Coronavirus - Part Two.

[andyofborg 11]

9 hours ago, tinfoilhat said:

Indeed. I know its not the R rate but I read that Knowsley is running about 1200 per 100k which seems huge.

It's one of the most deprived areas in the country. There seems to be a correlation between between deprivation and high infection rates. 

[Baron99 772]

22 minutes ago, andyofborg said:

It's one of the most deprived areas in the country. There seems to be a correlation between between deprivation and high infection rates. 

Not necessarily deprivation, otherwise it would be easier to identify all the deprived areas of the UK, plough resources into them by way of vaccines & cure the problem faster? 

 

Surely the correlation is that people cause the infection rates to rise?  Where people go, where people gather at the moment without social distancing, the virus will follow. 

 

Even in areas of deprivation, with large households / houses of multiple occupancy, if people follow the social distancing rules, wear face coverings as required, there wouldn't be any spikes in infection rates. 

 

Every little helps to control the virus.  The virus is non-discriminatory, it doesn't recognise wealth or deprivation. 

Edited January 23, 2021 by Baron99

[Becky B 31]

2 hours ago, Baron99 said:

Not necessarily deprivation, otherwise it would be easier to identify all the deprived areas of the UK, plough resources into them by way of vaccines & cure the problem faster? 

 

Surely the correlation is that people cause the infection rates to rise?  Where people go, where people gather at the moment without social distancing, the virus will follow. 

 

Even in areas of deprivation, with large households / houses of multiple occupancy, if people follow the social distancing rules, wear face coverings as required, there wouldn't be any spikes in infection rates. 

 

Every little helps to control the virus.  The virus is non-discriminatory, it doesn't recognise wealth or deprivation. 

I think some of it has to do with people not self-isolating when they should, as the can't afford to...

[tinfoilhat 11]

7 minutes ago, enntee said:

There is support funding available for those that are eligible.

 

Apparently out of 400k+ who have applied, 10k have been accepted. 

[whiteowl 54]

3 minutes ago, tinfoilhat said:

Apparently out of 400k+ who have applied, 10k have been accepted. 

Therein lies the problem. Hence people are working when they should be isolating - isolate or eat in extreme circumstances.

 

Over the last couple of days, it's been mooted that people should receive £500 when isolating which seems like a good idea to me. Isolation is 10 days so it's only 50 quid a day but as I suspect most people have blown a lot of their savings over the last year it could make the difference between people following the isolation instructions or not.

 

Costwise, assuming 250,000 people a week contract the virus (it's slightly above that as I write but dropping), that works out at 125 million a week. Over 6 months that would work out at 3.25 billion, an eye-watering amount but a fraction of the money spent on a failing track and trace system.

 

It's time to get a bit more creative to stop the spread of this virus.

[nikki-red 307]

If you lose income due to isolating you can get help anyway.

My fear would be that offering money to everyone needing to isolate would just lead to some people being even more irresponsible in an actual attempt to catch it and therefore pocket £500.

[RJRB 684]

I will be delighted when I get either vaccine but some of the shine is taken off by the differing medical views on the time gap between first and second jabs.

I think that I currently believer that the wider coverage gives the greater benefit to the population,provided that there is no evidence that this would allow or encourage further mutations of the virus which are resistant to the vaccine.

Its hard to follow the science when opinions are divided.

[Mister M 1,599]

In the last few days there has been a great deal of talk about these self isolation grants of £500. 

IIRC it followed neatly on from a public discussion about how the state of New York offered residents money and services (such as shopping and dog walking) so that those affected with the virus can stay at home for 2 weeks. Apparently in NY, there is a 90% compliance rate.

 

Sadly we know from this country that compliance with self isolation is anywhere between 11% (Why do so few Britons comply with a self-isolation order? | LSE COVID-19), or 18% (Only 18% of people self-isolate after developing coronavirus symptoms, UK study finds | The Independent)

 

A couple of days ago Matt Hancock 'flew the kite' that Britain could offer a similar scheme to New York.

 

Didn't go down well with the Treasury, who said it was too costly.

