When will this shit end?

[Bisque]

[priest17]

Great thread about international travel, guarantee we won't do anything close to this

And here's a dog meeting a horse coz it's early and Friday and you deserve it

 

[Dave85radiohead]

7 hours ago, DeanoL said:

At 60K you currently take home £3,620.30 a month. With 45% you would take home £3,245.64 a month instead.

So currently the monthly difference in between 60K and 80K is £966.67. At 45% tax it would be £916.37.

Fifty quid difference.

We can have a perfectly reasonable conversation but we need to use actual figures. You need to explain why paying an extra fifty quid in tax every month would keep people from wanting to put in the extra hours to earn an extra £916. Which, it's worth noting, is much less than the minimum wage for a full time job...

 

 

But you talked about the higher tax been at 80k before . At 60 at 40 per cent current you bring home just over 3600.

To answer your earlier question these people are are dentists,doctors,senior engineers, vets, Pilots , top scientists. 
 

A lot of our favourite musicians we talk about on here earn far far more money but you can bet they have a whole team of people making sure they pay as little tax as possible.
 

I just don’t understand why you would prefer to hike tax on people working their backsides off on PAYE rather than go after millionaires’ tax havens , corporations who aren’t paying anything like a fair level of tax and dividend payments not to mention a proper review of MP expenses. It’s just the easy and lazy option.

When tax havens are banned, big companies pay their way and dividends are charged the same as income then yes raise tax but not before.

Edited May 15, 2020 by Dave85radiohead

[Zoo Music Girl]

51 minutes ago, Dave85radiohead said:

But you talked about the higher tax been at 80k before . At 60 at 40 per cent current you bring home just over 3600.

To answer your earlier question these people are are dentists,doctors,senior engineers, vets, Pilots , top scientists. 
 

A lot of our favourite musicians we talk about on here earn far far more money but you can bet they have a whole team of people making sure they pay as little tax as possible.
 

I just don’t understand why you would prefer to hike tax on people working their backsides off on PAYE rather than go after millionaires’ tax havens , corporations who aren’t paying anything like a fair level of tax and dividend payments not to mention a proper review of MP expenses. It’s just the easy and lazy option.

When tax havens are banned, big companies pay their way and dividends are charged the same as income then yes raise tax but not before.

Why not both? It's not either/or.

[Neil]

1 hour ago, Dave85radiohead said:

I just don’t understand why you would prefer to hike tax on people working their backsides off on PAYE rather than go after millionaires’ tax havens , corporations who aren’t paying anything like a fair level of tax and dividend payments not to mention a proper review of MP expenses. It’s just the easy and lazy option.

there's a reason why taxes are high on all people in the much-lauded "socialist" Sweden.
(yes, I know it's not socialist).

You can "go after" millionaires if you like (and I'd like, don't get me wrong), but their money can only be taken from them once (this year) - which doesn't cover the money needed by govt next year.

One of the ways 'the left' is going badly wrong and handing a stronger narrative to 'the right' is via the idea of going after the rich.

We *all* need to pay more taxes, even the poorest - because if govt is working wealth redistribution properly, those poorest will be better off than now if they pay more tax.

Edited May 15, 2020 by Neil

[Deaf Nobby Burton]

1 hour ago, priest17 said:

Great thread about international travel, guarantee we won't do anything close to this

And here's a dog meeting a horse coz it's early and Friday and you deserve it

 

That’s how zoonotic diseases start 😉

[Deaf Nobby Burton]

9 hours ago, Madyaker said:

So you can watch 24 cases a day go to 240 cases a day? 

Well yes,  that would be fine and more than manageable still. Daily peak in London was 230,000 per day: https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.standard.co.uk/news/health/londons-r-rate-now-lowest-in-country-as-city-records-24-new-coronavirus-cases-a-day-a4441216.html%3famp

[Madyaker]

On which day did 230,000 people test positive in london? I think you are mixing up the entire UK with london.

[mcshed]

5 minutes ago, Madyaker said:

On which day did 230,000 people test positive in london? I think you are mixing up the entire UK with london.

To be fair he isn't the only Londoner to have done that in the past.

[Deaf Nobby Burton]

10 minutes ago, Madyaker said:

On which day did 230,000 people test positive in london? I think you are mixing up the entire UK with london.

