Covid-19

This Forum is the main messageboard to discuss all things Claret and Blue and beyond
randomclaret2
Posts: 3662
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2016 5:04 pm
Been Liked: 1679 times
Has Liked: 2414 times

Re: Covid-19

Post by randomclaret2 » Sun Mar 29, 2020 11:18 pm

Ive heard it all now...expecting the Govt to cover up to 80% of earnings AND expecting it to be tax free as well ??

Paul Waine
Posts: 6056
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 1393 times
Has Liked: 1697 times

Re: Covid-19

Post by Paul Waine » Sun Mar 29, 2020 11:26 pm

For those thinking about the statistics this report in Sunday Times is of a scientist "changing his mind" and his assumptions that firstly led him to predict 5,700 deaths. Now he's thought about it again - and seen that the stats don't match his first expectations - he's changed his position. There were other scientists who said he'd got things wring with his first modelled predictions, because his assumptions were incorrect.

Coronavirus: Scientist who predicted 5,700 deaths now says final toll will be much higher

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/f57c ... b2de290031

Introduction reads:

The scientist who last week projected 5,700 coronavirus deaths in Britain has said new data suggests that was a significant underestimate and the country is in a very “dangerous state”.

Tom Pike, from Imperial College, had calculated the likely death rate in Britain by assuming that our outbreak followed a similar trajectory to that seen in Wuhan, China. His paper predicted that, at its highest, Britain would see 260 deaths a day. That number was, however, reached over the weekend, and the rate of increase in deaths still seemed to be rising.

Professor Pike said this changed the results entirely. “We don’t know where that uptick is going to go, or if it will keep going in the same direction,” he said. “That’s critical in terms of the projected total deaths. If we don’t regain the Wuhan trajectory, each day we are building up more deaths. It’s a very dangerous state to be in.”

Paul Waine
Posts: 6056
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 1393 times
Has Liked: 1697 times

Re: Covid-19

Post by Paul Waine » Sun Mar 29, 2020 11:27 pm

randomclaret2 wrote:
Sun Mar 29, 2020 11:18 pm
Ive heard it all now...expecting the Govt to cover up to 80% of earnings AND expecting it to be tax free as well ??
meanwhile, basic rate of income tax is 20% and employee's NI 12% (ish)

thatdberight
Posts: 3779
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:49 am
Been Liked: 924 times
Has Liked: 716 times

Re: Covid-19

Post by thatdberight » Sun Mar 29, 2020 11:31 pm

CombatClaret wrote:
Sun Mar 29, 2020 11:12 pm
Yes I know, someone summed up his sentiments with the quote and a second person will have confirmed that quote was an accurate description.
So whether he said it in 14 worlds like the quote or 400 the message was that.
I found this a balanced view of that allegation and its denial;
https://www.thecanary.co/uk/2020/03/22/ ... us-deaths/

For what it's worth I don't think anyone honestly doesn't think that there's a balance between acceptable deaths and economic/ social damage. It's just where that balance is.

Dy1geo
Posts: 578
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2016 8:17 pm
Been Liked: 157 times
Has Liked: 48 times

Re: Covid-19

Post by Dy1geo » Sun Mar 29, 2020 11:45 pm

I cannot believe in times like this people are moaning having to pay some tax and NI on the 80% of their pay they are getting from the Government. Just wait till they realise that they have to pay their auto enrolment payments out of it as well.

To me it is pretty generous I know a McDonalds worker who will be getting 80% of his pay (no tax and NI due to his level of income) and when I asked him would you rather have 100% of pay and be working or 80% and not working, no guesses what he said.
This user liked this post: KateR

Paul Waine
Posts: 6056
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 1393 times
Has Liked: 1697 times

Re: Covid-19

Post by Paul Waine » Sun Mar 29, 2020 11:46 pm

AndrewJB wrote:
Sun Mar 29, 2020 10:33 pm
Agreed on the Cummings bit. Not even a direct quote. What I found interesting was the modelling done on incorrect assumptions, which I’ve read elsewhere, and which if true is not a ringing endorsement of the people who did it.
I think I posted a blog from a guy called Craig Pirrong on this thread (or one of the others) that asked the questions about trade offs between economic cost of protecting lives of people with covid-19 and the costs in other lifes lost as a result of the impact of covid-19 on the economy. Pirrong is an American and was writing about the US. There've been a number of others in the UK press, respectable journalists/commentators, making the same argument: why spend so much to save the lives of (some) older people with underlying health conditions, many of which would be deceased a few months later in the normal course v the economic costs on everyone, the lives lost the other health conditions not being treated...

If Cummings said what he's alleged to have said, it's not particularly controversial. There should be no "hard questions" governments cannot face up to and choose how to respond to.

But, I don't think the argument should be this covid-19 pandemic v economy, but getting on top of this covid-19 pandemic and being able to prevent future covid-19 pandemics, and, being in a better place to defeat/prevent other potential pandemics. So, all the costs to the economy this time are not "one time costs" they are also an investment in lower costs in the future - and therefore better lives in the future.

Anyone doubt this, just think where we'd be if we'd not responded to Spanish flu and learned to control flu pandemics.

