Coronavirus Super Thread ( merged )

[Spellczech]

52 minutes ago, annushorribilis III said:

I saw a Tweet last night from a doctor saying there's 100 kids in UK suffering from a condition (they think) caused by Covid that is similar to Kawasaki syndrome. 

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52648557

Well at the end of the day, if a child is withheld from school because of a minute chance of his immune system going into overdrive then that child will be pretty quickly F for life, and won't thank his parents for their caution...

[redjambo]

1 minute ago, scott herbertson said:

 

Numbers have definitely been going in the right direction , but not quite true for ICU over last couple of days

 

Yours pedantically, SH

 

 

test numbers: 13 May 2020

A total of 77,750 people in Scotland have been tested through NHS labs to date. Of these:

• 63,821 were confirmed negative

• 13,929 were positive

• 1,973 patients who tested positive have died

These figures will be an underestimate. Not everyone with COVID-19 will display symptoms and not all those with symptoms will be tested.

Management information reported by NHS Boards shows:

• 70 patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 were in intensive care last night, with 68 of those having tested positive

• there were 1,101 people in Scottish hospitals with confirmed COVID-19 (including those in intensive care), and a further 433 where it was suspected

 

 

14 May 2020

A total of 80,275 people in Scotland have been tested through NHS labs to date. Of these:

• 66,158 were confirmed negative

• 14,117 were positive

• 2,007 patients who tested positive have died

.

Management information reported by NHS Boards shows:

• 71 patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 were in intensive care last night, with 61 of those having tested positive

• there were 1,100 people in Scottish hospitals with confirmed COVID-19 (including those in intensive care), and a further 380 where it was suspected

 

 

Dear Pedantic SH,

 

The Herald claim was related solely to people in ICU who have been tested and confirmed as having Covid-19, not those "suspected" of having the virus, which is why I italicised "with Covid-19" in my post.

 

Over to you,

 

Pedantic Red

 

[hughesie27]

You have to hand it to Sturgeon doing that presser every single day. 

[Spellczech]

1 minute ago, hughesie27 said:

You have to hand it to Sturgeon doing that presser every single day. 

TBF she has shown real leadership in this crisis. She's coherent, clear and consistent in a way that the people down south are not. She at least tries to answer questions whereever she can. If the SNP had any sort of strength in depth to back her up they might actually get their Independence....

[JudyJudyJudy]

17 minutes ago, Spellczech said:

Well at the end of the day, if a child is withheld from school because of a minute chance of his immune system going into overdrive then that child will be pretty quickly F for life, and won't thank his parents for their caution...

Yes very  true . That story was about last week and obviously hasn’t scared enough parents so it’s been repeated again this week . Ramping up the fear yet again . Makes one wonder .? Children are extremely low risk 

[redjambo]

1 minute ago, JamesM48 said:

Yes very  true . That story was about last week and obviously hasn’t scared enough parents so it’s been repeated again this week . Ramping up the fear yet again . Makes one wonder .? Children are extremely low risk 

 

Of being badly affected by the virus, not of being carriers and transmitting it to other people.

[Spellczech]

1 minute ago, redjambo said:

 

Of being badly affected by the virus, not of being carriers and transmitting it to other people.

True but it will have to be up to adults to take the necessary steps. Cannot expect children to. 

[redjambo]

2 minutes ago, Spellczech said:

True but it will have to be up to adults to take the necessary steps. Cannot expect children to. 

 

Yes, but we shouldn't be putting children back in classes before the general public are allowed to mingle too. Children aren't an exception just because their immune systems generally cope well with the virus.

[CJGJ]

London and this is a real surprise to get £1.6 billion for a London Transport bail out

 

This after they told the government  TODAY they need a bail out by the end of the day

 

Question why did they wait so long to tell the government it was needed..it must have been clear weeks ago

 

I know we are supposed to be all in it together but I doubt it will be the only bail out made public or otherwise heading London's way

 

Lets ensure we all get bail outs if required for our transport systems

[Spellczech]

1 hour ago, redjambo said:

 

Yes, but we shouldn't be putting children back in classes before the general public are allowed to mingle too. Children aren't an exception just because their immune systems generally cope well with the virus.

