When will this shit end?

[steviewevie]

Just now, Fuzzy Afro said:

Tbf, if you eliminate the actual cost of going to work then you’re by definition reducing a person’s cost of living, so then they don’t need their full wage. 

Yeah, so it was 80% before, why reduce it?

[mcshed]

Just now, Fuzzy Afro said:

Tbf, if you eliminate the actual cost of going to work then you’re by definition reducing a person’s cost of living, so then they don’t need their full wage. 

People on minimum wage don't spend as much as you do at Pret for lunch. 

[JoeyT]

1 minute ago, steviewevie said:

well, pubs can hardly stay open if legally have to shut, no matter what. Burnham is mainly just arguing for the same payments to businesses and workers who have have to close and stop work as were in the original furlough scheme.

67% of minimum wage is not enough to live on.

So what happens if the government don't give in on the 67% and try to force the region in to close some sectors / businesses?

You don't think the rhetoric Burnham has used won't whip up even more of an anti-government movement? 

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

Of course the shine might start to come off Burnham if death rates start to rise significantly in Gtr Manchester.

yeah, he's playing a dangerous game no matter how right his stand is.

[JoeyT]

2 minutes ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

Tbf, if you eliminate the actual cost of going to work then you’re by definition reducing a person’s cost of living, so then they don’t need their full wage. 

Everyone's financial situation is different.

Not a situation where you can put everyone in the same basket with so many factors playing a part.

[Fuzzy Afro]

4 minutes ago, mcshed said:

People on minimum wage don't spend as much as you do at Pret for lunch. 

I’m not even sure if I’ve ever gone to pret before tbh? 

[Ozanne]

14 minutes ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

Looking at the case numbers now, London is perfectly safe. 

Troll. 
You know it’s not perfectly safe, stop with that. 

Edited October 16, 2020 by Ozanne

[Fuzzy Afro]

Between the cost of travel, work clothes, buying lunch etc I’d be very surprised if anyone can claim that there’s not a cost associated with going to work. 

[philipsteak]

5 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

perfectly.

The numbers in the few London boroughs I looked at were slightly lower than the numbers in my area, South Lakeland and there doesn't seem to be any talk of us moving in to Tier 2. Only Barrow-in-Furness has, but they are over 250 now though

[st dan]

If you ban households mixing (and for sake of argument let’s say that the majority stick to this rule) then there would be no real reason to shut pubs/bars/gyms etc would there?

Because most people who go to these places now aren’t high risk, and if households can’t mix then they’re unlikely to pass this on to those most vulnerable.  

[Fuzzy Afro]

Sadiq going on LBC. Someone needs to ask him what London needs to do to get back into tier 1. 

[steviewevie]

1 minute ago, philipsteak said:

The numbers in the few London boroughs I looked at were slightly lower than the numbers in my area, South Lakeland and there doesn't seem to be any talk of us moving in to Tier 2. Only Barrow-in-Furness has, but they are over 250 now though

but...population densities vastly different..superspreader events much more likely in a city like London.

[hogga]

3 minutes ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

Between the cost of travel, work clothes, buying lunch etc I’d be very surprised if anyone can claim that there’s not a cost associated with going to work. 

Billy big time here buys new clothes for work each day 

[Fuzzy Afro]

Just now, hogga said:

Billy big time here buys new clothes for work each day 

Well not every day, but a lot of companies charge you for their uniform, some office workers might buy new shirts once a year or so etc 

[stuartbert two hats]

28 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

Sadiq Khan is a very good Mayor, who’s acted brilliantly throughout, trying to help and save Londoners. His priority might not be making sure someone can see their partner but it shouldn’t be.

You're not suggesting that's Burnham's priority are you?  I know that when the headlines just say he's opposing the raising of a tier for Manchester you might think that, but you read the articles and watch the videos - you know he's primarily concerned with the economic, not the social impact of stricter lockdowns.

