Think the danger is that if they set the furlough back to what it started at for tier 3, then a national lockdown will see that extended across the country, and that comes at a huge cost.
If these restrictions remain in place until the new year, can we really expect the Govt to prop up every business until then.
There were times in the summer when the Govt paying more than 50% of the work forces wages.
The fact is this cannot be sustained, not all business and jobs can be saved and the system has been abused. I think everyone knows of people or employees who have played the system. No one is calling them out and it will have costed way more than the alleged "£100m contracts to Tory cronies"
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 4 minutes ago
Think the danger is that if they set the furlough back to what it started at for tier 3, then a national lockdown will see that extended across the country, and that comes at a huge cost.
If these restrictions remain in place until the new year, can we really expect the Govt to prop up every business until then.
There were times in the summer when the Govt paying more than 50% of the work forces wages.
The fact is this cannot be sustained, not all business and jobs can be saved and the system has been abused. I think everyone knows of people or employees who have played the system. No one is calling them out and it will have costed way more than the alleged "£100m contracts to Tory cronies"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If they are putting measures in then they have to provide sufficient support, if public health is the absolute priority. If they cannot afford to do that then they need to open things back up and roll with the punches. Can’t force people to stay out of work, face economic hardship and then not support them through it.
I agree. There has to be a balance between health and economy. If one fails, they both do, and it certainly won't be the ministers that feel the impact from it. I don't necessarily agree with a full lock down, but I think the tier system is just a complete waste of time that will end up bringing worse results down the line.
Surely they could have come up with a way of protecting the most at risk, while allowing the rest to try and get the country back up and running again. They had a list of 2.2 million vulnerable people months ago. There's a good start as to who we protect. If we say the 60+ too, and then surely every gp and social services dept could have provided any more numbers to the list.
Like everything this government have touched, this is just another clusterf**k.
comment by Ars is Foot (U10984)
posted 5 minutes ago
I agree. There has to be a balance between health and economy. If one fails, they both do, and it certainly won't be the ministers that feel the impact from it. I don't necessarily agree with a full lock down, but I think the tier system is just a complete waste of time that will end up bringing worse results down the line.
Surely they could have come up with a way of protecting the most at risk, while allowing the rest to try and get the country back up and running again. They had a list of 2.2 million vulnerable people months ago. There's a good start as to who we protect. If we say the 60+ too, and then surely every gp and social services dept could have provided any more numbers to the list.
Like everything this government have touched, this is just another clusterf**k.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The danger is with the "shield the vulnerable, expose the rest" approach is that it will inevitably lead to huge criticism from those who are worse affected by it.
So, for example, if you just let all students catch it, most are young and will not suffer greatly but there will be a proportion who are not, who suffer, who die and then the criticism will flow. Its effectively the herd immunity approach where by enough people catch it and recover so that it then becomes harder to transfer. It makes a lot of sense but is effectively exposing people to potential huge risk.
If you imagine a scenario of offering everyone deemed 'not at risk' an injection to catch it, so that they could then recover and get on with their lives then how many would roll that dice. They'd happily go to the pub and take the risk there (and then probably blame someone else, the govt etc if they caught it), but would they volunteer in this way. I say no as it is effectively russian roulette with a loaded gun with a bullet in one of 20 chambers.
Look at other countries Few are doing anything different. France with a curfew in 6 cities from 9pm to 6am.
Regardless of the approach, people are going to die and it's going to be expensive. I appreciate other countries are doing it like Spain, France, and Italy, but these countries have been implementing various local restrictions for months and it's not helping - cases are still going up, and up. Spain and France's leadership have probably never been less popular, either.
Of course, the protect the vulnerable approach is also not a silver bullet. I'm not saying outside the vulnerability groups all of a sudden get a free for all. They also need restrictions kept in place - masks, social distancing, covid "safe" work and transport environments, etc.
I'm just trying to find a balance, that you've been talking about. At the moment your county may have decent numbers, but there is nothing stopping people from outside travelling in. The counties on your border are being put into Tier 2, so it's only a matter of time before your in the same boat as alot of the rest of the country. Like I said earlier - a proactive approach is better then reactive.
Anyway, that's enough internet for me today. I'll pick this up again tomorrow. Stay safe 👍
comment by Ars is Foot (U10984)
posted 4 minutes ago
Anyway, that's enough internet for me today. I'll pick this up again tomorrow. Stay safe 👍
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Stay safe indeed.
Im now off to the pub to get shiiitfaced and hug strangers before playing night-cricket with the assembled masses on the high street at 10pm.
Sign in if you want to comment
Defiant but what can we do?
Page 2 of 2
posted on 16/10/20
Think the danger is that if they set the furlough back to what it started at for tier 3, then a national lockdown will see that extended across the country, and that comes at a huge cost.
If these restrictions remain in place until the new year, can we really expect the Govt to prop up every business until then.
There were times in the summer when the Govt paying more than 50% of the work forces wages.
The fact is this cannot be sustained, not all business and jobs can be saved and the system has been abused. I think everyone knows of people or employees who have played the system. No one is calling them out and it will have costed way more than the alleged "£100m contracts to Tory cronies"
posted on 16/10/20
*employers
posted on 16/10/20
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 4 minutes ago
Think the danger is that if they set the furlough back to what it started at for tier 3, then a national lockdown will see that extended across the country, and that comes at a huge cost.
If these restrictions remain in place until the new year, can we really expect the Govt to prop up every business until then.
There were times in the summer when the Govt paying more than 50% of the work forces wages.
The fact is this cannot be sustained, not all business and jobs can be saved and the system has been abused. I think everyone knows of people or employees who have played the system. No one is calling them out and it will have costed way more than the alleged "£100m contracts to Tory cronies"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If they are putting measures in then they have to provide sufficient support, if public health is the absolute priority. If they cannot afford to do that then they need to open things back up and roll with the punches. Can’t force people to stay out of work, face economic hardship and then not support them through it.
posted on 16/10/20
I agree. There has to be a balance between health and economy. If one fails, they both do, and it certainly won't be the ministers that feel the impact from it. I don't necessarily agree with a full lock down, but I think the tier system is just a complete waste of time that will end up bringing worse results down the line.
Surely they could have come up with a way of protecting the most at risk, while allowing the rest to try and get the country back up and running again. They had a list of 2.2 million vulnerable people months ago. There's a good start as to who we protect. If we say the 60+ too, and then surely every gp and social services dept could have provided any more numbers to the list.
Like everything this government have touched, this is just another clusterf**k.
posted on 16/10/20
comment by Ars is Foot (U10984)
posted 5 minutes ago
I agree. There has to be a balance between health and economy. If one fails, they both do, and it certainly won't be the ministers that feel the impact from it. I don't necessarily agree with a full lock down, but I think the tier system is just a complete waste of time that will end up bringing worse results down the line.
Surely they could have come up with a way of protecting the most at risk, while allowing the rest to try and get the country back up and running again. They had a list of 2.2 million vulnerable people months ago. There's a good start as to who we protect. If we say the 60+ too, and then surely every gp and social services dept could have provided any more numbers to the list.
Like everything this government have touched, this is just another clusterf**k.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The danger is with the "shield the vulnerable, expose the rest" approach is that it will inevitably lead to huge criticism from those who are worse affected by it.
So, for example, if you just let all students catch it, most are young and will not suffer greatly but there will be a proportion who are not, who suffer, who die and then the criticism will flow. Its effectively the herd immunity approach where by enough people catch it and recover so that it then becomes harder to transfer. It makes a lot of sense but is effectively exposing people to potential huge risk.
If you imagine a scenario of offering everyone deemed 'not at risk' an injection to catch it, so that they could then recover and get on with their lives then how many would roll that dice. They'd happily go to the pub and take the risk there (and then probably blame someone else, the govt etc if they caught it), but would they volunteer in this way. I say no as it is effectively russian roulette with a loaded gun with a bullet in one of 20 chambers.
Look at other countries Few are doing anything different. France with a curfew in 6 cities from 9pm to 6am.
posted on 16/10/20
Regardless of the approach, people are going to die and it's going to be expensive. I appreciate other countries are doing it like Spain, France, and Italy, but these countries have been implementing various local restrictions for months and it's not helping - cases are still going up, and up. Spain and France's leadership have probably never been less popular, either.
Of course, the protect the vulnerable approach is also not a silver bullet. I'm not saying outside the vulnerability groups all of a sudden get a free for all. They also need restrictions kept in place - masks, social distancing, covid "safe" work and transport environments, etc.
I'm just trying to find a balance, that you've been talking about. At the moment your county may have decent numbers, but there is nothing stopping people from outside travelling in. The counties on your border are being put into Tier 2, so it's only a matter of time before your in the same boat as alot of the rest of the country. Like I said earlier - a proactive approach is better then reactive.
posted on 16/10/20
Anyway, that's enough internet for me today. I'll pick this up again tomorrow. Stay safe 👍
posted on 16/10/20
comment by Ars is Foot (U10984)
posted 4 minutes ago
Anyway, that's enough internet for me today. I'll pick this up again tomorrow. Stay safe 👍
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Stay safe indeed.
Im now off to the pub to get shiiitfaced and hug strangers before playing night-cricket with the assembled masses on the high street at 10pm.
Page 2 of 2