politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The rise and rise of Richi Sunak as seen on the Betfair exchan
Comments
-
Friday will be the big lay off day. I would expect between 500K-750K laid off.Pagan2 said:
That works if a business continues to employ people, Will they though. The firm my friend works for laid off everyone. It is now just a warehouse full of stock with an empty office. That business however will have no rates for a year and get a 25k grant which will help pay the rent. In 6 months time it can just come out of hibernation saved by tax payers while all 30 employees have been thrown on the largess of the state for food and rent.RobD said:
I think it's so businesses can continue to pay individuals, and we expect more announcements on individuals soon, right?DAlexander said:I am not impressed with the only help to renters being preventing them being evicted. I don't want to fall out with my landlord by not paying him.
£330bn is about £5k each, I will be a bit annoyed if business gets most of that and individuals get nothing. Especially since it will be people like me that will be paying for it all with higher taxes and worse public services for decades.0 -
-
Perhaps because people don't believe he will come out with anything much worthwhile. In my case not because he is a tory but purely because frankly I don't think many in parliament realise how hand to mouth a good 15 odd million people are in this country.Anabobazina said:
Yes, some people can't help carping. As you know, I'm not a supporter of this government politically but I think it's doing its best. Let's wait and see what the Chancellor comes up with.RobD said:
I think it's so businesses can continue to pay individuals, and we expect more announcements on individuals soon, right?DAlexander said:I am not impressed with the only help to renters being preventing them being evicted. I don't want to fall out with my landlord by not paying him.
£330bn is about £5k each, I will be a bit annoyed if business gets most of that and individuals get nothing. Especially since it will be people like me that will be paying for it all with higher taxes and worse public services for decades.
P.S. He is in Select Ctte on BBC News 24.0 -
Isn't there a logical fail somewhere in that analysis?Endillion said:
It would require Sadiq Khan to give the order. The order would be unpopular, so he wouldn't do it. Especially not in the run up to his re-election (albeit it's now over a year away), and considering all the people most likely to be adversely affected won't vote for him anyway.FrancisUrquhart said:
And we know London is a hot spot. I can't see how some sort of lockdown isn't coming shortly.LostPassword said:Positive test rate above 10% today. Doubtful that it's because triage is more accurate. Not good.
0 -
Stanley Johnson and Katie Hopkins are a right pair.2
-
Did they make any mention of that yesterday? Do you believe they will make that a condition? I think we both know the answer to both will be noRobD said:
Easy, the loan requires you not to lay off staff.Pagan2 said:
That works if a business continues to employ people, Will they though. The firm my friend works for laid off everyone. It is now just a warehouse full of stock with an empty office. That business however will have no rates for a year and get a 25k grant which will help pay the rent. In 6 months time it can just come out of hibernation saved by tax payers while all 30 employees have been thrown on the largess of the state for food and rent.RobD said:
I think it's so businesses can continue to pay individuals, and we expect more announcements on individuals soon, right?DAlexander said:I am not impressed with the only help to renters being preventing them being evicted. I don't want to fall out with my landlord by not paying him.
£330bn is about £5k each, I will be a bit annoyed if business gets most of that and individuals get nothing. Especially since it will be people like me that will be paying for it all with higher taxes and worse public services for decades.0 -
I think there's an "up to" missing in there.RobD said:
Some could have caught it yesterday, or does the test only work after ten days?rcs1000 said:
Worth remembering, of course, that the people testing positive today caught CV-19 ten to fourteen days ago.LostPassword said:Positive test rate above 10% today. Doubtful that it's because triage is more accurate. Not good.
0 -
Just when I thought it was impossible to loath that woman more...HYUFD said:1 -
If this continues for a month there will be anarchy as people run out of moneyPagan2 said:
Perhaps because people don't believe he will come out with anything much worthwhile. In my case not because he is a tory but purely because frankly I don't think many in parliament realise how hand to mouth a good 15 odd million people are in this country.Anabobazina said:
Yes, some people can't help carping. As you know, I'm not a supporter of this government politically but I think it's doing its best. Let's wait and see what the Chancellor comes up with.RobD said:
I think it's so businesses can continue to pay individuals, and we expect more announcements on individuals soon, right?DAlexander said:I am not impressed with the only help to renters being preventing them being evicted. I don't want to fall out with my landlord by not paying him.
£330bn is about £5k each, I will be a bit annoyed if business gets most of that and individuals get nothing. Especially since it will be people like me that will be paying for it all with higher taxes and worse public services for decades.
P.S. He is in Select Ctte on BBC News 24.
0 -
Not sure the layoffs havent already happened tbh. As I said my friends firm laid of half monday, the other half tuesday. Apparently the other half was to finish packing the last order they hadNerysHughes said:
Friday will be the big lay off day. I would expect between 500K-750K laid off.Pagan2 said:
That works if a business continues to employ people, Will they though. The firm my friend works for laid off everyone. It is now just a warehouse full of stock with an empty office. That business however will have no rates for a year and get a 25k grant which will help pay the rent. In 6 months time it can just come out of hibernation saved by tax payers while all 30 employees have been thrown on the largess of the state for food and rent.RobD said:
I think it's so businesses can continue to pay individuals, and we expect more announcements on individuals soon, right?DAlexander said:I am not impressed with the only help to renters being preventing them being evicted. I don't want to fall out with my landlord by not paying him.
£330bn is about £5k each, I will be a bit annoyed if business gets most of that and individuals get nothing. Especially since it will be people like me that will be paying for it all with higher taxes and worse public services for decades.0 -
We are talking about the mid-2020s and I see little point speculating at this point as to Scotland's likely attitude in any Independence Referendum which might then occur. Highly unlikely,however, that Labour would simply bow to such SNP demands - and equally unlikely that the SNP would wish to be seen to bring Labour down.Pagan2 said:
I really don't get this idea....we will have a government allied with the snp.justin124 said:
I don't disagree with that really. Labour would only need 260 or so on the basis of the SNP still having circa 45 seats.Were Labour to gain at SNP to reach 270 seats, the SNP would only need circa 35.HYUFD said:
I would say Labour actually needs to get to 280 to 290 seats if the LDs do not gain any seats as any Labour gains from the SNP make no net change in the anti Tory block.justin124 said:Labour probably only needs to recover to circa 260 seats given the Anti-Tory bloc in Scotland. I also expect some Labour recovery in Scotland under Starmer.
If the LDs reach 30 to 40 seats however then yes 260 seats for Labour would be enough to form a minority or coalition Labour government with LD and SNP support
Surely their price will be independence referendum which they will likely win. At which point SNP are no longer part of rump uk government so labour then is no longer the majority and government becomes the tories again.....what am I missing?0 -
The question isn't really about keeping businesses in operation. For many that doesn't make sense.NerysHughes said:
Friday will be the big lay off day. I would expect between 500K-750K laid off.Pagan2 said:
That works if a business continues to employ people, Will they though. The firm my friend works for laid off everyone. It is now just a warehouse full of stock with an empty office. That business however will have no rates for a year and get a 25k grant which will help pay the rent. In 6 months time it can just come out of hibernation saved by tax payers while all 30 employees have been thrown on the largess of the state for food and rent.RobD said:
I think it's so businesses can continue to pay individuals, and we expect more announcements on individuals soon, right?DAlexander said:I am not impressed with the only help to renters being preventing them being evicted. I don't want to fall out with my landlord by not paying him.
£330bn is about £5k each, I will be a bit annoyed if business gets most of that and individuals get nothing. Especially since it will be people like me that will be paying for it all with higher taxes and worse public services for decades.
What we need is for a number of business is to enter an orderly hibernation, and to help their employees until normal business can be resumed.1 -
Only paper I've found says
"The median incubation period was estimated to be 5.1 days (95% CI, 4.5 to 5.8 days), and 97.5% of those who develop symptoms will do so within 11.5 days (CI, 8.2 to 15.6 days) of infection. "
https://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/2762808/incubation-period-coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19-from-publicly-reported0 -
Why could it not be less, does it have to take minimum 10 days to test positive, surely the virus will show up in test before that.rcs1000 said:
Worth remembering, of course, that the people testing positive today caught CV-19 ten to fourteen days ago.LostPassword said:Positive test rate above 10% today. Doubtful that it's because triage is more accurate. Not good.
0 -
Just had an update from work that while working from home has been implemented in all other locations, our China offices (HK, Beijing and Shanghai) have returned to normal save for international travel. I take that as a positive - others may be sceptical I appreciate.0
-
I'd suggested completing them in October, then marked for them to start a shortened new year 12 or University year in January. Might cause problems with students moving onto jobs and some other groups, though.Fysics_Teacher said:Possible solutions for GCSEs and A-levels if schools shut for the summer:
1). Base grades on teacher assessments. This could work if parents were not able to appeal, but would be very tricky to moderate. Might be the best solution though if it were genuinely one-off situation.
2). For A-levels at least just assume everyone would have got their first choice offer. This might cause problems in terms of numbers for some universities who rely on clearing, but students would not complain.
3). Rapidly deploy some form of online testing that students could do from home. Making that secure would be quite a challenge I think.
4). Run the exams but in a very cut down form: only one paper per subject with enough optional questions so that those who could not finish the course are not penalised. This would be very difficult for practical subjects like Art but could work as the candidates are widely separated in an exam hall. Might need to recruit invigilators who have recovered from CV-19 for that one.
