FabSwingers.com > Forums > Virus > Self-isolation pay
Self-isolation pay
Jump to: Newest in thread
 | |||
"What are your thoughts on self-isolation/quarantine pay? It's being trialled, with restrictions, at £13 a day, in some areas. This covers where someone is unable to work from home, whilst in isolation. Would it just have been better for them to be paid minimum wage? Obviously, like all benefits, individuals must submit proof of their situation. Is it another example of the government being out of touch with real people and life? If they are looking to incentivise people who are a risk to others, can they expect people to give up their wage, in exchange for £13? I'm fairly certain that those imposing this wouldn't take it in exchange for their salary and expenses "The option is a ‘better than nothing’ scenario I would assume for people on zero hours contract or with jobs with little benefits. You cannot claim ssp if not sick so would guess it’s just a daily proportion of that. Not sure how far you would get on £13 per day though tbh so it’s little to no incentive. | |||
| |||
"Its crumbs for the poorest in society who are already on a pittance. But it makes out the government is doing something. Piss poorer really though..." Depends entirely on why they are self isolating, if it is due to a situation where they had to go to work and were exposed etc or picked it up from food shopping etc then minimum wage should be applied. If it is due to an optional activity such as holiday abroad or contact within a pub then I don't see why they should be paid at all as these were avoidable and voluntary exposures, not the governments responsibility. | |||
| |||
"Its the same amount as being put on ssp though, why should isolation people get more than sick people? Surely it should be the same?" Yeah I get that but ssp is shite too. People in a decent paid job with a contract will not rely on ssp as they will get paid from work...plus if they have to isolate i doubt they will have to jump through the hoops that is require to get this £13 per day! As I said the poorest get the crumbs | |||
"Its the same amount as being put on ssp though, why should isolation people get more than sick people? Surely it should be the same? Yeah I get that but ssp is shite too. People in a decent paid job with a contract will not rely on ssp as they will get paid from work...plus if they have to isolate i doubt they will have to jump through the hoops that is require to get this £13 per day! As I said the poorest get the crumbs" I have a contract but don't get sick pay. SSP would not cover my out goings so would need to keep working as I have been for it to work it would need to be 80% if forced in to isolation. And I would not include coming back from holiday | |||
"Its the same amount as being put on ssp though, why should isolation people get more than sick people? Surely it should be the same? Yeah I get that but ssp is shite too. People in a decent paid job with a contract will not rely on ssp as they will get paid from work...plus if they have to isolate i doubt they will have to jump through the hoops that is require to get this £13 per day! As I said the poorest get the crumbs" Dont spend it all in 1 shop. | |||
"Its the same amount as being put on ssp though, why should isolation people get more than sick people? Surely it should be the same? Yeah I get that but ssp is shite too. People in a decent paid job with a contract will not rely on ssp as they will get paid from work...plus if they have to isolate i doubt they will have to jump through the hoops that is require to get this £13 per day! As I said the poorest get the crumbs Dont spend it all in 1 shop." A full week of it wouldn't buy our leaders a bottle of wine. | |||
" Depends entirely on why they are self isolating, if it is due to a situation where they had to go to work and were exposed etc or picked it up from food shopping etc then minimum wage should be applied. If it is due to an optional activity such as holiday abroad or contact within a pub then I don't see why they should be paid at all as these were avoidable and voluntary exposures, not the governments responsibility." What a great idea ...... Oh .. wait ...  | |||
"Its the same amount as being put on ssp though, why should isolation people get more than sick people? Surely it should be the same? Yeah I get that but ssp is shite too. People in a decent paid job with a contract will not rely on ssp as they will get paid from work...plus if they have to isolate i doubt they will have to jump through the hoops that is require to get this £13 per day! As I said the poorest get the crumbs"  | |||
| |||
"Its the same amount as being put on ssp though, why should isolation people get more than sick people? Surely it should be the same? Yeah I get that but ssp is shite too. People in a decent paid job with a contract will not rely on ssp as they will get paid from work...plus if they have to isolate i doubt they will have to jump through the hoops that is require to get this £13 per day! As I said the poorest get the crumbs Dont spend it all in 1 shop. A full week of it wouldn't buy our leaders a bottle of wine." Or a personal trainer | |||
"Its the same amount as being put on ssp though, why should isolation people get more than sick people? Surely it should be the same? Yeah I get that but ssp is shite too. People in a decent paid job with a contract will not rely on ssp as they will get paid from work...plus if they have to isolate i doubt they will have to jump through the hoops that is require to get this £13 per day! As I said the poorest get the crumbs Dont spend it all in 1 shop. A full week of it wouldn't buy our leaders a bottle of wine. Or a personal trainer " Wonder who is trying to impress? | |||
