So, coronavirus...

[Ted.]

Congratulations on being a sociopath.

I used to teach. The vast majority of the families whose kids were on free school meals were not profligate scum buying scratch cards and fags instead of feeding their kids, they were hard working people in low paid jobs who often struggled to make ends meet.

I have friends who are social workers or otherwise employed in the social care sector, shockingly, their experience doesn't seem to align with yours... They've also managed to refrain from becoming empathy vacuums.

As an aside, and I know we've covered this before, your anecdotal experience does not define the wider picture, nor is it superior to the anecdotal experience of others, so stop dropping it as though it's some kind of trump card. Assuming its even real.

Indeed and the majority of families even of the low earning don’t need free poor quality food in the school holidays.

As an aside I don’t give a fuck what a few Social workers say or report. I do know people who don’t prioritise feeding the children should be managed though.

Empathy argument is just so fucking childish.

Was anyone claiming anything remotely like that? Does that 'fact' lessen the need of those that do require that sort of assistance?

[Rinkals]

From what I can gather supermarkets are being restricted from selling clothes so that small retailers who have to shut are not losing business.

I’m not saying it’s right or wrong, just it’s not bogroll and bread only.

At least there's some logic behind it, however tenuous.

In South Africa, we had the situation where Government outlawed the selling of open-toed sandals (shoes were allowed).

The irrationality of some of the regulations spoke of the controlling instincts of officials which served to undermine public obedience in the measures and lose support for them.

That is a bit bizarre.

Weren’t booze and cigarettes proscribed too? I’m not a smoker but I used to be and that would have been tough.

Off licenses are staying open in Wales, so supermarkets can sell booze.

I can see why booze would be banned because your attitude towards social responsibility can change after a few drinks, and we do have a problem with domestic violence which alcohol in lockdown tended to exacerbate. Not to mention the emergency wards.

The cigarette ban was an odd one, though.

On the face of it, cigarettes would make a smoker more susceptible to a respiratory disease. Additionally, poorer people had the practice of passing round a lit cigarette for each person to have a puff.

However, the effect of the ban was to make cigarettes ten times more expensive, which just made it more likely that cigarettes would be shared.

It also provided criminal gangs with a lucrative revenue (Dlamini-Zuma's son is deeply involved in the illicit cigarette trade) which has helped them thrive during lockdown.

Another irrational thing was the limiting of exercise times when we first came out of lockdown. We were allowed outside to exercise between the hours of 6 am and had to be off the streets by 9 am. Which meant that the roads and parks and walkways were pretty congested between 8 o'clock and nine.

The irrationality of the measures spoke for the dictatorial attitude of some of our ministers and their disregard for their scientific advisors which eroded confidence in the rules and fuelled disobedience.

[Rinkals]

Remember folks Bimbo would rather kids starve so that he can continue afford his nice cars...

Blimey, coming from a man who started a “ look what I’ve just bought” thread.



Self aware as ever.

Sometimes I wonder if English isn't a second language for you Bimbo. Do you know what the term "self-aware" means?

[frodder]

Remember folks Bimbo would rather kids starve so that he can continue afford his nice cars...

Blimey, coming from a man who started a “ look what I’ve just bought” thread.



Self aware as ever.

you had the 1.6 205 GTi. You bloody cheapskate

[Northern Lights]

The answer for me is to keep increasing the min wage so employers are paying a proper wage and we reduce what is in effect Gov subsidies to private sector in form of in work benefits.

That's what we have been doing here - reduces company tax but we save more on less payments to low income families.

Worst sort of government subsidy we ever started - cost billions and all it did was allow the big companies to keep workers on low pay.

That is what they are doing here as well as can be seen from the increases in min/living wage, it has been done gradually over a few years so as not to cause chaos by flicking the switch overnight.

[dpedin]

The answer for me is to keep increasing the min wage so employers are paying a proper wage and we reduce what is in effect Gov subsidies to private sector in form of in work benefits.

That's what we have been doing here - reduces company tax but we save more on less payments to low income families.

Worst sort of government subsidy we ever started - cost billions and all it did was allow the big companies to keep workers on low pay.

That is what they are doing here as well as can be seen from the increases in min/living wage, it has been done gradually over a few years so as not to cause chaos by flicking the switch overnight.

It needs speeded up!

[Ted.]

So i suppose my question is more have these increases in min wage and living wage not had any impact, is it getting worse and what is the solution before we demonise the politicians again.

There isn't really a straightforward answer to that, foodbank use is on the increase, numbers claiming UC are difficult to keep track of because it's a fairly new system and combines several older benefits, I've been out of the loop for a few years now, but my experience was that ESA and DLA were becoming more difficult to claim, I was involved with dealing with Atos at tribunal and day to day correspondence.

I have to say the adjudicators at the tribunals themselves are very good.

I suppose for me it would be about separating 2 issues, there is in-work poverty and then the unemployed.

It is the in work one that i would hope has improved with the changes that have been made notably on the min/living wage increase and also the changes to the tax system which was initially a LibDem idea from memory but the tories stuck with when they were in coalition now up to £12,500 the ratey ou start paying income tax. The living wage is now far closer to the "Real living Wage" and would get there if they increase again in April, i do know they are worried about increasing it again when sectors such as hospitality are the best part of fucked at the moment with Covid so they will probably pause that increase. There would certainly be an argument for increasing the starting salary on when you pay income tax though and leave more money in the workers pockets than then having them reclaim what they need through the benefits system.

I think your previous question, the full question not just the extract, presupposes that the benefit or minimum wage/allowance is adequate in the first place. If it started from an inadequate position, then obviously increases that outpace inflation are not necessarily overgenerous or even adequate.

[Northern Lights]

That's what we have been doing here - reduces company tax but we save more on less payments to low income families.

Worst sort of government subsidy we ever started - cost billions and all it did was allow the big companies to keep workers on low pay.

That is what they are doing here as well as can be seen from the increases in min/living wage, it has been done gradually over a few years so as not to cause chaos by flicking the switch overnight.

It needs speeded up!

It really doesnt and as much as the drive to increase the min. wage is all very admirable there are going to be a number of problems with this, one it is going to make automation come in even faster and/or more offshoring will be done so there will be less jobs to go around. The jobs that cant be automated have just made the goods or services everyone if purchasing more expensive which in an already buggered economy is not what we are needing.

So your grand plan for businesses that are already on the verge of collapse is to significantly increase their cost base.

[Northern Lights]

There isn't really a straightforward answer to that, foodbank use is on the increase, numbers claiming UC are difficult to keep track of because it's a fairly new system and combines several older benefits, I've been out of the loop for a few years now, but my experience was that ESA and DLA were becoming more difficult to claim, I was involved with dealing with Atos at tribunal and day to day correspondence.

I have to say the adjudicators at the tribunals themselves are very good.

I suppose for me it would be about separating 2 issues, there is in-work poverty and then the unemployed.

It is the in work one that i would hope has improved with the changes that have been made notably on the min/living wage increase and also the changes to the tax system which was initially a LibDem idea from memory but the tories stuck with when they were in coalition now up to £12,500 the ratey ou start paying income tax. The living wage is now far closer to the "Real living Wage" and would get there if they increase again in April, i do know they are worried about increasing it again when sectors such as hospitality are the best part of fucked at the moment with Covid so they will probably pause that increase. There would certainly be an argument for increasing the starting salary on when you pay income tax though and leave more money in the workers pockets than then having them reclaim what they need through the benefits system.

I think your previous question, the full question not just the extract, presupposes that the benefit or minimum wage/allowance is adequate in the first place. If it started from an inadequate position, then obviously increases that outpace inflation are not necessarily overgenerous or even adequate.

Well it was more that the government recognised there was a problem and have tried to do something about it, the evidence of its success does not appear to be there hence the question.

The minimum wage was first introduced in 1999 by the Labour government of the time but in terms of increase were actually ramped up in the last 5 years. It was introduced at £3.60 ph in 1999 and had increased to £6.50 by 2014 so very roughly it took 15 years to get a £3 per hour increase, in the last 5 years it has increased by roughly another £2 ph, so i would contend the government havent been sitting on their arse with in work poverty they have actually tried to meaningfully improve it. There have also been changes to the tax system to make the starting rate much higher.

The problem as i see it now is that these increases have been possible when we have been fortunate with strong employment numbers, going forward over the next few years i dont see that being the case as contine to deal with Covid, I hope I'm wrong and we bounce back fast and robust but things arent looking good.

[Ovals]

We've just, 2 days ago, moved my 96 year old mum into a Care Home because we just couldn't, any longer, provide the level of care she needed at home. We'd been looking after her on a rota where each of us looked after her one day in four. Very difficult decision but we found a lovely Care Home with great staff and an impeccable record.

Today we get an email that two of the staff there have just tested positive for Covid19. Nothing we can do now but wait. Really sucks.

[ASMO]

Bimbot waiting for a quote ping on his phone

Actually you do know a Bimbot is an actual thing?

bimbot
The science-fiction version of a blowup doll, a bimbot is a robot, android, or otherwise cyber-entity that closely resembles a physically attractive human female and is built exclusively for the sexual gratification of its user.

[Northern Lights]

Has this been done yet:



It's long but interesting, bring on the wrath

[Insane_Homer]

20,530 new +cases
224 deaths

Unfortunately, on course for the death count to exceed 1,000 for this week

[Tichtheid]

Has this been done yet:



It's long but interesting, bring on the wrath

I didn't/don't have the time to listen to that, could you do a quick precis of it?

I searched for the bloke and what I found from a skim read of an article was him talking about the same false positives as Heneghan, again using a hypothetical random sample of the population and ignoring who is actually being tested

[Bimbowomxn]

Has this been done yet:



It's long but interesting, bring on the wrath

I didn't/don't have the time to listen to that, could you do a quick precis of it?

I searched for the bloke and what I found from a skim read of an article was him talking about the same false positives as Heneghan, again using a hypothetical random sample of the population and ignoring who is actually being tested

“ those clever Oxford professors have invented a vaccine”

“ the Oxford professors know nothing about epidemics “

[Tichtheid]

“ those clever Oxford professors have invented a vaccine”

“ the Oxford professors know nothing about epidemics “

Link to the paper, then show where he is not using a hypothetical random section of the population.



edit, look, I want this to be a scare story, I want it to be blown out of all proportion and for it to be a relatively harmless virus, no worse than season 'flu.

I would genuinely be happy to be shown that the government are completely wrong as I despise them, I'm your most receptive audience, just show me...

[Northern Lights]

Has this been done yet:



It's long but interesting, bring on the wrath

I didn't/don't have the time to listen to that, could you do a quick precis of it?

I searched for the bloke and what I found from a skim read of an article was him talking about the same false positives as Heneghan, again using a hypothetical random sample of the population and ignoring who is actually being tested

I won't do him justice tbf so it is better when you have time to listen to it.

[Bimbowomxn]

“ those clever Oxford professors have invented a vaccine”

“ the Oxford professors know nothing about epidemics “

Link to the paper, then show where he is not using a hypothetical random section of the population.



edit, look, I want this to be a scare story, I want it to be blown out of all proportion and for it to be a relatively harmless virus, no worse than season 'flu.

I would genuinely be happy to be shown that the government are completely wrong as I despise them, I'm your most receptive audience, just show me...

Heneghans work is all published. Easy to find, enjoy.

Though of course I’ve made no claims that it’s “harmless” or “all proportion”

[Tichtheid]

“ those clever Oxford professors have invented a vaccine”

“ the Oxford professors know nothing about epidemics “

Link to the paper, then show where he is not using a hypothetical random section of the population.



edit, look, I want this to be a scare story, I want it to be blown out of all proportion and for it to be a relatively harmless virus, no worse than season 'flu.

I would genuinely be happy to be shown that the government are completely wrong as I despise them, I'm your most receptive audience, just show me...

Heneghans work is all published. Easy to find, enjoy.

Though of course I’ve made no claims that it’s “harmless” or “all proportion”

I've already read it, I'd like you to talk us through it as you put so much stock in it.

[Bimbowomxn]

I've already read it, I'd like you to talk us through it as you put so much stock in it.

You’ve read it and think he calls the virus harmless?

Point me to when he does that and happy to discuss.

[Tichtheid]

I've already read it, I'd like you to talk us through it as you put so much stock in it.

You’ve read it and think he calls the virus harmless?

Point me to when he does that and happy to discuss.

I want you to talk us through his work on false positives as you keep harping on about it. I’ve already explained why I think it isn’t relevant, but you obviously think it is.

I’m interested to learn why.

[Tichtheid]

I've already read it, I'd like you to talk us through it as you put so much stock in it.

You’ve read it and think he calls the virus harmless?

Point me to when he does that and happy to discuss.

I didn’t attribute that to him, those were my words, that is what I want the virus to be.

I think you knew this, but I’m just clearing up any misunderstanding you may have.

[Bimbowomxn]

I've already read it, I'd like you to talk us through it as you put so much stock in it.

You’ve read it and think he calls the virus harmless?

Point me to when he does that and happy to discuss.

I didn’t attribute that to him, those were my words, that is what I want the virus to be.

I think you knew this, but I’m just clearing up any misunderstanding you may have.

“Link to the paper” “then show he” “

Link to the paper, then show where he is not using a hypothetical random section of the population.



edit, look, I want this to be a scare story, I want it to be blown out of all proportion and for it to be a relatively harmless virus, no worse than season 'flu.

It’s easy to get confused what’s attributable to whom.

[Tichtheid]

Ok, but now that is cleared up, let’s talk about his work on false positives.

[Bimbowomxn]

Ok, but now that is cleared up, let’s talk about his work on false positives.

Do you have any particular work in mind?

Something you don’t approve of, or his work which took 7,000 deaths from the official UK total.

[Tichtheid]

Ok, but now that is cleared up, let’s talk about his work on false positives.

Do you have any particular work in mind?

Something you don’t approve of, or his work which took 7,000 deaths from the official UK total.

This is like drawing teeth.


I’d like you to talk us through his work on false positives, I’ve asked you several times now.

Show what data he used and how he got to his reasoning on numbers of false positives

[Slick]

Ok, but now that is cleared up, let’s talk about his work on false positives.

Do you have any particular work in mind?

Something you don’t approve of, or his work which took 7,000 deaths from the official UK total.

You would have so much more time to do enjoyable things if you just said “no, I can’t” to these kinds of questions

[Bimbowomxn]

Ok, but now that is cleared up, let’s talk about his work on false positives.

Do you have any particular work in mind?

Something you don’t approve of, or his work which took 7,000 deaths from the official UK total.

You would have so much more time to do enjoyable things if you just said “no, I can’t” to these kinds of questions

Indeed, model making ? PlayStation?

[Jb1981]

Ok, but now that is cleared up, let’s talk about his work on false positives.

Do you have any particular work in mind?

Something you don’t approve of, or his work which took 7,000 deaths from the official UK total.

This is like drawing teeth.


I’d like you to talk us through his work on false positives, I’ve asked you several times now.

Show what data he used and how he got to his reasoning on numbers of false positives

No answer yet? It looks like the portrayed knowledge of false positives could in fact be a false positive.

[Bimbowomxn]

Ok, but now that is cleared up, let’s talk about his work on false positives.

Do you have any particular work in mind?

Something you don’t approve of, or his work which took 7,000 deaths from the official UK total.

This is like drawing teeth.


I’d like you to talk us through his work on false positives, I’ve asked you several times now.

Show what data he used and how he got to his reasoning on numbers of false positives

I’d like you to, your the one who described not me.


You claim to have read it....

Go , the floor is all yours. Which bit did you read that made you comment so critically?

Go on quite a few pages and critique it.

Have you really “ read it” ?

[Bimbowomxn]

Link to the paper, then show where he is not using a hypothetical random section of the population.

It’s a simple link as you’ve read it all.


“ I’m qualified to peer review Carl Heneghans sampling”



Come on, give us where the professor is wrong.


Tell you what, let’s leave this here. I’ve made no claims you have claimed to have read his work and further questioned his sampling.

I’ll carry on laughing at people who dismiss one professor so easily while accepting others from the same institution.

[Rinkals]

You really are a completely shameless spoofer, Bimbo.

That you can accuse others of lacking self-awareness simply beggars belief.

[Biffer]

Typical from this fucking prick bimbo. Makes claims then when asked to explain them says the other person should explain the claims he made, that he’s been using as his argument. What a mindless cunt.

[Sandstorm]

Just put him on Ignore. Then abuse him at YOUR leisure if you fancy.

[Tichtheid]

Link to the paper, then show where he is not using a hypothetical random section of the population.

It’s a simple link as you’ve read it all.


“ I’m qualified to peer review Carl Heneghans sampling”



Come on, give us where the professor is wrong.


Tell you what, let’s leave this here. I’ve made no claims you have claimed to have read his work and further questioned his sampling.

I’ll carry on laughing at people who dismiss one professor so easily while accepting others from the same institution.

No I won’t leave this here, I said his work on false positives are based on a hypothetical random sample, which is not relevant to the tests being carried out.

I’ve explained several times why this is not relevant, but you seem to still use him as a source to support your point of view.

I’m very much open to be being persuaded, as I’ve already said I loath this government so would very much welcome the evidence that they are getting this so wrong.

So, once again, I’ll invite you to go through Heneghan’s work on false positives and show how he is using real world numbers, and not hypotheticals.

If you won’t do this then don’t use him as a source.

[Biffer]

Just put him on Ignore. Then abuse him at YOUR leisure if you fancy.

He is. That’s what I’m doing.

[Bimbowomxn]

No I won’t leave this here, I said his work on false positives are based on a hypothetical random sample, which is not relevant to the tests being carried out.

I’ve explained several times why this is not relevant, but you seem to still use him as a source to support your point of view.

I’m very much open to be being persuaded, as I’ve already said I loath this government so would very much welcome the evidence that they are getting this so wrong.

So, once again, I’ll invite you to go through Heneghan’s work on false positives and show how he is using real world numbers, and not hypotheticals.

If you won’t do this then don’t use him as a source.

A simple link to his sampling statements would do. You’re the one who understands it all.

I didn’t claim any source I just laughed at the critics of a professor of Carl Heneghans standing who YOU claim is wrong about something, not me.

[Bimbowomxn]

Just put him on Ignore. Then abuse him at YOUR leisure if you fancy.

He is. That’s what I’m doing.

Indeed, your abuse is so cutting.

[Tichtheid]

yeah, that is what I thought.

You’ve no credibility Bimbo, not if you can’t put up when asked to.

[C69]

So locally on the ground we are told it's business as usual with locally treating more Covid patients than the first wave.
there is only so much resilience in the system.
Nosocomial infections are the main issue in house