As for modelling, when you haven't got good data and haven't got clear assumptions derived from good data, then your models will always be "trial and error" at best. See Sunday Times link, above, that illustrates this issue.
These 2 users liked this post: thatdberight atlantalad

thatdberight
Posts: 3779
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:49 am
Been Liked: 924 times
Has Liked: 716 times

Re: Covid-19

Post by thatdberight » Mon Mar 30, 2020 12:01 am

randomclaret2 wrote:
Sun Mar 29, 2020 11:18 pm
Ive heard it all now...
Honestly. I suspect you haven't. Stick around.

Jakubclaret
Posts: 3027
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 10:47 pm
Been Liked: 353 times
Has Liked: 272 times

Re: Covid-19

Post by Jakubclaret » Mon Mar 30, 2020 12:07 am

Dy1geo wrote:
Sun Mar 29, 2020 11:45 pm
I cannot believe in times like this people are moaning having to pay some tax and NI on the 80% of their pay they are getting from the Government. Just wait till they realise that they have to pay their auto enrolment payments out of it as well.

To me it is pretty generous I know a McDonalds worker who will be getting 80% of his pay (no tax and NI due to his level of income) and when I asked him would you rather have 100% of pay and be working or 80% and not working, no guesses what he said.
You won’t find me complaining with a modest expenditure, but some people for the time being will have to cut their cloth accordingly or accrue debt, 20% might not seem a lot but if the outgoings are high will be a problem for some people, over time you become accustomed to a lifestyle indicative to the earnings, some people already live in their overdrafts nevermind with earning deductions.

mdd2
Posts: 4240
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2016 8:47 pm
Been Liked: 1243 times
Has Liked: 557 times

Re: Covid-19

Post by mdd2 » Mon Mar 30, 2020 12:14 am

Just listened to a balanced talk from a virologist in Southport; his talk is on youtube. Interesting data from Iceland where 50% of people who tested positive for the virus had no symptoms and as others it is likely quite a number in the UK have had it with little or no symptoms. None of this makes what is happening any less serious but planning will be better when we have a reliable antibody test which allows those with immunity a less stressful working life. Also he thinks that the disease may have been here before Xmas.
These 3 users liked this post: thatdberight Zlatan Bordeauxclaret

thatdberight
Posts: 3779
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:49 am
Been Liked: 924 times
Has Liked: 716 times

Re: Covid-19

Post by thatdberight » Mon Mar 30, 2020 12:18 am

Jakubclaret wrote:
Mon Mar 30, 2020 12:07 am
...a lifestyle indicative to the earnings, some people already live in their overdrafts nevermind with earning deductions.
But these people must be spending on things they literally cannot spend money on now.

I'm not saying that no-one will be impacted but this scheme and its self-employed counterpart is not where the problem will mainly lie.

Jakubclaret
Posts: 3027
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 10:47 pm
Been Liked: 353 times
Has Liked: 272 times

Re: Covid-19

Post by Jakubclaret » Mon Mar 30, 2020 12:21 am

thatdberight wrote:
Mon Mar 30, 2020 12:18 am
But these people must be spending on things they literally cannot spend money on now.

I'm not saying that no-one will be impacted but this scheme and its self-employed counterpart is not where the problem will mainly lie.
Online shopping’s still on the increase, if you want to buy the new Samsung galaxy s20 ultra you don’t need go in person to carphone warehouse or wherever.

dsr
Posts: 10307
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 3015 times
Has Liked: 1294 times

Re: Covid-19

Post by dsr » Mon Mar 30, 2020 12:25 am

Jakubclaret wrote:
Mon Mar 30, 2020 12:21 am
Online shopping’s still on the increase, if you want to buy the new Samsung galaxy s20 ultra you don’t need go in person to carphone warehouse or wherever.
People who are buying Samsung Galaxies aren't short of money. (Unless they're very short of sense!)

thatdberight
Posts: 3779
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:49 am
Been Liked: 924 times
Has Liked: 716 times

Re: Covid-19

Post by thatdberight » Mon Mar 30, 2020 12:34 am

Jakubclaret wrote:
Mon Mar 30, 2020 12:21 am
Online shopping’s still on the increase, if you want to buy the new Samsung galaxy s20 ultra you don’t need go in person to carphone warehouse or wherever.
If you're worried about finances and buying a new phone, you're making bad life choices and deserve what you get.

mdd2
Posts: 4240
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2016 8:47 pm
Been Liked: 1243 times
Has Liked: 557 times

Re: Covid-19

Post by mdd2 » Mon Mar 30, 2020 12:34 am

Big shortage of that dsr

Jakubclaret
Posts: 3027
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 10:47 pm
Been Liked: 353 times
Has Liked: 272 times

Re: Covid-19

Post by Jakubclaret » Mon Mar 30, 2020 12:40 am

thatdberight wrote:
Mon Mar 30, 2020 12:34 am
If you're worried about finances and buying a new phone, you're making bad life choices and deserve what you get.
I’m not worried I’m sensible, I can just see what’s on the horizon with people getting into debt with catalogues etc & bailiffs eventually getting involved.

thatdberight
Posts: 3779
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:49 am
Been Liked: 924 times
Has Liked: 716 times

Re: Covid-19

Post by thatdberight » Mon Mar 30, 2020 12:44 am

Jakubclaret wrote:
Mon Mar 30, 2020 12:40 am
I’m not worried I’m sensible, I can just see what’s on the horizon with people getting into debt with catalogues etc & bailiffs eventually getting involved.
Apologies, you were clear about your own situation and outlook. I should have said, "If one is..."