"Its the same amount as being put on ssp though, why should isolation people get more than sick people? Surely it should be the same?" Everything should relate to what our objectives are, otherwise we will be more likely to miss the boat. If we are trying to stop people from going out to work in a public environment, then it needs to be motivating enough for them to do so, above and beyond wanting to do the right thing, for the greater good. A basic understanding of human needs, such as the Maslow proposal, shows that people will instinctively seek to survive and keep their home, before they will seek to fulfill broader aims. They will have homes and food to pay for, for themselves and family. Other countries are paying full pay, whilst people have an imposed quarantine. In this category, the furlough pay, which could be topped up with 20% employer pay, would be a reasonable way to motivate people to quarantine. The group of young people who returned from Zante to Plymouth this week, who appear to have spawned towards 40 people possibly being infected there, during social engagement, highlights how easily much larger problems can happen, when infected people mix amongst others. Workforce teams may be brought down by the odd individual who is infected, as can wider general public populations. As people are now several months into this, where incomes have been impaired to a great extent, we have to focus on what we want to achieve. If we're fully behind making drastic cuts to infection levels, rewarding people appropriately for their efforts to help all of us, has to be meaningful enough to get full leverage to get this done. | |||
"What are your thoughts on self-isolation/quarantine pay? It's being trialled, with restrictions, at £13 a day, in some areas. This covers where someone is unable to work from home, whilst in isolation. Would it just have been better for them to be paid minimum wage? Obviously, like all benefits, individuals must submit proof of their situation. Is it another example of the government being out of touch with real people and life? If they are looking to incentivise people who are a risk to others, can they expect people to give up their wage, in exchange for £13? I'm fairly certain that those imposing this wouldn't take it in exchange for their salary and expenses "Its a pretty crap and insulting offer | |||
"Its the same amount as being put on ssp though, why should isolation people get more than sick people? Surely it should be the same? Yeah I get that but ssp is shite too. People in a decent paid job with a contract will not rely on ssp as they will get paid from work...plus if they have to isolate i doubt they will have to jump through the hoops that is require to get this £13 per day! As I said the poorest get the crumbs Dont spend it all in 1 shop. A full week of it wouldn't buy our leaders a bottle of wine. Or a personal trainer Wonder who is trying to impress?" I hope it's not me because it's not working  | |||
"Its the same amount as being put on ssp though, why should isolation people get more than sick people? Surely it should be the same? Yeah I get that but ssp is shite too. People in a decent paid job with a contract will not rely on ssp as they will get paid from work...plus if they have to isolate i doubt they will have to jump through the hoops that is require to get this £13 per day! As I said the poorest get the crumbs Dont spend it all in 1 shop. A full week of it wouldn't buy our leaders a bottle of wine. Or a personal trainer Wonder who is trying to impress? I hope it's not me because it's not working "
| |||
 | |||
"Its the same amount as being put on ssp though, why should isolation people get more than sick people? Surely it should be the same? Everything should relate to what our objectives are, otherwise we will be more likely to miss the boat. If we are trying to stop people from going out to work in a public environment, then it needs to be motivating enough for them to do so, above and beyond wanting to do the right thing, for the greater good. A basic understanding of human needs, such as the Maslow proposal, shows that people will instinctively seek to survive and keep their home, before they will seek to fulfill broader aims. They will have homes and food to pay for, for themselves and family. Other countries are paying full pay, whilst people have an imposed quarantine. In this category, the furlough pay, which could be topped up with 20% employer pay, would be a reasonable way to motivate people to quarantine. The group of young people who returned from Zante to Plymouth this week, who appear to have spawned towards 40 people possibly being infected there, during social engagement, highlights how easily much larger problems can happen, when infected people mix amongst others. Workforce teams may be brought down by the odd individual who is infected, as can wider general public populations. As people are now several months into this, where incomes have been impaired to a great extent, we have to focus on what we want to achieve. If we're fully behind making drastic cuts to infection levels, rewarding people appropriately for their efforts to help all of us, has to be meaningful enough to get full leverage to get this done. " People shouldn't be rewarded for doing the right thing. If people refuse to self isolate when told to do so there should be fines. I understand that people may suffer financially but there's going to have to be compromise, maybe some luxuries will have to be missed for a few weeks. I agree that if you've decided to go abroad and bring back covid you should have to finance your own time off work, holidays abroad are unnecessary at the moment. | |||
