Coronavirus (COVID-19)

[ICTChris]

Rishi Sunak is 5'7" tall.  You wouldn't think that but he is.

[renton]

12 minutes ago, Paco said:

 

 

Actually, hold on. An employee working 33% of their normal hours must be paid 55% of their wage by employers, with the government contributing another 22% on top. So 77% of the wage for 33% of the work.

Not bad for workers but what’s the incentive here for employers? If you run a pub, are you more likely to a) register for this and pay your workers more than they’re working, at a time your profits are down drastically or b) punt them and take on zero-hours staff?

I’m not following the logic of this. We’ll see how successful it turns out to be.

 

Does feel a bit ideological with No Deal Brexit on the horizon...

[Detournement]

12 minutes ago, Paco said:

 

 

Actually, hold on. An employee working 33% of their normal hours must be paid 55% of their wage by employers, with the government contributing another 22% on top. So 77% of the wage for 33% of the work.

Not bad for workers but what’s the incentive here for employers? If you run a pub, are you more likely to a) register for this and pay your workers more than they’re working, at a time your profits are down drastically or b) punt them and take on zero-hours staff?

I’m not following the logic of this. We’ll see how successful it turns out to be.

 

They are obviously trying to design it so that only workers that actually add value and aren't instantly replaceable are paid by the scheme. 

[Szamo's_Ammo]

Giving employees who, through no fault of their own, can't go to work 80% of their wages was obviously too much. Let's scale it back to 77% (with businesses paying much more) for some of them and throw the rest of them to the wolves.

What an utterly vile collection of reptiles the Conservative Party is.

Edited September 24, 2020 by Szamo's_Ammo

[Detournement]

5 minutes ago, Szamo's_Ammo said:

Giving employees who, through no fault of their own, can't got to work 80% of their wages was obviously too much. Let's scale it back to 77% (with businesses paying much more) for some of them and throw the rest of them to the wolves.

What an utterly vile collection of reptiles the Conservative Party is.

The focus needs to go onto making unemployment benefits generous enough for everyone rather than freezing the inequality level of February 2020.

[Dunning1874]

15 hours ago, Billy Jean King said:

That's the way they present the year breakdown stats.

Problem with your version is that virtually no 18 & 19yo are at school and even at 17 it will be reduced. The vast majority of the 15-19 bracket over the last week or so will be college or university students rather than school pupils.

Schools are open so a case needs to be made for closing them more than keeping them open. So far no such evidence has been presented.

Where's your evidence for this?

I assume you have some, seen as you've described anyone who's expressed doubts about schools as following "made up wee fairytales" for making assumptions based on data without being able to provide hard facts.

[renton]

https://mobile.twitter.com/RichardJMurphy/status/1309095429867536388

[vikingTON]

1 hour ago, Lambie's Pigeon Feed said:

Universities are fucking at it these days and this situation shows them up even more. They're entirely motivated by profit and funnily enough there are no fee reductions for this year and they are claiming 'there will be no loss of learning for students'. My missus is paying £6k a year for a masters, its moved entirely online for semester 1 with talk of being back on campus for semester 2 when that clearly isn't going to happen. The first two weeks have been lecturers failing to use conference tools properly and just reading off the slides they prepared.

Completely agree with this: if universities are providing online-only content then they should be forced to slash their fees accordingly. Anything else is a con. 

There's definite advantages to having a blended learning setup that all levels of education could apply after the pandemic: still having a set lecture in a big theatre at a certain time of the week is daft and doesn't reflect the needs of students today (increasingly mature and working at the same time as studying). Using those set times for tutorials and active group work while punting lectures onto a recording for students to view in their own time makes much more sense. 

[Sergeant Wilson]

1 hour ago, DA Baracus said:

Grass.

You'll end up in the Tay wearing concrete boots.

He wears them to play 5 a sides.

[renton]

3 minutes ago, MixuFruit said:

FFS. Children.

https://mobile.twitter.com/LeaskyHT/status/1309081167690432512

Brainless.

[NorthernLights]

4 minutes ago, MixuFruit said:

FFS. Children.

https://mobile.twitter.com/LeaskyHT/status/1309081167690432512

If we're going to have a pandemic best it be a red, white and blue pandemic.

[Sergeant Wilson]

52 minutes ago, Paco said:

 

 

Actually, hold on. An employee working 33% of their normal hours must be paid 55% of their wage by employers, with the government contributing another 22% on top. So 77% of the wage for 33% of the work.

Not bad for workers but what’s the incentive here for employers? If you run a pub, are you more likely to a) register for this and pay your workers more than they’re working, at a time your profits are down drastically or b) punt them and take on zero-hours staff?

I’m not following the logic of this. We’ll see how successful it turns out to be.

 

Continuing my Manc punk theme. In the words of Pete Shelley...What do I get?

Fūck all.

[mizfit]

There should be IQ tests before your allowed near smart phones.

Cretins.

[Szamo's_Ammo]

1 minute ago, mizfit said:

There should be IQ tests before your allowed near smart phones.

Cretins.

A spelling and grammar test as well, in my opinion.

[welshbairn]

I'm off to Wales via England on Saturday, any harm or point in having both apps on my phone?

[mizfit]

I'm off to Wales via England on Saturday, any harm or point in having both apps on my phone?

Download Germany’s to be extra safe.

[The Master]

11 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

I'm off to Wales via England on Saturday, any harm or point in having both apps on my phone?

The Google and Apple APIs are designed to support multiple tracing apps for this exact reason.

Well, not *exact* reason but you know what I mean.

[MrMartinBlack9]

2 hours ago, ahemps said:

I believe football in England is allowing fans in below national level and there has been fans at the early rounds of the FA cup games. I am guessing but I would imagine these teams get similar crowds to Junior/Highland/Lowland league teams.

Shame that this can't be applied to football in this country.

Remember on Twitter that a lot of English non league fans / clubs started a #LetFansIn campaign that eventually caught the attention of the Sports Secretary Oliver Dowden. 

Just wondering if something similar is needed here? I don’t know if there’s a Scottish equivalent to try & reach out to, but something along those lines seems like it’d be worth a try - what do you guys think?

[welshbairn]

Just now, The Master said:

The Google and Apple APIs are designed to support multiple tracing apps for this exact reason.

Well, not *exact* reason but you know what I mean.

Just downloaded the English one and it asks if you want to switch apps as only one can be active at a time. I'll just switch over when I get there.

[Eddie Hitler]

56 minutes ago, Detournement said:

The focus needs to go onto making unemployment benefits generous enough for everyone rather than freezing the inequality level of February 2020.

Lovely idea, in theory, and I do agree that that would be a good focus if certain workers' jobs can't be saved for whatever reason.

Many of those who might lose out in coming months are affected by working in industries which are viable enough in normal times and will be viable again when folk are able to get out and about the same as before. In short, they need a safety net to get through a lean period visited on them through little fault of their own.

The whole system of benefits *ought* to be providing a decent 'safety net' against illness and bad luck etc; this was supposed to be the whole point. It should help until folk can 'get back on their feet again'. To me, this means ensuring losing your job is not the start of a downward spiral but I am not sure the Tories in charge give two hoots about that.

So there's the problem; we are ruled over by people who do not want to provide a 'safety net'; only do as little as they can  to provide the illusion that they are so that other folk (Tory voters) will feel justified shouting that enough is being done already. These folk are in charge for at least the next four years and something needs done *now* to help those who are suffering and about to feel the effects of Sunak's announcement today. By the time there is a Labour government which has been able to implement anything, half a decade will have passed (and that's optimistically resting on them winning the next election) and that's if they are even minded to reform the benefits system at all. Ultimately, proper reform of the system is needed but has to be something for later and you are pissing in the wind if you expect it to be delivered by a Westminster government of any hue in the coming decades, far less months.