Next UK lockdown?

[Wild Bill]

Boris and his gang are an absolute shambles. We learned the hard way in the spring that you lockdown late and more will die, the lockdown will be longer and our economy will suffer more. A two week lockdown wouldn't have been great but if done a month ago we could have got on top of things - providing test, trace and isolate was functioning as it should. Instead we are possibly looking at spending the rest of the year away from our friends and family and for some, possibly out of work.

[Keith]

When the Conservative MP, Iain Duncan Smith says the government have "given in to science", as if that's a 'bad thing' you know what the problem is.

[Phil Anderer]

Strong support in my mind for a theory I had developed over people's behaviour this morning. Mrs A & I subscribe to an app which has been conducting a months long study of Covid-19, and has over 4 million UK subscribers, therefore giving pretty meaningful results, and their research does feed into government. For weeks the figures for South Lakeland have been yo-yoing on a daily basis, up one day, down the next and so on. I felt this could only come from people travelling into the area knowing, or suspecting, that they have Covid, otherwise they wouldn't show on the stats. This morning, first day of lockdown 2, figures in South Lakeland have dropped from 627 to 522 in 24 hours. That can only have come from infected people vacating the area as they are forced to go home, given that only Friday there was a significant spike in numbers from just under 570 to 684 - Friday is a changeover day for lots of holiday lets, and also being the start of the weekend for people coming to their own holiday homes or to stay in hotels. It is precidely this sort of selfish behaviour that spreads the virus in the first place. Until people get the message and isolate when they might be infected we will never control the spread without a vaccine, which is not guaranteed, and the figures on the life of anitbodies kicks the 'herd immunity' theory completely out.

[Keith]

Until people get the message and isolate when they might be infected we will never control the spread without a vaccine, which is not guaranteed, and the figures on the life of anitbodies kicks the 'herd immunity' theory completely out.

Lockdowns are only a breathing space. The infections will drop but with the latest, 'half measures' lockdown, won't drop rapidly. If the government had actually listened to scientific advice, they could have locked down properly three weeks ago, including half-term, which would have made a huge difference, but hey-ho...

I don't think a vaccine is imminent and shouldn't be the goal. The light at the end of the tunnel is cheap, quick, easy, reliable testing. There are a few options that appear to be positive, including a test from Cambridge University that involves gargling tap water, then spitting it in to a sample pot. These tests take about 30 minutes and cost about 25p. If found to be highly accurate, the machines could be in schools, large workplaces, universities, airports etc. The population would get tested multiple times every week. As soon as tested positive, sent home to isolate. With a bit of luck, we could see this happening early next year. Just hope the NHS lasts that long.

[black morse]

Until people get the message and isolate when they might be infected we will never control the spread without a vaccine, which is not guaranteed, and the figures on the life of anitbodies kicks the 'herd immunity' theory completely out.

Lockdowns are only a breathing space. The infections will drop but with the latest, 'half measures' lockdown, won't drop rapidly. If the government had actually listened to scientific advice, they could have locked down properly three weeks ago, including half-term, which would have made a huge difference, but hey-ho...

I don't think a vaccine is imminent and shouldn't be the goal. The light at the end of the tunnel is cheap, quick, easy, reliable testing. There are a few options that appear to be positive, including a test from Cambridge University that involves gargling tap water, then spitting it in to a sample pot. These tests take about 30 minutes and cost about 25p. If found to be highly accurate, the machines could be in schools, large workplaces, universities, airports etc. The population would get tested multiple times every week. As soon as tested positive, sent home to isolate. With a bit of luck, we could see this happening early next year. Just hope the NHS lasts that long.

The problem with testing positive is that a lot of those who test positive refuse to isolate and do not give information of those they have been near. We live in a society with a large minority who don't care about anything except their right to do what they like.

[Wild Bill]

Until people get the message and isolate when they might be infected we will never control the spread without a vaccine, which is not guaranteed, and the figures on the life of anitbodies kicks the 'herd immunity' theory completely out.

Lockdowns are only a breathing space. The infections will drop but with the latest, 'half measures' lockdown, won't drop rapidly. If the government had actually listened to scientific advice, they could have locked down properly three weeks ago, including half-term, which would have made a huge difference, but hey-ho...