I’m sure there are other solutions, and I’m sure that many students will be hard done by whichever one is picked.0 -
I think it is that it takes some days before symptoms appear, at which point the person would be a candidate for testing.RobD said:
Some could have caught it yesterday, or does the test only work after ten days?rcs1000 said:
Worth remembering, of course, that the people testing positive today caught CV-19 ten to fourteen days ago.LostPassword said:Positive test rate above 10% today. Doubtful that it's because triage is more accurate. Not good.
1 -
Politically I think it will be impossible for the SNP not to demand a referendum as the price of cooperation. Instead they will abstain in westminster if labour refusesjustin124 said:
We are talking about the mid-2020s and I see little point speculating at this point as to Scotland's likely attitude in any Independence Referendum which might then occur. Highly unlikely,however, that Labour would simply bow to such SNP demands - and equally unlikely that the SNP would wish to be seen to bring Labour down.Pagan2 said:
I really don't get this idea....we will have a government allied with the snp.justin124 said:
I don't disagree with that really. Labour would only need 260 or so on the basis of the SNP still having circa 45 seats.Were Labour to gain at SNP to reach 270 seats, the SNP would only need circa 35.HYUFD said:
I would say Labour actually needs to get to 280 to 290 seats if the LDs do not gain any seats as any Labour gains from the SNP make no net change in the anti Tory block.justin124 said:Labour probably only needs to recover to circa 260 seats given the Anti-Tory bloc in Scotland. I also expect some Labour recovery in Scotland under Starmer.
If the LDs reach 30 to 40 seats however then yes 260 seats for Labour would be enough to form a minority or coalition Labour government with LD and SNP support
Surely their price will be independence referendum which they will likely win. At which point SNP are no longer part of rump uk government so labour then is no longer the majority and government becomes the tories again.....what am I missing?0 -
If I change it to "adversely affected by not having a lockdown", does that resolve things?Anabobazina said:
Isn't there a logical fail somewhere in that analysis?Endillion said:
It would require Sadiq Khan to give the order. The order would be unpopular, so he wouldn't do it. Especially not in the run up to his re-election (albeit it's now over a year away), and considering all the people most likely to be adversely affected won't vote for him anyway.FrancisUrquhart said:
And we know London is a hot spot. I can't see how some sort of lockdown isn't coming shortly.LostPassword said:Positive test rate above 10% today. Doubtful that it's because triage is more accurate. Not good.
0 -
Time will shiw who is deluded - it might even be you.malcolmg said:
LOL, Boris cannot ban a referendum if Scottish Government want to go ahead, you southern fanboys are deluded.HYUFD said:
You are missing the key point a Starmer premiership would take the UK back into the single market reducing the likelihood of a Yes vote in any indyref2.Pagan2 said:
I really don't get this idea....we will have a government allied with the snp.justin124 said:
I don't disagree with that really. Labour would only need 260 or so on the basis of the SNP still having circa 45 seats.Were Labour to gain at SNP to reach 270 seats, the SNP would only need circa 35.HYUFD said:
I would say Labour actually needs to get to 280 to 290 seats if the LDs do not gain any seats as any Labour gains from the SNP make no net change in the anti Tory block.justin124 said:Labour probably only needs to recover to circa 260 seats given the Anti-Tory bloc in Scotland. I also expect some Labour recovery in Scotland under Starmer.
If the LDs reach 30 to 40 seats however then yes 260 seats for Labour would be enough to form a minority or coalition Labour government with LD and SNP support
Surely their price will be independence referendum which they will likely win. At which point SNP are no longer part of rump uk government so labour then is no longer the majority and government becomes the tories again.....what am I missing?
The SNP thus face the problem Boris has banned indyref2 when his hard Brexit makes it winnable, while Starmer would allow indyref2 but his soft Brexit means Yes would likely lose it1 -
Weren’t you on here bragging about your pub visit yesterday?Andy_JS said:Stanley Johnson and Katie Hopkins are a right pair.
0 -
There is no way there should be a London only lockdown. It's a small country and getting out, even on a bicycle, is easy. It just shifts the problem.Endillion said:
If I change it to "adversely affected by not having a lockdown", does that resolve things?Anabobazina said:
Isn't there a logical fail somewhere in that analysis?Endillion said:
It would require Sadiq Khan to give the order. The order would be unpopular, so he wouldn't do it. Especially not in the run up to his re-election (albeit it's now over a year away), and considering all the people most likely to be adversely affected won't vote for him anyway.FrancisUrquhart said:
And we know London is a hot spot. I can't see how some sort of lockdown isn't coming shortly.LostPassword said:Positive test rate above 10% today. Doubtful that it's because triage is more accurate. Not good.
Also I don't think the Mayor of London has the statutory authority to take that sort of measure. I may be wrong but the role's remit doesn't stretch very far beyond policing and transport.0 -
Just as a follow-up Robert.GideonWise said:
I have no expertise at all in immuno response to viruses. That's why I defer to the experts in that specialty on that. The experts are not sure.rcs1000 said:
Could you give me one example of any virus where - without mutations - the body becomes susceptible to reinfection based on normal viral loads?GideonWise said:
Not yet. We haven't had time yet though have we. Might be worth testing the theory over 12 months before we make any hasty assumptions and decisions.rcs1000 said:
You would not have been about to recover from this virus (or any virus), if your body's immune system did not learn to fight it.Nigelb said:
I don't think it's quite so simple as that (and how effective and durable acquired immunity to this virus might be is certainly a matter of current debate amongst scientists).rcs1000 said:
That is correct.Philip_Thompson said:
Almost.Stocky said:
If you have had Covid-19 and recover, and are then immume, does this also mean that you cannot carry it and pass it on to others? I think the answer to this is yes because I read somewhere that you can only pass it on if you are symptomatic and obviously you canot be symptomatic if you are immune.GideonWise said:
We need a few different types of test.kinabalu said:
A test to see if you have had the virus would be great.GideonWise said:Agreed. This is the way we will come out of the lockdown without needing a vaccine.
But unless I've missed something it is not as yet known that getting it and recovering gives immunity for any length of time?
We have the gold-standard for confirmation that you are sick. This should be reserved for those on the front-line and should be close to 100% sensitive and specific. That's what we have been using so far but it only works in individuals with the virus currently. It takes up to 48 hours as the virus needs cultivating.
We need a rapid rule-out test which can be used for symptomatic sufferers. It needs to be reasonably sensitive and specific but crucially it needs to be fast. This can be used for surveillance and to ascertain incidence in the population.
We need an anti-body based test which can tell us if we have had the disease. Those patients who have had the disease can then start to function in society. Such a test can tell us about prevalence in society.
When sufficient numbers have had the lurgy using the anti-body test, we can then unlock. If it pops up again, we use the other different test modalities to isolate, contact trace and bring it under control in local populations.
It's far more feasible than a vaccine which is possible but is extremely complex to develop and hard to scale quickly.
Have I understood this correctly?
You can pass it on if you are infected but asymptomatic. If you're immune you won't get infected (AFAIK).
It is possible that future iterations of the virus will be sufficiently mutated that you will not have total immunity, but there is no sign of that currently. (And if that were to happen then symptoms would likely be less severe as your immune system would still have a headstart.)
(Measles, for example, can erase immune memory.)
The only reason why your body's immune system would "forget" the virus would be if it had mutated sufficiently so as to be less recognisable.
There is no evidence of any reinfection.
Just one. Any virus at all.
Why are you so sure about something which is presumably outside of your expertise?
When I say the experts aren't sure, I am talking about the British Society for Immunology.
https://www.immunology.org/news/bsi-open-letter-government-sars-cov-2-outbreak-response
0 -
Realistically what alternative do you have? In 6 months time [if it takes that long] that business will be able to start taking revenues and can rehire people, but what's it supposed to do in the mean time? Pay everyone a six month vacation?Pagan2 said:
That works if a business continues to employ people, Will they though. The firm my friend works for laid off everyone. It is now just a warehouse full of stock with an empty office. That business however will have no rates for a year and get a 25k grant which will help pay the rent. In 6 months time it can just come out of hibernation saved by tax payers while all 30 employees have been thrown on the largess of the state for food and rent.RobD said:
I think it's so businesses can continue to pay individuals, and we expect more announcements on individuals soon, right?DAlexander said:I am not impressed with the only help to renters being preventing them being evicted. I don't want to fall out with my landlord by not paying him.
£330bn is about £5k each, I will be a bit annoyed if business gets most of that and individuals get nothing. Especially since it will be people like me that will be paying for it all with higher taxes and worse public services for decades.
That only works if the government takes up the tab - and not in a loan but a grant.1 -
That's an excellent question.GideonWise said:I have no expertise at all in immuno response to viruses. That's why I defer to the experts in that specialty on that. The experts are not sure.
Why are you so sure about something which is presumably outside of your expertise?
My guess is that I'm reading different general science publications to you. And I think they tend to have a different tone to newspapers. Newspapers, for example, will tend to look to show "balance" - so one person said X, another said Y. Nature and New Scientist and those kind of publications will tend to report studies with findings, and while they'll report disagreements, they tend not to look for false balance.