[st dan]

1 minute ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

Well not every day, but a lot of companies charge you for their uniform, some office workers might buy new shirts once a year or so etc 

So on your logic, you’re saying that people on £30k a year (around the UK average) are spending £10k a year on sandwiches, shirts and trains?

[Ozanne]

5 minutes ago, philipsteak said:

The numbers in the few London boroughs I looked at were slightly lower than the numbers in my area, South Lakeland and there doesn't seem to be any talk of us moving in to Tier 2. Only Barrow-in-Furness has, but they are over 250 now though

It’s a slightly bit different due to spread of population and travel through the region. He’s also acting now to try and be proactive to contain any further spread. 

[steviewevie]

At moment I am both agreeing with all sides of the argument and at the same time disagreeing with all sides of the argument. Glad I'm not in charge.

[Ozanne]

1 minute ago, stuartbert two hats said:

You're not suggesting that's Burnham's priority are you?  I know that when the headlines just say he's opposing the raising of a tier for Manchester you might think that, but you read the articles and watch the videos - you know he's primarily concerned with the economic, not the social impact of stricter lockdowns.

No that wasn’t my point, sorry! I know that Burnham’s main aim is more funding for business and people up in the North. Khan seems to want to try to control the spread and generally seems to be doing pretty well. It seems like someone has an issue with Khan because they can’t socialise. 

[eFestivals]

6 minutes ago, st dan said:

If you ban households mixing (and for sake of argument let’s say that the majority stick to this rule) then there would be no real reason to shut pubs/bars/gyms etc would there?

it's extra interaction with other people than if the pubs/etc were closed.

The simple average means the more mixing the more chance there is of new infections (and with a circuit breaker the idea is to break the infection chain).

[stuartbert two hats]

Just now, Ozanne said:

No that wasn’t my point, sorry! I know that Burnham’s main aim is more funding for business and people up in the North. Khan seems to want to try to control the spread and generally seems to be doing pretty well. It seems like someone has an issue with Khan because they can’t socialise. 

Ah, getcha!  I knew it didn't add up that you would be saying that

 

[st dan]

1 minute ago, steviewevie said:

At moment I am both agreeing with all sides of the argument and at the same time disagreeing with all sides of the argument. Glad I'm not in charge.

Very much this. In an ideal world. We would all go on a full lockdown for a few months (no work, schools etc) and that would go a long way to sorting all of this out. But that’s simply not a realistic option, and all of those on the table currently have major drawbacks somewhere. 

[steviewevie]

1 minute ago, st dan said:

Very much this. In an ideal world. We would all go on a full lockdown for a few months (no work, schools etc) and that would go a long way to sorting all of this out. But that’s simply not a realistic option, and all of those on the table currently have major drawbacks somewhere. 

and at same time the virus doesn't care about our squabbling, about Burnham or Khan or Johnson, it just will keep on doing what it does...infecting and spreading.

[st dan]

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

it's extra interaction with other people than if the pubs/etc were closed.

The simple average means the more mixing the more chance there is of new infections (and with a circuit breaker the idea is to break the infection chain).

But if the majority of people who attend these places are young, fit and healthy people who are happy to take the associated risks knowing they are unlikely to suffer any real effects (long COVID issues aside for the moment), then wouldn’t it allow the spread without any real impact to hospitals and death tolls, whilst at the same time somewhat protecting the economy and jobs?

Dont think this is a stance they should be taking, just thinking more hypothetically. 

[steviewevie]

1 minute ago, st dan said:

But if the majority of people who attend these places are young, fit and healthy people who are happy to take the associated risks knowing they are unlikely to suffer any real effects (long COVID issues aside for the moment), then wouldn’t it allow the spread without any real impact to hospitals and death tolls, whilst at the same time somewhat protecting the economy and jobs?

Dont think this is a stance they should be taking, just thinking more hypothetically. 

the problem is it inevitably spreads to more vulnerable sections of society.