Coronavirus outbreak

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

vickster

Legendary Member
I know a fair few "white van men" who have claimed furlough but taken jobs on the side.
I would imagine it's pretty widespread. I've had a few jobs done around the house - not one tradesman has replied saying "sorry on furlough until September"
If you know them, and that they have definitely claimed the grants illegitimately, report them... I'm sure HMRC would love to take a detailed look at their last 7 years of tax returns ;)
 
Last edited:

Beebo

Firm and Fruity
Location
Hexleybeef
There is nothing to stop you working For another company whilst on furlough.
you just can’t work for the company paying the furlough.
it’s one of the loop holes which can be abused.
 

SkipdiverJohn

Deplorable Brexiteer
Location
London
Why is it meaningless? On August 13, the US saw it's largest single day death toll at 1,499 with a 17 day running average per day of 1,000. I realize that the number of deaths will fluctuate for various reasons. And I'm glad you can do the simple math. There are many who can't. And I have no problem doing it for them.

You have a particular axe to grind about Trump, because you dislike him, so you are seeking to extrapolate the numbers to give the worst possible outcome.
Unfortunately for you the infections have since peaked and the daily numbers have fallen very substantially, especially in the recent hotspot states. The death rate has also stayed way lower than earlier in the outbreak, and there is no way the numbers are going to come anywhere near the 400,000 figure you're touting. I would be surprised if they exceeded 250,000 over a whole year, which would not be that terrible compared on a population size basis.
 

marinyork

Resting in suspended Animation
Location
Logopolis
You also have a particular axe to grind because you like him so much. But you may not realize how much like him you are. My point, is you both like to say things that are not true. The infections have not peaked here. The entire middle of the country is seeing escalating numbers of infections. Any decline overall is very small. The states experiencing increases are the Dakotas, Wyoming, Maine, Rhode Island, Kansas, Arkansas, Iowa and Mississippi, among others. And what we've seen in the past several months is that in areas where the rates of infections declines, people become complacent and think they can go back to normal life. Thats when we see the parties and large gatherings of people. And then we see the spikes. It's happened repeatedly. And after almost 6 months of the pandemic, tallying the totals and extrapolating an annual outcome actually becomes MORE accurate as time goes by, rather than less. If you studied statistics you might understand this concept. The US is now over 180,000 deaths. And you think we will only see an additional 70,000 deaths over the next 6 months? I wish what you were saying were true but the reality is the numbers don't support your "prediction". In fact, you've provided literally nothing to support your number. 400,000 isn't worst case. Worst case would be if we saw bigger spikes that would result in more deaths which could put the number closer to 500,000. But you go right ahead and make baseless claims using no statistics whatsoever. Donald and John. You two go together well.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health...king-the-spread-of-the-coronavirus-in-the-u-s

Very few people in the UK like Trump, it's just we don't use the very colourful and aggressive language you do. You behave exactly like Trump.

There are four months of 2012 left, an additional 70,000 deaths might not be too far out because...

Did it not occur to you that skipdriverjohn had bothered to read sources from three weeks ago that predicted 230,000 deaths by November? Add on a bit and not far from 250,000. The issue around that is November and December could be nasty months.

It's you that needs the work on the faulty thinking and reading around. Not anyone else.
 

MntnMan62

Über Member
Location
Northern NJ
 

classic33

Leg End Member
A vaccine could be a game changer but many are not predicting a vaccine being viable until very late this year. And if that does happen, it will take quite some time to distribute. And then of course we will have the anti-vaxers to consider. So I highly doubt a vaccine will come into play in reducing the numbers this year. I guess we'll just have to see who's "prediction" ends up being true. I actually hope John's prediction is the correct one. I should also add that 400,000 number would be an annualized number from the beginning of the pandemic here in the US which was essentially the beginning of March. So it is not implausible to see 400,000 dead in the US by the end of February 2021. Again, I hope to god I'm wrong.
Could and maybe's seldom save anything.

You're hoping that a vaccine is available by the end of the year, just don't pin your hopes on that. Then factor in the fact that there will be those who will have reactions to it. Just like any other medication. Means it's not the cure all you seem to be pinning your hopes on.
 

MntnMan62

Über Member
Location
Northern NJ
Could and maybe's seldom save anything.

You're hoping that a vaccine is available by the end of the year, just don't pin your hopes on that. Then factor in the fact that there will be those who will have reactions to it. Just like any other medication. Means it's not the cure all you seem to be pinning your hopes on.

I was just reacting to @marinyork saying that a vaccine could change things up. I'm not pinning my hopes on anything at this point. I would assume my comments clearly indicate that. That said, a vaccine that is well tested prior to being released to the public should do what it's supposed to do. And I fully expect a covid vaccine to be of a relatively short duration and one that requires annual if not more frequent boosters. I think I've got a realistic perspective on things.
 

classic33

Leg End Member
I was just reacting to @marinyork saying that a vaccine could change things up. I'm not pinning my hopes on anything at this point. I would assume my comments clearly indicate that. That said, a vaccine that is well tested prior to being released to the public should do what it's supposed to do. And I fully expect a covid vaccine to be of a relatively short duration and one that requires annual if not more frequent boosters. I think I've got a realistic perspective on things.
Anything in use in less than five years is rushed. Average is 12 years from conception to release for general use.
 

MntnMan62

Über Member
Location
Northern NJ
Anything in use in less than five years is rushed. Average is 12 years from conception to release for general use.

You know better than I would. I'm in real estate, not science. But I think our choice of quotes in our signatures appear to be somewhat aligned.

"Reality is merely an illusion, although a very persistent one". Albert Einstein
"Absurdity is the only reality... "- Frank Zappa
 

Ming the Merciless

There is no mercy
Location
Inside my skull
News of someone reinfected with coronavirus not as concerning as it might at first appear?

He had fever etc first time and no symptoms this time. Immunity doesn’t stop infection is just stops it getting very far. Like the article says 1 case in 3m. Mind since many countries including U.K. are missing / not taking opportunities to test people with none (of the obvious) symptoms who knows the real rate?
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom