Generic Virus Thread

[Stevo985]

I'm being furloughed this week. Which is fine. I understand why it's happening.

But I've just found out they're only fully paying us for one week. Second week we'll be forced to take 2 days holiday. Beyond that I don't know.

Feels a bit shitty of them. I work for a huge company that makes billions of dollars a year and they're getting 80% of our wages paid by the government, yet we're forced to use holiday. Seems a bit shitty.

 

But again, things could be far worse. As long as there's a job waiting for me afterwards I can't be too unhappy.

[LondonLax]

9 minutes ago, Seat68 said:

Is there seperate flu season data as well? Or are all related deaths put down to Covid19?

There is a weekly flu report here:

[choffer]

14 minutes ago, It's Your Round said:

It’s more socially acceptable to let a massive stinker rip than it is to cough now. 

 

[LakotaDakota]

47 minutes ago, Villarocker said:

Has anyone else gone more than the advised 7 days of isolation whilst having the virus? Today is my 8th day. I was hoping to get out of here but still have the nightly sweats and a cough. 

Breathing still not right after 2 weeks. Last time i left my property was the 17th

[markavfc40]

21 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

Are we ready to go down the rabbit hole that suggests the world might be overreacting to this virus and it may end up with an unremarkable number of deaths? 

I think that will hopefully be the case. That will be by having taken the measures we have though I'd imagine. We are looking at 20k deaths being a good result. USA they are looking at 200k deaths being a good result so long as measures are followed to the letter.

When we were looking at going down the herd immunity route were were apparently looking at 500k+ deaths in UK. In USA by doing nothing 2 million + deaths.

I don't think we can get to the end of this and say we only lost 20k people with coronavirus was it worth the lock down. It is not the lives that have been lost we should judge this on it is the lives that will have been saved.

Edited March 31, 2020 by markavfc40

[LakotaDakota]

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

 

Could be worse i guess, Jennifer is the woman on the left side of the screen...

 

[LondonLax]

8 minutes ago, markavfc40 said:

I think that will hopefully be the case. That will be by having taken the measures we have though I'd imagine. We are looking at 20k deaths being a good result. USA they are looking at 200k deaths being a good result so long as measures are followed to the letter.

When we were looking at going down the herd immunity route were were apparently looking at 500k+ deaths in UK. In USA by doing nothing 2 million + deaths.

I don't think we can get to the end of this and say we only lost 20k people with coronavirus was it worth the lock down. It is not the lives that have been lost we should judge this on it is the lives that will have been saved.

I agree with that sentiment obviously. There were a couple of questions I was raising for discussion from those links. 

The first one: is that estimate of 500k+ UK deaths (and 2m US deaths) actually accurate?  And following on from that, do the extensive lockdown restrictions actually reduce the numbers? Is there scientific evidence for this or is it just assumed as ‘common sense’?

The second question: Could the resulting economic devastation from the actions governments are taking actually result in more deaths than the virus would have caused had different methods of mitigation been adopted (such as Sweden’s for example)?

Edited March 31, 2020 by LondonLax

[tonyh29]

30 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

One point that I have seen made is that during a regular flu season deaths are often reported as being caused by the underlying condition rather than being marked down as being caused by the virus

I saw an article where it was suggested that Germany are doing this with the current virus and According to an article seen by Mrs H  Hungary are as well , could well be other countries doing likewise .

its why data per country isn’t necessarily comparable 

[tonyh29]

34 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

I'm being furloughed this week. Which is fine. I understand why it's happening.

But I've just found out they're only fully paying us for one week. Second week we'll be forced to take 2 days holiday. Beyond that I don't know.

Feels a bit shitty of them. I work for a huge company that makes billions of dollars a year and they're getting 80% of our wages paid by the government, yet we're forced to use holiday. Seems a bit shitty.

 

But again, things could be far worse. As long as there's a job waiting for me afterwards I can't be too unhappy.

From the advice I’ve seen the minimum Furlough period is 3 weeks so I’m not sure that’s legal .

Edit -In fact not just the advice I’ve seen this is from the HMRC web site advice for employees 

 

To claim, you will need:

your ePAYE reference number

the number of employees being furloughed

the claim period (start and end date)

amount claimed (per the minimum length of furloughing of 3 weeks)

your bank account number and sort code

your contact name

your phone number

You will need to calculate the amount you are claiming. HMRC will retain the right to retrospectively audit all aspects of your claim.

Edited March 31, 2020 by tonyh29

[Xann]

[LondonLax]

25 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

I saw an article where it was suggested that Germany are doing this with the current virus and According to an article seen by Mrs H  Hungary are as well , could well be other countries doing likewise .

its why data per country isn’t necessarily comparable 

Germany have denied they are doing this. 

[Chindie]

There's definitely the distinct chance this will end up being like Y2K, where everyone wonders what the fuss was about, but not connecting that the reason it wasn't worse was because of the efforts made to prevent it being worse.

