CV19 - Cure worse than the disease? (Vol 11)
Discussion
Smollet said:
Ntv said:
I do think state pension should be zero increase FWIW
Care to explain unless of course you think pensioners are exempt from cost of living increases in food, utilities, council tax etc??It will take decades to unwind and i see no appetite for any party to take on the challenge to insist that every individual is forced to save for the own retirement.
Nickgnome said:
Its an interesting supposition. However I can say that my max direct and indirect taxation was inn the 5 years before i retired. Now direct Tax is much less but indirect probably a bit more. My parents spend profile was not dissimilar until the got into their 80s when failing health prevented them from travelling as much. It was a pretty steep decline over 5 years or so. It got to the point that their inc one was greater than their spend. My outlaws at the time were very similar.
I'm not sure what the break even point is to warrant being a net contributor. Possibly £30k as and individual adult? Twice that with a partner and 2 children. Bit of a WAG.
Indirect tax paid in, where are you now, Estonia? I'm not sure what the break even point is to warrant being a net contributor. Possibly £30k as and individual adult? Twice that with a partner and 2 children. Bit of a WAG.
Nickgnome said:
Affordability? Unfortunately we have an unsustainable model. Expecting the working population to support non working pensioners is fundamentally wrong.
It will take decades to unwind and i see no appetite for any party to take on the challenge to insist that every individual is forced to save for the own retirement.
Strange how you support a lockdown model whereby we actively prevent anyone of working age earning a living and therefore saving for their own retirement just so we can try and prolong the life of people that are solely reliant on the state? That’s costing us £1bn a day. What is the State pension costing?It will take decades to unwind and i see no appetite for any party to take on the challenge to insist that every individual is forced to save for the own retirement.
Summer lockdown to protect the NHS
Fail link to Kent doom and gloom
at least we should all be able to have at least a meal or two and a couple of pints before, although maybe not if you haven't got your freedom pass...
Fail link to Kent doom and gloom
at least we should all be able to have at least a meal or two and a couple of pints before, although maybe not if you haven't got your freedom pass...
Nickgnome said:
oyster said:
To add:
Public sector workers - pay freeze
Pensioners - inflation-busting pay rise
I am one of those pensioners and for many of us it is entirely wrong. Public sector workers - pay freeze
Pensioners - inflation-busting pay rise
However there are millions of pensioners whose only income is that state pension It is about £175/week which does not go far if you are in rented accommodation.
jameswills said:
Nickgnome said:
Affordability? Unfortunately we have an unsustainable model. Expecting the working population to support non working pensioners is fundamentally wrong.
It will take decades to unwind and i see no appetite for any party to take on the challenge to insist that every individual is forced to save for the own retirement.
Strange how you support a lockdown model whereby we actively prevent anyone of working age earning a living and therefore saving for their own retirement just so we can try and prolong the life of people that are solely reliant on the state? That’s costing us £1bn a day. What is the State pension costing?It will take decades to unwind and i see no appetite for any party to take on the challenge to insist that every individual is forced to save for the own retirement.
t happens. I am resigned to accept the restrictions. Your linkeage does you a disservice. Those people did work and help build the society that got you your education. They have little or no ability to change their circumstances now. You have.
No idea what the stat pension costs. You can look it up if you are interested.
n3il123 said:
Summer lockdown to protect the NHS
Fail link to Kent doom and gloom
at least we should all be able to have at least a meal or two and a couple of pints before, although maybe not if you haven't got your freedom pass...
It's laughableFail link to Kent doom and gloom
at least we should all be able to have at least a meal or two and a couple of pints before, although maybe not if you haven't got your freedom pass...
We didn't have this last year and we didn't have the vaccinations last year
Complete and utter b0llocks
Boringvolvodriver said:
On those points we can agree - the state pension should be means tested - if your income in retirement is above a certain level (not sure what level tbf) then you are not eligible for the state pension - a bit like the Child Benefit stops when income reaches a certain point.
