Covid-19

[quoonbeatz]

It's not seen as a con by those who rely on it - they see it as a generous scheme that has give them much needed financial security while at the same protecting their job.

Absolutely. The treasury response has been excellent. Sure, some people have slipped through the net and it could perhaps have gone further but considering how quickly they put the packages together and the sheer numbers who have had one less worry thanks to it, I think it's been a real success story.

[dsr]

Oh look, what a surprise, the tory government is using the coronavirus to sell off the NHS...

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... ate-sector

Is the Guardian suggesting that the PPE system as run by the NHS is working just fine and there is no need to change it?

PS - the ideologoy of the NHS is to provide free healthcare. Its ideology is not, or should not be, to employ people, to make profits, to buy property, to be a commercial business, or any of the other things that may or may not be better provided by outsourcing. The NHS's remit is to provide healthcare, full stop.

[TVC15]

Of course it’s a con. It keeps money flowing to those who don’t need it. They could instead choose to suspend financial obligations all the way up the ladder. You don’t have to pay rent. Your landlord doesn’t have to pay her mortgage. Her bank doesn’t have to pay wages, all the way up to the top. They haven’t done this, because it will hit those at the top.

Some of the stuff you come out with is so badly thought through - it’s embarrassing.
Have another look at the measures and you will see that landlords have as much right to apply for help as anyone else.
As for financial institutions and paying their staff wages I’m not really sure what your point is. Financial institutions can furlough their employees if they want or if they need to. Plenty already have.

[martin_p]

Is the Guardian suggesting that the PPE system as run by the NHS is working just fine and there is no need to change it?

PS - the ideologoy of the NHS is to provide free healthcare. Its ideology is not, or should not be, to employ people, to make profits, to buy property, to be a commercial business, or any of the other things that may or may not be better provided by outsourcing. The NHS's remit is to provide healthcare, full stop.

The procurement system could be centralised within the NHS, as it used to be.

[AndrewJB]

So you've gone from saying it's a con to saying it's beneficial. I note however you say there's a better system.

The reason I’m calling it a con is that working people get a 80% of basic salary (in my partner’s case this reduces her take home income by a half). All of the obligations these, and people not covered by the scheme are expected to be maintained. If they didn’t put the furlough scheme in place, then a lot of people would fall into arrears - and there’d be a push for those arrears to be forgiven. In other words the financial cost would be pushed up the food chain. The furlough is a con for ensuring the costs are not pushed up the food chain, and it remains business as usual for the rich.

[dsr]

The reason I’m calling it a con is that working people get a 80% of basic salary (in my partner’s case this reduces her take home income by a half). All of the obligations these, and people not covered by the scheme are expected to be maintained. If they didn’t put the furlough scheme in place, then a lot of people would fall into arrears - and there’d be a push for those arrears to be forgiven. In other words the financial cost would be pushed up the food chain. The furlough is a con for ensuring the costs are not pushed up the food chain, and it remains business as usual for the rich.

Times have moved on, Andrew. The "working classes" are no longer doing 12 hours a day 6 days a week and living hand to mouth and taking their only suit down to Uncle's on Monday before redeeming it on Friday.

The working classes have money. They have holidays. They have days or nights out in the pub. They have leisure spending, is what I'm getting at. And while they are only getting (allowing for tax) a little more than 80% of their usual income, they are also saving virtually all the money they would have spent on motoring, leisure activities, and childcare.

According to the Rowntree Institute, the minimum income standard for a single man includes £83 on travel and leisure, out of £313 total spend. For a couple with no children, £96 out of £393. For a single parent with a baby, £354 out of £641. For a couple with two children, £394 out of £788. All well over 20%, with commitments which they do not have to spend (or in many cases, are not allowed to spend). Furloughed people, in the main, have enough with 80%. It's only those who are already on breadline and have no social activities, never go anywhere, and have no childcare costs that are the sufferers you refer to. And, so far as I know, working tax credit and other benefits haven't been cut. Have they?

