due to the testing finding more cases.
In other words, take the following graph. Multiply the the chunk back in April by 20x - that was what happened, really.
The Westminster government has at least managed to increase testing levels to among the highest in major countries and to have sorted the PPE problem.
This government is deeply mediocre but that seems to be the default among every aspect of the UK establishment.
https://dph.georgia.gov/covid-19-daily-status-report
Even as cases rocketed (mostly amongst the young) deaths fell.
Everyone started formulating complicated theories about how the virus had mutated I to a lesser form.
And then deaths exploded. Makes sure you have the graphs by date of death and date of onset.
Statistically, both 1 and 4 depend also upon who you are testing, and how those tests that are available are being allocated.
Remember also that in the UK over half of deaths (up to July at least) have been in care homes. Simply taking better precautions there (not least avoiding sending the infected into them) will dramatically affect death rates.
So there's a lot of practical issues with that.
Taking a chainsaw to the drug companies in the US would be extremely popular - they are seen as price gouging scum, nearly universally.
If they went along and it went wrong, they would have no friends to hide behind - at a certain point, even the bought politicians run away.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/malfunctioning-phones-hit-efforts-to-trace-40-000-contacts-v3jh0gw8s
I found it hard to deal with in the Europe last year where delivery was 48 hours rather than 24...
These taxes will hit people like your dad for a few years yes but they will still be there when my generation retires and we will already be on frugal incomes and often without the benefit of owning our own homes if we have worked most of our time in the south east.
So there really isn't a discrepancy when you account for the testing system being overwhelmed in the spring.
White House cited drug companies’ objections in overruling FDA’s vaccine standards
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/05/white-house-fda-vaccine-standards-426605
Trump’s back-channel conversations with Pfizer raise concerns that the president and drug makers are working behind regulators’ backs.
Taxes should be cut not increased.
For me the only valid reason for mortgage interest relief on BTL property should be for Build to Rent (i.e. a different market).
Are you including DB pensions in that wealth total? For a public sector pension a value of several million will result in a very moderate pension. How about DC pensions, particularly those in drawdown? If not (which would be a reasonable response) what about those who have provided for their own pension by other means eg shares, property, etc. Why are they being treated differently.
Off the top of my head I am guessing £500,000 saved for a pension in whatever form would provide a pension of about £15 - £20K only and I am guessing for most people much of that £500K will be tied up in the house they live in. Do you think it is fair to tax these people as wealthy?
https://www.libdemvoice.org/time-for-nick-clegg-and-the-coalition-to-see-sense-and-stop-the-charity-tax-27944.html
There's not as yet much evidence of their efficacy in terms of disease modification, but they certainly do what they're supposed to in binding to the virus RBD, and if administered early (as in Trump's case) might have a significant effect.
Worth noting that they're not going to be available to the average patient for some time, if at all.
I just want them to rename as Buy'n'Large like on WALL-E. Because that's who they are.
What planet are you on? I can only imagine you consider almost 100k a year to be a moderate pension.
Read this
https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/pensions/article-2068056/Public-sector-workers-pensions-worth-20-times-value-contributions.html
I note those that think he looked 'fine' are all in the 'we need to "live with"' covid camp
Gift Aid was actually introduced by the Tories in 1990, but rather characteristically they thought it should only be available to those rich enough to be giving away £600 or more. Labour simply made it available to all taxpayers by abolishing the lower limit, perhaps that is what irks people on here.
Personally I think charity is something that should be encouraged.
It seems to me that the idea that almost all students study a long way from the parenal home is a very British approach.
A more typical model is a third to a half of students go to a uni within commuting distance from the parental house (A). It is then a choice for these students whether they live with their parents, in halls or in a shared house. About half of the remaining students do not live near to a good uni and so go to the nearest large city (B). That leaves about a quarter of students who move cross country (C).
The motivation for (C) can be very varied, based on an excellent uni (Heidelburg), quality of a specific degree programme (Statistics at Munich) or the reputation of the city life (Berlin).
The proportions do vary quite a bit between country, e.g. in Australia the interstate distances are so large the proportion of (B) Students is higher and (C) lower.
On the other hand, it seems to me that the proportion of students who spend one or two semesters studying in a different country is quite a bit higher than for UK students (except for UK language students who almost always spend on year abroad).
BTW in Berlin we are just starting our second online semester. So any second wave (it is coming) won't be student driven.
Oh sorry, he'd need to have credibility to have it destroyed.
There's no time in the calendar for rescheduling more than 2 matches, and none if a team goes far in the FA Cup & the Champions League/Europa League.
OTOH, I really don't see why people are criticising him for taking his mask off on the balcony. It was outside, and he wasn't near anyone else.
Far easier to tax those who have the same wealth saved up in a visible non tax- payer funded form. But could it truly be fair?
The following scales the cases, using the testing capacity 4th October as 1.0 - at the beginning of this, testing capacity was 50x less, so multiply the first numbers by that etc...
We are in the early stages of a second peak, I think.
Given current form you'd take a 3-0.
UK households in 2010 consumed 10,218 ktoe of electricity which to my reckoning was 118,720 GWh
UK households in 2018 consumed 9,034 ktoe of electricity which to my reckoning was 105,070 GWh
2010 UK produced 5,357 GWh of wind electricity
2018 UK produced 57,100 GWH of wind electricity
So in 2010 UK wind generation was 4.5% of household electricity consumption.
By 2018 wind generation was 54.3% of household electricity consumption.
I see no reason it shouldn't reach 100% and beyond.
The words in the link make my point very well - 'worth 20 times the value of the contributions'.
So the point is someone on a very moderate public sector salary who will get a moderate pension will have a pension pot that is very large (if valued for wealth tax purposes).
The ONS stats showed the infection rate stalling, but other than a brief plateau, the hospitalisation rate has marched upwards, accelerating in recent days back up to the fastest acceleration since the start of September.
It has doubled three times since the trough. Three more doublings sees us back at the peak.
(Figures for England only, 7 day average is naturally a bit lagged):
Remember Villa wouldn't be in the Premier League if Michael Oliver's watch had worked, whereas this Liverpool team is one of the greatest teams in history, the result was unexpected.
Only Covid-19 explains it.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/coronavirus-school-closures-live-updates-18920521.amp
I like the idea of people coming together to achieve good independent of the state. There's an important aspect of being able to take action without having permission from others.
However, our society is so unequal that most charitable activity is controlled by a small minority, and so charity becomes another way for that minority to express their power. And, unfortunately, most people are bad at deciding where to direct their charitable donations, so in the UK we have, in my view, disproportionate donations for animal causes, which at least is harmless, and to other things, like orphanages, which sometimes has distorting effects in the recipient countries, and may cause more harm than good.