Jump to content

Generic Virus Thread


villakram

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, foreveryoung said:

But i'm sure in reality, the likes of Tottenham and Liverpool can afford to pay non playing staff when they are paying out millions in player salaries every month. 

I would imagine so. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, foreveryoung said:

But i'm sure in reality, the likes of Tottenham and Liverpool can afford to pay non playing staff when they are paying out millions in player salaries every month. 

so what if they can? It's irrelevant whether they can afford it or not. Limited companies and PLCs have a legal duty to their shareholders to protect the the shareholders investments, they'd be in deriliction of their duties if they were paying people to do nothing when they can make them redundant

The government made this money available for every company for very good reason, they didn't put profits or money in the bank as stipulations for a reason. It was so as many people as possible, don't go to work and keep their jobs the other side regardless of the size of the company they work for.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

I'm not trying to be a dick about this, but people need to realise the scale of the ask here, as well as how uneven it is. Lots and lots of people still have to go work, in hospitals, schools, supermarkets, power stations, cleaning the streets and whatever else - on average, these people are younger and more working class. Lots of people don't have gardens or large rural or suburban houses - disproportionately younger and more disadvantaged people. Homeowners have a mortgage holiday, but renters (younger, more working class) get nothing. If the government want to make a new law that forbids people from leaving their homes, or want councils to enforce these rules rigidly, then the rules should visibly be based on evidence that clearly leads to saving people's lives, like the lockdown was. Otherwise people are just asking the worst off to suffer disproportionately, and shouldn't be surprised when people start pushing back against this hypothetical law.

I don't think you're being a dick about it and I think that you're raising some very vaild points - though I would just say that not everyone who has a garden is not 'disadvantaged' (in wdier terms rather than in this specific case where they/we obviously do have an advantage). Quite a high proportion of HA properties in this area (and again that's an advantage of living in a town rather than a city, I acknowledge) have gardens.

3 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

I am not an epidemiologist, and it is certainly possible that someone can offer me an explanation as to why 'sitting in the park away from people' is different from 'exercising away from people' in terms of your likelihood or catching or transmitting the virus, but so far, only @snowychap has made an effort to try to suggest why that might be true.

Just going back to this, I hope it didn't come across that I was trying to offer you an explanation for the above as I thought that I was making it clear that I wasn't. I was trying to suggest why one person doing something may well encourage more people and then more people to do it, e.g.. sit in the park sunbathing.

I'd say, also, that sitting around in the park in the sun is something that pretty much everyone could do for the whole day if it's nice weather and on that basis it's more likely to run the risks of having too many people in that particular space.

With people going just for a walk or a run or a cycle (with some obvious exceptions), it may be easier to distribute a population within a certain amount of space over a given amount of time than the above.

A couple of further things: a park full of people sitting around sunbathing (at safe distances) is more likely to leave a load of rubbish to be picked up (probably not the right bit of extra work to be left to some poor council bugger - if they were even being deployed to do that at the moment); and if they're there for a substantial period of time (e.g. all afternoon) then they're likely to have to find a bog and, if there is one and it's open, then it's going to quickly become an absolute nightmare location for potentially spreading the virus.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, bickster said:

so what if they can? It's irrelevant whether they can afford it or not. Limited companies and PLCs have a legal duty to their shareholders to protect the the shareholders investments, they'd be in deriliction of their duties if they were paying people to do nothing when they can make them redundant

The government made this money available for every company for very good reason, they didn't put profits or money in the bank as stipulations for a reason. It was so as many people as possible, don't go to work and keep their jobs the other side regardless of the size of the company they work for.

So they can afford to pay over 5 million + quid a week wages to players, but cannot/won't pay non playing staff, ok chap if that's how it works take it out my taxes🤪

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, foreveryoung said:

So they can afford to pay over 5 million + quid a week wages to players, but cannot/won't pay non playing staff, ok chap if that's how it works take it out my taxes🤪

 

What do you think your taxes have to do with this?Your taxes aren't paying for this, the government, ours and every other, are literally just printing money. It's only possible because every country is doing to in reality they retain their values against each other.