[dsr]

The reason I’m calling it a con is that working people get a 80% of basic salary (in my partner’s case this reduces her take home income by a half).

How come? That makes no sense in theory. What's the deal in practice?

[tiger76]

SAGE advice made public.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52542109

[aggi]

How come? That makes no sense in theory. What's the deal in practice?

I assume they are earning over the threshold.

I see the point that AndrewJB is making.

As it stands the furlough scheme could be described as a loan, employees receive the "furlough salary" but it is likely to be clawed back at some point in the future by tax rises across the board, austerity, etc.

If you look at JCB for instance: last year the owners (the Bamford family I think) took out ~ £75m in dividends, this year a large number of their employees have been furloughed. The Bamford Family won't be bearing the costs of the furloughed employees now or, very possibly, in the future.

Making the scheme equitable would be very difficult in reality though. We won't know who pays for this until quite a time in the future when we can see how it has been funded. I'd be surpised if HNWIs are hit hard as it stands though.

[Lord Rothbury]

I assume they are earning over the threshold.

I see the point that AndrewJB is making.

As it stands the furlough scheme could be described as a loan, employees receive the "furlough salary" but it is likely to be clawed back at some point in the future by tax rises across the board, austerity, etc.

If you look at JCB for instance: last year the owners (the Bamford family I think) took out ~ £75m in dividends, this year a large number of their employees have been furloughed. The Bamford Family won't be bearing the costs of the furloughed employees now or, very possibly, in the future.

Making the scheme equitable would be very difficult in reality though. We won't know who pays for this until quite a time in the future when we can see how it has been funded. I'd be surpised if HNWIs are hit hard as it stands though.

It may be she is paid a basic plus commission,you can hardly expect 80% of what is a bonus. Many manual workers boost their income by overtime doubt they get 80% of that.

[Blackrod]

They could be forty years old and still be relevant. The words drip with contempt, and you can imagine he’s tried to write it to amuse people of his own class. It conveys the idea that working class people are not fellow citizens but a kind of “untermensch” That is ordinary British people, like those who sit next to you at Burnley games.

The furlough scheme is a cheap con to keep money flowing to those who already have it. The owners of assets aren’t being asked to make a contribution. For the people at the top. It is business as usual.

This last paragraph is utter nonsense imo.

[NewClaret]

My proposal would be a non political approach - what’s yours??

A non political approach? What do you mean?

I don’t have one. As I’ve said before, I don’t envy those responsible for getting us out of this mess, albeit I do accept there has to be a balance between saving lives and livelihoods and I suspect whichever route they take, they’ll receive criticism from either sides of the debate as to how they’re miss prioritising one or the other.

[KateR]

same drivel being spouted by the same posters, always moaning about things, totally negative with never a good word here nor there, what the UK have done is in my opinion an excellent response to a really bad situation for many many people, not everyone, it's not utopia and never will be.

The issues being experienced now by the vast majority who are not being directly affected by the virus medical wise should be thanking there lucky stars for that but the economic fallout has not even begun to bite yet, but it will and of course cue the same mob coming out in force, pointing fingers and moaning just as loudly.

I can never understand people like this, if you don't like it do something about it instead of moaning and blaming others or looking to the so called rich/better off to give you what they work hard for.

[Spijed]

what the UK have done is in my opinion an excellent response to a really bad situation for many many people, not everyone, it's not utopia and never will be.

But until a few weeks ago the government completely ignored medical advice from other countries as they thought "We know best" when it was obvious we had got it horribly wrong!

Even now, there are some who believe we should have just seen it out with the 'Herd immunity' approach.

[TVC15]

Chief Medical Officer has admitted to the Treasury Select Committee that testing should have been earlier. They have concluded it was a lesson learned and that strategy has followed capacity rather than the other way round.
The decision early to have limited testing capacity and the select committee have now asked for the evidence on the decision to do this rather than the approach that countries like South Korea took to throw everything at testing capacity from early on.

The government and all opposition parties are absolutely fine with a system like we have in the UK of reviewing some of the decisions made now rather than wait till the end of all of this - especially given nobody knows when the end is.