My point is that this isn't some kind of super virus. It's a Coronavirus, like SARS or MERS. Both of these conferred immunity on people who got them. There have been no confirmed cases of reinfection. There is also evidence that this virus is not mutating quickly.
Let me quote infectious diseases professor Jon Cohen "The answer is that we simply don’t know" - which supports your point... But then he says "However, it is very likely, based on other viral infections, that yes, once a person has had the infection they will generally be immune and won’t get it again. There will always be the odd exception, but that is certainly a reasonable expectation."
There's nothing certain about my view. But the balance of probabilities - and by which I'm talking 90%, not 55% - is that there is immunity conferred.4 -
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but the key word in your post might well be "policing".DougSeal said:
There is no way there should be a London only lockdown. It's a small country and getting out, even on a bicycle, is easy. It just shifts the problem.Endillion said:
If I change it to "adversely affected by not having a lockdown", does that resolve things?Anabobazina said:
Isn't there a logical fail somewhere in that analysis?Endillion said:
It would require Sadiq Khan to give the order. The order would be unpopular, so he wouldn't do it. Especially not in the run up to his re-election (albeit it's now over a year away), and considering all the people most likely to be adversely affected won't vote for him anyway.FrancisUrquhart said:
And we know London is a hot spot. I can't see how some sort of lockdown isn't coming shortly.LostPassword said:Positive test rate above 10% today. Doubtful that it's because triage is more accurate. Not good.
Also I don't think the Mayor of London has the statutory authority to take that sort of measure. I may be wrong but the role's remit doesn't stretch very far beyond policing and transport.0 -
Well hopefully, but the measures on renters seem to have been partially announced? Unless I got the wrong end of the stick.RobD said:
I think it's so businesses can continue to pay individuals, and we expect more announcements on individuals soon, right?DAlexander said:I am not impressed with the only help to renters being preventing them being evicted. I don't want to fall out with my landlord by not paying him.
£330bn is about £5k each, I will be a bit annoyed if business gets most of that and individuals get nothing. Especially since it will be people like me that will be paying for it all with higher taxes and worse public services for decades.
But I would say the idea that big business gets billions, whilst those who are on minimum wage zero hours contracts will get nothing is not a fair use of the money.0 -
My son will be submitting his University applications next October. He really wants to have his Highers then although he will have predicted grades for his advanced Highers. Those who are in final year now need to know whether they can get into their degree courses or whether they need to apply for something else. October is really too late.ukpaul said:
I'd suggested completing them in October, then marked for them to start a shortened new year 12 or University year in January. Might cause problems with students moving onto jobs and some other groups, though.Fysics_Teacher said:Possible solutions for GCSEs and A-levels if schools shut for the summer:
1). Base grades on teacher assessments. This could work if parents were not able to appeal, but would be very tricky to moderate. Might be the best solution though if it were genuinely one-off situation.
2). For A-levels at least just assume everyone would have got their first choice offer. This might cause problems in terms of numbers for some universities who rely on clearing, but students would not complain.
3). Rapidly deploy some form of online testing that students could do from home. Making that secure would be quite a challenge I think.
4). Run the exams but in a very cut down form: only one paper per subject with enough optional questions so that those who could not finish the course are not penalised. This would be very difficult for practical subjects like Art but could work as the candidates are widely separated in an exam hall. Might need to recruit invigilators who have recovered from CV-19 for that one.
I’m sure there are other solutions, and I’m sure that many students will be hard done by whichever one is picked.0 -
The Mayor of London stands as the surrogate for the PCC (previously Police Authorities) in Greater London i.e. deals with funding and oversight but has no input in operational matters.Endillion said:
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but the key word in your post might well be "policing".DougSeal said:
There is no way there should be a London only lockdown. It's a small country and getting out, even on a bicycle, is easy. It just shifts the problem.Endillion said:
If I change it to "adversely affected by not having a lockdown", does that resolve things?Anabobazina said:
Isn't there a logical fail somewhere in that analysis?Endillion said:
It would require Sadiq Khan to give the order. The order would be unpopular, so he wouldn't do it. Especially not in the run up to his re-election (albeit it's now over a year away), and considering all the people most likely to be adversely affected won't vote for him anyway.FrancisUrquhart said:
And we know London is a hot spot. I can't see how some sort of lockdown isn't coming shortly.LostPassword said:Positive test rate above 10% today. Doubtful that it's because triage is more accurate. Not good.
Also I don't think the Mayor of London has the statutory authority to take that sort of measure. I may be wrong but the role's remit doesn't stretch very far beyond policing and transport.0 -
In a years time it will be interesting what the global opinion is on the complete destruction of economies caused by the response to Covid-19Pagan2 said:
Not sure the layoffs havent already happened tbh. As I said my friends firm laid of half monday, the other half tuesday. Apparently the other half was to finish packing the last order they hadNerysHughes said:
Friday will be the big lay off day. I would expect between 500K-750K laid off.Pagan2 said:
That works if a business continues to employ people, Will they though. The firm my friend works for laid off everyone. It is now just a warehouse full of stock with an empty office. That business however will have no rates for a year and get a 25k grant which will help pay the rent. In 6 months time it can just come out of hibernation saved by tax payers while all 30 employees have been thrown on the largess of the state for food and rent.RobD said:
I think it's so businesses can continue to pay individuals, and we expect more announcements on individuals soon, right?DAlexander said:I am not impressed with the only help to renters being preventing them being evicted. I don't want to fall out with my landlord by not paying him.
£330bn is about £5k each, I will be a bit annoyed if business gets most of that and individuals get nothing. Especially since it will be people like me that will be paying for it all with higher taxes and worse public services for decades.0 -
While I agree with what you said I think you do miss the point somewhat that I was makingPhilip_Thompson said:
Realistically what alternative do you have? In 6 months time [if it takes that long] that business will be able to start taking revenues and can rehire people, but what's it supposed to do in the mean time? Pay everyone a six month vacation?Pagan2 said:
That works if a business continues to employ people, Will they though. The firm my friend works for laid off everyone. It is now just a warehouse full of stock with an empty office. That business however will have no rates for a year and get a 25k grant which will help pay the rent. In 6 months time it can just come out of hibernation saved by tax payers while all 30 employees have been thrown on the largess of the state for food and rent.RobD said:
I think it's so businesses can continue to pay individuals, and we expect more announcements on individuals soon, right?DAlexander said:I am not impressed with the only help to renters being preventing them being evicted. I don't want to fall out with my landlord by not paying him.
£330bn is about £5k each, I will be a bit annoyed if business gets most of that and individuals get nothing. Especially since it will be people like me that will be paying for it all with higher taxes and worse public services for decades.
That only works if the government takes up the tab - and not in a loan but a grant.
well off business owner gets chucked money to make sure he doesn't lose out
plebs on minimum wage so far (pending on what they announce) get nothing
Yes when its over the business can restart and can rehire which I agree is a good thing, doesn't alter the fact that a lot of people are going to be seeing this of once more the people with money being bailed out while those at the bottom get discarded.
as an aside my job is safe and I am not minimum wage and lock down will leave me largely unaffected except for pensions and I am really just putting the case for those people here0 -
.
I think that was in response to a questions at PMQs, but I could be mistaken.DAlexander said:
Well hopefully, but the measures on renters seem to have been partially announced? Unless I got the wrong end of the stick.RobD said:
I think it's so businesses can continue to pay individuals, and we expect more announcements on individuals soon, right?DAlexander said:I am not impressed with the only help to renters being preventing them being evicted. I don't want to fall out with my landlord by not paying him.
£330bn is about £5k each, I will be a bit annoyed if business gets most of that and individuals get nothing. Especially since it will be people like me that will be paying for it all with higher taxes and worse public services for decades.
But I would say the idea that big business gets billions, whilst those who are on minimum wage zero hours contracts will get nothing is not a fair use of the money.0 -
I wasn't bragging about it. I was expecting the pub to be closed. People were keeping their distance.Anabobazina said:
Weren’t you on here bragging about your pub visit yesterday?Andy_JS said:Stanley Johnson and Katie Hopkins are a right pair.
0 -
I wish I'd made a business to pay myself for my contract work, instead of going self employed to do the right thing and paying more tax. I could have had 6 months free money!Philip_Thompson said:
Realistically what alternative do you have? In 6 months time [if it takes that long] that business will be able to start taking revenues and can rehire people, but what's it supposed to do in the mean time? Pay everyone a six month vacation?Pagan2 said:
That works if a business continues to employ people, Will they though. The firm my friend works for laid off everyone. It is now just a warehouse full of stock with an empty office. That business however will have no rates for a year and get a 25k grant which will help pay the rent. In 6 months time it can just come out of hibernation saved by tax payers while all 30 employees have been thrown on the largess of the state for food and rent.RobD said:
I think it's so businesses can continue to pay individuals, and we expect more announcements on individuals soon, right?DAlexander said:I am not impressed with the only help to renters being preventing them being evicted. I don't want to fall out with my landlord by not paying him.
£330bn is about £5k each, I will be a bit annoyed if business gets most of that and individuals get nothing. Especially since it will be people like me that will be paying for it all with higher taxes and worse public services for decades.
That only works if the government takes up the tab - and not in a loan but a grant.
