Jump to content
villakram

Generic Virus Thread

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, markavfc40 said:

With measures introduced yesterday then you can have 2 people doing the same job for two different companies both earning say 38k a year. Company one decide off back of measures introduced by government they can try to ride this out so that person gets a guaranteed £2500 a month from government. Company two decides they can't ride this out so that person gets sacked and the government will give that person £94 a week.

It doesn't take a genius to work this out does it. The government do not want to acknowledge £94 a week isn't enough to live off by paying people who lose their jobs now more as if they do it is an acknowledgement that £94 wasn't enough to live off before all this happened and won't be enough to live off when all this is over.

I take the wider point, totally, but is that completely right ? I (maybe wrongly) understood that the company will get the 80%, not the employee. So in essence the company is only getting hit for 20% of the wage cost for the employee, allowing it to potentially keep going. The employee will ultimately get their wages, of which 80% will be from the Gov't via the Co.

I expect companies will end up dropping people's wages down, so that they are paying nothing, either because they are strapped, or because "that's what they do given half a chance".

But yeah, £94 per week is not adequate for most people with rents and mortgages and so on.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, blandy said:

I take the wider point, totally, but is that completely right ? I (maybe wrongly) understood that the company will get the 80%, not the employee. So in essence the company is only getting hit for 20% of the wage cost for the employee, allowing it to potentially keep going. The employee will ultimately get their wages, of which 80% will be from the Gov't via the Co.

The company does get the money and then pays the employee. There is no requirement upon the company to make up the shortfall between the Feb wage and the 80% contribution from Government.

Quote

Your employer could choose to fund the differences between this payment and your salary, but does not have to.

link

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, AJ said:

Hi Stevo, I acknowledge what you say, and it is a faux pas on my part not to take into account that different locations may have different situations.

I understand how this may be the case in the UK. The UK is able to reasonably provide some local produce for a population of about 65 million, but I gather that the UK does rely on a fair amount of imports? If that is the case, then I understand if supply is strained.

In Australia, we are able to provide a lot of our own fresh produce for a population of 25 million, and each day the stores are stripped but replenished in a reasonable turnaround.

In Japan, a cheap alternative to eating out all the time is to go to the supermarkets. We were spoilt for choice, and the shelves were always well stocked in whichever supermarket we went to. There was some gaps in the toilet paper shelf, but toilet paper was always available. ( Their big thing was face masks). I think that they are just more sane and rational than a lot of other parts of the world.

I still however stand by my opinion that hoarding and stripping out supermarkets is a selfish act, no matter where you are or what the situation is.

 

I was thinking about supermarket shortages and all this aggression towards ‘panic buyers’.

In any typical week you would expect most people to eat a number of meals ‘out’, maybe buying their lunches at a sandwich shop or getting a takeaway on a Friday or going for a pub meal on the weekend etc etc. Then their remaining meals are prepared from supermarket shopping. Hence the supermarkets would be used to catering for that typical level of demand. 

With this ‘lockdown’/social distancing situation everyone suddenly has to eat all their meals from food bought at a supermarket. Supermarkets would not be used to that kind of sudden increase in demand.

Even if no one panic bought anything you would expect supermarkets to struggle to keep the shelves stocked and seeing those shortages would naturally create panic. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, leemond2008 said:

I still love it when I read this, it is my one single contribution to this forum

I've translated it to Swedish and used it in real life. It's immensely useful. :D

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My work, even though i'm working from home now, involves going to alot of Car dealerships. These companies that own and run most of these are up there with the most greed ridden companies you will ever know. They have no thought of closing although subjecting there staff to the public everyday, an far from key workers. One guy I was speaking to in  there aftersales dept have sent letters out to customers stating if they don't want to come to the dealership they will come and collect cars far and wide. madness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

I was thinking about supermarket shortages and all this aggression towards ‘panic buyers’.

In any typical week you would expect most people to eat a number of meals ‘out’, maybe buying their lunches at a sandwich shop or getting a takeaway on a Friday or going for a pub meal on the weekend etc etc. Then their remaining meals are prepared from supermarket shopping. Hence the supermarkets would be used to catering for that typical level of demand. 

With this ‘lockdown’/social distancing situation everyone suddenly has to eat all their meals from food bought at a supermarket. Supermarkets would not be used to that kind of sudden increase in demand.

Even if no one panic bought anything you would expect supermarkets to struggle to keep the shelves stocked and seeing those shortages would naturally create panic. 

That is a fair point, if only that was the case.

Panic buying started before the notion of self isolation was raised or enforced. If you are busted shopping while in self isolation, you could cop a hefty fine, up to a year in jail, or both. Apparently they do random police checks too.

Panic buyers can shop. Those who are supposed to be in self isolation cannot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

I was thinking about supermarket shortages and all this aggression towards ‘panic buyers’.

In any typical week you would expect most people to eat a number of meals ‘out’, maybe buying their lunches at a sandwich shop or getting a takeaway on a Friday or going for a pub meal on the weekend etc etc. Then their remaining meals are prepared from supermarket shopping. Hence the supermarkets would be used to catering for that typical level of demand. 

With this ‘lockdown’/social distancing situation everyone suddenly has to eat all their meals from food bought at a supermarket. Supermarkets would not be used to that kind of sudden increase in demand.

Even if no one panic bought anything you would expect supermarkets to struggle to keep the shelves stocked and seeing those shortages would naturally create panic. 

The nipper has come home from University.

We’ve gone from prepping 3 meals a day from the cupboard and fridge, to 4 of us being in all day. It’s burning through the food here literally twice as fast so we need to buy twice as much. Without any panic, we have to double up the food shop purely on logistics.

Also grand parents aren’t going out so we are shopping for them - that’s a hefty looking trolley.

Edited by chrisp65
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, villa4europe said:

My local supermarket has a bouncer on the door... One in one out everyone anti bac their hands

Our asda had crowd control staff working in there today. Must have been utter madness for them to bring in crowd control staff.

 

I spoke to a mate today and he said he was at the zoo...Some people still don't take it seriously.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve been doing some more reading on Chloroquine and Hydroxychlroquine. 

It seems there was a peer reviewed study back in 2005 indicating that Chloroquine had a positive ‘inhibitor’ effect on the SARS virus. 
 

There are more positive stories appearing. In addition to the limited data from China and France,  Australia are embarking on a major clinical trial after some initial positive signs 

https://www.uq.edu.au/news/article/2020/03/researchers-set-begin-clinical-trials-coronavirus-treatment

Quote

University of Queensland Centre for Clinical Research Director and Consultant Infectious Diseases Physician at the Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital (RBWH) Professor David Paterson said the drugs proved highly effective when first used against the virus in test tubes.  

“We’re now ready to begin patient trials with the drugs, one of which is an HIV medication and the other an anti-malaria drug,” Professor Paterson said.

“Prior to the clinical trials going ahead, the medications were given to some of the first patients in Australia infected with COVID-19, and all have completely recovered without any trace of the virus left in their system.

“However, we know that most people with COVID-19 recover completely, thanks to their immune system, so random anecdotal experiences of some people need to be replaced by rigorous clinical trials.”

This article brings together a few bits and has some links to further info 

https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/is-hype-over-chloroquine-as-a-potential-covid-19-therapy-justified--67301

Quote

A number of other chloroquine experiments on humans are in the works. According to clinicaltrials.gov, researchers at the University of Oxford plan to give it as a prophylacticto 10,000 health care workers and others at high risk of contracting SARS-CoV-2. In Norway, doctors expect to begin administering the drug to hospitalized patients. And in Thailand, clinicians are preparing for a clinical trial comparing various combinations of antivirals, including chloroquine.

I read another article with information from a professor in Oklahoma who uses the drug to treat Lupus (which along with Malaria, is what the drug is actually used for today) and they seemed to think it could work on the basis it can not only reduce excess inflammation, but it can also potentially balance the immune system and stop it overreacting to the virus.

 https://oklahoman.com/article/5658231/coronavirus-in-oklahoma-omrf-doctor-discusses-potential-of-chloroquine-and-hydroxychloroquine-as-covid-19-treatment

Quote

Merrill said another reason the drugs "might" work on the coronavirus is that there seems to be some evidence that COVID-19 enters cells through a gateway called the ace-2 receptor. Once inside, the virus is encased in a membrane.

Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine were created to treat malaria, and they work by penetrating the membrane around the malaria organism and changing the acidic level of the environment, she said.

"And that kills the organism that made its way in there, both malaria and potentially a virus," she said. "There is data from laboratory studies to think it will kill the virus."

Finally, Agent Orange has tweeted this out in the past hour or so 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, snowychap said:

Moneybox - very disappointing. Didn't even mention the issue about legacy benefits when they spoke to their benefits expert.

I'm not sure what to read in to that given that they did make comments about the self-employed, i.e. suggesting that this will be dealt with but as it's more complex it will take longer to come up with a solution.

Moneybox the app we talking here? If so what's happened? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know it is still early on in this whole thing but think we are well past the point of simply saying well it's worth a try in the lab or a handful of people on some of these existing drugs out there.

I am sure there would be a willing line of already hospitalised people willing to give them a try when the current outcome is you will either die or possibly recover, seems to be a 50/50 call but this drug that works on similar things may help, do you want to give it a go...

You would think that with some of them already being available pretty much over the counter we would be unlikely to unleash the t-virus.

Almost one of those too good to be true outcomes i guess if it turns out that something there are already millions of that cost pennies ends up being the answer or at least, good enough to halt/slow things down enough for a proper long term vaccine to be found but who knows, maybe Trump & his gut feeling is right, here's hoping

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

And in America, fame doesn’t just make you rich: it makes you a role model. So it makes sense that over the past, terrifying week – a week which has set the foundation of modern life shaking like the San Andreas fault – we have seen a slew of beloved celebrities solemnly, dutifully announcing that they have received a positive test result for Covid-19. Idris Elba, Tom Hanks, Kevin Durant, Daniel Dae Kim. Many of these celebrities, including the entire roster of the Brooklyn Nets, were tested on the basis of their potentially having been in contact with a confirmed infected person; many, including Elba, were asymptomatic.

Why are the rich and famous getting coronavirus tests while we aren't?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, snowychap said:

Paul Lewis programme:

Treasury have told him that the pay on which the 80% will be based is what people were paid in February.

 

At least it's a leap year

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, LakotaDakota said:

I know it is still early on in this whole thing but think we are well past the point of simply saying well it's worth a try in the lab or a handful of people on some of these existing drugs out there.

I am sure there would be a willing line of already hospitalised people willing to give them a try when the current outcome is you will either die or possibly recover, seems to be a 50/50 call but this drug that works on similar things may help, do you want to give it a go...

You would think that with some of them already being available pretty much over the counter we would be unlikely to unleash the t-virus.

Almost one of those too good to be true outcomes i guess if it turns out that something there are already millions of that cost pennies ends up being the answer or at least, good enough to halt/slow things down enough for a proper long term vaccine to be found but who knows, maybe Trump & his gut feeling is right, here's hoping

Logically, yes. Trouble is human trials take so long because they need to be sure there’s no unintended consequences further down the line, like 8 months after receiving a vaccine your feet fall off - or something. 

I don’t think they can sensibly rush new drugs through human trials, even though the economic consequences are dire. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MOT on my car is due mid April, I’m thinking I need to get it done sooner rather than later

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, leighavfc said:

I have came off all them in the past few months.

Facebook I quit about 8 years ago.... 

Twitter just a pool of self righteous morons

Instagram the look at me, I'm better than you society

F**k them all in my view, world was a much better place when we actually spoke to each other rather than liking, commenting and retweeting.

Yes there are good things that happen on them from time to time. In general its absolute s**t

The only social media i do is this and I don't class forums as proper social media as most of us are anonymous

Maybe we'll come out of this a better and more tolerant species and reassess our priorities in life. Somehow that top of the range mobile phone or new german car costing £700 a month on lease sitting on your drive not moving doesn't seem that important now.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just braved Facebook and a mate has posted that his 12 yr old daughter is down with the virus, ridiculously high temp and struggling to breathe. 

This wasn’t supposed to be happening...

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Xela said:

The only social media i do is this and I don't class forums as proper social media as most of us are anonymous

Maybe we'll come out of this a better and more tolerant species and reassess our priorities in life. Somehow that top of the range mobile phone or new german car costing £700 a month on lease sitting on your drive not moving doesn't seem that important now.

I handed back my Audi 2 weeks ago, personal 'rip you off' lease plan, they neglect to labour the point that it could cost you thousands to hand back, but push you with the cost you nothing if you take out another lease with us.

Social media is vile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â