Coronavirus

[Poodler]

35 minutes ago, Parklife said:

Got a link to where I'd find that or the name of it? 

I'm out just now but will get it to you tonight 

[The Boofon]

1 minute ago, rocket_scientist said:

Who is Mr C and what did he come out with?

Those four quotes, in that sequence, was something I put together 6/7 years ago to soften up an audience in my Facts v. Opinions opening section. If you tell them (by implication) that they're stupid if they don't understand things coming their way which are indeed simple, it guarantees that they pay closer attention. If after that they still don't get it, they're too thick anyway and of no consequence to the rest of us. 

Move any mountain RS.

 

Shamen classic.

[Fridge]

25 minutes ago, the shepherd said:

Would you go there on holiday or Neverland? Tough choice min. 

If Parklyland is a massive bar in his backie I’m in.

[NEM]

1 hour ago, Ohjimmyjimmy said:

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/no-the-cdc-has-not-quietly-updated-covid-19-death-estimates-67902/amp

Oh dear, you’ve not swallowed the conspiracy theories you’ve read on social media to support your claim that the CDC revised their totals to 6% of reported deaths.

That’s particular piece of fake news has been debunked already - reported from multiple reputable sources (including BBC - I’m sure you’ll scoff at that!)

I’ll disregard your other points as they are probably similar levels of unsubstantiated bullshit.

So 5k down, is that all you’ve got?

From your link

"Under a subheading labeled “comorbidities”—additional conditions people experienced in addition to a primary diagnosis such as COVID-19—the NCHS shared that “for 6% of the deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned” on a death certificate, meaning that only 6 percent of individuals had no underlying health complications other than COVID-19 reported when they died. The statement continued, “for deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 2.6 additional conditions or causes per death.” 

Given I said "directly from Covid" my point stands

 

Link below for the Scottish hospital admission number fuck up

Scotgov Audit

 

Bri has you sussed - fucking simpleton

[Guest the shepherd]

4 minutes ago, Fridge said:

If Parklyland is a massive bar in his backie I’m in.

I think it would be entry by golden ticket invitation only to get into there min. 

[NEM]

https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/publications/deaths-covid-19

"The ONS numbers are higher because they include deaths where Covid-19 was recorded as a cause of death on the death certificate, whether or not there was a laboratory-confirmed test and irrespective of the interval from date of testing positive for those who were tested. The GOV.UK numbers include only deaths within 28 days of a positive test (see ‘How are Covid-19 deaths counted?’ section for further details)."

 

 

Hit by a bus 4 weeks after a positive test?  Covid!

"Covid's killed over a million" ?

[Henry]

Anyway, what do we make of the new Job Support Scheme?

Can't see many employers paying 55% of an employee's wage for 33% of their hours.

[Guest the shepherd]

11 minutes ago, Henry said:

Anyway, what do we make of the new Job Support Scheme?

Can't see many employers paying 55% of an employee's wage for 33% of their hours.

The flyer and chart are as clear as mud. Since when did 22% equate to be a 1/3? It never did when I was at school or when I was in the bookie at the weekend. It must have changed today it seems. 

[NEM]

6 minutes ago, the shepherd said:

The flyer and chart are as clear as mud. Since when did 22% equate to be a 1/3? It never did when I was at school or when I was in the bookie at the weekend. It must have changed today it seems. 

One third worked and paid.  The remaining 2 thirds (66.67%) split into thirds - one paid by govt, one paid by employer, one unpaid (22.33% of overall)

They've not explained it very clearly though

[Foster14]

13 minutes ago, rocket_scientist said:

This makes zero arithmetical sense to me. Either we must be missing something or it has been horrifically articulated. 

 

11 minutes ago, the shepherd said:

The flyer and chart are as clear as mud. Since when did 22% equate to be a 1/3? It never did when I was at school or when I was in the bookie at the weekend. It must have changed today it seems. 

It is badly worded.  If they work 33% of their hours, then the remaining 67% of hours are unpaid.  The government will pay 33% of the remaining hours, and the company will also pay 33% of the remaining hours.  33% of 67% is 22 1/3%. 

