Employer wants to only pay SSP but we have been furloughed as well

Comms69

BrassicWoman said:

Comms69 said:

Unless i've totally misunderstood, they claim it back against tax at the end of the year?

As an expense, not a reimbursement; and the law is yet to change to say anything else applies. So, it is not a cost neutral move for the employer.

Thanks

Forum_Name

BrassicWoman said:

It's new and complicated and vague legislation. I'd suggest lack of experience rather than malice.

Both our ways of looking at it are possible. 
As we don't know the person involved, we can't say which one is more likely.

Comms69 said:

It is as easy as choosing to quit. There might be other factors as to why you might choose not to quit. e.g. lack of savings, job competition, etc. But these are choices, and people are responsible for their choices. 

Maybe their employer isnt doing enough. So choose your safety over your income. Choice.

Maybe they do feel at risk, choice. 

Maybe they do see the figures (which are still a fraction of a percent), choices.

I disagree. Yes technically it is a choice. 
Say you have a couple of kids in danger and they will die if you don't intervene but you can only save 1. It's still a choice right, simple, easy as that, what you waiting on, it's nothing.
"But i didn't say it was an easy choice". No you didn't, but you can also surely appreciate how people can feel trapped and unable to decide. They go to work in poor, incorrect conditions and they're at risk, their family is at risk. They don't do it, they rock the boat and they're out of work. Now they have no income and they're struggling to afford to eat.

As for the fraction of a percent, i can only imagine that either we're getting our numbers from different sources or we work out percentages differently. 
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

10,612 people dead out of 84,279 total cases is 12% to me. 
10612 / 84279 * 100 = 12.59%

So yeah, 12% is a fraction. It's closer to 1% than it is 100% but it is alarmingly high and not what i or probably many others would label 'a fraction of' and it's not the 0.12% that i saw in the papers either. 

Though i do question the source. It says we've only had 344 people recover? That's either terribly poor and way out of line compared to the other countries (let's forget China as they're clearly fixing their numbers more than any other nation) or someone is inputting the numbers wrong. 

JReacher1

84,279 is the diagnosed cases. They have stopped testing people for the disease unless you are in a hospital or front line  NHS staff. So the true number of cases is probably likely to be at least ten times more than 84,279. 

The death rate is not 12.59%

Forum_Name

JReacher1 said:

84,279 is the diagnosed cases. They have stopped testing people for the disease unless you are in a hospital or front line  NHS staff. So the true number of cases is probably likely to be at least ten times more than 84,279. 

Precisely. It's the diagnosed cases. 
Which means 10,612 must be the deaths confirmed from coronavirus
Of the 84,279 cases, 73,323 cases are still waiting on an outcome.

Of course there'll be people who have it who have not made it to hospital or who have died at home and likely not been tested but as they've not been tested, it's just a number out of the air jobby. You say it's likely to be 10 times more, it could be 5 times more, 15 times more, 20 times more who knows. You can only deal with the facts though and the facts are 84,279 cases confirmed and of them confirmed cases, 10,612 died, so 12.59% deaths out of the confirmed cases.

Still, of the confirmed cases, 344 recovered seems alarmingly low, does it not? Maybe the other surrounding countries are lying and we're the only honest country there is? Who knows. It just seems very very low.

JReacher1

I think the problem you have is that you’re taking a small bit of incomplete data and using this to try and make a point. It’s not helpful and is spreading alarming fake news, especially when you claim there is a death rate of 12.59%.  The main point to try and learn is that there are not 73,232 people waiting on an outcome. 

The number of recovered is so low as a recovered person is someone who has been discharged from hospital two weeks after being diagnosed with coronavirus. The majority of the 86,000 will have never gone to hospital so won’t be counted while it’s only really been the last three weeks that hospital numbers ramped up. As a result that number will be lower. 

I don’t really understand why on a thread about someone being furloughed you have deemed is necessary, or relevant, to post a number of incomplete pieces of data and then attempted to use this to make a number of incorrect and misleading statements about coronavirus. 

Forum_Name

JReacher1 said:

I think the problem you have is that you’re taking a small bit of incomplete data and using this to try and make a point. It’s not helpful and is spreading alarming fake news, especially when you claim there is a death rate of 12.59%.  The main point to try and learn is that there are not 73,232 people waiting on an outcome. 

Not at all. I am taking data that is freely available. I am working off of confirmed cases. I can't work off unconfirmed cases because how many are there? Those people may or may not just have a runny nose. 
And there's no need to jump on this 'fake news' bandwagon just because it's a popular term these days. I'm spreading nothing at all. At no point am i coming out and saying this is exactly what is the case and everyone needs to believe it. I'm saying this is what i take from this URL i've provided based on these numbers and i don't understand those numbers as they don't tally with those other numbers.
That isn't what fake news is now is it.