"Its the same amount as being put on ssp though, why should isolation people get more than sick people? Surely it should be the same? Everything should relate to what our objectives are, otherwise we will be more likely to miss the boat. If we are trying to stop people from going out to work in a public environment, then it needs to be motivating enough for them to do so, above and beyond wanting to do the right thing, for the greater good. A basic understanding of human needs, such as the Maslow proposal, shows that people will instinctively seek to survive and keep their home, before they will seek to fulfill broader aims. They will have homes and food to pay for, for themselves and family. Other countries are paying full pay, whilst people have an imposed quarantine. In this category, the furlough pay, which could be topped up with 20% employer pay, would be a reasonable way to motivate people to quarantine. The group of young people who returned from Zante to Plymouth this week, who appear to have spawned towards 40 people possibly being infected there, during social engagement, highlights how easily much larger problems can happen, when infected people mix amongst others. Workforce teams may be brought down by the odd individual who is infected, as can wider general public populations. As people are now several months into this, where incomes have been impaired to a great extent, we have to focus on what we want to achieve. If we're fully behind making drastic cuts to infection levels, rewarding people appropriately for their efforts to help all of us, has to be meaningful enough to get full leverage to get this done. People shouldn't be rewarded for doing the right thing. If people refuse to self isolate when told to do so there should be fines. I understand that people may suffer financially but there's going to have to be compromise, maybe some luxuries will have to be missed for a few weeks. I agree that if you've decided to go abroad and bring back covid you should have to finance your own time off work, holidays abroad are unnecessary at the moment." I dont think it relates to people who have been away . According to the bbc its for people on benefits who work. Zero hour contracts I guess..who cant work for home. I'm guessing such people wint be jetting off to ibiza firva fortnight in the sun? | |||
"Its the same amount as being put on ssp though, why should isolation people get more than sick people? Surely it should be the same? Everything should relate to what our objectives are, otherwise we will be more likely to miss the boat. If we are trying to stop people from going out to work in a public environment, then it needs to be motivating enough for them to do so, above and beyond wanting to do the right thing, for the greater good. A basic understanding of human needs, such as the Maslow proposal, shows that people will instinctively seek to survive and keep their home, before they will seek to fulfill broader aims. They will have homes and food to pay for, for themselves and family. Other countries are paying full pay, whilst people have an imposed quarantine. In this category, the furlough pay, which could be topped up with 20% employer pay, would be a reasonable way to motivate people to quarantine. The group of young people who returned from Zante to Plymouth this week, who appear to have spawned towards 40 people possibly being infected there, during social engagement, highlights how easily much larger problems can happen, when infected people mix amongst others. Workforce teams may be brought down by the odd individual who is infected, as can wider general public populations. As people are now several months into this, where incomes have been impaired to a great extent, we have to focus on what we want to achieve. If we're fully behind making drastic cuts to infection levels, rewarding people appropriately for their efforts to help all of us, has to be meaningful enough to get full leverage to get this done. People shouldn't be rewarded for doing the right thing. If people refuse to self isolate when told to do so there should be fines. I understand that people may suffer financially but there's going to have to be compromise, maybe some luxuries will have to be missed for a few weeks. I agree that if you've decided to go abroad and bring back covid you should have to finance your own time off work, holidays abroad are unnecessary at the moment." I'm uncertain atm Keeley, as our pressing need is to eradicate the virus from harming us. We can personally take the steps that seem right but, as part of society, where we always will impact on others, our leaders can also shape policies and our lifestyles to a substantial extent, such that we can achieve our goals collectively with greater precision and facilitated ease. I included a mention of students who'd spent time together in Greece. They're probably not eligible for anything of this nature - it was merely a way to highlight how a small group of lads had potentially made the prospects of a huge amount of people in Plymouth to be in jeopardy. They'd partied in Greece and then in Devon. It was perhaps a poor, though very recent, example