Read the article. Unless they’re wrong I’m just quoting them. And it wouldn’t be 230,000 actually testing positive, it would be based on modelling - just like the 24 cases per day is, and the ONS stat of 0.27% for two weeks during lockdown.

Edited May 15, 2020 by Deaf Nobby Burton

[Madyaker]

I read it. No citation for where they got that figure from. I suspect it was their rear end. The UK only 233,000 confirmed cases so far. No idea how many of them are dead, cured or currently active.

The fact remains. Opening up leads to more cases which eventually leads back to lockdown. Dublin is in the same boat here. I don't believe either of our governments or societies can or will do what the South Koreans and Tiawanese have done.

[Deaf Nobby Burton]

7 minutes ago, Madyaker said:

I read it. No citation for where they got that figure from. I suspect it was their rear end. The UK only 233,000 confirmed cases so far. No idea how many of them are dead, cured or currently active.

The fact remains. Opening up leads to more cases which eventually leads back to lockdown. Dublin is in the same boat here. I don't believe either of our governments or societies can or will do what the South Koreans and Tiawanese have done.

We know we can multiply the number of confirmed cases by at least 10 though, if not more. I’d agree it seems high though. Although it states Yorkshire still has the highest R at 0.8, with 4300 cases per day still, so there is some correlation to the figures if you consider the R in London was 4 at one point and the population is 9m.

Edited May 15, 2020 by Deaf Nobby Burton

[Madyaker]

4 minutes ago, Cream Soda said:

This site breaks it down, although there seems to be a delay in our reporting recoveries, as the figure hardly seems to change.  The global recovery rate goes up significantly each day, which is nice to see.  Some other countries must be tracking recoveries better than we are.

https://www.bing.com/covid/local/england_unitedkingdom

It does go up every day but it doesn't account for the millions who are currently being infected in India, SE Asia and Africa. Not much testing out there so we won't get case figures. 

Edited May 15, 2020 by Madyaker

[Deaf Nobby Burton]

I think that figure could easily be true, albeit based on modelling. At our peak we got close to 1000 deaths per day. If 230 of those deaths were in London then that would be 23k cases (only tasting serious cases at hospital at this point) multiply be 10 and there is your 230k. That’s 2.5% of the London population, considering they think 20% in London have been infected, they way virus spread exponentially It would make sense that about 2.5% of the 20% to be at the peak.

Actually those sums at the top make no sense as the mortality rate for tests at the hospital would be much higher, but the 2.5% of 20% makes sense to me based on how exponential numbers work.

Edited May 15, 2020 by Deaf Nobby Burton

[Deaf Nobby Burton]

The article has just been updated but with the exact date for the peak:

At the peak of the outbreak on March 23, the rate of infections in the capital was 230,000 a day. This dropped to around 10,000 on April 7 after the lockdown was enforced.

[D-Low]

3 hours ago, priest17 said:

Great thread about international travel, guarantee we won't do anything close to this

And here's a dog meeting a horse coz it's early and Friday and you deserve it

 

Interesting. "compulsory 14-day quarantine order once I arrive in Hong Kong. Penalty for violating the quarantine: HKD $25,000 and 6 months in jail" Our sham of a government wouldn't dream of coming close to this.

What did we get, open boarders and airports, and lots of posters in the arrivals asking nicely "please stay at home if you have flown" 🤦‍♂️. The threat of a £30 fine for flouting lockdown here is a joke. Although I don't agree with the tracking chip.

Edited May 15, 2020 by D-Low

[Madyaker]

Were going to be moving in and out of various forms of lockdown for the next few months I would imagine. The plan in Ireland (and in the UK and most other places) is to allow this to spread through the country at a controlled rate that the health system can handle. Controlling the rate of spread will be done by loosening and tightening the lockdown. Then once we reach about 60 or 70% infected the virus will slow down on its own as there just isn't enough suitable hosts anymore. This is our govs plan anyway. The've outlined 5 stages of easing the restrictions while making it very clear that we may move backwards as well as forwards to keep the case numbers at a level the hospitals can handle. The only thing I can see changing this in the near future is if we get some effective drugs.

[ghostdancer1]

Have you some official sources for that?

Because my understanding was that absolutely is not the plan, and I haven't seen anywhere official suggesting that it is.