Seems unnecessary unless it is to allow the parents to go to work.  At the end of the day the Govt cocked this up, now we just have to make the best of it. We have a much better understanding of the virus now than in February. Irony is tha the supposed scientists did not treat it as the threat it was even though Chinese people were dying in their hundreds.

[scott herbertson]

1 hour ago, redjambo said:

 

Dear Pedantic SH,

 

The Herald claim was related solely to people in ICU who have been tested and confirmed as having Covid-19, not those "suspected" of having the virus, which is why I italicised "with Covid-19" in my post.

 

Over to you,

 

Pedantic Red

 

 

How do you know that the suspicion wasn't correct in some cases?

 

😈

 

 

Edited May 14, 2020 by scott herbertson

[redjambo]

3 minutes ago, scott herbertson said:

 

How do you know that the suspicion wasn't correct in some cases?

 

😈

 

 

Because the Herald is saying that it wasn't, effectively that none of the suspected cases in ICU turned out to be positive after testing, over the last 10 days anyway.

 

As I said, it does seem a mite far-fetched to me, but it's what they are claiming.

 

👼

 

[Francis Albert]

1 hour ago, redjambo said:

 

Yes, but we shouldn't be putting children back in classes before the general public are allowed to mingle too. Children aren't an exception just because their immune systems generally cope well with the virus.

If as seems the case children are much the  least likely indeed extremely unlikely  to contact or transmit the virus then as a group they are exceptional. And the threat to teachers is in the staff room not the classroom. Why not as with locker rooms in golf courses not just keep the staff rooms closed?

[AlimOzturk]

1 hour ago, Spellczech said:

TBF she has shown real leadership in this crisis. She's coherent, clear and consistent in a way that the people down south are not. She at least tries to answer questions whereever she can. If the SNP had any sort of strength in depth to back her up they might actually get their Independence....

 

They do they have many top quality MPs in the SNP IMO. Mharie Black, Cherry, Kenny MacAskil, Tommy Shepherd and Pete Wishart to name a few. 

[scott herbertson]

1 minute ago, redjambo said:

 

Because the Herald is saying that it wasn't, effectively that none of the suspected cases in ICU turned out to be positive after testing, over the last 10 days anyway.

 

As I said, it does seem a mite far-fetched to me, but it's what they are claiming.

 

👼

 

 

 

Ah - I didn't realise that - seems odd but will teach me not to read the article!

 

Taking that to it's logical conclusion leads to some strange reasoning. Between 6 May and 9th May 138 patients in hospital who had tested positive (with covid) died, yet the number of patients with Covid in intensive care dropped by only 3. So the other 135 did not go into ICU but died anyway. Seems unlikely but presumably the Herald have done their research...

[redjambo]

5 minutes ago, scott herbertson said:

 

 

Ah - I didn't realise that - seems odd but will teach me not to read the article!

 

Taking that to it's logical conclusion leads to some strange reasoning. Between 6 May and 9th May 138 patients in hospital who had tested positive (with covid) died, yet the number of patients with Covid in intensive care dropped by only 3. So the other 135 did not go into ICU but died anyway. Seems unlikely but presumably the Herald have done their research...

 

Maybe it was I who read the article wrong, but your reasoning is why I thought it was very odd too. No new positive cases in ICU for 10 days but all those deaths?

 

Anyway, things are heading in the right direction as it stands.

 

[scott herbertson]

1 minute ago, redjambo said:

 

Maybe it was I who read the article wrong, but your reasoning is why I thought it was very odd too. No new positive cases in ICU for 10 days but all those deaths?

 

Anyway, things are heading in the right direction as it stands.

 

 

 

Very much so - numbers in hospital steadily dropping as are numbers in ICU and the number / proportion testing positive. I suspect most of the infection is now coming from adults in the caring/ essential services inadvertently spreading it and we should see that diminishing quite rapidly soon too as more key workers are tested and isolating where they have it.