to pick, to illustrate my point. I'm not incredibly well versed in the official scheme being trialled. The payment is £13 per day for isolation, when someone misses work and their job cannot be done from home. It will likely be those on a per day pay rate and contract. If we are committed to reducing the outbreaks and levels of infection around the country, we probably have to ensure that nobody should be substantially worse off if they must isolate. I think punishments are a separate thing, as we ought to just make a system that is simple, doesn't push people to have to choose between earning or having insufficient for their home to get by on. I don't know if it's about giving people full pay or a different sum - I can see that anything below full pay will encourage people to work, when they should be isolating - and that the more they are reimbursed below their pay levels, the more likely it is that many will have no choice but to work. The separate aspect of how those returned from holidays should be viewed, is different but I can see the same argument also relating to them. We've given credit of upto £10 each time anybody has eaten out this month on selected days. That's a similar amount that we're looking at for someone to give up their pay for a day. If we can afford a tenner to pay for a meal, we must surely be able to recompense people more for a lost day's wage. In the latter instance, the population is likely to gain a greater benefit too. I think we need some similarity or equality, so that furlough isn't substantially better, for example. | |||
But that was brilliantly put sophie | |||
"Its crumbs for the poorest in society who are already on a pittance. But it makes out the government is doing something. Piss poorer really though... Depends entirely on why they are self isolating, if it is due to a situation where they had to go to work and were exposed etc or picked it up from food shopping etc then minimum wage should be applied. If it is due to an optional activity such as holiday abroad or contact within a pub then I don't see why they should be paid at all as these were avoidable and voluntary exposures, not the governments responsibility."
| |||
" I'm uncertain atm Keeley, as our pressing need is to eradicate the virus from harming us. We can personally take the steps that seem right but, as part of society, where we always will impact on others, our leaders can also shape policies and our lifestyles to a substantial extent, such that we can achieve our goals collectively with greater precision and facilitated ease. I included a mention of students who'd spent time together in Greece. They're probably not eligible for anything of this nature - it was merely a way to highlight how a small group of lads had potentially made the prospects of a huge amount of people in Plymouth to be in jeopardy. They'd partied in Greece and then in Devon. It was perhaps a poor, though very recent, example to pick, to illustrate my point. I'm not incredibly well versed in the official scheme being trialled. The payment is £13 per day for isolation, when someone misses work and their job cannot be done from home. It will likely be those on a per day pay rate and contract. If we are committed to reducing the outbreaks and levels of infection around the country, we probably have to ensure that nobody should be substantially worse off if they must isolate. I think punishments are a separate thing, as we ought to just make a system that is simple, doesn't push people to have to choose between earning or having insufficient for their home to get by on. I don't know if it's about giving people full pay or a different sum - I can see that anything below full pay will encourage people to work, when they should be isolating - and that the more they are reimbursed below their pay levels, the more likely it is that many will have no choice but to work. The separate aspect of how those returned from holidays should be viewed, is different but I can see the same argument also relating to them. We've given credit of upto £10 each time anybody has eaten out this month on selected days. That's a similar amount that we're looking at for someone to give up their pay for a day. If we can afford a tenner to pay for a meal, we must surely be able to recompense people more for a lost day's wage. In the latter instance, the population is likely to gain a greater benefit too. I think we need some similarity or equality, so that furlough isn't substantially better, for example. " Unfortunately, too many people will abuse the system if it is made to be too rewarding, look at furlough, more than half of the people furloughed were still working, it's blatant fraud, some people cannot be trusted to do the right thing, even while being rewarded. Maybe only pay those that have been ordered to isolate by track and trace, not those doing it just in case. There's still room for frauds to take advantage but maybe less so. If only everyone was honest  | |||
"Its crumbs for the poorest in society who are already on a pittance. But it makes out the government is doing something. Piss poorer really though... Depends entirely on why they are self isolating, if it is due to a situation where they had to go to work and were exposed etc or picked it up from food shopping etc then minimum wage should be applied. If it is due to an optional activity such as holiday abroad or contact within a pub then I don't see why they should be paid at all as these were avoidable and voluntary exposures, not the governments responsibility.
