The big Coronavirus thread
Comments
-
I don't know but if you really want me to make a pointless guess I'd say it's closer to 10% than 50%. I said when this issue first got raised that I'd be genuinely shocked if we had as many dying in care homes as in hospitals. I think we would have heard from care home operators if they felt they were getting loads of deaths due to being expected to deal with infected residents.rick_chasey said:
Great put down but I’d love to know you answer, and if it’s don’t know, give me your best guess.Pross said:
To be fair, yesterday you didn't know the difference between a residential home and a nursing home so I think I'll await official figures rather than your assumption that we must be the same as Europe.rick_chasey said:
How do they record a covid death without testing? Serious question, I don't know the answer.mrfpb said:The fact that the BBC couldn't find someone who had died in a care home from Covid 19 is telling, don't you think?
All care home deaths (res care or nursing care) require a statutory notification to CQC, indicating if it's "expected" or "unexpected" death, so stats should be available, but not as quickly as hospital stats (collating stats from 19,000 location versus 200 locations). CQC are now asking care homes to be clearer upfront if a death is Covid 19 or not. This may mean it's quicker than two weeks, but it would be hard to turn it around in 24 hours as they do with the hospitals.
I pointed out a few days ago that GDP figures take two years to complete, but the finance sector goes along with the figure given the month after the quarter, because that's all they have. The hospital deaths figure is incomplete, but it's been the most reliable metric so far for policy decisions.
As the statisticians joke puts it:
There are two types of people, those that can extrapolate from incomplete data...
You can see why I'm sceptical the UK elderly care system protects the elderly from corona deaths by a factor of five versus the rest of Europe, right?0 -
The spikes have happened on Wednesdays previously, so given the Bank Holiday, this weeks spike is more likely to happen tomorrow. It would be good if I'm wrong on this point.kingstongraham said:
Wouldn't the spike have been today?mrfpb said:
That looks like a downward trend to me. Though given the long weekend, we can still expect a spike tomorrow.0 -
We've furloughed 2 people (out of a staff of 21 in the UK) and without going into specifics, this has meant other people picking up *some* work to cover. If you have someone who is say 30% busy and everyone else is 70-80%ish chargeable, and you furlough the 30% one that work is going to have to be split across some of the remaining people. You can't just spread that 30% around equally because the work is in chunks, so a couple of people end up picking up an extra 15% - leading to them potentially being overworked, at least for a short period.Pross said:
I think there are companies that are misusing it, I've heard from friends who are having to work additional hours to cover for colleagues that were put on the scheme by their company basically to offset a cost for a few months rather than because there wasn't the work to sustain them and they would have had to make redundancies otherwise. I suspect there is quite a bit of that going on but I assume the Government would have anticipated that and just accepted it would happen.rjsterry said:
Agreed. I think they are going to have to give quite a lot of SMEs some slack on the precise way it has been implemented in each firm.Stevo_666 said:The job retention scheme seems to be operating as planned so far. The guidance is a bit of a moving feast but will probably only be an issue further down the line if HMRC audit the claims.
The guys we furloughed were primarily doing site visits and that is obviously all on hold now, so was pretty cut and dried decision.
The way our workload is going, I think we will be lucky to get to May payroll without making any further decisions though.
Not much to add really, except to explain that it's not necessarily that some people might have to pick up extra work is incompatible with having insufficient workload to avoid redundancies. Though I don't doubt that will happen at some companies.
E.g., a company I used to work at and where I still know a lot of people is talking about a "need to make an acceptable level of profit" and so on, and is furloughing to protect profits, which I find a bit dodgy - basically asking the taxpayer to subsidise your profit margin. We are just looking to breakeven and keep people in work for now.0 -
You have already rejected someone's explanation Rick. i.e. At the moment, if someone elderly starts dry coughing and has a fever, they go to hospital. Hospital diagnoses, patient recovers and goes home or not. Either way stat is captured elsewhere.Pross said:
I don't know but if you really want me to make a pointless guess I'd say it's closer to 10% than 50%. I said when this issue first got raised that I'd be genuinely shocked if we had as many dying in care homes as in hospitals. I think we would have heard from care home operators if they felt they were getting loads of deaths due to being expected to deal with infected residents.rick_chasey said:
Great put down but I’d love to know you answer, and if it’s don’t know, give me your best guess.Pross said:
To be fair, yesterday you didn't know the difference between a residential home and a nursing home so I think I'll await official figures rather than your assumption that we must be the same as Europe.rick_chasey said:
How do they record a covid death without testing? Serious question, I don't know the answer.mrfpb said:The fact that the BBC couldn't find someone who had died in a care home from Covid 19 is telling, don't you think?
