Jump to content

Generic Virus Thread


villakram

Recommended Posts

Just now, LondonLax said:

Yes, as I say though we are not going to know until it’s all over and we have a complete set of data to look at. 

And even then it's not going to be accurate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bulgarian health ministry put out a new decree saying if you are outside you must wear a mask. 

Everyone scrambles to a pharmacy to buy masks physically and online. Causing panic and a big amount of unnecessary human contact.

Health ministry rescind ruling this morning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just got back from Sainsbury’s - there was a bloke rushing round the shop who had brought 15kg of paella rice, 5 cases of tequila, 8 sombreros and 12 piñatas. I thought to myself, Hispanic buying.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, AVFC_Hitz said:

Bulgarian health ministry put out a new decree saying if you are outside you must wear a mask. 

Everyone scrambles to a pharmacy to buy masks physically and online. Causing panic and a big amount of unnecessary human contact.

Health ministry rescind ruling this morning.

This is the kind of thing I’m talking about. Measures put in place that sound good but actually do more harm. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour 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. 

That's just hindsight though. I don't think a government can look it's people in the eye, when they're seeing stories of not terribly dissimilar countries having people die in the corridors en masse, and say 'yeah if we don't do anything, 200000 of you will die in the next year, but if we do something 250000 of you will die for a variety of other reasons'. 

You may have linked to it earlier but there was a report that ultimately came to the conclusion that the death rate was basically equivalent to the population's death rate per demographic annually - meaning essentially the virus was like getting your entire years worth of 'risk' in one go. The problem with that though is that this is potentially getting hundreds of thousands at 1 time and causing medical services to collapse, making things worse than they might otherwise be.

With that in mind, you can't really consider hindsight. And again, it's always worth remembering, China placed entire regions of the country on lock down, leaving home being a crime style lock down. They would not have done that if they didn't need to.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Genie said:

Just got back from Sainsbury’s - there was a bloke rushing round the shop who had brought 15kg of paella rice, 5 cases of tequila, 8 sombreros and 12 piñatas. I thought to myself, Hispanic buying.

McCormack throwing another fiesta?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Chindie said:

That's just hindsight though. I don't think a government can look it's people in the eye, when they're seeing stories of not terribly dissimilar countries having people die in the corridors en masse, and say 'yeah if we don't do anything, 200000 of you will die in the next year, but if we do something 250000 of you will die for a variety of other reasons'. 

You may have linked to it earlier but there was a report that ultimately came to the conclusion that the death rate was basically equivalent to the population's death rate per demographic annually - meaning essentially the virus was like getting your entire years worth of 'risk' in one go. The problem with that though is that this is potentially getting hundreds of thousands at 1 time and causing medical services to collapse, making things worse than they might otherwise be.

With that in mind, you can't really consider hindsight. And again, it's always worth remembering, China placed entire regions of the country on lock down, leaving home being a crime style lock down. They would not have done that if they didn't need to.

Again that is an assumption. They didn’t know what they were dealing with and have no qualms about being heavy handed with their people. It’s possible they did go further than they needed to. 

Edit: to address your general point, I do wonder how much of the UK response is based on medical science and how much is based on appeasing a fearful public? Early on the UK and Sweden were following a similar path regarding intervention and both were quoting medical science as their reasoning but since then the UK has clamped down while Sweden has carried on as before. 

Edited by LondonLax
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Genie said:

Just got back from Sainsbury’s - there was a bloke rushing round the shop who had brought 15kg of paella rice, 5 cases of tequila, 8 sombreros and 12 piñatas. I thought to myself, Hispanic buying.

You're going to make tonyh29 furious. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

Again that is an assumption. They didn’t know what they were dealing with and have no qualms about being heavy handed with their people. It’s possible they did go further than they needed to. 

Edit: to address your general point, I do wonder how much of the UK response is based on medical science and how much is based on appeasing a fearful public? Early on the UK and Sweden were following a similar path regarding intervention and both were quoting medical science as their reasoning but since then the UK has clamped down while Sweden has carried on as before. 