Agreed or do it via income tax so it is progressively reduced.CAH706 said:
n3il123 said:
Summer lockdown to protect the NHS
Fail link to Kent doom and gloom
at least we should all be able to have at least a meal or two and a couple of pints before, although maybe not if you haven't got your freedom pass...
It's laughableFail link to Kent doom and gloom
at least we should all be able to have at least a meal or two and a couple of pints before, although maybe not if you haven't got your freedom pass...
We didn't have this last year and we didn't have the vaccinations last year
Complete and utter b0llocks
I see NHS planning for a potential increase in cases. Very sensible in my opinion.
Where in that article have the government said there will be a lockdown?
You guys need to get a grip.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/nz-hospitals-in-cris...
Interesting news from the land of Zero Covid down under, hospitals overwhelmed and patients being treated in corridors - in their summer?
Interesting news from the land of Zero Covid down under, hospitals overwhelmed and patients being treated in corridors - in their summer?
Nickgnome said:
Did I misread the article.
I see NHS planning for a potential increase in cases. Very sensible in my opinion.
Where in that article have the government said there will be a lockdown?
You guys need to get a grip.
Best case the trust scenario has is worse than last April.....right. I see NHS planning for a potential increase in cases. Very sensible in my opinion.
Where in that article have the government said there will be a lockdown?
You guys need to get a grip.
Latest tweet from Hancock
https://twitter.com/MattHancock/status/13750982371...
So if that is the case, why do we still have restrictions?
https://twitter.com/MattHancock/status/13750982371...
So if that is the case, why do we still have restrictions?
Otispunkmeyer said:
Same. No issue with Vaccines. Its the coercion I do not like.
I also think the speed with which these have been developed and rolled out is cause for a little concern, but actually having listened to those in the know about how these things get done, it does sound like most of the normal steps and processes were done and passed through. The difference was, government writing a blank cheque meant they could just get on and get through these steps in sequence and at speed.
But its just the coercion angle I don't like. I mean maybe someone can just correct my logic here but, as I see it:
1) the vaccines are known to A) significantly reduce the chance of getting severe illness and or ending up in hospital. B) As far as we know, AZN vaccine is also supposed to show up to 70% transmission reduction.
2)The older age groups, 70, 80, 90 are the groups most likely to get severe illness and need hospital. Indeed, this is where we have seen the most deaths and hospitalisations.
3) The vaccine should help those groups immeasurably, keeping them from getting too ill and keeping them from hospital. Though there will be some for whom the vaccine just won't help. Sad, but dare I say it? that is life.
4) The younger groups (i.e. 40 and under), in general, are not at risk of severe illness or of having to visit a hospital. In general, people is this group can just brush this off as a week of feeling grotty. Some more grotty than others granted, but its not life/death.
5) So for this group the benefit of the vaccine is minimal? The only thing would be reduced transmission....BUT!
6) Reduced transmission is said to be from reduced symptoms. If the 40 and unders don't get much in the way of symptoms (again, generally) then is that not the same? Proof of asymptomatic spread is scant? I've seen general feeling of 1 in 5 might be capable of it and of those they are much less likely to spread anyway because of their lack of symptoms. proof of vaccines stopping asymtomatic spread is....is there any?
7) Does it actually matter if the younger groups can spread it if the elderly and otherwise vulnerable are protected already? (save for the cohort where the vaccine is just not effective for whatever reason)... does vaccination of this group actually infer any protection on the older group? (i.e. say we swapped the process, vaccinated everyone under 50 first, would that actually then protect the elderly?)
I dunno, the last points, it just feels like it all circles back to just how many can you protect, how many cases is acceptable, how many deaths is acceptable. This conversation needs to had because its a real thing. We cannot do zero cases, zero deaths, its not practical and the cost is tremendous.
So to me, its just like the flu jab I don't get every year, because I judge that I don't really need it. I've had flu a handful of times, its not the best, but equally they've all been quite mild and after some days resting it off, all is right with the world.
Why can't the covid vaccine be like that?