"Even if they where out using the governments eat out to help out? | |||
"Didn't want to use the full quote
But that was brilliantly put sophie "Thanks sweetie x | |||
" I'm uncertain atm Keeley, as our pressing need is to eradicate the virus from harming us. We can personally take the steps that seem right but, as part of society, where we always will impact on others, our leaders can also shape policies and our lifestyles to a substantial extent, such that we can achieve our goals collectively with greater precision and facilitated ease. I included a mention of students who'd spent time together in Greece. They're probably not eligible for anything of this nature - it was merely a way to highlight how a small group of lads had potentially made the prospects of a huge amount of people in Plymouth to be in jeopardy. They'd partied in Greece and then in Devon. It was perhaps a poor, though very recent, example to pick, to illustrate my point. I'm not incredibly well versed in the official scheme being trialled. The payment is £13 per day for isolation, when someone misses work and their job cannot be done from home. It will likely be those on a per day pay rate and contract. If we are committed to reducing the outbreaks and levels of infection around the country, we probably have to ensure that nobody should be substantially worse off if they must isolate. I think punishments are a separate thing, as we ought to just make a system that is simple, doesn't push people to have to choose between earning or having insufficient for their home to get by on. I don't know if it's about giving people full pay or a different sum - I can see that anything below full pay will encourage people to work, when they should be isolating - and that the more they are reimbursed below their pay levels, the more likely it is that many will have no choice but to work. The separate aspect of how those returned from holidays should be viewed, is different but I can see the same argument also relating to them. We've given credit of upto £10 each time anybody has eaten out this month on selected days. That's a similar amount that we're looking at for someone to give up their pay for a day. If we can afford a tenner to pay for a meal, we must surely be able to recompense people more for a lost day's wage. In the latter instance, the population is likely to gain a greater benefit too. I think we need some similarity or equality, so that furlough isn't substantially better, for example. Unfortunately, too many people will abuse the system if it is made to be too rewarding, look at furlough, more than half of the people furloughed were still working, it's blatant fraud, some people cannot be trusted to do the right thing, even while being rewarded. Maybe only pay those that have been ordered to isolate by track and trace, not those doing it just in case. There's still room for frauds to take advantage but maybe less so. If only everyone was honest "Ah like that police station that was using "eat out to help out" in their canteen... | |||
| |||
" I'm uncertain atm Keeley, as our pressing need is to eradicate the virus from harming us. We can personally take the steps that seem right but, as part of society, where we always will impact on others, our leaders can also shape policies and our lifestyles to a substantial extent, such that we can achieve our goals collectively with greater precision and facilitated ease. I included a mention of students who'd spent time together in Greece. They're probably not eligible for anything of this nature - it was merely a way to highlight how a small group of lads had potentially made the prospects of a huge amount of people in Plymouth to be in jeopardy. They'd partied in Greece and then in Devon. It was perhaps a poor, though very recent, example to pick, to illustrate my point. I'm not incredibly well versed in the official scheme being trialled. The payment is £13 per day for isolation, when someone misses work and their job cannot be done from home. It will likely be those on a per day pay rate and contract. If we are committed to reducing the outbreaks and levels of infection around the country, we probably have to ensure that nobody should be substantially worse off if they must isolate. I think punishments are a separate thing, as we ought to just make a system that is simple, doesn't push people to have to choose between earning or having insufficient for their home to get by on. I don't know if it's about giving people full pay or a different sum - I can see that anything below full pay will encourage people to work, when they should be isolating - and that the more they are reimbursed below their pay levels, the more likely it is that many will have no choice but to work. The separate aspect of how those returned from holidays should be viewed, is different but I can see the same argument also relating to them. We've given credit of upto £10 each time anybody has eaten out this month on selected days. That's a similar amount that we're looking at for someone to give up their pay for a day. If we can afford a tenner to pay for a meal, we must surely be able to recompense people more for a lost day's wage. In the latter instance, the population is likely to gain a greater benefit too. I think we need some similarity or equality, so that furlough isn't substantially better, for example. Unfortunately, too many people will abuse the system if it is made to be too rewarding, look at furlough, more than half of the people furloughed were still working, it's blatant fraud, some people cannot be trusted to do the right thing, even while being rewarded. Maybe only pay those that have been ordered to isolate by track and trace, not those doing it just in case. There's still room for frauds to take advantage but maybe less so. If only everyone was honest "I'm almost always in agreement with you. We definitely shouldn't have a system that's facilating abuse, it would debase the importance of the system, which is essential for the country. I'm glad I'm not designing it  .
I know that people getting it have to submit evidence, so they may have to submit the alert that triggered them to isolate. I'm sure that there are some here who will understand the scheme under trial fair better than me, which isn't too hard  | |||
"Weren't work place canteens included in the eat out to help out scheme? I'm sure they were. " I think that they may have been, as I saw Screwfix and others offering it, when I did a search - places that offer no public cafe or restaurant. | |||
"Weren't work place canteens included in the eat out to help out scheme? I'm sure they were. I think that they may have been, as I saw Screwfix and others offering it, when I did a search - places that offer no public cafe or restaurant. " Yeah, I'm fairly sure work canteens were included in the scheme. | |||
| |||
"The basic details of the scheme are that it's for people who get a positive test result or who get contacted by the track and trace scheme. Individuals then have to submit that amongst the evidence that they have to submit to apply for the money. Other countries, for example Germany, pay 70% of pay. " In that case I think there should be some sort of 'covid cover', a certain percentage of your wage amount, capped, obviously. | |||
"Weren't work place canteens included in the eat out to help out scheme? I'm sure they were. I think that they may have been, as I saw Screwfix and others offering it, when I did a search - places that offer no public cafe or restaurant. Yeah, I'm fairly sure work canteens were included in the scheme. " And do you think that is ironic when millions of carers on zero hour contracts... yes the same carers on minimum wage who we where out clapping for,probably dont even have a canteen and work from 7am to 10pm looking after people in their homes. And should they have to isolate get a measly £13 per day? Oh and that's only the ones in the greater Manchester area..the rest of the country they get bugger all. Do you think that is right? | |||
"Weren't work place canteens included in the eat out to help out scheme? I'm sure they were. I think that they may have been, as I saw Screwfix and others offering it, when I did a search - places that offer no public cafe or restaurant. Yeah, I'm fairly sure work canteens were included in the scheme. And do you think that is ironic when millions of carers on zero hour contracts... yes the same carers on minimum wage who we where out clapping for,probably dont even have a canteen and work from 7am to 10pm looking after people in their homes. And should they have to isolate get a measly £13 per day? Oh and that's only the ones in the greater Manchester area..the rest of the country they get bugger all. Do you think that is right?" You seem to have gone off on a tangent, community carers obviously don't have a canteen since they work in people's homes. | |||
But that to oneside, it's better than the nothing they get now, I think it would be better if it was a percentage of wages unless you earn 80k + annually | |||
"I didn't realise that you could now tell where you contracted covid. You're more likely to catch it here in the U.K than the holiday destinations approved by the fco
But that to oneside, it's better than the nothing they get now, I think it would be better if it was a percentage of wages unless you earn 80k + annually"It was reasonably easy to tell where the virus had come from at the start, when people flying in from ski holidays etc brought it in. It would be much more speculative now. This scheme that's being trialled in some localities with high levels of infection, doesn't speculate or discriminate against the virus's origins. If people get a positive test result or are contacted by the official track and trace team, they can be paid £13 for each day that they lose their pay, if unable to work from home. They have to submit evidence and will be amongst those getting working tax credits etc, probably aee paid daily, close to minimum wage. Local authorities have been encouraging the government to recompense people for lost wages, to help to support people who have to quarantine. It's currently not in some areas with high levels of infection. £13 a day, for a full lost day's pay is obviously still going to mean that there's an incentive for people to work, whilst infected. That's in nobody's interest, so I'm not confident that £13 is going to achieve what we need, which is people kept away from others. In other countries, the employer pays staff who would have worked, as the UK furlough scheme does. We seem to have decided to make things more complicated and bureaucratic, than we had to. Plus it's probably not going to be enough to calm people who are worried about every penny that they have coming in. | |||
"I didn't realise that you could now tell where you contracted covid. You're more likely to catch it here in the U.K than the holiday destinations approved by the fco
But that to oneside, it's better than the nothing they get now, I think it would be better if it was a percentage of wages unless you earn 80k + annually
It was reasonably easy to tell where the virus had come from at the start, when people flying in from ski holidays etc brought it in. It would be much more speculative now.