AndrewJB
Posts: 3206
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:20 pm
Been Liked: 1043 times
Has Liked: 647 times

Re: Covid-19

Post by AndrewJB » Mon Mar 30, 2020 1:32 am

Jakubclaret wrote:
Mon Mar 30, 2020 12:07 am
You won’t find me complaining with a modest expenditure, but some people for the time being will have to cut their cloth accordingly or accrue debt, 20% might not seem a lot but if the outgoings are high will be a problem for some people, over time you become accustomed to a lifestyle indicative to the earnings, some people already live in their overdrafts nevermind with earning deductions.
The quickest way for us to flatten the curve is for as many as possible to isolate in their homes. This way the rate of infection will fall, and the NHS will be less likely to be overloaded (or if it is, then for a shorter space of time). As it stands, even though the government has decreed no evictions, rents are still due this week for people who rent their homes - and there will be people now having to make the choice between keeping up with the rent and feeding their families. Once this is over they could find themselves in arrears for two or three months rent, with no easy way to pay it back. You could say for people in this position: don’t pay rent if you can’t easily afford it, because you might need the money further down the line for essentials, and you can’t be evicted anyway. But if a lot of people do that it could put smaller landlords into jeopardy, who aren’t covered by the mortgage holiday, and might not have the ability to pay their mortgages on their rental property. You see how this could then spiral out of control, and leave not just the government, but many businesses and people either saddled with debt, and some also homeless. It could easily lead to people will fully disobeying future stricter rules about venturing out as a means to earn money by fair or foul means.

Keeping things going as usual during a crisis like this with regard financial responsibilities, when people are no longer able to earn money as they used to, will make coming out of the crisis all the more difficult, and expensive. The government could pass legislation suspending all rents, all loans and mortgages, and all wages until this crisis is over. It could then pay everyone a living allowance, so that whether you live in a small flat or a castle, you’ll have enough money to feed yourself. With the major worries taken care of, people wont feel forced by circumstance to break the rules, and most would then abide by them, and we’ll see an end to this quicker. Those breaking the rules could be dealt with harshly if need be.

If this were in place, the government wouldn’t even need to borrow the money. They could just print it. They could even produce it as a different currency, only usable for essential items. Prescriptions could be sent out free.

The “losers” in this would be people who who own their rental properties and homes outright, and have no debts. They would have to forego income for the duration, but will still get the government living allowance.

This is a “we’re all in it together solution”. The present plans don’t cover everyone.

thatdberight
Posts: 3779
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:49 am
Been Liked: 924 times
Has Liked: 716 times

Re: Covid-19

Post by thatdberight » Mon Mar 30, 2020 1:39 am

AndrewJB wrote:
Mon Mar 30, 2020 1:32 am
The quickest way for us to flatten the curve is for as many as possible to isolate in their homes. This way the rate of infection will fall, and the NHS will be less likely to be overloaded (or if it is, then for a shorter space of time). As it stands, even though the government has decreed no evictions, rents are still due this week for people who rent their homes - and there will be people now having to make the choice between keeping up with the rent and feeding their families. Once this is over they could find themselves in arrears for two or three months rent, with no easy way to pay it back. You could say for people in this position: don’t pay rent if you can’t easily afford it, because you might need the money further down the line for essentials, and you can’t be evicted anyway. But if a lot of people do that it could put smaller landlords into jeopardy, who aren’t covered by the mortgage holiday, and might not have the ability to pay their mortgages on their rental property. You see how this could then spiral out of control, and leave not just the government, but many businesses and people either saddled with debt, and some also homeless. It could easily lead to people will fully disobeying future stricter rules about venturing out as a means to earn money by fair or foul means.

Keeping things going as usual during a crisis like this with regard financial responsibilities, when people are no longer able to earn money as they used to, will make coming out of the crisis all the more difficult, and expensive. The government could pass legislation suspending all rents, all loans and mortgages, and all wages until this crisis is over. It could then pay everyone a living allowance, so that whether you live in a small flat or a castle, you’ll have enough money to feed yourself. With the major worries taken care of, people wont feel forced by circumstance to break the rules, and most would then abide by them, and we’ll see an end to this quicker. Those breaking the rules could be dealt with harshly if need be.

If this were in place, the government wouldn’t even need to borrow the money. They could just print it. They could even produce it as a different currency, only usable for essential items. Prescriptions could be sent out free.

The “losers” in this would be people who who own their rental properties and homes outright, and have no debts. They would have to forego income for the duration, but will still get the government living allowance.

This is a “we’re all in it together solution”. The present plans don’t cover everyone.
The problem is that people who can make a difference both now and in the recovery will simply down tools if faced with no wages. That may not be "all in it together". You may think less of them for it. But it will happen.

That's not to say I disagree entirely. I couldn't possibly come up with the precise numbers to make it work but I'd be thinking of 1) Emergency tax rates kicking in at £50k and ratcheting up quite quickly 2) Exemption for pre-existing commitment related to your primary residence 3) Severe punishment for anyone defrauding 2)

One thing that should help everyone in this situation is that, because it's affecting everyone, your best bet, whether you're a landlord or a lender, is probably sticking with what you have. It's not a market to be looking for tenants or trying to realise the value of properties.

HunterST_BFC
Posts: 2058
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 10:13 pm
Been Liked: 869 times
Has Liked: 1732 times
Location: varied

Re: Covid-19

Post by HunterST_BFC » Mon Mar 30, 2020 5:50 am

From BBC - Trump his quotes / Twatter coms.