We have a weak as piss government in place who are desperate to be popular, you can bet your bottom dollar that at least some of the actions taken have been brought about by perceived pressure from the public and not medical/scientific reasoning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Story from my company now is Furlough plan is first 2 weeks full pay (80% claimed back from the government)

3rd and 4th week is full pay but only for 3 days and the other 2 will be taken as holiday.

After some googling there's nothing I can see in the guidelines that means they can't do that. There's all sorts of FAQs online and they nearly all seem to suggest that they can do that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

Story from my company now is Furlough plan is first 2 weeks full pay (80% claimed back from the government)

3rd and 4th week is full pay but only for 3 days and the other 2 will be taken as holiday.

After some googling there's nothing I can see in the guidelines that means they can't do that. There's all sorts of FAQs online and they nearly all seem to suggest that they can do that

Just make a mental note to take 2 days sick leave when this is all over.

Perhaps a Thursday and a Friday.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a neat summary of the argument going on between Sweden Norway and Denmark. It has echoes of debates going on all over the globe.

Quote
If Sweden's health system is overwhelmed, then Denmark and Norway will feel their tougher policies were justified. 
 
But the real test of Sweden's strategy will come later, when Denmark and Norway start to lift their lockdowns.
 
Can they return to normal without the infection flaring up again? Will they be hit by a second wave this winter? Will any additional deaths Sweden sees over this Easter be the price it pays for having fewer over the coming years? 
 
"This is not a disease that you get rid of. And if you don't get rid of it, what are you waiting for?" Tegnell said. "You can either wait for some kind of immunity to develop in your population, or you can wait for a vaccine. And the vaccine is most likely, at least a year away." 
 
Tegnell said he suspects that the public policies put in place will turn out to have had less impact on the virus than most think. 
 
"I wouldn't be too surprised if it ended up about the same way for all of us, irrespective of what we're doing," he said. "I'm not so sure that what we're doing is affecting the spread very much. But we will see." 

https://www.thelocal.se/20200331/the-nordic-divide-is-denmark-norway-sweden-right-or-wrong-on-coronavirus?fbclid=IwAR3y_S7WesyYRM65hGF-NGReinam53gj22pOBMhP0LuARcF_bME7EZtKzAc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours 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 

They can't force it on anyone, can they. They can't just tell you "this is what we've done, you're furloughed". There's no such legal definition in the UK. It's a US term.

Quote

Employers should discuss with their staff and make any changes to the employment contract by agreement

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/claim-for-wage-costs-through-the-coronavirus-job-retention-scheme

And

Quote

If you and your employer both agree, your employer might be able to keep you on the payroll if they’re unable to operate or have no work for you to do because of coronavirus (COVID-19). This is known as being ‘on furlough’.

You could get paid 80% of your wages, up to a monthly cap of £2,500.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guidance-to-employers-and-businesses-about-covid-19/covid-19-guidance-for-employees

AND

Quote

If your employer asks you to go on furlough and you refuse you may be at risk of redundancy or termination of employment, depending on the circumstances of your employer. However, this must be in line with normal redundancy rules and protections.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/check-if-you-could-be-covered-by-the-coronavirus-job-retention-scheme#if-you-do-not-want-to-go-on-furlough

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This article is also very relevant to the discussion:

Quote

One pretty clear indicator is death. If a new infection is causing many extra people to die (as opposed to an infection present in people who would have died anyway) then it will cause an increase in the overall death rate. But we have yet to see any statistical evidence for excess deaths, in any part of the world.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/The-evidence-on-Covid-19-is-not-as-clear-as-we-think/amp?fbclid=IwAR2DAy6N-0j1LW9UUFGC4waWZVcSi52YO1wAK_sRaXYmkORY2LEefOrwkuY

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

Story from my company now is Furlough plan is first 2 weeks full pay (80% claimed back from the government)

3rd and 4th week is full pay but only for 3 days and the other 2 will be taken as holiday.

After some googling there's nothing I can see in the guidelines that means they can't do that. There's all sorts of FAQs online and they nearly all seem to suggest that they can do that

the minimum claim period  to the government is 3 weeks   ... sounds like your firm would be getting 80% salary for you on week  3 but only paying you 60% ..  100% illegal

 

edit -  Sorry I misread your post ...you said 2 days holiday not 2 days unpaid , so maybe they can do this   

Edited by tonyh29
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â