This idea creates so many loopholes, perverse incentives and arbitrary winners and losers it seems unworkable to me.0 -
Yes. That is one expert and he's not sure, as you say. If you see the link above from the British Society of Immunology, they say they are not sure, as a professional body.rcs1000 said:
That's an excellent question.GideonWise said:I have no expertise at all in immuno response to viruses. That's why I defer to the experts in that specialty on that. The experts are not sure.
Why are you so sure about something which is presumably outside of your expertise?
My guess is that I'm reading different general science publications to you. And I think they tend to have a different tone to newspapers. Newspapers, for example, will tend to look to show "balance" - so one person said X, another said Y. Nature and New Scientist and those kind of publications will tend to report studies with findings, and while they'll report disagreements, they tend not to look for false balance.
My point is that this isn't some kind of super virus. It's a Coronavirus, like SARS or MERS. Both of these conferred immunity on people who got them. There have been no confirmed cases of reinfection. There is also evidence that this virus is not mutating quickly.
Let me quote infectious diseases professor Jon Cohen "The answer is that we simply don’t know" - which supports your point... But then he says "However, it is very likely, based on other viral infections, that yes, once a person has had the infection they will generally be immune and won’t get it again. There will always be the odd exception, but that is certainly a reasonable expectation."
There's nothing certain about my view. But the balance of probabilities - and by which I'm talking 90%, not 55% - is that there is immunity conferred.
So yes, we can attach probabilities to our uncertainty that's fine. If we then attach them and propagate them through a very simple decision-tree with costs and benefits attached to the nodes we can do some quick and dirty analysis. Compare a lock-down with a strategy of flattening the curve where we are not sure about immunity long-term (say 90% sure but 10% not).
What you will find is that given even that uncertainty (which is generous), it is far superior to be cautious because the risk of getting it wrong is quite catastrophic. That's the process the government went through this week.
When we decide to unlock we will go through a similar process. It will be fairly important to be sure about this idea of immunity. So we wait for long enough that we can be sure.
0 -
Employment law pedantry but in the UK a layoff is a temporary cessation of work and, if that is happening, frankly it is a medium-term positive. If they are being made redundant, less so.NerysHughes said:
In a years time it will be interesting what the global opinion is on the complete destruction of economies caused by the response to Covid-19Pagan2 said:
Not sure the layoffs havent already happened tbh. As I said my friends firm laid of half monday, the other half tuesday. Apparently the other half was to finish packing the last order they hadNerysHughes said:
Friday will be the big lay off day. I would expect between 500K-750K laid off.Pagan2 said:
That works if a business continues to employ people, Will they though. The firm my friend works for laid off everyone. It is now just a warehouse full of stock with an empty office. That business however will have no rates for a year and get a 25k grant which will help pay the rent. In 6 months time it can just come out of hibernation saved by tax payers while all 30 employees have been thrown on the largess of the state for food and rent.RobD said:
I think it's so businesses can continue to pay individuals, and we expect more announcements on individuals soon, right?DAlexander said:I am not impressed with the only help to renters being preventing them being evicted. I don't want to fall out with my landlord by not paying him.
£330bn is about £5k each, I will be a bit annoyed if business gets most of that and individuals get nothing. Especially since it will be people like me that will be paying for it all with higher taxes and worse public services for decades.
Large scale redundancies (i.e. 20 or more people) in one establishment require a 30-day collective consultation period. How on earth you round that out with social distancing is something I have been struggling with all day. There is a 'special circumstances' defence but it requires you to take such steps as are possible in the circumstances.0 -
It feels at the moment a lot like when the ocean goes out before the tsunami hits.1
-
Which is exactly what it ought to do. We need these viable business still operating. Losing (or rather having to shed) all your staff surely does not leave you with a viable business ready to pick up immediately once restrictions are removed.Philip_Thompson said:
Realistically what alternative do you have? In 6 months time [if it takes that long] that business will be able to start taking revenues and can rehire people, but what's it supposed to do in the mean time? Pay everyone a six month vacation?Pagan2 said:
That works if a business continues to employ people, Will they though. The firm my friend works for laid off everyone. It is now just a warehouse full of stock with an empty office. That business however will have no rates for a year and get a 25k grant which will help pay the rent. In 6 months time it can just come out of hibernation saved by tax payers while all 30 employees have been thrown on the largess of the state for food and rent.RobD said:
I think it's so businesses can continue to pay individuals, and we expect more announcements on individuals soon, right?DAlexander said:I am not impressed with the only help to renters being preventing them being evicted. I don't want to fall out with my landlord by not paying him.
£330bn is about £5k each, I will be a bit annoyed if business gets most of that and individuals get nothing. Especially since it will be people like me that will be paying for it all with higher taxes and worse public services for decades.
That only works if the government takes up the tab - and not in a loan but a grant.
Consider also this: the likelihood is that we will go through several phases of thightening and relaxing of restrictions over the next year. It would be madness for the government to put in place a regime that allowed or encouraged business to shed staff each time restriction tightened and the attempt to re-hire each time restrictions are relaxed.
0 -
Sure, in normal times.DougSeal said:
The Mayor of London stands as the surrogate for the PCC (previously Police Authorities) in Greater London i.e. deals with funding and oversight but has no input in operational matters.Endillion said:
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but the key word in your post might well be "policing".DougSeal said:
There is no way there should be a London only lockdown. It's a small country and getting out, even on a bicycle, is easy. It just shifts the problem.Endillion said:
If I change it to "adversely affected by not having a lockdown", does that resolve things?Anabobazina said:
Isn't there a logical fail somewhere in that analysis?Endillion said:
It would require Sadiq Khan to give the order. The order would be unpopular, so he wouldn't do it. Especially not in the run up to his re-election (albeit it's now over a year away), and considering all the people most likely to be adversely affected won't vote for him anyway.FrancisUrquhart said:
And we know London is a hot spot. I can't see how some sort of lockdown isn't coming shortly.LostPassword said:Positive test rate above 10% today. Doubtful that it's because triage is more accurate. Not good.
Also I don't think the Mayor of London has the statutory authority to take that sort of measure. I may be wrong but the role's remit doesn't stretch very far beyond policing and transport.
Let's put this another way: a Tory Mayor was to ask a Tory PM for permission to impose and enforce more stringent measures in London than in the rest of the country, are you saying that would be completely impossible?
As before, I'm not disagreeing that it shouldn't happen, nor that it's unlikely under current circumstances.0 -
I probably used the wrong word in lay-offs. Firms will be shutting in their droves this week. Its truly awful, millions of peoples lives are going to be ruined over the next month or two unless a treatment is found for Covid-19DougSeal said:
Employment law pedantry but in the UK a layoff is a temporary cessation of work and, if that is happening, frankly it is a medium-term positive. If they are being made redundant, less so.NerysHughes said:
In a years time it will be interesting what the global opinion is on the complete destruction of economies caused by the response to Covid-19Pagan2 said:
Not sure the layoffs havent already happened tbh. As I said my friends firm laid of half monday, the other half tuesday. Apparently the other half was to finish packing the last order they hadNerysHughes said:
Friday will be the big lay off day. I would expect between 500K-750K laid off.Pagan2 said:
That works if a business continues to employ people, Will they though. The firm my friend works for laid off everyone. It is now just a warehouse full of stock with an empty office. That business however will have no rates for a year and get a 25k grant which will help pay the rent. In 6 months time it can just come out of hibernation saved by tax payers while all 30 employees have been thrown on the largess of the state for food and rent.RobD said:
I think it's so businesses can continue to pay individuals, and we expect more announcements on individuals soon, right?DAlexander said:I am not impressed with the only help to renters being preventing them being evicted. I don't want to fall out with my landlord by not paying him.
£330bn is about £5k each, I will be a bit annoyed if business gets most of that and individuals get nothing. Especially since it will be people like me that will be paying for it all with higher taxes and worse public services for decades.
Large scale redundancies (i.e. 20 or more people) in one establishment require a 30-day collective consultation period. How on earth you round that out with social distancing is something I have been struggling with all day. There is a 'special circumstances' defence but it requires you to take such steps as are possible in the circumstances.0 -
Some businesses go bust, assets become cheaper, people buy them up for pennies on the pound and new leaner businesses appear in 6 months when the demand returns.Philip_Thompson said:
Realistically what alternative do you have? In 6 months time [if it takes that long] that business will be able to start taking revenues and can rehire people, but what's it supposed to do in the mean time? Pay everyone a six month vacation?Pagan2 said:
That works if a business continues to employ people, Will they though. The firm my friend works for laid off everyone. It is now just a warehouse full of stock with an empty office. That business however will have no rates for a year and get a 25k grant which will help pay the rent. In 6 months time it can just come out of hibernation saved by tax payers while all 30 employees have been thrown on the largess of the state for food and rent.RobD said:
I think it's so businesses can continue to pay individuals, and we expect more announcements on individuals soon, right?DAlexander said:I am not impressed with the only help to renters being preventing them being evicted. I don't want to fall out with my landlord by not paying him.
£330bn is about £5k each, I will be a bit annoyed if business gets most of that and individuals get nothing. Especially since it will be people like me that will be paying for it all with higher taxes and worse public services for decades.
That only works if the government takes up the tab - and not in a loan but a grant.