Your taxes are quite frankly irrelevant here

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, snowychap said:

A couple of further things: a park full of people sitting around sunbathing (at safe distances) is more likely to leave a load of rubbish to be picked up (probably not the right bit of extra work to be left to some poor council bugger - if they were even being deployed to do that at the moment); and if they're there for a substantial period of time (e.g. all afternoon) then they're likely to have to find a bog and, if there is one and it's open, then it's going to quickly become an absolute nightmare location for potentially spreading the virus.

I think these in particular are very good points, and that would suggest that people should limit themselves to a moderate amount of time outside, rather than crowding public toilets, and pick up rubbish after themselves (though of course people should be doing that anyway, and it's sad how many don't).

37 minutes ago, snowychap said:

I'd say, also, that sitting around in the park in the sun is something that pretty much everyone could do for the whole day if it's nice weather and on that basis it's more likely to run the risks of having too many people in that particular space.

With people going just for a walk or a run or a cycle (with some obvious exceptions), it may be easier to distribute a population within a certain amount of space over a given amount of time than the above.

I guess I'm a bit more skeptical about this one. If you're far enough away from others it shouldn't matter, and if you aren't distant enough, then it's your responsibility to move. Joggers, on the other hand, running down crowded pavements, may be harder to keep your distance from, and they might well be breathing heavily while they're running as well.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, bickster said:

so what if they can? It's irrelevant whether they can afford it or not. Limited companies and PLCs have a legal duty to their shareholders to protect the the shareholders investments, they'd be in deriliction of their duties if they were paying people to do nothing when they can make them redundant

The government made this money available for every company for very good reason, they didn't put profits or money in the bank as stipulations for a reason. It was so as many people as possible, don't go to work and keep their jobs the other side regardless of the size of the company they work for.

I'm no accountant or have much knowledge on this. You seem to know more. 

In the case of liverpool, do Fenway have many shareholders? Could the shareholders not agree to pay these wages in such unprecedented circumstances?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, bickster said:

so what if they can? It's irrelevant whether they can afford it or not. Limited companies and PLCs have a legal duty to their shareholders to protect the the shareholders investments, they'd be in deriliction of their duties if they were paying people to do nothing when they can make them redundant

The government made this money available for every company for very good reason, they didn't put profits or money in the bank as stipulations for a reason. It was so as many people as possible, don't go to work and keep their jobs the other side regardless of the size of the company they work for.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, DCJonah said:

I'm no accountant or have much knowledge on this. You seem to know more. 

In the case of liverpool, do Fenway have many shareholders? Could the shareholders not agree to pay these wages in such unprecedented circumstances?

Why should they? The rules apply to everybody because the government want to pay people to protect their jobs and keep them the f*** at home regardless of the size of company they work for.

I'm really not sure why you think they should. Just because they have money? Thats silly. This really isn't about which comapnies have money and those that don't. It isn't a bail out of the banks. Its supporting the entire economy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

If you're far enough away from others it shouldn't matter, and if you aren't distant enough, then it's your responsibility to move.

Well, I think the word responsibility is critical to all of these discussions. If the few people showed more than the limited amount that they have done then perhaps we wouldn't even need to be in a situation where fixed penalty notices were given out at all.

15 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Joggers, on the other hand, running down crowded pavements, may be harder to keep your distance from, and they might well be breathing heavily while they're running as well.

Again, that's a very fair point.

Ultimately, if everyone behaved reponsibly and did their level best to make sure that they were keeping their distance from others (and that would include turning around and heading home if the location they turned up to was too full to do their socially-distanced activity) then we wouldn't probably have even needed the current regulations.

But we know that this doesn't apply across the board and that people won't limit themselves to an hour in the sunny park if the park is open and they think it's fine to sunbathe, ahve a picnic or crack open a few cans with some mates and we only have to look at any public space to see that people do not clean up after themselves.

Edited by snowychap
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, bickster said:

Go on then

Well I'm pretty sure you can argue it different ways. It's not like a company have to take any option that offers the most liquidity or quick economic reward. All companies have to consider stuff like the value of a brand name etc. or the value of their current experienced staff. The action in this case could be highly detrimental to the future operation of the business, thus they could easily defend such a decision. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â