We might have to tighten restrictions again if things get out of hand, but loosening and tightening restrictions to allow it to spread through 70% of the population is absolutely not what the plan is.

The plan is to suppress it as much as possible, loosen restrictions as much as possible, and for any new cases, apply contact tracing and isolate and suppress those cases too. The plan is to stop the spread completely and stamp it out as much as possible.

 

Edited May 15, 2020 by ghostdancer1

[Crazyfool01]

Am I right in saying that as more people have been infected then the peaks will be slower to rise ?  ... so if say  10 % have had it and have some form of immunity there will naturally be longer and longer amounts of time before we hit that nhs peak ? ( not withstanding the deaths at home and in care homes ) 

[mcshed]

1 hour ago, Madyaker said:

Were going to be moving in and out of various forms of lockdown for the next few months I would imagine. The plan in Ireland (and in the UK and most other places) is to allow this to spread through the country at a controlled rate that the health system can handle. Controlling the rate of spread will be done by loosening and tightening the lockdown. Then once we reach about 60 or 70% infected the virus will slow down on its own as there just isn't enough suitable hosts anymore. This is our govs plan anyway. The've outlined 5 stages of easing the restrictions while making it very clear that we may move backwards as well as forwards to keep the case numbers at a level the hospitals can handle. The only thing I can see changing this in the near future is if we get some effective drugs.

The problem with this sort of approach is that there increasing signs that the long term effects of having suffered COVID-19 are no picnic. 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-05-12/covid-19-s-health-effects-can-last-long-after-virus-is-gone

Not that this means we have to cower away indoors until there is a vaccine it's just we shouldn't be blasé about letting this run through the population. Track and trace to keep a lid the outbreaks is the way forward.

[stuartbert two hats]

10 minutes ago, crazyfool1 said:

Am I right in saying that as more people have been infected then the peaks will be slower to rise ?  ... so if say  10 % have had it and have some form of immunity there will naturally be longer and longer amounts of time before we hit that nhs peak ? ( not withstanding the deaths at home and in care homes ) 

I believe so.  I was listening to More or Less last week and they said that the R0 number is London is now lower than the rest of the population because of the number of people in the population who have immunity.

[efcfanwirral]

50 minutes ago, ghostdancer1 said:

Have you some official sources for that?

Because my understanding was that absolutely is not the plan, and I haven't seen anywhere official suggesting that it is.

We might have to tighten restrictions again if things get out of hand, but loosening and tightening restrictions to allow it to spread through 70% of the population is absolutely not what the plan is.

The plan is to suppress it as much as possible, loosen restrictions as much as possible, and for any new cases, apply contact tracing and isolate and suppress those cases too. The plan is to stop the spread completely and stamp it out as much as possible.

 

In theory that's the plan but it's not a realistic one. We need to suppress the virus to a point where testing and tracing is possible, which we haven't yet we're still lifting restrictions and trying to send kids back to school quickly. I think the actual plan is the herd immunity one (however dodgy the science is on that) but they can't just say that as I'm sure their social media monitoring has shown very little support for it when it was mentioned. 

They'll try test and trace, then say it doesnt work again. And the only reason it won't work is because the virus is so widespread in the country. Which leaves us with economic ruin or just controlling the spread. 

I hate this idea personally but I'm not a right wing Tory...

They'll have a lot to answer for though if a vaccine or treatment comes in a few months, as I feel they're going down the road of that being a bonus 

[Crazyfool01]

Scary news about diabetics last night ... I’m just waiting for news today on the age / type 1 / type 2 / obesity splits  for the first time since diagnosis it’s causing me issues 

Edited May 15, 2020 by crazyfool1

[Homer]

I read when all this began that the likely plan was to go in and out of lockdown restrictions to allow a steady flow through the NHS.

[DeanoL]

3 minutes ago, Homer said:

I read when all this began that the likely plan was to go in and out of lockdown restrictions to allow a steady flow through the NHS.

That's probably most sensible medically, but would be hugely damaging economically - one of the big problems is uncertainty at the moment - if places can re-open but then be shut again with a few days notice, then maybe having to re-furlough staff, etc. It'll be a nightmare. I think there's a definite desire to not have things close once they've been given the green light.