Just like used to happen when we had a functioning free market.0 -
Something must be done for the self-employed too. Since we know how much each person earned the previous year (from tax returns) we could offer aninterest free loan of that amount, payable monthly or quarterly.DAlexander said:
I wish I'd made a business to pay myself for my contract work, instead of going self employed to do the right thing and paying more tax. I could have had 6 months free money!Philip_Thompson said:
Realistically what alternative do you have? In 6 months time [if it takes that long] that business will be able to start taking revenues and can rehire people, but what's it supposed to do in the mean time? Pay everyone a six month vacation?Pagan2 said:
That works if a business continues to employ people, Will they though. The firm my friend works for laid off everyone. It is now just a warehouse full of stock with an empty office. That business however will have no rates for a year and get a 25k grant which will help pay the rent. In 6 months time it can just come out of hibernation saved by tax payers while all 30 employees have been thrown on the largess of the state for food and rent.RobD said:
I think it's so businesses can continue to pay individuals, and we expect more announcements on individuals soon, right?DAlexander said:I am not impressed with the only help to renters being preventing them being evicted. I don't want to fall out with my landlord by not paying him.
£330bn is about £5k each, I will be a bit annoyed if business gets most of that and individuals get nothing. Especially since it will be people like me that will be paying for it all with higher taxes and worse public services for decades.
That only works if the government takes up the tab - and not in a loan but a grant.
This idea creates so many loopholes, perverse incentives and arbitrary winners and losers it seems unworkable to me.0 -
If I'm right, even then the PM would need new legislation empowering the Mayor to do so - even the Civil Contingencies Act requires secondary legislation. What's more likely is that the Mayor would request the central government to use its powers to do so and I don't think that is at all sensible.Endillion said:
Sure, in normal times.DougSeal said:
The Mayor of London stands as the surrogate for the PCC (previously Police Authorities) in Greater London i.e. deals with funding and oversight but has no input in operational matters.Endillion said:
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but the key word in your post might well be "policing".DougSeal said:
There is no way there should be a London only lockdown. It's a small country and getting out, even on a bicycle, is easy. It just shifts the problem.Endillion said:
If I change it to "adversely affected by not having a lockdown", does that resolve things?Anabobazina said:
Isn't there a logical fail somewhere in that analysis?Endillion said:
It would require Sadiq Khan to give the order. The order would be unpopular, so he wouldn't do it. Especially not in the run up to his re-election (albeit it's now over a year away), and considering all the people most likely to be adversely affected won't vote for him anyway.FrancisUrquhart said:
And we know London is a hot spot. I can't see how some sort of lockdown isn't coming shortly.LostPassword said:Positive test rate above 10% today. Doubtful that it's because triage is more accurate. Not good.
Also I don't think the Mayor of London has the statutory authority to take that sort of measure. I may be wrong but the role's remit doesn't stretch very far beyond policing and transport.
Let's put this another way: a Tory Mayor was to ask a Tory PM for permission to impose and enforce more stringent measures in London than in the rest of the country, are you saying that would be completely impossible?
As before, I'm not disagreeing that it shouldn't happen, nor that it's unlikely under current circumstances.0 -
I suspect that is why they were laid off, basically zero hour contracts with no hours. The firm doesn't expect to trade again for at least 12 months however as it services the conventions with branded goods.DougSeal said:
Employment law pedantry but in the UK a layoff is a temporary cessation of work and, if that is happening, frankly it is a medium-term positive. If they are being made redundant, less so.NerysHughes said:
In a years time it will be interesting what the global opinion is on the complete destruction of economies caused by the response to Covid-19Pagan2 said:
Not sure the layoffs havent already happened tbh. As I said my friends firm laid of half monday, the other half tuesday. Apparently the other half was to finish packing the last order they hadNerysHughes said:
Friday will be the big lay off day. I would expect between 500K-750K laid off.Pagan2 said:
That works if a business continues to employ people, Will they though. The firm my friend works for laid off everyone. It is now just a warehouse full of stock with an empty office. That business however will have no rates for a year and get a 25k grant which will help pay the rent. In 6 months time it can just come out of hibernation saved by tax payers while all 30 employees have been thrown on the largess of the state for food and rent.RobD said:
I think it's so businesses can continue to pay individuals, and we expect more announcements on individuals soon, right?DAlexander said:I am not impressed with the only help to renters being preventing them being evicted. I don't want to fall out with my landlord by not paying him.
£330bn is about £5k each, I will be a bit annoyed if business gets most of that and individuals get nothing. Especially since it will be people like me that will be paying for it all with higher taxes and worse public services for decades.
Large scale redundancies (i.e. 20 or more people) in one establishment require a 30-day collective consultation period. How on earth you round that out with social distancing is something I have been struggling with all day. There is a 'special circumstances' defence but it requires you to take such steps as are possible in the circumstances.0 -
Grandson 2 is in a similar position, although as he's in England he's almost half-way through his VIth Form course.DavidL said:
My son will be submitting his University applications next October. He really wants to have his Highers then although he will have predicted grades for his advanced Highers. Those who are in final year now need to know whether they can get into their degree courses or whether they need to apply for something else. October is really too late.ukpaul said:
I'd suggested completing them in October, then marked for them to start a shortened new year 12 or University year in January. Might cause problems with students moving onto jobs and some other groups, though.Fysics_Teacher said:Possible solutions for GCSEs and A-levels if schools shut for the summer:
1). Base grades on teacher assessments. This could work if parents were not able to appeal, but would be very tricky to moderate. Might be the best solution though if it were genuinely one-off situation.
2). For A-levels at least just assume everyone would have got their first choice offer. This might cause problems in terms of numbers for some universities who rely on clearing, but students would not complain.
3). Rapidly deploy some form of online testing that students could do from home. Making that secure would be quite a challenge I think.
4). Run the exams but in a very cut down form: only one paper per subject with enough optional questions so that those who could not finish the course are not penalised. This would be very difficult for practical subjects like Art but could work as the candidates are widely separated in an exam hall. Might need to recruit invigilators who have recovered from CV-19 for that one.
I’m sure there are other solutions, and I’m sure that many students will be hard done by whichever one is picked.
And Good afternoon everyone, and thanks to the colleagues who commented on Zoom.0 -
0
-
I'm dealing with a number of employment status cases at the moment - Uber style disputes where the workers are saying they're actually employees.Pagan2 said:
I suspect that is why they were laid off, basically zero hour contracts with no hours. The firm doesn't expect to trade again for at least 12 months however as it services the conventions with branded goods.DougSeal said:
Employment law pedantry but in the UK a layoff is a temporary cessation of work and, if that is happening, frankly it is a medium-term positive. If they are being made redundant, less so.NerysHughes said:
In a years time it will be interesting what the global opinion is on the complete destruction of economies caused by the response to Covid-19Pagan2 said:
Not sure the layoffs havent already happened tbh. As I said my friends firm laid of half monday, the other half tuesday. Apparently the other half was to finish packing the last order they hadNerysHughes said:
Friday will be the big lay off day. I would expect between 500K-750K laid off.Pagan2 said:
That works if a business continues to employ people, Will they though. The firm my friend works for laid off everyone. It is now just a warehouse full of stock with an empty office. That business however will have no rates for a year and get a 25k grant which will help pay the rent. In 6 months time it can just come out of hibernation saved by tax payers while all 30 employees have been thrown on the largess of the state for food and rent.RobD said:
I think it's so businesses can continue to pay individuals, and we expect more announcements on individuals soon, right?DAlexander said:I am not impressed with the only help to renters being preventing them being evicted. I don't want to fall out with my landlord by not paying him.
£330bn is about £5k each, I will be a bit annoyed if business gets most of that and individuals get nothing. Especially since it will be people like me that will be paying for it all with higher taxes and worse public services for decades.
Large scale redundancies (i.e. 20 or more people) in one establishment require a 30-day collective consultation period. How on earth you round that out with social distancing is something I have been struggling with all day. There is a 'special circumstances' defence but it requires you to take such steps as are possible in the circumstances.0 -
11,302 / 27 nowAndy_JS said:Germany: 10,120 / 27.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/0 -
Having been static at 6% for more than 2 weeks there has been a pronounced increase in the proportion of cases ending in death. Today is a new high of 9%.
What I think that this is indicative of is that world wide we are still very much in the early stages of this with rapid growth and the early deaths being much more heavily weighted than the eventual recoveries (which have not happened yet). I suspect that this rate was held down by China who were a few weeks further ahead for a while but China is less and less dominant in the statistics. There are currently 115k recorded active cases, only 8k of which are in China.
I therefore completely get that we are getting a highly distorted view at the present time but it is troubling that distorted view is becoming more so, not less. If the fatality rate is to get under 1% we have a long, long way to go.0 -
Assuming the figures are accurate, other governments may need to consider sending taskforces to Germany to find out why they're being so successful in combating the virus.Benpointer said:
11,302 / 27 nowAndy_JS said:Germany: 10,120 / 27.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/0 -
It's important to remember, though, that immunity is not a steady state. Not just that immediate immunity is sometimes less than 100% protective, immunity tends to fade. Sometimes it persists for years, or even decades, sometimes it fades a lot faster, and any mutation can reshuffle the cards.rcs1000 said:
That's an excellent question.GideonWise said:I have no expertise at all in immuno response to viruses. That's why I defer to the experts in that specialty on that. The experts are not sure.
Why are you so sure about something which is presumably outside of your expertise?