Trump's shifting virus rhetoric
US President Donald Trump now leaves no doubt that his country is dealing with a serious situation.

But - as the numbers have grown exponentially - his assessment of the threat has changed significantly, as these quotes show.

30 January: "We have it very well under control. We have very little problem in this country at this moment - five. And those people are all recuperating successfully."

10 February: "Looks like by April, you know, in theory, when it gets a little warmer, it miraculously goes away."

27 February: "It's going to disappear. One day, it's like a miracle, it will disappear."

17 March: "I felt it was a pandemic long before it was called a pandemic. I've always viewed it as very serious."

25 March: "We're going to be opening relatively soon... I would love to have the country opened up and just raring to go by Easter."

30 March: Mr Trump extends virus measures to the end of April and says that if the US death toll finishes at or below 100,000, "we all will have done a very good job".

.............

While their death toll explodes at a pace

CombatClaret
Posts: 3278
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:09 pm
Been Liked: 1458 times
Has Liked: 693 times

Re: Covid-19

Post by CombatClaret » Mon Mar 30, 2020 7:45 am

Next time The Daily Mail targets immigrants or muslims let's all remind ourselfs of the names of the first three Doctors who died protecting British people from the COVID-19

Amged el-Hawrani
Adel el-Tayar
Habib Zaidi
These 2 users liked this post: mdd2 KateR

tim_noone
Posts: 14146
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2017 8:12 pm
Been Liked: 3634 times
Has Liked: 12450 times

Re: Covid-19

Post by tim_noone » Mon Mar 30, 2020 8:12 am

CombatClaret wrote:
Mon Mar 30, 2020 7:45 am
Next time The Daily Mail targets immigrants or muslims let's all remind ourselfs of the names of the first three Doctors who died protecting British people from the COVID-19

Amged el-Hawrani
Adel el-Tayar
Habib Zaidi
Or anyone for that matter.
This user liked this post: CombatClaret

Jakubclaret
Posts: 3027
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 10:47 pm
Been Liked: 353 times
Has Liked: 272 times

Re: Covid-19

Post by Jakubclaret » Mon Mar 30, 2020 8:18 am

AndrewJB wrote:
Mon Mar 30, 2020 1:32 am
The quickest way for us to flatten the curve is for as many as possible to isolate in their homes. This way the rate of infection will fall, and the NHS will be less likely to be overloaded (or if it is, then for a shorter space of time). As it stands, even though the government has decreed no evictions, rents are still due this week for people who rent their homes - and there will be people now having to make the choice between keeping up with the rent and feeding their families. Once this is over they could find themselves in arrears for two or three months rent, with no easy way to pay it back. You could say for people in this position: don’t pay rent if you can’t easily afford it, because you might need the money further down the line for essentials, and you can’t be evicted anyway. But if a lot of people do that it could put smaller landlords into jeopardy, who aren’t covered by the mortgage holiday, and might not have the ability to pay their mortgages on their rental property. You see how this could then spiral out of control, and leave not just the government, but many businesses and people either saddled with debt, and some also homeless. It could easily lead to people will fully disobeying future stricter rules about venturing out as a means to earn money by fair or foul means.

Keeping things going as usual during a crisis like this with regard financial responsibilities, when people are no longer able to earn money as they used to, will make coming out of the crisis all the more difficult, and expensive. The government could pass legislation suspending all rents, all loans and mortgages, and all wages until this crisis is over. It could then pay everyone a living allowance, so that whether you live in a small flat or a castle, you’ll have enough money to feed yourself. With the major worries taken care of, people wont feel forced by circumstance to break the rules, and most would then abide by them, and we’ll see an end to this quicker. Those breaking the rules could be dealt with harshly if need be.

If this were in place, the government wouldn’t even need to borrow the money. They could just print it. They could even produce it as a different currency, only usable for essential items. Prescriptions could be sent out free.

The “losers” in this would be people who who own their rental properties and homes outright, and have no debts. They would have to forego income for the duration, but will still get the government living allowance.

This is a “we’re all in it together solution”. The present plans don’t cover everyone.
The government have instructed ALL banks/mortgage providers to give people a 3mth mortgage holiday so the landlords wouldn’t be in a position to need the rent money not for 3mths anyhow, as you’ve already mentioned emergency legislation Is in place to prevent any evictions, we’ve all got 3mths breathing space after the 3mths then it could become a problem.

Paul Waine
Posts: 6056
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 1393 times
Has Liked: 1697 times

Re: Covid-19

Post by Paul Waine » Mon Mar 30, 2020 9:16 am

AndrewJB wrote:
Mon Mar 30, 2020 1:32 am
The quickest way for us to flatten the curve is for as many as possible to isolate in their homes. This way the rate of infection will fall, and the NHS will be less likely to be overloaded (or if it is, then for a shorter space of time). As it stands, even though the government has decreed no evictions, rents are still due this week for people who rent their homes - and there will be people now having to make the choice between keeping up with the rent and feeding their families. Once this is over they could find themselves in arrears for two or three months rent, with no easy way to pay it back. You could say for people in this position: don’t pay rent if you can’t easily afford it, because you might need the money further down the line for essentials, and you can’t be evicted anyway. But if a lot of people do that it could put smaller landlords into jeopardy, who aren’t covered by the mortgage holiday, and might not have the ability to pay their mortgages on their rental property. You see how this could then spiral out of control, and leave not just the government, but many businesses and people either saddled with debt, and some also homeless. It could easily lead to people will fully disobeying future stricter rules about venturing out as a means to earn money by fair or foul means.

