Jump to content

Generic Virus Thread


villakram

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, KenjiOgiwara said:

Pretty sure it's very easy to defend such a decision in any case. 

To a pension company? To an Investment bank? Effectively that's mine and your pension, that's who ultimately these decisions are made on behalf of and thats why boards of directors have a legal responsibility to look after the shareholders

You have 300 employees who have been on the payroll less than 18 months, make them redundant and give them the statutory redundancy money (a weeks wages thereabouts), rather than employ them to do nothing for three months. Is how all financial institutions will view this

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, bickster said:

To a pension company? To an Investment bank? Effectively that's mine and your pension, that's who ultimately these decisions are made on behalf of and thats why boards of directors have a legal responsibility to look after the shareholders

You have 300 employees who have been on the payroll less than 18 months, make them redundant and give them the statutory redundancy money (a weeks wages thereabouts), rather than employ them to do nothing for three months. Is how all financial institutions will view this

To anyone.  Investing is investing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, KenjiOgiwara said:

To anyone.  Investing is investing. 

I’m 33, have a small nest egg saved up for retirement. I work very hard to save what I can. The US stock market is down about 25% this year, so eg $100,000 is down to $75,000. In three months. $25,000 is no joke in terms of savings. How long do you think it takes to save $25,000?

The last thing I want companies doing with my money is paying workers that aren’t working. I’ve no problem with the government helping them, but if you’re down $25,000 this year I don’t blame you for not feeling charitable.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Enda said:

I’m 33, have a small nest egg saved up for retirement. I work very hard to save what I can. The US stock market is down about 25% this year, so eg $100,000 is down to $75,000. In three months. $25,000 is no joke in terms of savings. How long do you think it takes to save $25,000?

The last thing I want companies doing with my money is paying workers that aren’t working. I’ve no problem with the government helping them, but if you’re down $25,000 this year I don’t blame you for not feeling charitable.

I understand losing money on market crashes and pull backs sucks. I've lost twice of that you list this spring. It's impossible to avoid. Just keep calm and you'll have that back in no time. 

Thing is that some of the best investors in the world has written countless books on exactly this bit of investing, i.e. investing in people and a fundamentally good company. And that's before you even discuss the quantitative side of it. There's plenty good reasons you could list to keep qualified people on the payroll when you could be doing otherwise. Certain hotels are already public about this now, as they know it's a brand builder and PR brilliance. Technical personal can also be very hard to recover on an upturn so it's a big picture and definitely not black and white as portrayed. 

 

Edited by KenjiOgiwara
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Enda said:

(Full disclosure: I bailed out of equities before the crash so my nest egg is only down by about 3%. Others are less lucky.)

Are you Richard Burr? :detect::)

Edited by snowychap
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, bickster said:

Feck, Raab's in charge

Apparently not - although the idea Johnson can continue managing the country through a crisis while seriously unwell is ridiculous. 
 

AADA5BAC-772E-4731-ABD3-71CF5BF19AF9.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Awol said:

Apparently not - although the idea Johnson can continue managing the country through a crisis while seriously unwell is ridiculous

And lets also get down to it, he's only put Raab up for the stand in job because he knows Raab is an idiot who culdn't possiby use the time if he was running the government to make himself look good

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, bickster said:

And lets also get down to it, he's only put Raab up for the stand in job because he knows Raab is an idiot who culdn't possiby use the time if he was running the government to make himself look good

Then again, pick nearly any other name from the rest of the cabinet and the same applies. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

Then again, pick nearly any other name from the rest of the cabinet and the same applies. 

We are a few coughs away from Chris Grayling being PM 😬

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, bickster said:

And lets also get down to it, he's only put Raab up for the stand in job because he knows Raab is an idiot who culdn't possiby use the time if he was running the government to make himself look good

I think it’s standard procedure for the foreign secretary to be the designated survivor in case of the PM being incapacitated. 

Agree he’s unlikely to cover himself in glory though. Marmalade maybe, but not glory. 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Coronavirus 'game changer' testing kits could be unreliable, UK scientists say

Quote

The huge stock of 17.5m antibody home testing kits ordered by the government after Boris Johnson said they could be a “game changer” could in fact be unreliable, scientists have said, saying that they may fail to detect up to half of coronavirus cases.

After the prospect of the pregnancy test-style kits was first raised, it was suggested the tests would be made available “within days” on Amazon and via Boots, to allow people who have had the virus to return to the workplace confident in the knowledge that they are safe.

But in recent days, ministers have appeared to play down the likelihood of the tests being universally effective, with the health secretary, Matt Hancock, saying on Sunday that the tests were not yet “good enough”.

Now scientists involved in validating home testing kits have told the Guardian that no test on the market has yet been shown to be sufficiently reliable. Some kits, which claim a more than 90% rate of accuracy, appear to have been tested only in hospital on patients with very significant symptoms.

One expert told the Guardian that in reality the sensitivity of the tests was likely to be relatively low and more likely to detect 50%-60% of those with milder symptoms – the group for whom the tests were intended.

...rest on link

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â