JReacher1 said:

The number of recovered is so low as a recovered person is someone who has been discharged from hospital two weeks after being diagnosed with coronavirus. The majority of the 86,000 will have never gone to hospital so won’t be counted while it’s only really been the last three weeks that hospital numbers ramped up. As a result that number will be lower. 

Still, in relation to the other nations around us there, wouldn't you say that 344 is quite low?
Maybe not. Maybe you think 344 is an exceptionally high number of recovered people. 

JReacher1 said:

I don’t really understand why on a thread about someone being furloughed you have deemed is necessary, or relevant, to post a number of incomplete pieces of data and then attempted to use this to make a number of incorrect and misleading statements about coronavirus. 

I have responded to what others have said. It's a public discussion board. It's ok for you to continue this discussion but you want me to not respond to you? That's not how a public discussion forum works.

JReacher1

You might not like the term but "Fake News" is exactly what you are spreading!  You have been claiming that the death rate is 12.59% when all the facts around the disease are pointing towards the death rate being either 1% or just below 1%.  This is obviously a frightening number but nowhere near the figure you have stated.

The problem is you have taken a small amount of data and by completely ignoring how this data is recorded and the caveats around this data have announced a death rate of 12.59%. 

I have already explained what how the 344 number is defined and there is no point in repeating myself as you don;t want to listen as it doesn't fit in with your agenda

Comms69

Forum_Name said:

BrassicWoman said:

It's new and complicated and vague legislation. I'd suggest lack of experience rather than malice.

Both our ways of looking at it are possible. 
As we don't know the person involved, we can't say which one is more likely.

Comms69 said:

It is as easy as choosing to quit. There might be other factors as to why you might choose not to quit. e.g. lack of savings, job competition, etc. But these are choices, and people are responsible for their choices. 

Maybe their employer isnt doing enough. So choose your safety over your income. Choice.

Maybe they do feel at risk, choice. 

Maybe they do see the figures (which are still a fraction of a percent), choices.

I disagree. Yes technically it is a choice. 
Say you have a couple of kids in danger and they will die if you don't intervene but you can only save 1. It's still a choice right, simple, easy as that, what you waiting on, it's nothing.
"But i didn't say it was an easy choice". No you didn't, but you can also surely appreciate how people can feel trapped and unable to decide. They go to work in poor, incorrect conditions and they're at risk, their family is at risk. They don't do it, they rock the boat and they're out of work. Now they have no income and they're struggling to afford to eat.

As for the fraction of a percent, i can only imagine that either we're getting our numbers from different sources or we work out percentages differently. 
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

10,612 people dead out of 84,279 total cases is 12% to me. 
10612 / 84279 * 100 = 12.59%

So yeah, 12% is a fraction. It's closer to 1% than it is 100% but it is alarmingly high and not what i or probably many others would label 'a fraction of' and it's not the 0.12% that i saw in the papers either. 

Though i do question the source. It says we've only had 344 people recover? That's either terribly poor and way out of line compared to the other countries (let's forget China as they're clearly fixing their numbers more than any other nation) or someone is inputting the numbers wrong. 

Yes it's a difficult choice. I dont understand who said life was easy. Life is a series of challenges and struggles. 

I can understand how people can feel trapped, of course. But it's still a choice that individuals make. Just like they do in choice of job, choice of partner, choice to stay in a difficult relationship, choice of borrowing, spending, saving, having children etc. 

I'm not suggesting for one minute i envy the position. I'm privileged to work where i do, but that has come at a cost of sacrificing other aspects of my life. I made a choice, which led to another and another, and this is where i find myself. But life isnt like that; for example my ex is struggling massively with her mental health through out this - I am choosing to help. Even though it's difficult (and not necessarily comparable to the situation you describe) I am choosing to do something, which in other circumstances i would be less inclined to do. 

The numbers. Well technically those numbers aren't accurate anyway. 

Firstly we do not record all cases of COVID-19; so 85,000 confirmed cases, majority are hospital inpatients, and some are NHS staff or people of the same household. I do not have the figures broken down.
The vast majority of people who get the virus will require no hospital treatement - of the 6 cases i know personally - 5 have been NHS staff or household members (but unsurprising given my role, as i do not work in frontline care for patients with COVID-19), and none have required hospital treatment. 
Some estimates put the total number of case at between 300-450,000 total. 

But my point on the fraction of a percent was against the total population, even taking the higher figure of 450,000 total cases, that is still 0.75% (or 3/4 of a percent, ie a fraction) and total deaths at 0.002% of the population (or 1/500 of a percent)