Keeping things going as usual during a crisis like this with regard financial responsibilities, when people are no longer able to earn money as they used to, will make coming out of the crisis all the more difficult, and expensive. The government could pass legislation suspending all rents, all loans and mortgages, and all wages until this crisis is over. It could then pay everyone a living allowance, so that whether you live in a small flat or a castle, you’ll have enough money to feed yourself. With the major worries taken care of, people wont feel forced by circumstance to break the rules, and most would then abide by them, and we’ll see an end to this quicker. Those breaking the rules could be dealt with harshly if need be.

If this were in place, the government wouldn’t even need to borrow the money. They could just print it. They could even produce it as a different currency, only usable for essential items. Prescriptions could be sent out free.

The “losers” in this would be people who own their rental properties and homes outright, and have no debts. They would have to forego income for the duration, but will still get the government living allowance.

This is a “we’re all in it together solution”. The present plans don’t cover everyone.
The good Lord likes a trier, Andrew and you keep trying....

Why make things so difficult? On your "new money" idea, "just print it." And, how long do you think "producing a different currency" would take? How long do you think it would take to "print?" (but, why not digital)? How long do you think it would take to distribute?

Setting up the 80% furloughed pay support and the self-employed support requires several weeks (and people complain...). Do you think your ideas could be implemented faster.... or would take even longer to set up?

Of course, if you want to wreak the economy you are on to the right idea, let's just print money. That's worked well on every other occasion when a government has "just printed money." But, I think we are all agreed that we need a strong economy to be able to do the right things for the people in the UK and beyond.

Take care. Stay safe.

NottsClaret
Posts: 2146
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:05 am
Been Liked: 1770 times
Has Liked: 1 time

Re: Covid-19

Post by NottsClaret » Mon Mar 30, 2020 9:44 am

Top boffin saying infection rate is slowing now in UK.

Globally, fatality rate of those who get it thought to be under 1%, could be well under that once asymptomatic patients are tested.

Definitely light at the end of the tunnel, if still a way off.

ICL
Posts: 160
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 3:46 pm
Been Liked: 50 times
Has Liked: 16 times
Location: Burnley

Re: Covid-19

Post by ICL » Mon Mar 30, 2020 9:58 am

mdd2 wrote:
Mon Mar 30, 2020 12:14 am
Just listened to a balanced talk from a virologist in Southport; his talk is on youtube. Interesting data from Iceland where 50% of people who tested positive for the virus had no symptoms and as others it is likely quite a number in the UK have had it with little or no symptoms. None of this makes what is happening any less serious but planning will be better when we have a reliable antibody test which allows those with immunity a less stressful working life. Also he thinks that the disease may have been here before Xmas.
Have you a link for that mdd2, I cannot find it.
Cheers

Mala591
Posts: 1015
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:02 pm
Been Liked: 231 times
Has Liked: 163 times

Re: Covid-19

Post by Mala591 » Mon Mar 30, 2020 10:03 am

We need to plan to GRADUALLY relax restrictions after six weeks lockdown. Beyond that, the risk of the development of widespread serious mental health issues will outweigh (imo) the risk to society of dying from Covid-19.

Very difficult decisions ahead and we (the public) need to be more involved in the process.

thatdberight
Posts: 3779
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:49 am
Been Liked: 924 times
Has Liked: 716 times

Re: Covid-19

Post by thatdberight » Mon Mar 30, 2020 10:43 am

Mala591 wrote:
Mon Mar 30, 2020 10:03 am
We need to plan to GRADUALLY relax restrictions after six weeks lockdown. Beyond that, the risk of the development of widespread serious mental health issues will outweigh (imo) the risk to society of dying from Covid-19.

Very difficult decisions ahead and we (the public) need to be more involved in the process.
Our elected representatives are involved. This is no time for a referendum on what style of lockdown to have.
This user liked this post: dsr

NottsClaret
Posts: 2146
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:05 am
Been Liked: 1770 times
Has Liked: 1 time

Re: Covid-19

Post by NottsClaret » Mon Mar 30, 2020 10:53 am

ICL wrote:
Mon Mar 30, 2020 9:58 am
Have you a link for that mdd2, I cannot find it.
Cheers
Not sure about the specific interview, but there's quite a bit out there on the testing in Iceland. They've simply tested anyone, not just those with serious symptoms. Having a smaller population on a remote island allows it I guess. It says about 3.5% of the whole population were tested, more than any other country, per capita.

Of those testing positive, 50% had no symptoms at all. Which if you applied globally - and that's a bit of a stretch admittedly given the small sample - but it would drastically reduce the fatality rate. Italy's fatality rate is very high, but the average age of those tested is 62, and they're already quite ill.

Also how you report death figures will massively distort the average. Italy classes every death where the patient had covid-19 in their figures, even if it wasn't the main cause of death. If someone suffers a heart attack while having very mild covid19 symptoms, it's still going down as another victim of the virus.

Jakubclaret
Posts: 3027
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 10:47 pm
Been Liked: 353 times
Has Liked: 272 times

Re: Covid-19

Post by Jakubclaret » Mon Mar 30, 2020 11:11 am

Mala591 wrote:
Mon Mar 30, 2020 10:03 am
We need to plan to GRADUALLY relax restrictions after six weeks lockdown. Beyond that, the risk of the development of widespread serious mental health issues will outweigh (imo) the risk to society of dying from Covid-19.