All care home deaths (res care or nursing care) require a statutory notification to CQC, indicating if it's "expected" or "unexpected" death, so stats should be available, but not as quickly as hospital stats (collating stats from 19,000 location versus 200 locations). CQC are now asking care homes to be clearer upfront if a death is Covid 19 or not. This may mean it's quicker than two weeks, but it would be hard to turn it around in 24 hours as they do with the hospitals.
I pointed out a few days ago that GDP figures take two years to complete, but the finance sector goes along with the figure given the month after the quarter, because that's all they have. The hospital deaths figure is incomplete, but it's been the most reliable metric so far for policy decisions.
As the statisticians joke puts it:
There are two types of people, those that can extrapolate from incomplete data...
You can see why I'm sceptical the UK elderly care system protects the elderly from corona deaths by a factor of five versus the rest of Europe, right?
This may not be correct, but (a) it is what the ONS says and (b) it seems at least as credible as "oh no it isn't".
But if you want to keep banging on about somehow there are 50% more deaths than anyone is admitting, please can you just use the conspiracy theory thread instead?0 -
Still looks like we'd be towards the end of the peak. And if there is a spike due to delayed recording, it would be attributable to a long weekend, rather than a weekend so you'd have to notionally spread it more thinly.mrfpb said:
The spikes have happened on Wednesdays previously, so given the Bank Holiday, this weeks spike is more likely to happen tomorrow. It would be good if I'm wrong on this point.kingstongraham said:
Wouldn't the spike have been today?mrfpb said:
That looks like a downward trend to me. Though given the long weekend, we can still expect a spike tomorrow.
Anyway, we aren't going to lift the lock down in our cycle as early as Spain, or as late as France, are we?0 -
I have no idea if 'care home' in a Spanish or Belgian context means residential care or nursing care or both, but it would be worth finding out before commenting further.rick_chasey said:
I don't see much reason to think it's different to be honest. I've had relatives in the dutch system and the UK system and they are remarkably similar.Pross said:
But you're still assuming the care home systems in the UK is the same as in Europe which it may or may not be (and the quotes above are from the former Chief Scientific Adviser just to be pedantic).rick_chasey said:
The argument above is that almost all continental Europeans have care home deaths making up between 40-50% of total corona deaths, and the UK is only running at 10%. So my point is it's quite likely the UK is massively under-counting the care home deaths.ugo.santalucia said:
Even if you take those into account, you only end up with 10-20% more deaths... currently Belgium is reporting 250-300 deaths per day, which multiplying by 6 would be the equivalent of the UK reporting 1500-1800 per day, which would raise eyebrows at the very least...rick_chasey said:
They are counting care home deaths, right?First.Aspect said:
No, the summary was that the reasons were complex/unknown.rick_chasey said:
This got discussed a while back. A mixture of things not going well and how they're counting it I think was the summary?ugo.santalucia said:Anybody else baffled by Belgium?
They do a lot of testing, but yet they have a 15% mortality, which is the highest I have seen... the number of deaths per population is the same as Spain and increasing fast...
Yet, they have been in lockdown for a month...
If you recall, it was put forward as an example to be cautious about drawing direct lines between policy "causes" and clinical "effects". You proposed that they were counting correctly and we were not. Some people disagreed.
AFAIK the UK isn't.
So it will increase by half again (at least...!!!), which is why the ex Chief Medical Officer is saying what he is above.
Is there something quite unique about the UK system? You tell me.
I sort of feel like I'm arriving at the obvious conclusion and people are resisting because "we don't know yet".
I only heard that the govt was going to focus on testing people who work in care homes *this morning* so I'm not filled with confidence that the gov't is on top of the situation.
FWIW, I think it is not unreasonable that deaths are not reported until they are properly registered. This in turn means it is inevitable that records of deaths outside hospitals will lag behind. On balance I think accurate data with a lag is better than inaccurate up to the minute data. It's not really been hidden that the official daily total is incomplete and not up to date, but it is the only useful stat we have until we start testing in a widespread way. I get that whatever the figure is will come as a shock because it hasn't been discussed very much until recently. Maybe I'm more aware of it as my father in law is in a care home with two confirmed cases. Thankfully he's not one of them.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
As someone pointed out a few pages back, people really can't cope with not knowing. I don't see any benefit in guessing over just waiting for the real data.rick_chasey said:
Great put down but I’d love to know you answer, and if it’s don’t know, give me your best guess.Pross said:
To be fair, yesterday you didn't know the difference between a residential home and a nursing home so I think I'll await official figures rather than your assumption that we must be the same as Europe.rick_chasey said:
How do they record a covid death without testing? Serious question, I don't know the answer.mrfpb said:The fact that the BBC couldn't find someone who had died in a care home from Covid 19 is telling, don't you think?
All care home deaths (res care or nursing care) require a statutory notification to CQC, indicating if it's "expected" or "unexpected" death, so stats should be available, but not as quickly as hospital stats (collating stats from 19,000 location versus 200 locations). CQC are now asking care homes to be clearer upfront if a death is Covid 19 or not. This may mean it's quicker than two weeks, but it would be hard to turn it around in 24 hours as they do with the hospitals.
I pointed out a few days ago that GDP figures take two years to complete, but the finance sector goes along with the figure given the month after the quarter, because that's all they have. The hospital deaths figure is incomplete, but it's been the most reliable metric so far for policy decisions.
As the statisticians joke puts it:
There are two types of people, those that can extrapolate from incomplete data...
You can see why I'm sceptical the UK elderly care system protects the elderly from corona deaths by a factor of five versus the rest of Europe, right?1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition1 -
Agreed. I'm picking up some work I wouldn't normally do, but my normal work isn't taking as much of my time currently so that's alright.bobmcstuff said:
We've furloughed 2 people (out of a staff of 21 in the UK) and without going into specifics, this has meant other people picking up *some* work to cover. If you have someone who is say 30% busy and everyone else is 70-80%ish chargeable, and you furlough the 30% one that work is going to have to be split across some of the remaining people. You can't just spread that 30% around equally because the work is in chunks, so a couple of people end up picking up an extra 15% - leading to them potentially being overworked, at least for a short period.Pross said:
I think there are companies that are misusing it, I've heard from friends who are having to work additional hours to cover for colleagues that were put on the scheme by their company basically to offset a cost for a few months rather than because there wasn't the work to sustain them and they would have had to make redundancies otherwise. I suspect there is quite a bit of that going on but I assume the Government would have anticipated that and just accepted it would happen.rjsterry said:
Agreed. I think they are going to have to give quite a lot of SMEs some slack on the precise way it has been implemented in each firm.Stevo_666 said:The job retention scheme seems to be operating as planned so far. The guidance is a bit of a moving feast but will probably only be an issue further down the line if HMRC audit the claims.
The guys we furloughed were primarily doing site visits and that is obviously all on hold now, so was pretty cut and dried decision.
The way our workload is going, I think we will be lucky to get to May payroll without making any further decisions though.
Not much to add really, except to explain that it's not necessarily that some people might have to pick up extra work is incompatible with having insufficient workload to avoid redundancies. Though I don't doubt that will happen at some companies.
E.g., a company I used to work at and where I still know a lot of people is talking about a "need to make an acceptable level of profit" and so on, and is furloughing to protect profits, which I find a bit dodgy - basically asking the taxpayer to subsidise your profit margin. We are just looking to breakeven and keep people in work for now.- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
I guess the annoyance I have is I say “it’s going in x direction and y is the most obvious landing point” and then people call me out because it’s not “certain”.rjsterry said:
As someone pointed out a few pages back, people really can't cope with not knowing. I don't see any benefit in guessing over just waiting for the real data.rick_chasey said:
Great put down but I’d love to know you answer, and if it’s don’t know, give me your best guess.Pross said:
To be fair, yesterday you didn't know the difference between a residential home and a nursing home so I think I'll await official figures rather than your assumption that we must be the same as Europe.rick_chasey said:
How do they record a covid death without testing? Serious question, I don't know the answer.mrfpb said:The fact that the BBC couldn't find someone who had died in a care home from Covid 19 is telling, don't you think?