EDIT: I assume the wording has been picked as 33% sounds like more of a contribution.

As for who ends up using it - perhaps smaller companies with loyalty to staff.  Perhaps companies who've invested in the training of personnel, and don't want to slash headcount and find themselves lacking a skilled workforce on the other side.  Not that there will be a lack of skilled unemployed folk!

I think most larger companies were already balking at paying what they needed to in the Job Retention Scheme August through October, and hence why the redundancies started before the end of the scheme.  

[zander]

27 minutes ago, Henry said:

Anyway, what do we make of the new Job Support Scheme?

Can't see many employers paying 55% of an employee's wage for 33% of their hours.

Na, I can't see many companies taking this on. However, a few O&G companies are milking the furlough scheme by furloughing Ad-hoc guys after every trip to avoid paying basic salaries. So should see them dropping that.

[Guest the shepherd]

9 minutes ago, NEM said:

One third worked and paid.  The remaining 2 thirds (66.67%) split into thirds - one paid by govt, one paid by employer, one unpaid (22.33% of overall)

They've not explained it very clearly though

Thanks NEM?. I fairly understand it now. If they included your text within the flyer, everyone reading it and effected by it would have a better understanding of the scheme. 

[Guest the shepherd]

12 minutes ago, Foster14 said:

 

It is badly worded.  If they work 33% of their hours, then the remaining 67% of hours are unpaid.  The government will pay 33% of the remaining hours, and the company will also pay 33% of the remaining hours.  33% of 67% is 22 1/3%. 

EDIT: I assume the wording has been picked as 33% sounds like more of a contribution.

As for who ends up using it - perhaps smaller companies with loyalty to staff.  Perhaps companies who've invested in the training of personnel, and don't want to slash headcount and find themselves lacking a skilled workforce on the other side.  Not that there will be a lack of skilled unemployed folk!

I think most larger companies were already balking at paying what they needed to in the Job Retention Scheme August through October, and hence why the redundancies started before the end of the scheme.  

Cheers for the clarity and explanation min?.

[manboobs109]

5 hours ago, Parklife said:

Well how do we "protect the vulnerable" Like you keep banging on about? We'll need mountains more carers as family members won't be able to do it at all (unless they also isolate their entire family from society).  
 

You've wittered on about "protect the vulnerable" and let everyone get on with it for months. So you must have a plan on how to do it. Elaborate. 

As requested here's my plan - 

Stop testing schoolkids with the sniffles and their families, perfectly healthy students and people with no symptoms and use that capacity for regular testing of care home staff, home carers and members of the public with responsibilities for regular care of elderly and vulnerable people. That is until more testing capacity becomes available. If these people are unable to work for 14 days or whatever give homes, councils, charities the funds to provide replacement care. This will help provide temporary jobs and retraining for people made unemployed during the last few months.

Nursing homes should have trained nurses on at all times but where possible increase this to care homes.

Increased use of hypochlorous acid, with sprays placed at the entrances of care homes, hospitals, train stations etc

Meals on wheels, home visits from doctors, chemists etc for those who need them.

Council helplines for people choosing to shield set up for any assistance required (I'd get the traffic wardens doing it but thats not a dealbreaker)

Payments for people who have to isolate through track and trace

Continue with social distancing where possible but allow businesses to operate where this isn't possible

I'd basically make it as easy as possible for people who CHOOSE to shield to do so. After a few months of this the R number would be very low as the virus will have spread amongst the general population and a degree of immunity will have built up. We're going to have to accept that some people will die from this and they will continue to do so forevermore.

I'd like to have taken this option from the start and the the furlough billions could have been used in a different way rather than paying perfectly healthy people, some of them very well off, thousands of pounds a month to stay at home to hide from a disease that a)will hardly affect them b) they are going to catch anyway but that ship has sailed

BOOKMARKED for when Parky says "how would you protect the vulnerable" for the 1000th time

[daytripping]

1 hour ago, Henry said:

Anyway, what do we make of the new Job Support Scheme?