My guess is that I'm reading different general science publications to you. And I think they tend to have a different tone to newspapers. Newspapers, for example, will tend to look to show "balance" - so one person said X, another said Y. Nature and New Scientist and those kind of publications will tend to report studies with findings, and while they'll report disagreements, they tend not to look for false balance.
My point is that this isn't some kind of super virus. It's a Coronavirus, like SARS or MERS. Both of these conferred immunity on people who got them. There have been no confirmed cases of reinfection. There is also evidence that this virus is not mutating quickly.
Let me quote infectious diseases professor Jon Cohen "The answer is that we simply don’t know" - which supports your point... But then he says "However, it is very likely, based on other viral infections, that yes, once a person has had the infection they will generally be immune and won’t get it again. There will always be the odd exception, but that is certainly a reasonable expectation."
There's nothing certain about my view. But the balance of probabilities - and by which I'm talking 90%, not 55% - is that there is immunity conferred.0 -
That's an average number, so obviously some people will get diagnosed earlier.malcolmg said:
Why could it not be less, does it have to take minimum 10 days to test positive, surely the virus will show up in test before that.rcs1000 said:
Worth remembering, of course, that the people testing positive today caught CV-19 ten to fourteen days ago.LostPassword said:Positive test rate above 10% today. Doubtful that it's because triage is more accurate. Not good.
However, people are only being encouraged to go to the hospital and get tested when they are sick. Most people show very few or no symptoms for seven days, and then start with only mild ones.
0 -
Another bonkers day at the orifice!
Apparently the cheap and cheerful ventilator now exists as prototype, working on version 2 and production starts in 2 weeks. Simple components.
Meanwhile in Canada:
https://twitter.com/alandrummond2/status/1240008793167192066?s=09
02 delivery at my hospital now up to 3000 litres per minute with full tanks.
But will we have the staff to crew them?
It's all a bit scrap heap challenge, but in a really weird way it is all a bit exciting.2 -
It looks like the Boris-nator is up for the daily press conference at 4pm, with the fireplace salesman at 5pm.
I presume we are going to get this stupid situation where Boris will be asked what about school closures and then he will have to say wait until 5pm.0 -
Germany is testing a lot more people so they are catching a lot of the huge number of asymptomatic people. The UK and other countries are only testing those with symptoms so it shows a higher mortality rate.Andy_JS said:
Assuming the figures are accurate, other governments may need to consider sending taskforces to Germany to find out why they're being so successful in combating the virus.Benpointer said:
11,302 / 27 nowAndy_JS said:Germany: 10,120 / 27.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/1 -
@GideonWise
Let's agree that's all a matter of probability. We do not know that exposure confers long-term immunity. (And it's worth remembering that the definition of long-term is 3+ years, as the body's immune system slowly "forget" the virus. And which is why we have tetanus shots every decade.)
It is therefore worth being cautious. And any scientist worth their salt will preface with "of course, we could be wrong."
However, where we disagree is about the probability we will see reinfection. (And again, bear in mind that your letter cautioned about possible long-term reinfection.)
I think that it is extremely unlikely - maybe a one-in-ten or one-in-twenty chance. You think, I presume, that it is much more likely, say one-in-two.
It would be interesting to get probability ranges from experts. Because I suspect if you asked for probabilities, you would get 5-10%, or even less.0 -
Out of war often comes incredible innovation...Foxy said:Another bonkers day at the orifice!
Apparently the cheap and cheerful ventilator now exists as prototype, working on version 2 and production starts in 2 weeks. Simple components.
Meanwhile in Canada:
https://twitter.com/alandrummond2/status/1240008793167192066?s=09
02 delivery at my hospital now up to 3000 litres per minute with full tanks.
But will we have the staff to crew them?
It's all a bit scrap heap challenge, but in a really weird way it is all a bit exciting.
2 weeks before production starts...ekkk...isn't the shit storm predicted to peak in 3 weeks.0 -
I think the virus will drift rather than shift. Drift is a partial change in antigens, rather than total shift. This means that there should at least be partial immunity and much more mild disease.rcs1000 said:@GideonWise
Let's agree that's all a matter of probability. We do not know that exposure confers long-term immunity. (And it's worth remembering that the definition of long-term is 3+ years, as the body's immune system slowly "forget" the virus. And which is why we have tetanus shots every decade.)
It is therefore worth being cautious. And any scientist worth their salt will preface with "of course, we could be wrong."
However, where we disagree is about the probability we will see reinfection. (And again, bear in mind that your letter cautioned about possible long-term reinfection.)
I think that it is extremely unlikely - maybe a one-in-ten or one-in-twenty chance. You think, I presume, that it is much more likely, say one-in-two.
It would be interesting to get probability ranges from experts. Because I suspect if you asked for probabilities, you would get 5-10%, or even less.0 -
Many more ICU beds per capita?Andy_JS said:
Assuming the figures are accurate, other governments may need to consider sending taskforces to Germany to find out why they're being so successful in combating the virus.Benpointer said:
11,302 / 27 nowAndy_JS said:Germany: 10,120 / 27.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/1 -
We keep hearing Germany is testing way more people, but I haven't seen any figures about just how many they are doing.MaxPB said:
Germany is testing a lot more people so they are catching a lot of the huge number of asymptomatic people. The UK and other countries are only testing those with symptoms so it shows a higher mortality rate.Andy_JS said:
Assuming the figures are accurate, other governments may need to consider sending taskforces to Germany to find out why they're being so successful in combating the virus.Benpointer said:
11,302 / 27 nowAndy_JS said:Germany: 10,120 / 27.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
Gold Standard South Korea were doing 15k a day at peak. Seems UK will be up to 10k soon and Boris said 25k is the target they are going for.0 -
The median in china (see paper below) was 5 days, give or take.rcs1000 said:
That's an average number, so obviously some people will get diagnosed earlier.malcolmg said:
Why could it not be less, does it have to take minimum 10 days to test positive, surely the virus will show up in test before that.rcs1000 said:
Worth remembering, of course, that the people testing positive today caught CV-19 ten to fourteen days ago.LostPassword said:Positive test rate above 10% today. Doubtful that it's because triage is more accurate. Not good.
However, people are only being encouraged to go to the hospital and get tested when they are sick. Most people show very few or no symptoms for seven days, and then start with only mild ones.0 -
My admiration and gratitude for your dedication and that of all your colleagues knows no boundsFoxy said:Another bonkers day at the orifice!
Apparently the cheap and cheerful ventilator now exists as prototype, working on version 2 and production starts in 2 weeks. Simple components.
Meanwhile in Canada:
https://twitter.com/alandrummond2/status/1240008793167192066?s=09
02 delivery at my hospital now up to 3000 litres per minute with full tanks.
But will we have the staff to crew them?
It's all a bit scrap heap challenge, but in a really weird way it is all a bit exciting.
3 -
Exactly. If you catch (and count) people who are asymptomatic, then your death rate is going to look really low. If you only catch (and count) people who arrive at hospital with serious symptoms, then your death rate will look really high.MaxPB said:
Germany is testing a lot more people so they are catching a lot of the huge number of asymptomatic people. The UK and other countries are only testing those with symptoms so it shows a higher mortality rate.Andy_JS said:
Assuming the figures are accurate, other governments may need to consider sending taskforces to Germany to find out why they're being so successful in combating the virus.Benpointer said:
11,302 / 27 nowAndy_JS said:Germany: 10,120 / 27.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
As an aside, there was some more hidden good news in the Vo study. (I.e. the town in Italy which followed the South Korean example and where, by aggressive testing, they have been Coronavirus free.)
Now, the Vo study skewed young, so you shouldn't read too much into this, but it was just under 10% of the people who tested positive for the virus ended up showing symptoms. Now, again, the Vo residents who tested positive were typically young, so we shouldn't read too much into this. However, it is some further evidence for the "iceberg" theory.1 -
I think there is perhaps something more.Benpointer said:
Many more ICU beds per capita?Andy_JS said:
Assuming the figures are accurate, other governments may need to consider sending taskforces to Germany to find out why they're being so successful in combating the virus.Benpointer said:
11,302 / 27 nowAndy_JS said:Germany: 10,120 / 27.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
The Italian Professor on CH4 news said 2 days ago, even those who were good candidates for ICU and were getting state of the art treatment under his care were dying at a rate far in excessive of what one would expect from people in their condition and just as importantly the ones not dying aren't improving.
He said they are following their standard protocol and usually they expect to see improvement in a good percentage and they aren't seeing any.
France and Spain also seeing similar kind of trends.
It would be really encouraging if Germany have found some sort of best practice that cuts down the death rate.0 -
It may well be, especially given recent SNP stance , they seem to be getting too happy with status quo.justin124 said:
Time will show who is deluded - it might even be you.malcolmg said:
LOL, Boris cannot ban a referendum if Scottish Government want to go ahead, you southern fanboys are deluded.HYUFD said:
You are missing the key point a Starmer premiership would take the UK back into the single market reducing the likelihood of a Yes vote in any indyref2.Pagan2 said:
I really don't get this idea....we will have a government allied with the snp.justin124 said:
I don't disagree with that really. Labour would only need 260 or so on the basis of the SNP still having circa 45 seats.Were Labour to gain at SNP to reach 270 seats, the SNP would only need circa 35.HYUFD said:
I would say Labour actually needs to get to 280 to 290 seats if the LDs do not gain any seats as any Labour gains from the SNP make no net change in the anti Tory block.justin124 said:Labour probably only needs to recover to circa 260 seats given the Anti-Tory bloc in Scotland. I also expect some Labour recovery in Scotland under Starmer.