The trouble is that we still don't know how many people have been exposed to the virus. I also think the speed with which these have been developed and rolled out is cause for a little concern, but actually having listened to those in the know about how these things get done, it does sound like most of the normal steps and processes were done and passed through. The difference was, government writing a blank cheque meant they could just get on and get through these steps in sequence and at speed.
But its just the coercion angle I don't like. I mean maybe someone can just correct my logic here but, as I see it:
1) the vaccines are known to A) significantly reduce the chance of getting severe illness and or ending up in hospital. B) As far as we know, AZN vaccine is also supposed to show up to 70% transmission reduction.
2)The older age groups, 70, 80, 90 are the groups most likely to get severe illness and need hospital. Indeed, this is where we have seen the most deaths and hospitalisations.
3) The vaccine should help those groups immeasurably, keeping them from getting too ill and keeping them from hospital. Though there will be some for whom the vaccine just won't help. Sad, but dare I say it? that is life.
4) The younger groups (i.e. 40 and under), in general, are not at risk of severe illness or of having to visit a hospital. In general, people is this group can just brush this off as a week of feeling grotty. Some more grotty than others granted, but its not life/death.
5) So for this group the benefit of the vaccine is minimal? The only thing would be reduced transmission....BUT!
6) Reduced transmission is said to be from reduced symptoms. If the 40 and unders don't get much in the way of symptoms (again, generally) then is that not the same? Proof of asymptomatic spread is scant? I've seen general feeling of 1 in 5 might be capable of it and of those they are much less likely to spread anyway because of their lack of symptoms. proof of vaccines stopping asymtomatic spread is....is there any?
7) Does it actually matter if the younger groups can spread it if the elderly and otherwise vulnerable are protected already? (save for the cohort where the vaccine is just not effective for whatever reason)... does vaccination of this group actually infer any protection on the older group? (i.e. say we swapped the process, vaccinated everyone under 50 first, would that actually then protect the elderly?)
I dunno, the last points, it just feels like it all circles back to just how many can you protect, how many cases is acceptable, how many deaths is acceptable. This conversation needs to had because its a real thing. We cannot do zero cases, zero deaths, its not practical and the cost is tremendous.
So to me, its just like the flu jab I don't get every year, because I judge that I don't really need it. I've had flu a handful of times, its not the best, but equally they've all been quite mild and after some days resting it off, all is right with the world.
Why can't the covid vaccine be like that?
The Biobank antibody survey published in Dec suggests a minimum of 4.2 million. However, if we assume an IFR of 1% and work back from current deaths this will be more like 13.6 million.
Lets say we have a third wave which adds 50% more infections, no more vaccinations under 50 and 80% protection from death for everyone else.
In that scenario you would expect to see around 15,000 more deaths.
However, thats still only 20million infected. To get to herd immunity you need to wait out 3 more waves. So we might see 60,000 more deaths over the next couple of years.
The argument is that more vaccines in younger people might reduce that. I don't have a problem with encouraging this and promoting the vaccine. But I absolutely draw the line at coercion.
Nickgnome said:
Boringvolvodriver said:
On those points we can agree - the state pension should be means tested - if your income in retirement is above a certain level (not sure what level tbf) then you are not eligible for the state pension - a bit like the Child Benefit stops when income reaches a certain point.
Agreed or do it via income tax so it is progressively reduced.Nickgnome said:
CAH706 said:
n3il123 said:
Summer lockdown to protect the NHS
Fail link to Kent doom and gloom
at least we should all be able to have at least a meal or two and a couple of pints before, although maybe not if you haven't got your freedom pass...
It's laughableFail link to Kent doom and gloom
at least we should all be able to have at least a meal or two and a couple of pints before, although maybe not if you haven't got your freedom pass...
We didn't have this last year and we didn't have the vaccinations last year
Complete and utter b0llocks
I see NHS planning for a potential increase in cases. Very sensible in my opinion.
Where in that article have the government said there will be a lockdown?
You guys need to get a grip.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff