 | Forum
Reply | Derby into Admin
at 08:50 4 Jul 2022
HMRC aren't responsible for those decisions. They're not a Government department but a Government agency who are instructed to collect the tax specified. |
| Forum
Reply | Omicron Prickly Heat
at 09:54 20 Dec 2021
It's disappointing but not surprising.
There has been a lot of debate about moving to nasal only tests for wider use. They are as sensitive - the Flowflex test is excellent - but rely on being used properly. People struggle to put the swab far enough into the nasal cavity to collect material for the sample. LFDs are designed to show viral load, i.e. how much infection is in place, and to have the best opportunity to do that they need a good deep sample. Many people collect from a quick roll around inside the nostril which is not far enough.
Always blow your nose fully and, to collect a test fully, put your head back so your nasal cavity is horizontal. The swab needs to be rotated 4-5 times from the roof of the nasal cavity, a good inch within the nose.
If you gag a bit, you're doing it right. |
| Forum
Reply | Warbs isolating
at 22:54 11 Oct 2021
One of the problems that was recognised early on with LFD was their ability to be used effectively by non-clinical personnel. The training had to be approved by the MHRA and clinical governance was overseen by the NHS, but, tellingly, this was only for the train ng that was designed for schools, local hubs, retailers, etc.
Training for the public didn't go through the same QA processes and was watered down to videos with Dr Raj. This will have had an effect on the efficacy of the testing process - I no longer work there so don't have accurate data on what the void and fail rates are. It is reasonable to expect that tests will not be conducted to the same quality when unsupervised. People won't, for example, want to scrape their tonsils and gag (which is expected when tested properly), insert the swab far enough up into the nasal cavity, carry out the necessary cleaning and hygiene factors, etc.
Another issue is reading the results. The LFD tests measure viral load; the more virus you're carrying, the darker the strip will be. There are instances where people are reporting as negative when the result is almost a shadow of a line. Any line is positive; it's like pregnancy - you can't be a bit pregnant.
Daily tests are unnecessary - twice a week is acceptable - but, make sure they're done properly, and get a PCR test if there is ANY sign that the test is positive. |
| Forum
Reply | No (away) fans allowed at Gillingham
at 16:36 10 Jul 2021
The data from the test events is ongoing. The smaller events that have been undertaken have been positive with almost no positive infections from things like the snooker, the festivals etc.
However, the data from the football isn't so good; it's suspected that it's not the events themselves but the means of travel that people use to get there. Anyone who has been at Wembley for any games will recognise just how bad the tubes have been after the matches. The data also suggests increased delta variant positivity is high, but also that many of the attendees have been vaccinated and jabbed at least once.
The government are making decisions based on all of these factors and choosing to unlock, even though they know there will be multiple spikes in infection. The hope is that these will not be serious enough to warrant hospitalisation. We don't know, as yet, what that may mean because the data, as you say, hasn't worked its way through yet.
Good explainer here:
https://www.ft.com/content/9d7c5a19-c717-4809-a087-92571979c878 [Post edited 10 Jul 2021 17:36]
|
| Forum
Reply | Ticket ballot details
at 18:37 14 Dec 2020
There is a lot of work looking at the data; it's not as simple as clicking on one database. It requires collating data from national, regional and local datasets, all using different formats and collection requirements. |
| Forum
Reply | Ticket ballot details
at 17:45 14 Dec 2020
Some boroughs are really bad, some are worse. No London boroughs have it easy at the moment and I'm aware of at least 1 hospital that is at 101% of their ITC capacity. |
| Forum
Reply | Ticket ballot details
at 13:07 14 Dec 2020
The review date is 16th - Wednesday - and it's likely to be then. |
| Forum
Reply | Ticket ballot details
at 11:59 14 Dec 2020
I'm working in the Dept of Health and Social right now and London is REALLY bad.
Tier 3 isn't likely, it's certain. What's this be decided is when. |
| Forum
Reply | Good Luck UK
at 12:16 18 Dec 2019
How would they be 'ramped up'? There are limits placed on employers in how they may use the Apprenticeship Levy (AL). These include:
The AL may not be used for salaries, only training costs.
The AL may only be used with approved suppliers which are (in some cases) prohibitive in location or offer.
20% of an apprentice's time must be 'learning' The AL may not be used to top this up.
The new standards of apprenticeships are not extensive.
There are not enough suppliers to meet demand in some aprenticeships.
The endpoint assessment of an apprentice can't be carried out by the supplier delivering the learning and equate to up to 25% of the AL fee. This means it's not cost-effective for colleges and local suppliers to offer apprenticeships.
Few suppliers are digitally literate to offer 21st-century learning experience.
There are 3 broad groups of employers in respect of AL. The first group are engaging with them to try and make them work for new entries. This group is very small. The second group are using the AL to fund internal learning programmes and moving budget from internal training to AL funded programmes. This attracts a productivity cost of 20% of existing employees. The last group just accepts the AL as a tax which, if unsued in 24 months, goes back to HM Treasury. |
| Forum
Reply | Good Luck UK
at 00:10 18 Dec 2019
Enshrine in law is a meaningless phrase. If the PM needs to extend the dates of the withdrawal, HMG could easily submit a two line bill, issue a three line whip for voting, and it will pass, even with the opposition parties and ERG opposition. |
| Forum
Reply | Good Luck UK
at 00:07 18 Dec 2019
The increasing spend is primarily due to pension increase from less than £100bn in 2008 to a forecast £161bn in 2020.
The cash austerity cost has been estimated to have been c £300bn, primarily from welfare payments, housing subsidies, and social services and local government formula grant.
The burden of government spend has moved to supporting the elderly in cash terms, while removing the adult social care and community care provision for chronic illness. Hence the increase in acute costs in the NHS and a lack of resource in A&E and emergency care. |
| Forum
Reply | Good Luck UK
at 13:49 16 Dec 2019
The politics are complex because the governance across the UK border will be made more complicated to a significant factor.
It only takes a brief review of the trade associations, business groups, and confederations to understand how paralysing an overly bureaucratic system will be. This will not, as suggested before, be fixed easily. This is a wicked problem that requires a level of thought and nuance which the timetable will prevent. As the model says, you can have any two from quick, cheap, or good but not all three.
There is no-one in government who is assuming this is going to be anything other than a really hard slog and to believe it as anything other than that is naive. |
| Forum
Reply | Good Luck UK
at 01:09 15 Dec 2019
How will the trusted trader scheme work?
Who will pay for the implementation and maintenance?
How long will a trader be registered for?
How will the traders be allocated licence?
What priority order will it take?
Which industries will be affected?
How will new organisations be added?
What help will mainland organisations get?
How will electronic tracking work?
How will component elements be tracked?
When an item is manufactured in several countries, who is responsible for the completion of the system?
Which technology standard will be used?
Who will govern the system and maintain it?
Who will fund the electronic system? |
| Forum
Reply | Good Luck UK
at 19:25 14 Dec 2019
We won't leave in 7 weeks. We will be confirming the agreement to leave in December 2020. That won't stop the PM from coming out of 10 Downing Street on 1st February, stand at a podium and say it's done. I'd bank on him sending the confirmation to the EU and signing it this time.
The problems start from that point on though. As suggested earlier in the thread, since the arrangements from 1/1/21 aren't in place and are HIGHLY unlikely to be in place the really hard work starts now.
For example, Macron has asked for standardisation of UK exports to EU standards. This will be difficult for DexEu to agree with BEIS. The PM has suggested standardisation is on the cards according to Varadkar meaning the softest of super-soft Brexit. As I suggested the other day, horse trading over market access has started - Frederiksen wants access for the Danish fleet to UK waters as a trade-off for access to Denmark.
To retain the 19k existing nurses, will require significant workforce planning. Up to 17k vacancies exist at any time, as well as a substantial increase in de-registration (called invalidation size 2016). With almost a quarter of UK nurses being foreign nationals, the immigration policy and post leave EU registration requirements are likely to place further pressure. It is achievable but very difficult, especially since the removal of the bursary means the trend of new nursing students has been to fall since 2010.
The relationship with Scotland and NI WILL become more strained. NI in particular since the WA will place a border in the Irish Sea for goods and services and it can't wait 2 years. If trouble starts again, the PM will be held accountable as the man who broke the GFA.
The forecasts of the economic impact of leaving which have been published all confirm that the UK will suffer as a result of leaving. The extent will be determined before December 2020 and it's unlikely to be positive reading for the new government.
I'm not sure what 'choose this direction every time' means? As mentioned previously, the popular vote in this election was to remain (as it was in 2017 and in 2018) and the expectation that people who disagree will simply change their mind is naive in the extreme.
People who voted remain know they've lost and congratulations to the people who voted leave. The PM simply needs to get everyone to agree what that leave looks like. Simply. If it means BRINO and the softest of soft EUExits, he is more likely to gain a majority and, with the ERG de-clawed with the larger majority he has a better opportunity. As you expect people to change their minds, is it reasonable to expect arch hard Brexit leavers to change theirs too? |
| Forum
Reply | Good Luck UK
at 12:03 13 Dec 2019
The Labour Party manifesto incorporated a second vote. By voting for Labour, individuals gave agency to Labour to hold a people's vote. |
| Forum
Reply | Good Luck UK
at 10:53 13 Dec 2019
Parties promising revoke or a second vote won 52% of the vote last night - 48% of the vote went to Brexit supporting parties.
Boston is right - this will not 'Get Brexit done'. There are 3 likely scenarios:
1. Pass WA legislation, fail to agree to trade agreements and leave December 2020 with no deal;
2. Pass WA legislation, agree to basic trade deals (Canada -) and leave December 2020 but having given up fishing, service, travel rights, etc.
3. Pass WA legislation, fail to agree trade deals but extend and continue extensions, blaming EU for intransigence over the next 4 years.
It's too early to call which might happen. Many may want 1 but it is fiscally difficult and for BJ to keep his other spending promises, he can't afford not to carry out some of them. 2 is more likely and he doesn't need the ERG to support him. However, managing BRINO through the media will be difficult, especially if he has to make substantial concessions. Number 3 doesn't get Brexit done as he promised and will be even harder to manage reputationally.
The Conservatives own it now and it will be REALLY hard to make it work. |
| Forum
Reply | Our country is fckd match thread
at 14:09 31 May 2019
The comment was about the force of their statement being against no-deal, not about their stance being pro-Remain |
| | AnonymousR
|
Site Scores| Forum Votes: | 22 | | Comment Votes: | 0 | | Prediction League: | 0 | | TOTAL: | 22 |
|
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