Can't see many employers paying 55% of an employee's wage for 33% of their hours.

More generous than even the German scheme, hope that puts an end to nippy going on about borrowing powers. There isn't a magic money tree and most of those on furlough won't have a job to go back to, can't keep paying them forever. Well played Boris, hat off to you.

[manboobs109]

6 minutes ago, daytripping said:

More generous than even the German scheme, hope that puts an end to nippy going on about borrowing powers. There isn't a magic money tree and most now those on furlough won't have a job to go back to, can't keep paying them forever. Well played Boris, hat off to you.

The self emplyed grant is a bit tight mind you! 20%?! Better than fuck all I suppose.

[daytripping]

End of the day those losing jobs will still get caught by the safety net, plenty benefits out there to tide them over. My advice to any of you it may affect who read here...look after the pennies, shop smart, own brands are just as good, think twice whether the heating really needs turned on, extra jersey does the job. Walk instead of taking the bus/car. Don't go mad at Christmas, kids will appreciate a home made gift as much as the latest games console. Plenty other things, you'll be fine.

[daytripping]

16 minutes ago, rocket_scientist said:

Thanks for the wisdom Winston. Winston wisdom. Life-changing. 

I've faced tough times, takes those to appreciate the good times, bit of the old British bulldog spirit and everyone will get through it better for the experience*.

 

* Except some who are at deaths door already.

[Bluto10]

DT on top form

[daytripping]

5 minutes ago, Sooper-hanz said:

" I couldnt get you the new PS5 but look, Ive made a pretend one from bits of wood I found"

" geee, thanks dad, youre the best"

I meant a home knitted jumper or a carved table lamp, useful things. Love is the greatest gift.

[Fridge]

Hopefully it will mean I don’t the tremendous amount of shite at Christmas that immediately gets launched in the bin.

I’m nae wanting fucking slippers or a new wallet. If I did I would buy one.

[Zeus]

As long as I get a lynx africa gift set I'm happy tbh

 

[manboobs109]

Bottle of Balvenie does me. 2 would be even better so I've some left for Hogmanay 

[daytripping]

Just thinking about people struggling, think I'll pop a couple of tins into the food bank collection trolley at the supermarket, every little helps. If we all did it we'd make a difference. Way better idea than launching money at them, will be spent on booze and fags, not all cases but the majority.

[Fridge]

Yep buy kids stuff but don’t waste your cash on me.

[Henry]

1 hour ago, daytripping said:

End of the day those losing jobs will still get caught by the safety net, plenty benefits out there to tide them over.

Aye, you were very complimentary of the benefits system in the Oil Victims thread. 

[manboobs109]

22 minutes ago, rocket_scientist said:

The Doublewood 12 yr old is the best pound for pound whisky in the world and been my favourite for a while now. I get it for £36. Carribean Cask was very cheap in Sainsbury's recently so restocked on that. Wouldn't advise the 17 yr old. Treated myself to a bottle in December, first time I'd tasted it, very gorgeous but can't justify the cost. 

My local has the 14 year old for £3.50 a nip! The biggest bargain in booze. 

[manboobs109]

5 minutes ago, Captain Caveman said:

You could’ve been picking fruit all summer but chose not to.

Funny enough I was speaking to a guy on Tuesday, caddie at the Old Course, who picked Strawberries for 4 months over the summer. Sounded brutal, hard fucking work, but he was clearing £400 to £500 a week with overtime. The situation on the Berry farms was very different to how it was portrayed by the tories/papers

[Reed or deed]

How the fuck can small businesses contemplate paying 55% of an employees wages for 33% of their hours? 

Given employees are only working 33% of their hours, does this not also suggest that production and in most cases, sales and margins are down by a relative percentage.

So, in a lot of respects, it will actually be costing an employer/business owner to operate, rather than making profit.

Can’t see that trending myself.

[minijc]

whiskey chat is pretentious as fuck.