[Grumps]

Chief Medical Officer has admitted to the Treasury Select Committee that testing should have been earlier. They have concluded it was a lesson learned and that strategy has followed capacity rather than the other way round.
The decision early to have limited testing capacity and the select committee have now asked for the evidence on the decision to do this rather than the approach that countries like South Korea took to throw everything at testing capacity from early on.

The government and all opposition parties are absolutely fine with a system like we have in the UK of reviewing some of the decisions made now rather than wait till the end of all of this - especially given nobody knows when the end is.

Did they actually say that, or that it would have been beneficial to ramp up testing earlier?

[TVC15]

That’s what the chair of the select committee just said now on bbc.
I’m assuming that one follows the other - if you had the capacity built early you can ramp up the testing when you see fit. It seems pretty well accepted that we should have had more testing sooner and the select committee wanted to know why this capacity was not built sooner and specifically now they have asked for the evidence behind the decision to not do this like South Korea did (his words not mine)

[KateR]

But until a few weeks ago the government completely ignored medical advice from other countries as they thought "We know best" when it was obvious we had got it horribly wrong!

Even now, there are some who believe we should have just seen it out with the 'Herd immunity' approach.

Sorry if I was not clear, in that post I was referring to the economic response and those moaning about furlough, 80% is wrong and should go further up the food chain comments, which is very much an economic thread. Threads on the economic effects have been tried a few time here but quickly die a death so others keep bringing in these kind of blame game here which is not the right place in my opinion yet it continues so I replied here.
=========================================================================================================================

I think there are so many nuances to the whole debate around the response that it's difficult to articulate everything but would agree that had they even done what they did earlier then it would have been better all round, no doubt but you can apply that to every single countries response in some ways. I am of the strong belief that you can not apply what the Far East SE Asian countries or even Germany to the UK in a fair comparison for various reasons but if you want to say they were better prepared for this then absolutely, that's an undeniable fact.

People trying to use comparisons to France/Spain & Italy, add the USA, there are many reasons for the outcome, density in and of itself for each country is not applicable nor is the lived density although it's a step closer to understanding the issue. DA made numerous comments about the deaths to millions in a particular not being an appropriate measure is also something I agree with, but Ringo's comparing apples and oranges is equally applicable.

[dsr]

It may be she is paid a basic plus commission,you can hardly expect 80% of what is a bonus. Many manual workers boost their income by overtime doubt they get 80% of that.

Furlough salary is based on the average that you have been paid for the last 12 months (or shorter period if you haven't been there 12 months). Just like holiday pay. If you work a lot of overtime, or get a lot of commission, you get more than just the basic in holiday or furlough pay.

[KateR]

That’s what the chair of the select committee just said now on bbc.
I’m assuming that one follows the other - if you had the capacity built early you can ramp up the testing when you see fit. It seems pretty well accepted that we should have had more testing sooner and the select committee wanted to know why this capacity was not built sooner and specifically now they have asked for the evidence behind the decision to not do this like South Korea did (his words not mine)

just to be pedantic and clear as I have said many times testing in and of itself is not going to do anything but give a number, it's all around the test track, trace, isolate. S Korea and numerous other Asian countries developed this during Sars and was never done in the west, they had trialed it, tested it, tweaked it and knew from day one what to do and how to ramp up.

If you had the test kits, for every 2 people testing you need 6 - 10 people to do the detective/leg work and tell people to stay at home, also the people there much more likely to follow these instructions than the UK or the west in general. That would need repeating all over the UK and involve thousands of people to be mobilized and trained for this, I agree it should have been done at the earliest stage possible and I think it is essential to have this along with the track/trace app in readiness for the next wave.

The above was simply not in place at the outbreak, equally if everyone had listened to the early message before the instructions then am sure there would have been far fewer infections and deaths, so you could make a case for the cause being people did not listen/believe the seriousness.