The Daily Mail were apoplectic with rage at the idea, claiming that it would lead to 'perverse incentives' for people to catch the virus so they could claim their £500. The Daily Mail reported on Hancock's idea in their usual way - Ministers eye astonishing plan to give EVERYONE testing positive for Covid a one-off payment of £500 | Daily Mail Online

 

Last night on Newsnight prominent backbencher Sir Geoffrey Clifton Brown expressed skepticism that offering such grants would be a bad idea as it would open the door to fraudulent claims. Similarly George Eustice said that the Government needed people to self isolate if they are contacted  by the official Test & Trace system 

 

I don't know whether it would work, whether the system would be scammed left, right and centre. Some definitely would try it on, doubt whether it would be that many though.

If people have the virus and have no support, can't the Government at least try to help by enabling marshalls or wardens to offer to do people's shopping? Is there a phone app that could use GPS so the person self isloating could prove that they are at home, or if not they would face a penalty or a fine???

 

 

Edited January 23, 2021 by Mister M

[RollingJ 1,986]

6 minutes ago, nikki-red said:

If you lose income due to isolating you can get help anyway.

My fear would be that offering money to everyone needing to isolate would just lead to some people being even more irresponsible in an actual attempt to catch it and therefore pocket £500.

Exactly, therefore stupidly risking death, overloading the health service and behaving like a lemming - but sadly they are out there.

[Baron99 772]

15 minutes ago, Mister M said:

In the last few days there has been a great deal of talk about these self isolation grants of £500. 

IIRC it followed neatly on from a public discussion about how the state of New York offered residents money and services (such as shopping and dog walking) so that those affected with the virus can stay at home for 2 weeks. Apparently in NY, there is a 90% compliance rate.

 

Sadly we know from this country that compliance with self isolation is anywhere between 11% (Why do so few Britons comply with a self-isolation order? | LSE COVID-19), or 18% (Only 18% of people self-isolate after developing coronavirus symptoms, UK study finds | The Independent)

 

A couple of days ago Matt Hancock 'flew the kite' that Britain could offer a similar scheme to New York.

 

Didn't go down well with the Treasury, who said it was too costly.

The Daily Mail were apoplectic with rage at the idea, claiming that it would lead to 'perverse incentives' for people to catch the virus so they could claim their £500. The Daily Mail reported on Hancock's idea in their usual way - Ministers eye astonishing plan to give EVERYONE testing positive for Covid a one-off payment of £500 | Daily Mail Online

 

Last night on Newsnight prominent backbencher Sir Geoffrey Clifton Brown expressed skepticism that offering such grants would be a bad idea as it would open the door to fraudulent claims. Similarly George Eustice said that the Government needed people to self isolate if they are contacted  by the official Test & Trace system 

 

I don't know whether it would work, whether the system would be scammed left, right and centre. Some definitely would try it on, doubt whether it would be that many though.

If people have the virus and have no support, can't the Government at least try to help by enabling marshalls or wardens to offer to do people's shopping? Is there a phone app that could use GPS so the person self isloating could prove that they are at home, or if not they would face a penalty or a fine???

 

 

My bold. 

 

But that's all it was, talk.  Based on a document someone has seen from the Govt's Policy Unit.  Just an idea someone suggested & now clearly dismissed. 

 

Ridiculous idea anyway.  Think of the additional administrative cost of running the scheme, including all the checks required to ensure that people weren't scamming the system to make quick money, much as in the same way that the furlough scheme has been scammed. 

 

It's an idea that's wide open to fraud. 

Edited January 23, 2021 by Baron99

[Delbow 682]

9 minutes ago, nikki-red said:

If you lose income due to isolating you can get help anyway.

 

The problem is that unless people have occupational sick pay, it's a risible amount and not easy to claim. It's even worse if you're in the gig (piece work) economy with no access to sick pay. These are the issues that unions like the GMB and IWGB have been campaigning organising around, and which have become even more pressing during Covid. We've become more reliant on delivery workers and the like during lockdowns, but their working conditions are often very poor.

[charliewag 19]

An increase in statutory sick pay from the current 90 odd quid a week would be a welcome boost for those having to self isolate. I lost approximately &600 when I had to and a work colleague has had to isolate twice because his wife and daughter tested positive at different times.