[Weakened Offender]

2 hours ago, scott herbertson said:

 

Numbers have definitely been going in the right direction , but not quite true for ICU over last couple of days

 

Yours pedantically, SH

 

 

test numbers: 13 May 2020

A total of 77,750 people in Scotland have been tested through NHS labs to date. Of these:

• 63,821 were confirmed negative

• 13,929 were positive

• 1,973 patients who tested positive have died

These figures will be an underestimate. Not everyone with COVID-19 will display symptoms and not all those with symptoms will be tested.

Management information reported by NHS Boards shows:

• 70 patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 were in intensive care last night, with 68 of those having tested positive

• there were 1,101 people in Scottish hospitals with confirmed COVID-19 (including those in intensive care), and a further 433 where it was suspected

 

 

14 May 2020

A total of 80,275 people in Scotland have been tested through NHS labs to date. Of these:

• 66,158 were confirmed negative

• 14,117 were positive

• 2,007 patients who tested positive have died

.

Management information reported by NHS Boards shows:

• 71 patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 were in intensive care last night, with 61 of those having tested positive

• there were 1,100 people in Scottish hospitals with confirmed COVID-19 (including those in intensive care), and a further 380 where it was suspected

 

 

I heard from someone who works in a hospital in Edinburgh that anyone with symptoms coming into a Scottish hospital  is being admitted into an ICU for assessment before being sent to where they need to be. She said this is presenting that figure as higher than it actually is. 

[Montgomery Brewster]

39 minutes ago, AlimOzturk said:

 

They do they have many top quality MPs in the SNP IMO. Mharie Black, Cherry, Kenny MacAskil, Tommy Shepherd and Pete Wishart to name a few. 

Aye Tommy is top drawer 

[Francis Albert]

53 minutes ago, Spellczech said:

Seems unnecessary unless it is to allow the parents to go to work.  At the end of the day the Govt cocked this up, now we just have to make the best of it. We have a much better understanding of the virus now than in February. Irony is tha the supposed scientists did not treat it as the threat it was even though Chinese people were dying in their hundreds.

So did the scientists or government cock it up?

And allowing people to go to work or not will have a huge long term impact on lives and livelihood. Here and worldwide.

[Malinga the Swinga]

51 minutes ago, AlimOzturk said:

 

They do they have many top quality MPs in the SNP IMO. Mharie Black, Cherry, Kenny MacAskil, Tommy Shepherd and Pete Wishart to name a few. 

You have to be joking with Black and Macaskil. Pair of absolute muppets.

[Malinga the Swinga]

2 hours ago, hughesie27 said:

You have to hand it to Sturgeon doing that presser every single day. 

Must be really difficult answering questions she knows she will be asked. What a heroine she is. She showed great strength in sacking Calderwood to continue in role after she was caught breaking own guidelines, oh no, wait a minute!

[Unknown user]

Just now, Malinga the Swinga said:

You have to be joking with Black and Macaskil. Pair of absolute muppets.

I've heard a lot of people say things about Black but it's usually vague, or snobbish, or both.

She seems a pretty formidable politician to me, what makes you think otherwise?

[hughesie27]

3 minutes ago, Malinga the Swinga said:

Must be really difficult answering questions she knows she will be asked. What a heroine she is. She showed great strength in sacking Calderwood to continue in role after she was caught breaking own guidelines, oh no, wait a minute!

I just meant the fact she's literally not had a day off in about 2 months.

 

But you bash on. If that's the best you have against her then she must be doing right.

[XB52]

4 minutes ago, Smithee said:

I've heard a lot of people say things about Black but it's usually vague, or snobbish, or both.

She seems a pretty formidable politician to me, what makes you think otherwise?

SNP bad, that's his only mantra. Sad really that him and his wee pals can't admit to anything that shows our FM and/or her party in a good light

[Enzo Chiefo]

2 hours ago, Spellczech said:

TBF she has shown real leadership in this crisis. She's coherent, clear and consistent in a way that the people down south are not. She at least tries to answer questions whereever she can. If the SNP had any sort of strength in depth to back her up they might actually get their Independence....

She is always clear with generalisations but rarely specifics. Boris has given clear timescales, dates and plans for which businesses will open and when. Sturgeon seems to be content to just kerp the population in lockdown while working out what to do. She is now under pressure to do what Boris has done.

[Weakened Offender]

9 minutes ago, Malinga the Swinga said:

Must be really difficult answering questions she knows she will be asked. What a heroine she is. She showed great strength in sacking Calderwood to continue in role after she was caught breaking own guidelines, oh no, wait a minute!

 

Top banter there. 

[Unknown user]

7 minutes ago, XB52 said:

SNP bad, that's his only mantra. Sad really that him and his wee pals can't admit to anything that shows our FM and/or her party in a good light

 

Post independence Black's going to be a huge figure on our political scene, I can't think of much she's said that I've disagreed with, I think she's brilliant for one so young.

[Morgan]

15 minutes ago, Malinga the Swinga said:

Must be really difficult answering questions she knows she will be asked. What a heroine she is. She showed great strength in sacking Calderwood to continue in role after she was caught breaking own guidelines, oh no, wait a minute!

What a hoot.

[pablo]

14 minutes ago, XB52 said:

SNP bad, that's his only mantra. Sad really that him and his wee pals can't admit to anything that shows our FM and/or her party in a good light

 

Likewise, you'll have acknowledged the UK government's extension of the furlough scheme, and the breathing space it has provided Scottish business, and Scottish workers, yes?

[Unknown user]

10 minutes ago, pablo said:

 

Likewise, you'll have acknowledged the UK government's extension of the furlough scheme, and the breathing space it has provided Scottish business, and Scottish workers, yes?

What does acknowledged mean though? I think the furlough scheme's helped many but is poor compared to universal basic income via the already existing NI system which wouldn't need forms, applications, red tape, etc. The Tories won't touch that because they don't like the socialist connotations, thinhs must be done via businesses, so should I give them credit for extending something that's quite good instead of putting in place something better for more?

 

[The Real Maroonblood]

39 minutes ago, XB52 said:

SNP bad, that's his only mantra. Sad really that him and his wee pals can't admit to anything that shows our FM and/or her party in a good light

[pablo]

Just now, Smithee said:

What does acknowledged mean though? I think the furlough scheme's helped many but is poor compared to universal basic income via the already existing NI system which wouldn't need forms, applications, red tape, etc. The Tories won't touch that because they don't like the socialist connotations, thinhs must be done via businesses, so should I give them credit for extending something that's quite good instead of putting in place something better for more?

 

 

The furlough scheme allows businesses to survive, and for employees to be kept on the payroll. That's going to be absolutely vital for the economy when we start to come out of this. I don't agree that the system you propose is superior in any way Smithee.

[coconut doug]

18 minutes ago, pablo said:

 

Likewise, you'll have acknowledged the UK government's extension of the furlough scheme, and the breathing space it has provided Scottish business, and Scottish workers, yes?

 

Are you suggesting that the furlough scheme has been bestowed on us by a benevolent government and that we have no entitlement to it?

 

Do you understand that we will have to pay the money back? 

 

Are you able to appreciate how unfair the system is and how targeting resources on companies rather than people has left it open to widespread fraud and abuse?

 

Do you understand that it favours the better paid cohorts of our workforce who are more heavily concentrated in the south?

 

Can you appreciate that this scheme ignores those in the most precarious forms of employment making many utterly destitute?

[Taffin]

7 minutes ago, coconut doug said:

 

Are you suggesting that the furlough scheme has been bestowed on us by a benevolent government and that we have no entitlement to it?

 

Do you understand that we will have to pay the money back? 

 

Are you able to appreciate how unfair the system is and how targeting resources on companies rather than people has left it open to widespread fraud and abuse? 

 

How so? 