[Stevo985]

32 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

From the advice I’ve seen the minimum Furlough period is 3 weeks so I’m not sure that’s legal .

Edit -In fact not just the advice I’ve seen this is from the HMRC web site advice for employees 

 

 

So does this mean if the minimum furlough period is 3 weeks we have to effectively be fully paid (or the 80%) for the three weeks?

And they can’t force us to take holiday until after that period?

my news came from my boss Who may have misunderstood things. News is travelling fast 

[LondonLax]

1 minute ago, Chindie said:

There's definitely the distinct chance this will end up being like Y2K, where everyone wonders what the fuss was about, but not connecting that the reason it wasn't worse was because of the efforts made to prevent it being worse.

There is a distinct possibility of that. There is also a chance we will watch documentaries in 10 years time where the conclusion ends up being something along the lines of ‘the measures put in place to prevent the virus ending up resulting in more deaths than the virus would have caused by itself’. 

I think the biggest thing this has shown up is just how unprepared we are. Most countries seems to be making decisions on the fly, based on limited knowledge or research. 

I really hope we learn some lessons once it’s all over. 

[Stevo985]

6 minutes ago, Chindie said:

There's definitely the distinct chance this will end up being like Y2K, where everyone wonders what the fuss was about, but not connecting that the reason it wasn't worse was because of the efforts made to prevent it being worse.

I would bet my bottom dollar that will happen. 
 

“Dunno what all the fuss was about. It only killed 50,000 people. Flu kills more than that every year”

etc

[sidcow]

1 hour ago, Villarocker said:

Has anyone else gone more than the advised 7 days of isolation whilst having the virus? Today is my 8th day. I was hoping to get out of here but still have the nightly sweats and a cough. 

How have you been @Villarocker  ? I know you were very concerned because of your past lung problems.  Sounds like you are over the worst now? 

[HanoiVillan]

5 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

There is a distinct possibility of that. There is also a chance we will watch documentaries in 10 years time where the conclusion ends up being something along the lines of ‘the measures put in place to prevent the virus ending up resulting in more deaths than the virus would have caused by itself’. 

I think the biggest thing this has shown up is just how unprepared we are. Most countries seems to be making decisions on the fly, based on limited knowledge or research. 

I really hope we learn some lessons once it’s all over. 

There is a chance you'll watch that, for sure, because there's always somebody or other making contrarian documentaries. However, it's very unlikely to be true.

For what you are describing to be true, we have to imagine an alternate world where young people work on 'as normal' while their parents fall sick and die, hospitals fill up and ICU capacity is breached, healthcare workers get sick and die or quit the job with stress and PTSD, and on and on. And then we have to imagine that policymakers would hold their nerve throughout it all, demand that young people carry on 'as normal' and demand that they spend time they don't want to on socialising, going to the cinema etc.

It seems extremely unlikely. Just over the last couple of days, you can see staff at Instacart, Whole Foods and other companies going on 'sick strikes' to protest the lack of protective equipment and care provided by their employers; mostly younger and healthy people unprepared to treat work 'as normal' while the pandemic rages.

[terrytini]

I think we will look back with horror and see we were teetering on the edge of an absolute catastrophe.

And we won’t be “ looking back” on it for a long time yet.

Neither of which will stop a certain percentage saying it was a fuss about nothing.

[LondonLax]

6 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

There is a chance you'll watch that, for sure, because there's always somebody or other making contrarian documentaries. However, it's very unlikely to be true.

For what you are describing to be true, we have to imagine an alternate world where young people work on 'as normal' while their parents fall sick and die, hospitals fill up and ICU capacity is breached, healthcare workers get sick and die or quit the job with stress and PTSD, and on and on. And then we have to imagine that policymakers would hold their nerve throughout it all, demand that young people carry on 'as normal' and demand that they spend time they don't want to on socialising, going to the cinema etc.

It seems extremely unlikely. Just over the last couple of days, you can see staff at Instacart, Whole Foods and other companies going on 'sick strikes' to protest the lack of protective equipment and care provided by their employers; mostly younger and healthy people unprepared to treat work 'as normal' while the pandemic rages.

Yes, but is it because the virus is deadly or is it an overwrought fear of the virus causing this?

As I say, there are a number of countries where there are not so many drastic measures being taken. They will be interesting case studies after the fact. 

[bickster]

21 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

So does this mean if the minimum furlough period is 3 weeks we have to effectively be fully paid (or the 80%) for the three weeks?

And they can’t force us to take holiday until after that period?

my news came from my boss Who may have misunderstood things. News is travelling fast 

My understanding is that if you are furloughed you are furloughed. You can't hve holidays during that period but you do accrue holidays you are entitled through it and the time you have to take those accrued holidays has been extended to 2 years. Seems like nonsense to meand your HR dept is talking through its arse

My daughter is working from home on full pay and she's been told she has to take a week off before June, that they can do because she's working but you really can't take holidays during furlough or you aren't furlouged anymore