All care home deaths (res care or nursing care) require a statutory notification to CQC, indicating if it's "expected" or "unexpected" death, so stats should be available, but not as quickly as hospital stats (collating stats from 19,000 location versus 200 locations). CQC are now asking care homes to be clearer upfront if a death is Covid 19 or not. This may mean it's quicker than two weeks, but it would be hard to turn it around in 24 hours as they do with the hospitals.
I pointed out a few days ago that GDP figures take two years to complete, but the finance sector goes along with the figure given the month after the quarter, because that's all they have. The hospital deaths figure is incomplete, but it's been the most reliable metric so far for policy decisions.
As the statisticians joke puts it:
There are two types of people, those that can extrapolate from incomplete data...
You can see why I'm sceptical the UK elderly care system protects the elderly from corona deaths by a factor of five versus the rest of Europe, right?
I mean, obviously it isn’t. We’re all projecting into the future.
The whole “you don’t know so shut up” is stupid because if we all did that there would be no thread as people who actually know still know f@ck all.
I totally get that if you stick your neck out on predictions you get burned, and inevitably I will, but so far the trends are as I have suggested.
I’m more confident in my care home prediction (alas, I should add) following what the ex chief science officer, or whatever his tile is, was saying today as it echoes my concerns, and he presumably has some relevant contextual understanding.0 -
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0
-
The thing I have a problem with is the narrative that these figures have been hidden to make us look better. There are so many questionable assumptions in that theory that it's bordering on tinfoil territory. Anyone who has a family member in a care home of one sort or another will be acutely aware that the daily total at the top of each evening news is not the 'real figure'. And in any case I don't believe it was ever intended to be such. It just gives a rough idea of how the spread of the disease is progressing. Comparison with other countries can suggest some further avenues for investigation but there are no safe detailed conclusions to draw on where we are in the 'Covid Olympics'.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I don't think there is a conspiracy re the numbers.rjsterry said:The thing I have a problem with is the narrative that these figures have been hidden to make us look better. There are so many questionable assumptions in that theory that it's bordering on tinfoil territory. Anyone who has a family member in a care home of one sort or another will be acutely aware that the daily total at the top of each evening news is not the 'real figure'. And in any case I don't believe it was ever intended to be such. It just gives a rough idea of how the spread of the disease is progressing. Comparison with other countries can suggest some further avenues for investigation but there are no safe detailed conclusions to draw on where we are in the 'Covid Olympics'.
It has come because, rightly or wrongly, you measure your success or failure in dealing with it by what proportion of your population die.
It is quite clear, to me at least, that the total official UK corona death figure is not comparable to, say, the French, as the French are counting differently (i.e. they are including deaths beyond hopsitals).
As SC mentioned, they have shifted to make it clear the count the UK is relasing is the hopsital count.
The discussion came up because I spend a lot of time saying that other countries are doing better, relative to the UK, and that it is on the UK gov't's poor decision making and timing. That was disputed, hence the discussion on the stats.
We keep referring to the stats, so it's worth baring in mind that the stats are incomplete.
Surely it is significant that the UK may well be *massively underreporting* care home deaths, or, conversely, it would be equally significant if the UK was dealing with people who are in care homes very differently and that was coming out it the stats, would it not, as it would then be an outlier and worth investigating - not least if it means it has saved a vast amount of lives!!
0 -
And for the record, I'm using care homes as the terminology as that is what is being released in the studies on corona fatalities, like the LSE report the ex-chief science guy was referring to.
0 -
-
To be clear I am blaming indolence and incompetence for the lack of accurate timely data.rick_chasey said:
I don't think there is a conspiracy re the numbers.rjsterry said:The thing I have a problem with is the narrative that these figures have been hidden to make us look better. There are so many questionable assumptions in that theory that it's bordering on tinfoil territory. Anyone who has a family member in a care home of one sort or another will be acutely aware that the daily total at the top of each evening news is not the 'real figure'. And in any case I don't believe it was ever intended to be such. It just gives a rough idea of how the spread of the disease is progressing. Comparison with other countries can suggest some further avenues for investigation but there are no safe detailed conclusions to draw on where we are in the 'Covid Olympics'.
It has come because, rightly or wrongly, you measure your success or failure in dealing with it by what proportion of your population die.
It is quite clear, to me at least, that the total official UK corona death figure is not comparable to, say, the French, as the French are counting differently (i.e. they are including deaths beyond hopsitals).
As SC mentioned, they have shifted to make it clear the count the UK is relasing is the hopsital count.
The discussion came up because I spend a lot of time saying that other countries are doing better, relative to the UK, and that it is on the UK gov't's poor decision making and timing. That was disputed, hence the discussion on the stats.
We keep referring to the stats, so it's worth baring in mind that the stats are incomplete.
Surely it is significant that the UK may well be *massively underreporting* care home deaths, or, conversely, it would be equally significant if the UK was dealing with people who are in care homes very differently and that was coming out it the stats, would it not, as it would then be an outlier and worth investigating - not least if it means it has saved a vast amount of lives!!
In all honesty I can see why Cummings wants to swing a wrecking ball at the mechanisms of Govt.0 -
I think the worry was always for the SMEs who won’t have the expertise or breathing space to survive until the benefits flow.Stevo_666 said:
I think they already are - and that extends to big groups as well.rjsterry said:
Agreed. I think they are going to have to give quite a lot of SMEs some slack on the precise way it has been implemented in each firm.Stevo_666 said:The job retention scheme seems to be operating as planned so far. The guidance is a bit of a moving feast but will probably only be an issue further down the line if HMRC audit the claims.
Just been on a call this morning with a 'peer group' taken from a fairly wide range of big business and several were saying that they have never known HMRC to be so helpful and flexible. In particular, one opposite number who worked in a large hotel chain said that HMRC had agreed with minimal checks for them to defer their PAYE payments by 3 months - effectively all they did was to get in touch and say how much it was.
There is similar doubt on when furlough money will flow.0 -
The deferral of VAT for example is automatic and effectively has already 'flowed' in many cases depending on when the instalment are due to pay (which varies). Ditto corporate tax where they just need to ask and show some evidence of adverse impact, which probably isn't difficult where genuine.surrey_commuter said:
I think the worry was always for the SMEs who won’t have the expertise or breathing space to survive until the benefits flow.Stevo_666 said:
I think they already are - and that extends to big groups as well.rjsterry said:
Agreed. I think they are going to have to give quite a lot of SMEs some slack on the precise way it has been implemented in each firm.Stevo_666 said:The job retention scheme seems to be operating as planned so far. The guidance is a bit of a moving feast but will probably only be an issue further down the line if HMRC audit the claims.
Just been on a call this morning with a 'peer group' taken from a fairly wide range of big business and several were saying that they have never known HMRC to be so helpful and flexible. In particular, one opposite number who worked in a large hotel chain said that HMRC had agreed with minimal checks for them to defer their PAYE payments by 3 months - effectively all they did was to get in touch and say how much it was.
There is similar doubt on when furlough money will flow.
As for furlough payments, maybe you missed what I posted earlier today, where HMRC have said that the first payments will be made on 30 April. That's not a bad achievement from a standing start a month ago, wouldn't you say?
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I was going to check whether that meant the first payments to everybody or the first few hundred payments.Stevo_666 said:
The deferral of VAT for example is automatic and effectively has already 'flowed' in many cases depending on when the instalment are due to pay (which varies). Ditto corporate tax where they just need to ask and show some evidence of adverse impact, which probably isn't difficult where genuine.surrey_commuter said:
I think the worry was always for the SMEs who won’t have the expertise or breathing space to survive until the benefits flow.Stevo_666 said:
I think they already are - and that extends to big groups as well.rjsterry said:
Agreed. I think they are going to have to give quite a lot of SMEs some slack on the precise way it has been implemented in each firm.Stevo_666 said:The job retention scheme seems to be operating as planned so far. The guidance is a bit of a moving feast but will probably only be an issue further down the line if HMRC audit the claims.