 

Quote

 

Do you understand that it favours the better paid cohorts of our workforce who are more heavily concentrated in the south?

 

It doesn't, the high paid exceed the cap and receive much less than 80% of their salary.

 

Quote

 

Can you appreciate that this scheme ignores those in the most precarious forms of employment making many utterly destitute?

 

The furlough scheme is excellent and deserves huge praise for being brought in.

 

Are there other issues? Yes, but they aren't caused by the scheme and shouldn't detract from it. Most of them are wider societal issues that always have and whilst they exist always will be a problem irrespective of the furlough scheme. Should we address them? Yes.

Edited May 14, 2020 by Taffin

[Unknown user]

2 minutes ago, pablo said:

 

The furlough scheme allows businesses to survive, and for employees to be kept on the payroll. That's going to be absolutely vital for the economy when we start to come out of this. I don't agree that the system you propose is superior in any way Smithee.

Not everyone would agree, that's not the point. If you actually don't agree with the path they're taking, why would you be expected to applaud it?

 

There's a really big difference between critical evaluation from differing political perspectives and the constant snipe jobs we see from a small amount of posters. 

[Cade]

Furlough is absolutely essential to avoid millions of job losses.

It doesn't quite go far enough, and the most vulnerable are being hammered even more than usual.

A proper Universal Basic Income would be even better than the Furlough scheme and only blind dogma and conservative ideology is preventing them from doing that.

[pablo]

1 minute ago, Smithee said:

Not everyone would agree, that's not the point. If you actually don't agree with the path they're taking, why would you be expected to applaud it?

 

There's a really big difference between critical evaluation from differing political perspectives and the constant snipe jobs we see from a small amount of posters. 

 

And that it true from both sides, equally in my opinion.

 

Also, the poster I quoted comes from the small pool of posters you refer to. Maybe he agrees with the generally held view that the furlough scheme is a positive, maybe he doesn't and will explain why? I don't think he's stated where he stands yet. Let's wait and see.

 

[Taffin]

19 minutes ago, Cade said:

Furlough is absolutely essential to avoid millions of job losses.

It doesn't quite go far enough, and the most vulnerable are being hammered even more than usual.

A proper Universal Basic Income would be even better than the Furlough scheme and only blind dogma and conservative ideology is preventing them from doing that.

 

Why would it be better?

 

People would get stuck on it because their job wouldn't exist to go back to and would be worse in the long term for the individual and business. I'm still employed because of the furlough scheme, if I got universal basic income instead my job would be gone and for many businesses it would take them years to be able to scale back up again as they'd have to re-employ all the staff they'd had to let go and all those staff would be now on a basic universal income and have to find new jobs rather than returning to their roles when this is over.

 

Would it help some people who aren't covered by the current furlough scheme? Absolutely. We should help them in some other way. We should also help the most vulnerable as standard rather than because of a crisis. In this instance Furlough didn't create their issues, it just hasn't helped them. I'm in favour of the UBI in general going forward.

 

Getting a free £100 is better than getting a free £50 but it doesn't make the latter bad.

Edited May 14, 2020 by Taffin

[Unknown user]

8 minutes ago, pablo said:

 

And that it true from both sides, equally in my opinion.

 

Also, the poster I quoted comes from the small pool of posters you refer to. Maybe he agrees with the generally held view that the furlough scheme is a positive, maybe he doesn't and will explain why? I don't think he's stated where he stands yet. Let's wait and see.

 

 

So you basically agree with the post you pulled him up on, but feel it's pot calling kettle?

[Unknown user]

3 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

Why would it be better?

 

People would get stuck on it because their job wouldn't exist to go back to and would be worse in the long term for the individual and business. I'm still employed because of the furlough scheme, if I got universal basic income instead my job would be gone and for many businesses it would take them years to be able to scale back up again as they'd have to re-employ all the staff they'd had to let go and all those staff would be now on a basic universal income and have to find new jobs rather than returning to their roles when this is over.