Very difficult decisions ahead and we (the public) need to be more involved in the process.
For some people there’s more chance of mental health problems accelerating being at work than stuck at home, FFS enjoy the rest & make the most of it.

Lowbankclaret
Posts: 3604
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 4:42 pm
Been Liked: 619 times
Has Liked: 39 times

Re: Covid-19

Post by Lowbankclaret » Mon Mar 30, 2020 12:09 pm

Dy1geo wrote:
Sun Mar 29, 2020 11:45 pm
I cannot believe in times like this people are moaning having to pay some tax and NI on the 80% of their pay they are getting from the Government. Just wait till they realise that they have to pay their auto enrolment payments out of it as well.

To me it is pretty generous I know a McDonalds worker who will be getting 80% of his pay (no tax and NI due to his level of income) and when I asked him would you rather have 100% of pay and be working or 80% and not working, no guesses what he said.
I did think it was a generous scheme and it is when it covers 80% of your salary.
When it covers slightly under 60%, it’s not quite going to go so far.

thatdberight
Posts: 3779
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:49 am
Been Liked: 924 times
Has Liked: 716 times

Re: Covid-19

Post by thatdberight » Mon Mar 30, 2020 12:16 pm

The much publicised, very clear, government scheme for furloughed workers and the self-employed covers 80% of salaries up to the average UK salary.

It's not difficult for most people to understand that.

Jakubclaret
Posts: 3027
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 10:47 pm
Been Liked: 353 times
Has Liked: 272 times

Re: Covid-19

Post by Jakubclaret » Mon Mar 30, 2020 12:25 pm

thatdberight wrote:
Mon Mar 30, 2020 12:16 pm
The much publicised, very clear, government scheme for furloughed workers and the self-employed covers 80% of salaries up to the average UK salary.

It's not difficult for most people to understand that.
Yes it does, I think some people thought the 80% would be tax exempt.

paulatky
Posts: 1132
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 10:25 am
Been Liked: 183 times
Has Liked: 502 times

Re: Covid-19

Post by paulatky » Mon Mar 30, 2020 12:25 pm

Lowbankclaret wrote:
Mon Mar 30, 2020 12:09 pm
I did think it was a generous scheme and it is when it covers 80% of your salary.
When it covers slightly under 60%, it’s not quite going to go so far.
They will get roughly 80% of the net pay they used to get.
These 2 users liked this post: Jakubclaret thatdberight

Paul Waine
Posts: 6056
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 1393 times
Has Liked: 1697 times

Re: Covid-19

Post by Paul Waine » Mon Mar 30, 2020 12:26 pm

Lowbankclaret wrote:
Mon Mar 30, 2020 12:09 pm
I did think it was a generous scheme and it is when it covers 80% of your salary.
When it covers slightly under 60%, it’s not quite going to go so far.
Slightly under 60% while you aren't working or slightly under 70% when you are working - and have the expenses of getting to work. Which do you prefer Lowbank?

If you are concerned that tax and NI (and pension contribution) is taken out of the 80%, then you also have to take tax and NI and pension out of the 100%.

Don't forget that you will still get 100% of your personal tax allowance: that isn't being cut to 75% because you've only been in work for 9 months of the year.
This user liked this post: FactualFrank

paulatky
Posts: 1132
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 10:25 am
Been Liked: 183 times
Has Liked: 502 times

Re: Covid-19

Post by paulatky » Mon Mar 30, 2020 12:27 pm

Jakubclaret wrote:
Mon Mar 30, 2020 12:25 pm
Yes it does, I think some people thought the 80% would be tax exempt.
That would have made most people better off in net pay terms than they were before. That was never going to happen

Zlatan
Posts: 1332
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2016 2:06 pm
Been Liked: 474 times
Has Liked: 1055 times

Re: Covid-19

Post by Zlatan » Mon Mar 30, 2020 12:30 pm

some people are never happy. Personally I'm quids in still getting paid but with nowhere near the same monthly expenses I usually have when I actually go into the office or doing other things like my 450 round trip to Turf Moor etc. I calculated I'm about £400-500/month better off as a result of being isolated for 12 weeks, but then I also know that money isn't everything and health is more important to me right now.

claretonthecoast1882
Posts: 2708
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2018 1:59 pm
Been Liked: 1308 times
Has Liked: 43 times

Re: Covid-19

Post by claretonthecoast1882 » Mon Mar 30, 2020 12:31 pm

Zlatan wrote:
Mon Mar 30, 2020 12:30 pm
some people are never happy. Personally I'm quids in still getting paid but with nowhere near the same monthly expenses I usually have when I actually go into the office or doing other things like my 450 round trip to Turf Moor etc. I calculated I'm about £400-500/month better off as a result of being isolated for 12 weeks, but then I also know that money isn't everything and health is more important to me right now.
Problem comes from the more you give some people the more they want sadly.

dsr
Posts: 10307
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 3015 times
Has Liked: 1294 times

Re: Covid-19

Post by dsr » Mon Mar 30, 2020 12:33 pm

Lowbankclaret wrote:
Mon Mar 30, 2020 12:09 pm
I did think it was a generous scheme and it is when it covers 80% of your salary.
When it covers slightly under 60%, it’s not quite going to go so far.
Either you are still getting your sums wrong, or else you find a way to pay no tax on your normal taxable income. You used to get gross pay less tax and NIC leaving you with about three quarters of the gross in your hand.