Just been on a call this morning with a 'peer group' taken from a fairly wide range of big business and several were saying that they have never known HMRC to be so helpful and flexible. In particular, one opposite number who worked in a large hotel chain said that HMRC had agreed with minimal checks for them to defer their PAYE payments by 3 months - effectively all they did was to get in touch and say how much it was.
There is similar doubt on when furlough money will flow.
As for furlough payments, maybe you missed what I posted earlier today, where HMRC have said that the first payments will be made on 30 April. That's not a bad achievement from a standing start a month ago, wouldn't you say?
Then I realised I don’t believe a word this shambolic bunch of liars says so will judge them on their actions not their words.
And before anybody questions my cynicism how many tests a day are being done?
250,000 - Boris
25,000 rising to 100,000 in two weeks - Hancock
Under 15,0000 -
Completely illustrates the point that there aren’t another 50% of deaths being covered up.rick_chasey said:
0 -
I go out every afternoon for a walk with our youngest. Today there were noticeably more people out and noticeably more people breaking the rules, especially small groups of parents letting their kids play together. I guess they've seen that schools are going back on 11 May and figured it makes no difference.0
-
I don’t think I have ever said there is a cover up.morstar said:
Completely illustrates the point that there aren’t another 50% of deaths being covered up.rick_chasey said:
What on Earth makes you think I think it’s a cover up?0 -
Your posting!rick_chasey said:
I don’t think I have ever said there is a cover up.morstar said:
Completely illustrates the point that there aren’t another 50% of deaths being covered up.rick_chasey said:
What on Earth makes you think I think it’s a cover up?
FYI, I have done the numbers from those graphs.
Day 20. UK death toll c5K
Day 20. Revised English death toll c6K.
As of today. England = 89.9% of UK death toll.
Assume England death toll original figure = 90% of UK total. 4.5K
That’s a significant jump at 33% increase but I’m taking numbers from charts with large scales so rounding is a bit hit and miss. Have erred in favour of portraying England unfavourably.0 -
Not being covered up, but there's 6,000 more deaths in a week than normal, and 3,500 of them are officially attributed to the virus. I'd expect there to be 10,000 more deaths than normal in the next week reported.morstar said:
Completely illustrates the point that there aren’t another 50% of deaths being covered up.rick_chasey said:
Given they are geographically distributed in similar proportions to the virus, if not the virus, then what?
I don't think they should be included in the daily stats, but when we are making cost/benefit decisions, they should be taken into account.0 -
The odd thing for me on that graph is that the difference between the new line and original line seem to be running parallel so the difference between the two isn't increasing though it is quite hard to read.0
-
HMRC announced it so maybe they are liars?surrey_commuter said:
I was going to check whether that meant the first payments to everybody or the first few hundred payments.Stevo_666 said:
The deferral of VAT for example is automatic and effectively has already 'flowed' in many cases depending on when the instalment are due to pay (which varies). Ditto corporate tax where they just need to ask and show some evidence of adverse impact, which probably isn't difficult where genuine.surrey_commuter said:
I think the worry was always for the SMEs who won’t have the expertise or breathing space to survive until the benefits flow.Stevo_666 said:
I think they already are - and that extends to big groups as well.rjsterry said:
Agreed. I think they are going to have to give quite a lot of SMEs some slack on the precise way it has been implemented in each firm.Stevo_666 said:The job retention scheme seems to be operating as planned so far. The guidance is a bit of a moving feast but will probably only be an issue further down the line if HMRC audit the claims.
Just been on a call this morning with a 'peer group' taken from a fairly wide range of big business and several were saying that they have never known HMRC to be so helpful and flexible. In particular, one opposite number who worked in a large hotel chain said that HMRC had agreed with minimal checks for them to defer their PAYE payments by 3 months - effectively all they did was to get in touch and say how much it was.
There is similar doubt on when furlough money will flow.
As for furlough payments, maybe you missed what I posted earlier today, where HMRC have said that the first payments will be made on 30 April. That's not a bad achievement from a standing start a month ago, wouldn't you say?