 

Would it help some people who aren't covered by the current furlough scheme? Absolutely. We should help them in some other way. We should also help the most vulnerable as standard rather than because of a crisis. In this instance Furlough didn't create their issues, it just hasn't helped them. I'm in favour of the UBI in general going forward.

 

Getting a free £100 is better than getting a free £50 but it doesn't make the latter bad.

I don't agree with your logic, there's no reason businesses or employment would have to be any more affected than now and couldn't start up in the same way.

[Taffin]

10 minutes ago, Smithee said:

I don't agree with your logic, there's no reason businesses or employment would have to be any more affected than now and couldn't start up in the same way.

 

Because 6 million people would be unemployed rather than on furlough. Those 6 million people would now have to apply for jobs and go through the recruitment process. That would be very costly and time consuming in comparison to 24 hours notice to return to your job.

 

Edit: I don't really want to debate it as I'm on furlough, I think it's a good scheme, I'd rather be on it that unemployed on UBI and I'm confident it's fulfilling the role it was intended to do. Would UBI help some people who aren't covered by the furlough scheme? Yes, and by all means give something similar to them.

Edited May 14, 2020 by Taffin

[pablo]

15 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

So you basically agree with the post you pulled him up on, but feel it's pot calling kettle?

 

Pretty much 

[coconut doug]

35 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

How so? 

 

 

It doesn't, the high paid exceed the cap and receive much less than 80% of their salary.

 

 

The furlough scheme is excellent and deserves huge praise for being brought in.

 

Are there other issues? Yes, but they aren't caused by the scheme and shouldn't detract from it. Most of them are wider societal issues that always have and whilst they exist always will be a problem irrespective of the furlough scheme. Should we address them? Yes.

How so what?  If you are talking about fraud and abuse there are numerous examples you can find online.

 

The higher paid get a bigger subsidy than those on lower or average income. Receiving less than 80% of their salary does not mean they are not disproportionately favoured. It is to the credit of the Conservative Party that they have managed to convince people that it is.

 

the furlough scheme is excellent for some but to expensive for the country to maintain. Other countries afaik have not been anywhere near as generous especially to their better paid workers. Many cases of fraud are being reported every day.

 

We cannot afford to address the other issues because we have spent so much on furlough. If we really wanted to help people rather than companies we would have directed our subsidies at people through a universal basic income. That would not be ideologically with this government at least because it treats everybody the same. They keep telling us that the virus does not discriminate but they do.

[Unknown user]

11 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

Because 6 million people would be unemployed rather than on furlough. Those 6 million people would now have to apply for jobs and go through the recruitment process. That would be very costly and time consuming in comparison to 24 hours notice to return to your job.

 

Edit: I don't really want to debate it as I'm on furlough, I think it's a good scheme, I'd rather be on it that unemployed on UBI and I'm confident it's fulfilling the role it was intended to do. Would UBI help some people who aren't covered by the furlough scheme? Yes, and by all means give something similar to them.

 

What you argue against is UBI with everyone getting sacked, which is fair enough if you ask me. But I'm basically talking about UBI with everyone on unpaid furlough, employment rights intact.

Edited May 14, 2020 by Smithee

[Ehllhayapeh]

After being shamed by Sky News Mexico Citys Major has said she is aware the death rate here was initially 8x what was reported but lack of testing and proper control means they cant make an official count. That was back at the start.

 

That means the true infection rate is around 200,000 

 

And the true death rate is nearly 40,000

 

Minimum.

 

In Mexico City alone.

 

People in poorer areas still dont see the virus as urgent and ignore lockdown.

 

Approx 8 million people are ignoring lockdown or cant afford to lockdown.

 

Thats nearly equivalent of the population of London and 33% of the 24 million in the city who are basically doomed.

 

Mental.

[graygo]

3 minutes ago, Ehllhayapeh said:

After being shamed by Sky News Mexico Citys Major has said she is aware the death rate here was initially 8x what was reported but lack of testing and proper control means they cant make an official count. That was back at the start.

 

That means the true infection rate is around 200,000 

 

And the true death rate is nearly 40,000

 

Minimum.

 

In Mexico City alone.

 

People in poorer areas still dont see the virus as urgent and ignore lockdown.

 

Approx 8 million people are ignoring lockdown or cant afford to lockdown.

 

Thats nearly equivalent of the population of London and 33% of the 24 million in the city who are basically doomed.

 

Mental.

 

That's quite frightening.

[pablo]

15 minutes ago, Smithee said:

I don't agree with your logic, there's no reason businesses or employment would have to be any more affected than now and couldn't start up in the same way.

 

 Smithee. You own a restaurant/bar employing 40 people. You're allowed to open again during July, but social distancing and other restrictions mean you only need 20 staff. 

 

But good news, the furlough scheme means that you can keep all 40 staff on the payroll until October. You can introduce a rotation system, (within the rules) that takes into account individuals work life balance and decide who will furlough and who will work.And those who are furloughed can continue to train and develop, should they wish.

 

Fingers crossed that by October, your business has fully recovered and you have work for all your 40 employees.

 

How is your system better at keeping your business open for your staff and give them a better chance of returning to full employment?

[Taffin]

21 minutes ago, coconut doug said:

How so what?  If you are talking about fraud and abuse there are numerous examples you can find online.

 

None of the examples I've read are for the reason you state though as far as I can see. I mean how is it's current set up left it more open to fraud and abuse?

 

Quote

 

The higher paid get a bigger subsidy than those on lower or average income. Receiving less than 80% of their salary does not mean they are not disproportionately favoured. It is to the credit of the Conservative Party that they have managed to convince people that it is.

 

The do get a higher subsidy up to the 2.5k cap, but they also pay a lot more tax normally. That said, I'm all for a narrowing of the wage gap, I'm one of the the biggest supporters of that, now isn't the time to be focusing on that though, we need to change that forever, not for a few months. In this instance though who's more disproportionately favoured, someone who normally takes home 5k a month now taking 2.5k or someone taking home 2k instead of 2.5k? One is a 50% drop, one is 20%? 

 

Quote

 

the furlough scheme is excellent for some but to expensive for the country to maintain. Other countries afaik have not been anywhere near as generous especially to their better paid workers. Many cases of fraud are being reported every day.

 

So you want less spending, not more? Of course it is too expensive to maintain, hence why it has an end date to it. The short but deep cost of furlough will outweigh the costs of not doing it in imo, and I'd guess the Chancellor's opinion too. 

 

I'msure any scheme would be abused by some too. Those abusing the furlough scheme should be punished heavily. 

 

Quote

We cannot afford to address the other issues because we have spent so much on furlough. If we really wanted to help people rather than companies we would have directed our subsidies at people through a universal basic income. That would not be ideologically with this government at least because it treats everybody the same. They keep telling us that the virus does not discriminate but they do.

 

We didn't address the other issues which have existed long prior to Covid-19. It's not because we can't afford to, it's because we choose not to. That's shameful but to conflate wider issues to being the fault of the furlough scheme is folly. As I pointed out above, imo as someone on the scheme, UBI would be much, much worse for me than furlough. Should we help those not covered by it? Yes, but removal of the furlough scheme isn't the answer.

 

Anyway, that's just my take on it. I imagine our ideal world's are probably quite similar as I'm very much in the reduce the wealth gap and increase universal support for all. I'm just of the opinion that we live in a capitalist society, with a Tory government in a time of crisis and compared to what I thought we'd get, the furlough scheme is bloody good and deserves praise despite all their other short comings.

Edited May 14, 2020 by Taffin

[Taffin]

20 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

What you argue against is UBI with everyone getting sacked, which is fair enough if you ask me. But I'm basically talking about UBI with everyone on unpaid furlough, employment rights intact.

 

So unpaid leave with a basic income from the government...sounds like people would be a lot worse off rather than better off. Also how would pension contributions and income tax work in that scenario?

 

I'd rather we just supported those that aren't covered by furlough by providing them with whatever it is they need. 

Edited May 14, 2020 by Taffin