All those figures are reduced by 80%. They are not taxing you twice.
Last edited by dsr on Mon Mar 30, 2020 12:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Jakubclaret
Posts: 3027
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 10:47 pm
Been Liked: 353 times
Has Liked: 272 times

Re: Covid-19

Post by Jakubclaret » Mon Mar 30, 2020 12:33 pm

paulatky wrote:
Mon Mar 30, 2020 12:27 pm
That would have made most people better off in net pay terms than they were before. That was never going to happen
I understand completely I don’t really have a problem with it, I can understand why some could though with high outgoings, it’s not something that comes along everyday to be expected, some people are right in the brown stuff, everybody’s got different circumstances, obligations & more importantly savings.

thatdberight
Posts: 3779
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:49 am
Been Liked: 924 times
Has Liked: 716 times

Re: Covid-19

Post by thatdberight » Mon Mar 30, 2020 12:43 pm

Paul Waine wrote:
Mon Mar 30, 2020 12:26 pm
Slightly under 60%
No. 80% of their normal take home pay. Which is what matters.

When dealing with people whose numeracy and facility with numerical data is very limited, it's important to give a clear, simple message against a yardstick they can understand. Forty years of doing it for boards of directors has taught me that.

thatdberight
Posts: 3779
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:49 am
Been Liked: 924 times
Has Liked: 716 times

Re: Covid-19

Post by thatdberight » Mon Mar 30, 2020 1:00 pm

Jakubclaret wrote:
Mon Mar 30, 2020 12:33 pm
I understand completely I don’t really have a problem with it, I can understand why some could though with high outgoings, it’s not something that comes along everyday to be expected, some people are right in the brown stuff, everybody’s got different circumstances, obligations & more importantly savings.
There will be a non-trivial number of people who are caused problems by this due to things that were well outside their control. So no blanket statement covers everyone.

But there will be a larger number who have made choices about houses, kids, holidays, cars, phones, lifestyle that assumed nothing bad would ever happen. Recognising that this criticism doesn't apply to everyone and should not be made directly to anyone because you don't know their story doesn't make it less true.

Claretmatt4
Posts: 3858
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:31 am
Been Liked: 1012 times
Has Liked: 692 times

Re: Covid-19

Post by Claretmatt4 » Mon Mar 30, 2020 1:09 pm

I'm fortunate that I can work remotely so my income is unaffected (although I have less to spend money on now of course).

That being said I'm trying to save as much of my wage as I can for the foreseeable in case this drags on longer and my company needs to furlough staff.

So much uncertainty it's best to be sensible and reduce what outgoings we can.
This user liked this post: thatdberight

FactualFrank
Posts: 19716
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2016 12:46 am
Been Liked: 5550 times
Has Liked: 9433 times
Location: Leeds

Re: Covid-19

Post by FactualFrank » Mon Mar 30, 2020 1:21 pm

Regarding work, one thing I've noticed. My websites are receiving less traffic.

I expected it to be up, with more people being at home.

Social media growth in followers is up.

Jakubclaret
Posts: 3027
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 10:47 pm
Been Liked: 353 times
Has Liked: 272 times

Re: Covid-19

Post by Jakubclaret » Mon Mar 30, 2020 1:23 pm

thatdberight wrote:
Mon Mar 30, 2020 1:00 pm
There will be a non-trivial number of people who are caused problems by this due to things that were well outside their control. So no blanket statement covers everyone.

But there will be a larger number who have made choices about houses, kids, holidays, cars, phones, lifestyle that assumed nothing bad would ever happen. Recognising that this criticism doesn't apply to everyone and should not be made directly to anyone because you don't know their story doesn't make it less true.
I’m not criticising anybody, like I’ve already stated I’m not worried & it’s manageable for me, I’m equally aware that some people could face problems, if you notice I always try to use words such as, could, might, or maybe. I always try to see alternative views as other people could make me aware of things I hadn’t thought about.

Paul Waine
Posts: 6056
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 1393 times
Has Liked: 1697 times

Re: Covid-19

Post by Paul Waine » Mon Mar 30, 2020 1:31 pm

thatdberight wrote:
Mon Mar 30, 2020 12:43 pm
No. 80% of their normal take home pay. Which is what matters.

When dealing with people whose numeracy and facility with numerical data is very limited, it's important to give a clear, simple message against a yardstick they can understand. Forty years of doing it for boards of directors has taught me that.
Erm? so you take a few words out of what I posted and then say "no." I hope the bods that you were serving didn't think that was the right way to do things.

Take another look at what I posted.

And, if you allow the fact that the personal allowance remains the same for the full year it will be more than "80% of their normal take home pay."

Let's do some maths - using simplified numbers:

Monthly pay £3,125 = Annual Pay £3,125 x 12 = £37,500.

80% of Monthly pay £3,125 x 80% = £2,500.

Personal Allowance - £12,000 per annum. (it's actually £12,500 - but I'm simplifying). = £1,000 per month (if everything was normal).

So, taxable income when working £3,125 less £1,000 = £2,125 and tax payable @ 20% = £425 per month.

Taxable income under furloughed schemed £2,500 less £1,000 = £1,500 and tax payable @ 20% = £300 per month.

