Phil Anderer wrote: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 wrote:Phil Anderer wrote: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 wrote:Keith wrote:Phil Anderer wrote: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 wrote: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.
KenH wrote:Wild Bill wrote: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.
KenH wrote:Wild Bill wrote: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.
Gone_Shrimping wrote: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 wrote:Gone_Shrimping wrote: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/
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 20 guests