If the LDs reach 30 to 40 seats however then yes 260 seats for Labour would be enough to form a minority or coalition Labour government with LD and SNP support
Surely their price will be independence referendum which they will likely win. At which point SNP are no longer part of rump uk government so labour then is no longer the majority and government becomes the tories again.....what am I missing?
The SNP thus face the problem Boris has banned indyref2 when his hard Brexit makes it winnable, while Starmer would allow indyref2 but his soft Brexit means Yes would likely lose it0 -
Thanksrcs1000 said:
That's an average number, so obviously some people will get diagnosed earlier.malcolmg said:
Why could it not be less, does it have to take minimum 10 days to test positive, surely the virus will show up in test before that.rcs1000 said:
Worth remembering, of course, that the people testing positive today caught CV-19 ten to fourteen days ago.LostPassword said:Positive test rate above 10% today. Doubtful that it's because triage is more accurate. Not good.
However, people are only being encouraged to go to the hospital and get tested when they are sick. Most people show very few or no symptoms for seven days, and then start with only mild ones.0 -
Regardless of their death rate, the total number of deaths is amazingly small given a population of 82 million. It can't just be a "proximity to Italy effect" because the Dutch figures are much worse: 58 deaths.rcs1000 said:
Exactly. If you catch (and count) people who are asymptomatic, then your death rate is going to look really low. If you only catch (and count) people who arrive at hospital with serious symptoms, then your death rate will look really high.MaxPB said:
Germany is testing a lot more people so they are catching a lot of the huge number of asymptomatic people. The UK and other countries are only testing those with symptoms so it shows a higher mortality rate.Andy_JS said:
Assuming the figures are accurate, other governments may need to consider sending taskforces to Germany to find out why they're being so successful in combating the virus.Benpointer said:
11,302 / 27 nowAndy_JS said:Germany: 10,120 / 27.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
As an aside, there was some more hidden good news in the Vo study. (I.e. the town in Italy which followed the South Korean example and where, by aggressive testing, they have been Coronavirus free.)
Now, the Vo study skewed young, so you shouldn't read too much into this, but it was just under 10% of the people who tested positive for the virus ended up showing symptoms. Now, again, the Vo residents who tested positive were typically young, so we shouldn't read too much into this. However, it is some further evidence for the "iceberg" theory.0 -
At the moment we are mostly shutting elective stuff down, to create space, upskilling staff and ramping up ICU capacity. The paucity of PPE is the major stress for staff. This from Wales gives a good picture of what it is like at the moment, if you watch the video.JM1 said:
How's it looking @Foxy ? News on ventilators is kind of amazing and exciting! Hope you are holding up okay and that together we can manage the stormFoxy said:Another bonkers day at the orifice!
Apparently the cheap and cheerful ventilator now exists as prototype, working on version 2 and production starts in 2 weeks. Simple components.
Meanwhile in Canada:
https://twitter.com/alandrummond2/status/1240008793167192066?s=09
02 delivery at my hospital now up to 3000 litres per minute with full tanks.
But will we have the staff to crew them?
It's all a bit scrap heap challenge, but in a really weird way it is all a bit exciting.
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/1240061717649829893?s=19
0 -
Malc. I do believe this crisis, which is of epic proportions, will see UK PLC spending cash across the regions like never before and it will prove the case that Scotland does benefit from being part of the wider unionmalcolmg said:
It may well be, especially given recent SNP stance , they seem to be getting too happy with status quo.justin124 said:
Time will show who is deluded - it might even be you.malcolmg said:
LOL, Boris cannot ban a referendum if Scottish Government want to go ahead, you southern fanboys are deluded.HYUFD said:
You are missing the key point a Starmer premiership would take the UK back into the single market reducing the likelihood of a Yes vote in any indyref2.Pagan2 said:
I really don't get this idea....we will have a government allied with the snp.justin124 said:
I don't disagree with that really. Labour would only need 260 or so on the basis of the SNP still having circa 45 seats.Were Labour to gain at SNP to reach 270 seats, the SNP would only need circa 35.HYUFD said:
I would say Labour actually needs to get to 280 to 290 seats if the LDs do not gain any seats as any Labour gains from the SNP make no net change in the anti Tory block.justin124 said:Labour probably only needs to recover to circa 260 seats given the Anti-Tory bloc in Scotland. I also expect some Labour recovery in Scotland under Starmer.
If the LDs reach 30 to 40 seats however then yes 260 seats for Labour would be enough to form a minority or coalition Labour government with LD and SNP support
Surely their price will be independence referendum which they will likely win. At which point SNP are no longer part of rump uk government so labour then is no longer the majority and government becomes the tories again.....what am I missing?
The SNP thus face the problem Boris has banned indyref2 when his hard Brexit makes it winnable, while Starmer would allow indyref2 but his soft Brexit means Yes would likely lose it
I do not want to upset you, and of course you may disagree, but I believe this has, and will continue to, strengthen the union and we may already have seen peak Indyref 2 demand2 -
The £330bn isn't being handed out. It's allowing access to loans.DAlexander said:I am not impressed with the only help to renters being preventing them being evicted. I don't want to fall out with my landlord by not paying him.
£330bn is about £5k each, I will be a bit annoyed if business gets most of that and individuals get nothing. Especially since it will be people like me that will be paying for it all with higher taxes and worse public services for decades.
Only £20bn is being actually handed out.0 -
I wish to second thatBig_G_NorthWales said:
My admiration and gratitude for your dedication and that of all your colleagues knows no boundsFoxy said:Another bonkers day at the orifice!
Apparently the cheap and cheerful ventilator now exists as prototype, working on version 2 and production starts in 2 weeks. Simple components.
Meanwhile in Canada:
https://twitter.com/alandrummond2/status/1240008793167192066?s=09
02 delivery at my hospital now up to 3000 litres per minute with full tanks.
But will we have the staff to crew them?
It's all a bit scrap heap challenge, but in a really weird way it is all a bit exciting.3 -
Things don't mutate because they are motivated to, so the chances of mutation are not reduced by the success of the current form of the virus. The opposite, actually - the more viruses reproducing, the more random mutations have the chance of occurring.JM1 said:
Yes. From a genetic perspective, this virus is very successful so there's not much motivation for it to mutate a lot.Foxy said:
I think the virus will drift rather than shift. Drift is a partial change in antigens, rather than total shift. This means that there should at least be partial immunity and much more mild disease.rcs1000 said:@GideonWise
Let's agree that's all a matter of probability. We do not know that exposure confers long-term immunity. (And it's worth remembering that the definition of long-term is 3+ years, as the body's immune system slowly "forget" the virus. And which is why we have tetanus shots every decade.)
It is therefore worth being cautious. And any scientist worth their salt will preface with "of course, we could be wrong."
However, where we disagree is about the probability we will see reinfection. (And again, bear in mind that your letter cautioned about possible long-term reinfection.)
I think that it is extremely unlikely - maybe a one-in-ten or one-in-twenty chance. You think, I presume, that it is much more likely, say one-in-two.
It would be interesting to get probability ranges from experts. Because I suspect if you asked for probabilities, you would get 5-10%, or even less.0 -
Sporting Index have launched a market on various things to do with "Boris Daily Briefing".
sips of water / mentions of "nhs" / "lockdown" / "whatever it takes" etc
Don't know what we think about that.
Reprehensible? Boring? Fun?
Opportunity to use our above average expertise to make money?0 -
Inspiring and scary in equal measure. Well, OK, slightly more scary.Foxy said:
At the moment we are mostly shutting elective stuff down, to create space, upskilling staff and ramping up ICU capacity. The paucity of PPE is the major stress for staff. This from Wales gives a good picture of what it is like at the moment, if you watch the video.JM1 said:
How's it looking @Foxy ? News on ventilators is kind of amazing and exciting! Hope you are holding up okay and that together we can manage the stormFoxy said:Another bonkers day at the orifice!
Apparently the cheap and cheerful ventilator now exists as prototype, working on version 2 and production starts in 2 weeks. Simple components.
Meanwhile in Canada:
https://twitter.com/alandrummond2/status/1240008793167192066?s=09
02 delivery at my hospital now up to 3000 litres per minute with full tanks.
But will we have the staff to crew them?
It's all a bit scrap heap challenge, but in a really weird way it is all a bit exciting.
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/1240061717649829893?s=190 -
Have Paddy Power got a deadpool going yet? Or odds on x catching it? Got to be some sort of acca on Trump, Boris, Merkel and Macron catching it.kinabalu said:Sporting Index have launched a market on various things to do with "Boris Daily Briefing".
sips of water / mentions of "nhs" / "lockdown" / "whatever it takes" etc
Don't know what we think about that.
Reprehensible? Boring? Fun?