Then I realised I don’t believe a word this shambolic bunch of liars says so will judge them on their actions not their words.
And before anybody questions my cynicism how many tests a day are being done?
250,000 - Boris
25,000 rising to 100,000 in two weeks - Hancock
Under 15,000
Why don't you put your prejudices to one side for a couple of weeks or so then we can see if payments have been made by the stated date."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
This is where a weekly snapshot becomes problematic though as it is too narrow a window to do year on year and we haven’t compared the known factors.kingstongraham said:
Not being covered up, but there's 6,000 more deaths in a week than normal, and 3,500 of them are officially attributed to the virus. I'd expect there to be 10,000 more deaths than normal in the next week reported.morstar said:
Completely illustrates the point that there aren’t another 50% of deaths being covered up.rick_chasey said:
Given they are geographically distributed in similar proportions to the virus, if not the virus, then what?
I don't think they should be included in the daily stats, but when we are making cost/benefit decisions, they should be taken into account.
If the trend is ongoing and correlates only to the period of the virus, yes, it becomes a pattern to not be ignored.0 -
It looks like, currently, the antibody test may not be all that, as, according to this doctor, most of the employees would have been exposed to the virus without developing antibodies (and therefore a serological test would be useless for them). I wonder if they'd even have tested positive at any point. It does tie in with the fact that most people aboard the Diamond Princess never had the virus/never tested positive.
https://www.wokinghampaper.co.uk/medical-experts-in-shinfield-approve-covid-19-immunity-testing-kit/
T0 -
Why don’t you swap prejudices for experiencesStevo_666 said:
HMRC announced it so maybe they are liars?surrey_commuter said:
I was going to check whether that meant the first payments to everybody or the first few hundred payments.Stevo_666 said:
The deferral of VAT for example is automatic and effectively has already 'flowed' in many cases depending on when the instalment are due to pay (which varies). Ditto corporate tax where they just need to ask and show some evidence of adverse impact, which probably isn't difficult where genuine.surrey_commuter said:
I think the worry was always for the SMEs who won’t have the expertise or breathing space to survive until the benefits flow.Stevo_666 said:
I think they already are - and that extends to big groups as well.rjsterry said:
Agreed. I think they are going to have to give quite a lot of SMEs some slack on the precise way it has been implemented in each firm.Stevo_666 said:The job retention scheme seems to be operating as planned so far. The guidance is a bit of a moving feast but will probably only be an issue further down the line if HMRC audit the claims.
Just been on a call this morning with a 'peer group' taken from a fairly wide range of big business and several were saying that they have never known HMRC to be so helpful and flexible. In particular, one opposite number who worked in a large hotel chain said that HMRC had agreed with minimal checks for them to defer their PAYE payments by 3 months - effectively all they did was to get in touch and say how much it was.
There is similar doubt on when furlough money will flow.
As for furlough payments, maybe you missed what I posted earlier today, where HMRC have said that the first payments will be made on 30 April. That's not a bad achievement from a standing start a month ago, wouldn't you say?
Then I realised I don’t believe a word this shambolic bunch of liars says so will judge them on their actions not their words.
And before anybody questions my cynicism how many tests a day are being done?
250,000 - Boris
25,000 rising to 100,000 in two weeks - Hancock
Under 15,000
Why don't you put your prejudices to one side for a couple of weeks or so then we can see if payments have been made by the stated date.
You may believe that there will be 100,000 tests by the end of the month... me, I will base my expectations on the previous gap between utterances and delivery.0 -
On the Diamond Princess there were 712 people confirmed by test as having Covid19 and 12 to date that died. The ship did have 3,700 passengers and crew, but they were isolated.nickice said:It looks like, currently, the antibody test may not be all that, as, according to this doctor, most of the employees would have been exposed to the virus without developing antibodies (and therefore a serological test would be useless for them). I wonder if they'd even have tested positive at any point. It does tie in with the fact that most people aboard the Diamond Princess never had the virus/never tested positive.
https://www.wokinghampaper.co.uk/medical-experts-in-shinfield-approve-covid-19-immunity-testing-kit/
T0