I don't think a vaccine is imminent and shouldn't be the goal. The light at the end of the tunnel is cheap, quick, easy, reliable testing. There are a few options that appear to be positive, including a test from Cambridge University that involves gargling tap water, then spitting it in to a sample pot. These tests take about 30 minutes and cost about 25p. If found to be highly accurate, the machines could be in schools, large workplaces, universities, airports etc. The population would get tested multiple times every week. As soon as tested positive, sent home to isolate. With a bit of luck, we could see this happening early next year. Just hope the NHS lasts that long.

The problem with testing positive is that a lot of those who test positive refuse to isolate and do not give information of those they have been near. We live in a society with a large minority who don't care about anything except their right to do what they like.

I think the problem can only be solved if everyone receives full pay to stay at home, particularly for those who have been in contact but are asymptomatic and not received a positive test themselves.

[BerlinWaller]

Haven't they found evidence of T Cells lasting for over 6 months?

[KenH]

I think the problem can only be solved if everyone receives full pay to stay at home, particularly for those who have been in contact but are asymptomatic and not received a positive test themselves.

I agree, but considering Rishi and The Treasury couldn't work out what SEISS grants would be available to the self employed, despite having the information via tax returns, hence excluding 2.9 million of them from the covid support schemes, I don't think they'd be capable of coming up with a workable system. It's apparently a scenario too complex for our politicians and civil servants, just like the problem in working out what support to give zero-hours contract workers, or people who've just started/finished employment etc. Then you have people who can still do their normal/business whilst working from home so who don't lose any money by isolating, etc. It's all a logistical nightmare. Probably the simplest way would be a fixed sum, based maybe at 75% of average earnings, so people on the lowest wages would get more than they "deserved" but those on average or higher earnings would get less.

[Wild Bill]

I think the problem can only be solved if everyone receives full pay to stay at home, particularly for those who have been in contact but are asymptomatic and not received a positive test themselves.

I agree, but considering Rishi and The Treasury couldn't work out what SEISS grants would be available to the self employed, despite having the information via tax returns, hence excluding 2.9 million of them from the covid support schemes, I don't think they'd be capable of coming up with a workable system. It's apparently a scenario too complex for our politicians and civil servants, just like the problem in working out what support to give zero-hours contract workers, or people who've just started/finished employment etc. Then you have people who can still do their normal/business whilst working from home so who don't lose any money by isolating, etc. It's all a logistical nightmare. Probably the simplest way would be a fixed sum, based maybe at 75% of average earnings, so people on the lowest wages would get more than they "deserved" but those on average or higher earnings would get less.

A universal basic income would be the simplest solution right now to fill the gaps in furlough. However, it would set a precedent that might be difficult to wind back from after the pandemic is over.

Poverty and fear of poverty are essential elements of free market capitalism. It's surprising though how money can be found for socialism when your voters fall on hard times.

[Gone_Shrimping]

I think the problem can only be solved if everyone receives full pay to stay at home, particularly for those who have been in contact but are asymptomatic and not received a positive test themselves.

I agree, but considering Rishi and The Treasury couldn't work out what SEISS grants would be available to the self employed, despite having the information via tax returns, hence excluding 2.9 million of them from the covid support schemes, I don't think they'd be capable of coming up with a workable system. It's apparently a scenario too complex for our politicians and civil servants, just like the problem in working out what support to give zero-hours contract workers, or people who've just started/finished employment etc. Then you have people who can still do their normal/business whilst working from home so who don't lose any money by isolating, etc. It's all a logistical nightmare. Probably the simplest way would be a fixed sum, based maybe at 75% of average earnings, so people on the lowest wages would get more than they "deserved" but those on average or higher earnings would get less.

I have helped quite a number of my self employed clients obtain successfully the 1st and 2nd grants with none of them rejected. They are mainly people in the building trade and also mobile hairdressers.
What has been the reason that 2.9 million have been excluded. I know some of the acting profession seem to be complaining but surely if people have filed a 2018/2019 SE100 before the extended deadline in May 2020 and they had self employed income included that was also their main income then they should receive some grant surely.

[KenH]

I have helped quite a number of my self employed clients obtain successfully the 1st and 2nd grants with none of them rejected. They are mainly people in the building trade and also mobile hairdressers.
What has been the reason that 2.9 million have been excluded. I know some of the acting profession seem to be complaining but surely if people have filed a 2018/2019 SE100 before the extended deadline in May 2020 and they had self employed income included that was also their main income then they should receive some grant surely.

Longer established businesses are indeed fine. It's the self employed set up/small businesses bought in the last 2/3 years that are being hung out to dry. Anyone starting/buying after 5/4/19 is automatically excluded. Those starting/buying in 2018 are often finding themselves excluded because of the 50% rule as it is (illogically) being used for full tax years whereas logic would dictate it should start on the date the business/self employment starts, so it's wrongly (in my opinion) taking into account income before the start of self employment that ended long before covid, such as employment income from a job that ceased 1/2/3 years ago, or income from a pension draw down, etc.

Re the start date, I understand that for the first SEISS payment in May when the 18/19 tax return was all that most s/e would have filed at that date. But it was less understandable for the August SEISS payment when many S/e will have filed their 19/20 tax returns, and completely unfathomable next month for the third SEISS payment when most s/e will have filed their 19/20 tax returns (the deadline being 31/1/21). The Govt have moved the furlough qualifying date for employees from March to October, so it's illogical they've not yet moved the SEISS qualifying period to include 5/4/20 tax year.

Older, established businesses are fine mostly, in fact, for those winding down or entering semi retirement, they' re VERY generous. but for relatively new start ups or for growing businesses, they're not so good. Even moreso for new start ups, in, say 2018 onwards, who had upfront costs of equipment, marketing, or slow burn getting customers on board, who made losses or low profits in the 18/9 tax year, but who show much higher profits for 19/20, but have now lost their entire income and are eligible for nothing, due to random policy decisions.

Then there's the other illogical £50k rule. An employee earning more than £50k qualifies for furlough of £2,500 per month. A s/e person with profits over £50k gets zilch. Why??

https://www.nao.org.uk/press-release/im ... -pandemic/

[Gone_Shrimping]

I have helped quite a number of my self employed clients obtain successfully the 1st and 2nd grants with none of them rejected. They are mainly people in the building trade and also mobile hairdressers.
What has been the reason that 2.9 million have been excluded. I know some of the acting profession seem to be complaining but surely if people have filed a 2018/2019 SE100 before the extended deadline in May 2020 and they had self employed income included that was also their main income then they should receive some grant surely.

Longer established businesses are indeed fine. It's the self employed set up/small businesses bought in the last 2/3 years that are being hung out to dry. Anyone starting/buying after 5/4/19 is automatically excluded. Those starting/buying in 2018 are often finding themselves excluded because of the 50% rule as it is (illogically) being used for full tax years whereas logic would dictate it should start on the date the business/self employment starts, so it's wrongly (in my opinion) taking into account income before the start of self employment that ended long before covid, such as employment income from a job that ceased 1/2/3 years ago, or income from a pension draw down, etc.

Re the start date, I understand that for the first SEISS payment in May when the 18/19 tax return was all that most s/e would have filed at that date. But it was less understandable for the August SEISS payment when many S/e will have filed their 19/20 tax returns, and completely unfathomable next month for the third SEISS payment when most s/e will have filed their 19/20 tax returns (the deadline being 31/1/21). The Govt have moved the furlough qualifying date for employees from March to October, so it's illogical they've not yet moved the SEISS qualifying period to include 5/4/20 tax year.

Older, established businesses are fine mostly, in fact, for those winding down or entering semi retirement, they' re VERY generous. but for relatively new start ups or for growing businesses, they're not so good. Even moreso for new start ups, in, say 2018 onwards, who had upfront costs of equipment, marketing, or slow burn getting customers on board, who made losses or low profits in the 18/9 tax year, but who show much higher profits for 19/20, but have now lost their entire income and are eligible for nothing, due to random policy decisions.

Then there's the other illogical £50k rule. An employee earning more than £50k qualifies for furlough of £2,500 per month. A s/e person with profits over £50k gets zilch. Why??

https://www.nao.org.uk/press-release/im ... -pandemic/

I had a few where 2018/19 was their first year in self employment and they received theirs based on 80% then 70% of the profit on those Tax returns. No problems with those.

I suppose people with profits over £50k were excluded on the basis that even if business has taken a dip then they should still be earning a living amount. Lots of anomalies but I think the Chancellor did a good job in such unusual circumstances.