[Grumps]

That’s what the chair of the select committee just said now on bbc.
I’m assuming that one follows the other - if you had the capacity built early you can ramp up the testing when you see fit. It seems pretty well accepted that we should have had more testing sooner and the select committee wanted to know why this capacity was not built sooner and specifically now they have asked for the evidence behind the decision to not do this like South Korea did (his words not mine)

Sorry, I probably wasn't clear, did he say we should have, or it would have been beneficial to.....

[CombatClaret]

20k deaths would have been a 'good' outcome, what is then 32k and rising & the worst death toll in Europe despite having a head start on warning?

[taio]

20k deaths would have been a 'good' outcome, what is then 32k and rising & the worst death toll in Europe despite having a head start on warning?

A good article the other day which you may want to consider:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.thegua ... -countries

[Taffy on the wing]

What is absolutely clear & undeniable is this..THE GOVERNMENT OF BORIS JOHNSON HAS MADE AN ABSOLUTE MESS OF IT'S RESPONSE TO COVID-19!

[KateR]

more drivel, that is clear and undeniable

[TVC15]

just to be pedantic and clear as I have said many times testing in and of itself is not going to do anything but give a number, it's all around the test track, trace, isolate. S Korea and numerous other Asian countries developed this during Sars and was never done in the west, they had trialed it, tested it, tweaked it and knew from day one what to do and how to ramp up.

If you had the test kits, for every 2 people testing you need 6 - 10 people to do the detective/leg work and tell people to stay at home, also the people there much more likely to follow these instructions than the UK or the west in general. That would need repeating all over the UK and involve thousands of people to be mobilized and trained for this, I agree it should have been done at the earliest stage possible and I think it is essential to have this along with the track/trace app in readiness for the next wave.

The above was simply not in place at the outbreak, equally if everyone had listened to the early message before the instructions then am sure there would have been far fewer infections and deaths, so you could make a case for the cause being people did not listen/believe the seriousness.

Not sure who you are being pedantic with !
I’m reporting what I just heard the chair of the select committee said.
I’m pretty sure the point of the questioning of the chief medical officer was why was the capacity not ramped up sooner like it was in South Korea so that more testing could be done sooner.
Obviously the testing is part of a process rather than an end in itself but they were discussing one specific decision - ie the decision not to build significant capacity sooner.

[THEWELLERNUT70]

https://mobile.twitter.com/ChrisGiles_/ ... 38048?s=09

The FT reporting that the actual death toll could stand beyond 50k

For the 3rd day running the government have also missed their 100k per day testing figure. In fact is it just the once so far that their 100k daily target has been met? and even then the figures were massaged and spun

[TVC15]

Sorry, I probably wasn't clear, did he say we should have, or it would have been beneficial to.....

If you mean the select committee chair yes he said that they should have done and been beneficial to (I’m paraphrasing)
But he has also now asked for further evidence on the decision not to follow what South Korea did - so I guess in theory he could change his opinion when he sees that evidence (though it didn’t sound like that !!)

If you mean the chief medical officer - I don’t know whether he was admitting we should have done. I’d have to listen to the interview again but he wasn’t the one being interviewed by the BBC - but he was one of the ones questioned by the select committee. I think the way it was discussed he was explaining why they didn’t.

Guess it’s all on iPlayer if you want a listen

[KateR]

It would have been "beneficial" to have ramped up Covid-19 testing quicker, the UK's chief scientific adviser has told MPs assessing the coronavirus response. But Sir Patrick Vallance added testing alone would not control the virus. The UK moved away from community tests and contact tracing on 12 March, as ministers decided to focus testing on patients with suspected Covid-19 in hospitals, care homes and prisons.

Asked what he would change about the UK's response to the virus, Sir Patrick told the committee: "I think that probably we, in the early phases, and I've said this before, I think if we'd managed to ramp testing capacity quicker it would have been beneficial. "And, you know, for all sorts of reasons that didn't happen. "I think it's clear you need lots of testing for this, but to echo what Jenny Harries has said, it's completely wrong to think of testing as the answer.

"It's just part of the system that you need to get right. The entire system needs to work properly."