So, £125 per month less tax paid - which is £40 higher per month than it would have been if the furlough support was 80% of net.

thatdberight
Posts: 3779
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:49 am
Been Liked: 924 times
Has Liked: 716 times

Re: Covid-19

Post by thatdberight » Mon Mar 30, 2020 1:35 pm

Jakubclaret wrote:
Mon Mar 30, 2020 1:23 pm
I’m not criticising anybody, like I’ve already stated I’m not worried & it’s manageable for me, I’m equally aware that some people could face problems, if you notice I always try to use words such as, could, might, or maybe. I always try to see alternative views as other people could make me aware of things I hadn’t thought about.
You really do pick me up on the colloquial use of "you" instead of "one", don't you? (doesn't one?)

"One" just sounds like "one" is trying to be posh so I try not to use it. But I will for one.. sorry, you.

FactualFrank
Posts: 19716
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2016 12:46 am
Been Liked: 5550 times
Has Liked: 9433 times
Location: Leeds

Re: Covid-19

Post by FactualFrank » Mon Mar 30, 2020 1:36 pm

Lowbankclaret wrote:
Mon Mar 30, 2020 12:09 pm
I did think it was a generous scheme and it is when it covers 80% of your salary.
When it covers slightly under 60%, it’s not quite going to go so far.
Lowbank, the way you are thinking, you would be someone who wouldn't want to earn enough to be mandatorily VAT registered due to a high income, because the % taxed is higher. Even though it works out as you earning more overall.

thatdberight
Posts: 3779
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:49 am
Been Liked: 924 times
Has Liked: 716 times

Re: Covid-19

Post by thatdberight » Mon Mar 30, 2020 1:40 pm

Paul Waine wrote:
Mon Mar 30, 2020 1:31 pm
Erm? so you take a few words out of what I posted and then say "no."
I took a few words because I was making a point about those few words.

For people up to the average salary in the UK, they will receive 80% of their pay. Both nett and gross. Yes, there are some quirks round tax and personal circumstances (which I mentioned in a previous post) that will mean that varies but the clear point is that it's 80%.

Up to the average salary (indeed a fair bit above it), it's 80% to any extent that's useful in a general discussion. (Although to add to your £40 pro rata on tax, there's also the neck end of £20 NI)

60% doesn't feature because it's not part of that calculation.
Last edited by thatdberight on Mon Mar 30, 2020 2:18 pm, edited 2 times in total.

KateR
Posts: 2130
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2017 1:46 pm
Been Liked: 415 times
Has Liked: 2843 times

Re: Covid-19

Post by KateR » Mon Mar 30, 2020 1:53 pm

Paul Waine wrote:
Sun Mar 29, 2020 11:46 pm
I think I posted a blog from a guy called Craig Pirrong on this thread (or one of the others) that asked the questions about trade offs between economic cost of protecting lives of people with covid-19 and the costs in other lifes lost as a result of the impact of covid-19 on the economy. Pirrong is an American and was writing about the US. There've been a number of others in the UK press, respectable journalists/commentators, making the same argument: why spend so much to save the lives of (some) older people with underlying health conditions, many of which would be deceased a few months later in the normal course v the economic costs on everyone, the lives lost the other health conditions not being treated...

If Cummings said what he's alleged to have said, it's not particularly controversial. There should be no "hard questions" governments cannot face up to and choose how to respond to.

But, I don't think the argument should be this covid-19 pandemic v economy, but getting on top of this covid-19 pandemic and being able to prevent future covid-19 pandemics, and, being in a better place to defeat/prevent other potential pandemics. So, all the costs to the economy this time are not "one time costs" they are also an investment in lower costs in the future - and therefore better lives in the future.

Anyone doubt this, just think where we'd be if we'd not responded to Spanish flu and learned to control flu pandemics.

As for modelling, when you haven't got good data and haven't got clear assumptions derived from good data, then your models will always be "trial and error" at best. See Sunday Times link, above, that illustrates this issue.
This is but just one scenario out of many that will be modeled and also be part of Sustainable Development planning in where you sped the money now for the future but paced on several factors and again develop several cases to digest, mull over and pick one. As the virus is a relatively short term event it will get more attention in the here and now with resources and commercial amassed and thrown at it with lessor emphasis on the economical upturn although there will be people looking/modeling/preparing initiatives for the near future. As the virus peaks and starts to wain in it's affect on people and restrictions the emphasis will shift rapidly from the virus/planning to actions to jump start business, some will be simple and some will be economical.

Whole heartedly agree around modeling, quality of data in give the same quality of data out, much of todays data being used is not firm and requires guess work that will be continually assessed and modified along the timeline.

The big business buzzword statements I am hearing; Optimistic Bias, with a dose of reality checking regularly.
Last edited by KateR on Mon Mar 30, 2020 2:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
This user liked this post: Paul Waine

paulatky
Posts: 1132
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 10:25 am
Been Liked: 183 times
Has Liked: 502 times

Re: Covid-19

Post by paulatky » Mon Mar 30, 2020 2:40 pm

CombatClaret wrote:
Mon Mar 30, 2020 7:45 am
Next time The Daily Mail targets immigrants or muslims let's all remind ourselfs of the names of the first three Doctors who died protecting British people from the COVID-19

Amged el-Hawrani
Adel el-Tayar
Habib Zaidi
But some groups are still practicing mass prayer

Surely thats wrong in these times (goes out in car for tin hat, will be essential)

Post Reply