Opportunity to use our above average expertise to make money?0 -
-
Looks like Sanders is going to suspend his campaign.
https://twitter.com/hollyotterbein/status/12402959863433543760 -
Do you reckon mutation to be a motivation-driven, deliberate act, rather than a random occurance?JM1 said:
Yes. From a genetic perspective, this virus is very successful so there's not much motivation for it to mutate a lot.Foxy said:
I think the virus will drift rather than shift. Drift is a partial change in antigens, rather than total shift. This means that there should at least be partial immunity and much more mild disease.rcs1000 said:@GideonWise
Let's agree that's all a matter of probability. We do not know that exposure confers long-term immunity. (And it's worth remembering that the definition of long-term is 3+ years, as the body's immune system slowly "forget" the virus. And which is why we have tetanus shots every decade.)
It is therefore worth being cautious. And any scientist worth their salt will preface with "of course, we could be wrong."
However, where we disagree is about the probability we will see reinfection. (And again, bear in mind that your letter cautioned about possible long-term reinfection.)
I think that it is extremely unlikely - maybe a one-in-ten or one-in-twenty chance. You think, I presume, that it is much more likely, say one-in-two.
It would be interesting to get probability ranges from experts. Because I suspect if you asked for probabilities, you would get 5-10%, or even less.0 -
There really is no need to expose this race-baiting shite.HYUFD said:0 -
A paper on the effect of claimate on SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus. Posted, again, without comment as it has yet to be peer reviewed and I am no "peer".
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.12.20034728v1.full.pdf1 -
4 more years of the Bernie Bros claiming he was robbed.williamglenn said:Looks like Sanders is going to suspend his campaign.
https://twitter.com/hollyotterbein/status/12402959863433543760 -
Dow resistance at 20000 is in play again.0
-
...and another one with similar conclusions...
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2003/2003.05003.pdf0 -
Mutation is an ‘accident’ that doesn’t require motivation!JM1 said:
Yes. From a genetic perspective, this virus is very successful so there's not much motivation for it to mutate a lot.Foxy said:
I think the virus will drift rather than shift. Drift is a partial change in antigens, rather than total shift. This means that there should at least be partial immunity and much more mild disease.rcs1000 said:@GideonWise
Let's agree that's all a matter of probability. We do not know that exposure confers long-term immunity. (And it's worth remembering that the definition of long-term is 3+ years, as the body's immune system slowly "forget" the virus. And which is why we have tetanus shots every decade.)
It is therefore worth being cautious. And any scientist worth their salt will preface with "of course, we could be wrong."
However, where we disagree is about the probability we will see reinfection. (And again, bear in mind that your letter cautioned about possible long-term reinfection.)
I think that it is extremely unlikely - maybe a one-in-ten or one-in-twenty chance. You think, I presume, that it is much more likely, say one-in-two.
It would be interesting to get probability ranges from experts. Because I suspect if you asked for probabilities, you would get 5-10%, or even less.0 -
On Scottish independence, the big bazooka is the power of being in the Union. The Scottish government would never be able to sell £40-50bn worth of bonds as an independent nation and the UK government wouldn't allow for the BoE to buy Scottish Sterling bonds as they have no control over policy.
In times of crisis having a viable currency and central bank is really important.0 -
If by 'robbed' they mean 'electorally pulverised', they might have a point...FrancisUrquhart said:
4 more years of the Bernie Bros claiming he was robbed.williamglenn said:Looks like Sanders is going to suspend his campaign.
https://twitter.com/hollyotterbein/status/1240295986343354376
0 -
Not seen that, no. Surely too much even for them.FrancisUrquhart said:Have Paddy Power got a deadpool going yet? Or odds on x catching it? Got to be some sort of acca on Trump, Boris, Merkel and Macron catching it.
But on the Sporting one -
Mentions of "NHS, buy at 14, sell at 12.
That is intriguing. Feels like a sell to me.0 -
NEW THREAD
0 -
Where are you getting your German testing numbers from - I struggled to find any.MaxPB said:
Germany is testing a lot more people so they are catching a lot of the huge number of asymptomatic people. The UK and other countries are only testing those with symptoms so it shows a higher mortality rate.Andy_JS said:
Assuming the figures are accurate, other governments may need to consider sending taskforces to Germany to find out why they're being so successful in combating the virus.Benpointer said:
11,302 / 27 nowAndy_JS said:Germany: 10,120 / 27.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/0 -
Euro membership?MaxPB said:On Scottish independence, the big bazooka is the power of being in the Union. The Scottish government would never be able to sell £40-50bn worth of bonds as an independent nation and the UK government wouldn't allow for the BoE to buy Scottish Sterling bonds as they have no control over policy.
In times of crisis having a viable currency and central bank is really important.0 -
In lighter news, Amazon thinks I might like a audiobook called 'The Assistant' by a certain SK Tremayne, which is all about a creepy AI that controls a flat in Camden...
Look Amazon, I love you and I have indeed purchased enough loo roll to float a battleship, but I'm not desperate yet!0 -
Feels like we're at a crossroads where either this crisis is seen as a foreshadowing of climate collapse, and we transition away from this rotten system, or the human project is stillborn. Have a great Wednesday everyone!
— Frankie Boyle (@frankieboyle) March 18, 20200 -
This was my immediate thought, but I think the point is that the virus is now so widespread in its current form that any individual mutation is unlikely to be successful enough to become the dominant strain.IshmaelZ said:
Things don't mutate because they are motivated to, so the chances of mutation are not reduced by the success of the current form of the virus. The opposite, actually - the more viruses reproducing, the more random mutations have the chance of occurring.JM1 said:
Yes. From a genetic perspective, this virus is very successful so there's not much motivation for it to mutate a lot.Foxy said:
I think the virus will drift rather than shift. Drift is a partial change in antigens, rather than total shift. This means that there should at least be partial immunity and much more mild disease.rcs1000 said:@GideonWise
Let's agree that's all a matter of probability. We do not know that exposure confers long-term immunity. (And it's worth remembering that the definition of long-term is 3+ years, as the body's immune system slowly "forget" the virus. And which is why we have tetanus shots every decade.)
It is therefore worth being cautious. And any scientist worth their salt will preface with "of course, we could be wrong."
However, where we disagree is about the probability we will see reinfection. (And again, bear in mind that your letter cautioned about possible long-term reinfection.)
I think that it is extremely unlikely - maybe a one-in-ten or one-in-twenty chance. You think, I presume, that it is much more likely, say one-in-two.
It would be interesting to get probability ranges from experts. Because I suspect if you asked for probabilities, you would get 5-10%, or even less.0 -
They probably wouldn't qualify, plus it's not something that would happen overnight. Also, didn't they pledge to keep the pound in 2014?kinabalu said:
Euro membership?MaxPB said:On Scottish independence, the big bazooka is the power of being in the Union. The Scottish government would never be able to sell £40-50bn worth of bonds as an independent nation and the UK government wouldn't allow for the BoE to buy Scottish Sterling bonds as they have no control over policy.
In times of crisis having a viable currency and central bank is really important.1 -
Because we already have a defence secretary and home secretary.TheScreamingEagles said:
Why is a disgraced national security risk in charge of the nation's children?Dura_Ace said:
A chilling reminder that he still exists.TheScreamingEagles said:Gavin Williamson to make a statement at 5pm
https://twitter.com/HouseofCommons/status/12402755842294865920 -
What a tosser.kinabalu said:Feels like we're at a crossroads where either this crisis is seen as a foreshadowing of climate collapse, and we transition away from this rotten system, or the human project is stillborn. Have a great Wednesday everyone!
— Frankie Boyle (@frankieboyle) March 18, 20200 -
For now I agree G , but it will be back , SNP don't seem in a rush anyway and they will pay long term for that.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Malc. I do believe this crisis, which is of epic proportions, will see UK PLC spending cash across the regions like never before and it will prove the case that Scotland does benefit from being part of the wider unionmalcolmg said:
It may well be, especially given recent SNP stance , they seem to be getting too happy with status quo.justin124 said:
Time will show who is deluded - it might even be you.malcolmg said:
LOL, Boris cannot ban a referendum if Scottish Government want to go ahead, you southern fanboys are deluded.HYUFD said:
You are missing the key point a Starmer premiership would take the UK back into the single market reducing the likelihood of a Yes vote in any indyref2.Pagan2 said:
I really don't get this idea....we will have a government allied with the snp.justin124 said:
I don't disagree with that really. Labour would only need 260 or so on the basis of the SNP still having circa 45 seats.Were Labour to gain at SNP to reach 270 seats, the SNP would only need circa 35.HYUFD said:
I would say Labour actually needs to get to 280 to 290 seats if the LDs do not gain any seats as any Labour gains from the SNP make no net change in the anti Tory block.justin124 said:Labour probably only needs to recover to circa 260 seats given the Anti-Tory bloc in Scotland. I also expect some Labour recovery in Scotland under Starmer.
If the LDs reach 30 to 40 seats however then yes 260 seats for Labour would be enough to form a minority or coalition Labour government with LD and SNP support
Surely their price will be independence referendum which they will likely win. At which point SNP are no longer part of rump uk government so labour then is no longer the majority and government becomes the tories again.....what am I missing?
The SNP thus face the problem Boris has banned indyref2 when his hard Brexit makes it winnable, while Starmer would allow indyref2 but his soft Brexit means Yes would likely lose it
I do not want to upset you, and of course you may disagree, but I believe this has, and will continue to, strengthen the union and we may already have seen peak Indyref 2 demand0
