Well, NHS staff aren't at significantly higher risk despite political claims to the opposite. Normal service should resume where possible.
https://www.itv.com/news/2020-05-11/...rtain-key-job/
+ Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
God I wished I lived in Denmark. Light years ahead of our buffoons in Wales
Well, NHS staff aren't at significantly higher risk despite political claims to the opposite. Normal service should resume where possible.
https://www.itv.com/news/2020-05-11/...rtain-key-job/
Isn't it that they're at higher risk of getting it just if they get it they have the same mortality rate as the majority. So I don't think the political claims are wrong in that sense.
I'd be interesting why people in those jobs have a higher mortality rate?
Some are quite sedantry jobs? Some are morel likely to have older men? Some might expose them to a higher viral load?
Chancellor has just announced that furlough scheme is to be extended to October.
Same terms until end of June. More flexibility allowing some part term working, employers to share some of the cost but employees will still get 80% up to £2,500. I'm saying this from memory so don't take it as gospel.
More detail to be published later.
I think it is generally recognised that Sunak has been probably the most impressive member of the cabinet during the crisis ( not difficulty I know some of you will say!!).
Would not be at all surprised to see a changing of the guard in the next couple of years with Boris stepping down (possibly following a heavy hint from the men in grey suits) and Sunak moving up.
I don't think it's quite as simple as money v people. Life for almost everyone has been hugely affected by the restrictions that have been imposed in a bid to conquer Covid-19 despite the fact that the vast majority of the population stand little or no chance of either falling seriously ill or dying as a result of the virus.
By and large, I think most people have thus far taken the restrictions in good faith and have reacted pretty well under the circumstances. However, it's blatantly obvious that society simply can't go on operating like this indefinitely. The economy is clearly a huge factor in how things will work going forward, but so is the way in which we want to live our lives.
He's a new boy, so he's got no baggage which helps him, but I agree - from what I've seen so far, he does have an air of authority which to my, admittedly biased, eyes, his Cabinet colleagues tend to lack and he looks a future leader of the party, and probably the country, currently.
Good news that the furlough scheme is to be extended - I would think the extension comes with the hope that it will not cost as much in the next four months as it has in its first two.
I just saw on the BBC that in Wales and Mr Gethin said that 42,000 people had been tested and 11,000 tests proved positive.
This means something like a quarter of the population appears to have the virus. clearly not all of those a critically ill or even hospitalised so is this figure actually a good thing in disguise?
The other factor is that the people being tested are in high risk circumstances but until testing they may still have infected others not i not at high risk.
Does it tend to prove that the vast majority of people get it only mildly and also does it mean that with far more people getting it and recovering without hospitalisation that more and more will have the antibodies which (hopefully) will prevent them getting it again and there there will be fewer people from whom we can then catch it?
The number seems high but is it a good thing in the long term or a bad thing?
Any thoughts?
Not entirely
Sunak - "Until the end of July there will be no changes whatsoever, then from August to October the scheme will continue".
How widely the idea was reported would also imply that the government allowed the press to release the news, saw the negative reaction, and decided against it
lol but I just wonder if they can use that figure to project the probable infection across the board. 25% of those tested have it and as I said they are in what are rated as high risk, but can the clinicians/advisors use that figure to look at the whole population?
If (as they now appear to think) someone whop has had it cannot get it again, at least in the short term there will gradually be less and less of the population at risk. I was just wondering if the can work out the probably time line to a point where they consider it under complete control
I'm pretty sure the 42,000 in Wales who have been tested will have been health workers, care workers, the emergency services, people in hospital, people in care homes, etc. And I suspect a significant percentage of those people will have had to be displaying symptoms in order to get tested in the first place.
Random members of the public with no symptoms haven't been tested. Therefore, the figures you quoted are highly unlikely to be in any way accurate as regards the general population.
I think people are over-egging Shunaks appeal as a future leader. Hes the one cabinet member giving out good news at the moment, hes not had the difficult ride off the people and the media that his colleagues have had.
Yes, hes articulating better than his colleagues, christ thats not difficult, but hes not under the same scrutiny.
What I read was not that, but that there were higher rates of infection in other occupations. The reason given was that although NHS workers are in high risk environments that have a higher level of protection generally than people in other risk occupations.
the arcticle I read actually suggested that the infection rate amongst NHS workers is about the same percentage as in the general population.