By mid-March the UK had to virtually abandon testing in the community - it did not have the capacity, so had to prioritise patients in hospital. One school of thought is that because the policy at the time was to slow the spread of the virus in the community, rather than suppress it as is the case with lockdown, widespread testing was not needed to contain outbreaks and suppress the epidemic.

Dr Harries said a balance needed to be struck in terms of testing and ramping up capacity in the NHS, adding that "if we had unlimited capacity, and the ongoing support beyond that, then we perhaps would choose a slightly different approach".

[tiger76]

A sensible perspective on the death figures,either way it's terrible for both Italy and the UK.

'Months before we can say who has highest death toll'

Nick Triggle

Health Correspondent

This is a sobering moment.

Italy was the first part of Europe to see cases rise rapidly and the scenes of hospitals being overwhelmed were met with shock and disbelief.

But we should be careful how we interpret the figures.

On the face of it both countries now count deaths in a similar way, including both in hospitals and the community. But there are other factors to consider.

First the UK has a slightly larger population. If you count cases per head of population, Italy still comes out worse - although only just.

Cases are confirmed by tests - and the amount of testing carried out varies.

The geographical spread looks quite different too - half of the deaths in Italy have happened in Lombardy.

In the UK, by comparison, they have been much more spread out.

Less than a fifth have happened in London, which has a similar population to Lombardy.

Then, how do you factor in the indirect impact from things such as people not getting care for other conditions?

The fairest way to judge the impact in terms of fatalities is to look at excess mortality - the numbers dying above what would normally happen.

You need to do this over time. It will be months, perhaps even years, before we can really say who has the highest death toll.

[aggi]

Furlough salary is based on the average that you have been paid for the last 12 months (or shorter period if you haven't been there 12 months). Just like holiday pay. If you work a lot of overtime, or get a lot of commission, you get more than just the basic in holiday or furlough pay.

That's not exactly the guidance I've read. It's only non-discretionary (i.e. contractual) bonuses and overtime that are included in that calculation. Bonuses, commission, etc that are customary but not contractual are not included.

[dsr]

That's not exactly the guidance I've read. It's only non-discretionary (i.e. contractual) bonuses and overtime that are included in that calculation. Bonuses, commission, etc that are customary but not contractual are not included.

How many people have jobs where regular bonuses are at the whim of the boss?

Apart from that, if bonuses and commission are customary and predictable, they probably become contractual anyway. If an employer always pays hourly overtime, for example, he can't generally claim it was voluntary. And it's not as if the boss has any reason to batter the employee's furlough pay down, because he gets it all back.

[Paul Waine]

But until a few weeks ago the government completely ignored medical advice from other countries as they thought "We know best" when it was obvious we had got it horribly wrong!

Even now, there are some who believe we should have just seen it out with the 'Herd immunity' approach.

If we are charitable, Spijed, we will recognise that the UK has been saying "we know best" ever since the NHS was set up, the nation's "pride and joy," the "envy of the world...." Why would a country that has the UK's NHS need medical advice from any other country that hasn't got the NHS?

[NottsClaret]

If we are charitable, Spijed, we will recognise that the UK has been saying "we know best" ever since the NHS was set up, the nation's "pride and joy," the "envy of the world...." Why would a country that has the UK's NHS need medical advice from any other country that hasn't got the NHS?

The NHS doesn't decide strategy, they just deal with whoever ends up needing their care. In the end they didn't come close to being over run.

[Paul Waine]

The NHS doesn't decide strategy, they just deal with whoever ends up needing their care. In the end they didn't come close to being over run.

I agree, Notts. However, our politicians, our media and the UK establishment - and the electorate - believe in our NHS, including that it is "the best in the world." Hence, "what have we got to learn from others....?"

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Oh look, what a surprise, the tory government is using the coronavirus to sell off the NHS...

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... ate-sector

https://www.theguardian.com/society/200 ... h.politics

Just for some balance.

[NottsClaret]

Yes, I don't know enough about how other nations organise or fund their healthcare to be honest, to make a comparison. I know I prefer it to the US system but I'm in agreement that its naive to think it couldn't be improved. But when the enquiry starts into this, they'll rightly be the heroes of the story.. who the villains are remains to be seen.

[Jeremy_Bentham]

. wonders what the general consensus of the regular contributors to this thread is of the likely outcome of this coming Thursday’s update will be?

[Paul Waine]

Yes, I don't know enough about how other nations organise or fund their healthcare to be honest, to make a comparison. I know I prefer it to the US system but I'm in agreement that its naive to think it couldn't be improved. But when the enquiry starts into this, they'll rightly be the heroes of the story.. who the villains are remains to be seen.

US system is a "failed" system. Many major European countries have got good systems, including Germany.

[Taffy on the wing]

same drivel being spouted by the same posters, always moaning about things, totally negative with never a good word here nor there, what the UK have done is in my opinion an excellent response to a really bad situation for many many people, not everyone, it's not utopia and never will be.

The issues being experienced now by the vast majority who are not being directly affected by the virus medical wise should be thanking there lucky stars for that but the economic fallout has not even begun to bite yet, but it will and of course cue the same mob coming out in force, pointing fingers and moaning just as loudly.

I can never understand people like this, if you don't like it do something about it instead of moaning and blaming others or looking to the so called rich/better off to give you what they work hard for.

Meaningless drivel!.........maybe you're on the Sunlit Uplands with Boris, enjoying his success,....after all Britain overtook Italy's death toll today, so we're winning right?

[Taffy on the wing]

20k deaths would have been a 'good' outcome, what is then 32k and rising & the worst death toll in Europe despite having a head start on warning?

A raging success of course! We're in first place....put on some Vera Lynn records.

[TsarBomba]

I’ve really lost track of this thread over the past few weeks.

Anyway, to add a little from my perspective, and from what I’ve seen over the past few weeks, the lockdown is dismantling quite quickly.

Social distancing is still mostly being observed, which is something, but there’s been a very real and obvious increase in people out and about. I’m certainly of the opinion that the lockdown can’t, and won’t continue for much longer, not in its current guise anyway.

Policing of the restrictions has now become impossible and pointless, but hopefully, those that have observed the lockdown have done enough to slow the spread for everyone.

Stay safe everyone.

[jrgbfc]

more drivel, that is clear and undeniable

So you think the government have handled it well then? Based on what exactly?

[Rileybobs]

How come? That makes no sense in theory. What's the deal in practice?

Not sure about the poster’s wife’s situation but someone ordinarily earning £50k would be taking home around 50% of their usual salary if furloughed.

[Grumps]

. wonders what the general consensus of the regular contributors to this thread is of the likely outcome of this coming Thursday’s update will be?

Wait till Sunday...

[taio]

Not sure about the poster’s wife’s situation but someone ordinarily earning £50k would be taking home around 50% of their usual salary if furloughed.

How have you worked that out?

[Rileybobs]

How have you worked that out?

£50k pa = £3140pcm take home

Furlough capped at £2500pcm before tax (£30k pa) = £2000 pcm take home. £2000 x 0.8 = £1600pcm take home.

Unless I’ve misunderstood something?

Edit - is the £2500 the cap after the 20% is deducted?

[taio]

£50k pa = £3140pcm take home

Furlough capped at £2500pcm before tax (£30k pa) = £2000 pcm take home. £2000 x 0.8 = £1600pcm take home.

Unless I’ve misunderstood something?

Edit - is the £2500 the cap after the 20% is deducted?

I thought so but might be wrong.

[Winstonswhite]

It’s 80% of your monthly salary up to a maximum of 2.5k.

So they pay you 2.5k gross which after tax would be 2k like you said.

[Rileybobs]

I thought so but might be wrong.

Think you may be right actually on further investigation. I think that £2500 is the cap after the 20% is deducted. So you will only forfeit 20% of your salary if you earn up to £37.5k. In which case someone who’s usual salary is approx £68k would take home 50% of their normal wage.

Unless I’ve made another pigs ear of it, which could well be the case...