This scheme that's being trialled in some localities with high levels of infection, doesn't speculate or discriminate against the virus's origins. If people get a positive test result or are contacted by the official track and trace team, they can be paid £13 for each day that they lose their pay, if unable to work from home. They have to submit evidence and will be amongst those getting working tax credits etc, probably aee paid daily, close to minimum wage.
Local authorities have been encouraging the government to recompense people for lost wages, to help to support people who have to quarantine. It's currently not in some areas with high levels of infection. £13 a day, for a full lost day's pay is obviously still going to mean that there's an incentive for people to work, whilst infected. That's in nobody's interest, so I'm not confident that £13 is going to achieve what we need, which is people kept away from others.
In other countries, the employer pays staff who would have worked, as the UK furlough scheme does. We seem to have decided to make things more complicated and bureaucratic, than we had to. Plus it's probably not going to be enough to calm people who are worried about every penny that they have coming in. "If people still go to work, knowing they should be isolating they should be fined, that's an incentive. | |||
"I didn't realise that you could now tell where you contracted covid. You're more likely to catch it here in the U.K than the holiday destinations approved by the fco
But that to oneside, it's better than the nothing they get now, I think it would be better if it was a percentage of wages unless you earn 80k + annually
It was reasonably easy to tell where the virus had come from at the start, when people flying in from ski holidays etc brought it in. It would be much more speculative now.
This scheme that's being trialled in some localities with high levels of infection, doesn't speculate or discriminate against the virus's origins. If people get a positive test result or are contacted by the official track and trace team, they can be paid £13 for each day that they lose their pay, if unable to work from home. They have to submit evidence and will be amongst those getting working tax credits etc, probably aee paid daily, close to minimum wage.
Local authorities have been encouraging the government to recompense people for lost wages, to help to support people who have to quarantine. It's currently not in some areas with high levels of infection. £13 a day, for a full lost day's pay is obviously still going to mean that there's an incentive for people to work, whilst infected. That's in nobody's interest, so I'm not confident that £13 is going to achieve what we need, which is people kept away from others.
In other countries, the employer pays staff who would have worked, as the UK furlough scheme does. We seem to have decided to make things more complicated and bureaucratic, than we had to. Plus it's probably not going to be enough to calm people who are worried about every penny that they have coming in.
If people still go to work, knowing they should be isolating they should be fined, that's an incentive. "Now that would be hard to bring in after Cummings sticking to his isolation eh | |||
"I didn't realise that you could now tell where you contracted covid. You're more likely to catch it here in the U.K than the holiday destinations approved by the fco
But that to oneside, it's better than the nothing they get now, I think it would be better if it was a percentage of wages unless you earn 80k + annually
It was reasonably easy to tell where the virus had come from at the start, when people flying in from ski holidays etc brought it in. It would be much more speculative now.
This scheme that's being trialled in some localities with high levels of infection, doesn't speculate or discriminate against the virus's origins. If people get a positive test result or are contacted by the official track and trace team, they can be paid £13 for each day that they lose their pay, if unable to work from home. They have to submit evidence and will be amongst those getting working tax credits etc, probably aee paid daily, close to minimum wage.
Local authorities have been encouraging the government to recompense people for lost wages, to help to support people who have to quarantine. It's currently not in some areas with high levels of infection. £13 a day, for a full lost day's pay is obviously still going to mean that there's an incentive for people to work, whilst infected. That's in nobody's interest, so I'm not confident that £13 is going to achieve what we need, which is people kept away from others.
In other countries, the employer pays staff who would have worked, as the UK furlough scheme does. We seem to have decided to make things more complicated and bureaucratic, than we had to. Plus it's probably not going to be enough to calm people who are worried about every penny that they have coming in.
If people still go to work, knowing they should be isolating they should be fined, that's an incentive. "It's sticks or carrots. We could have both, not just for people who break quarantine to work. As it is, people have to home themselves and family, as well as eat. If forced to make their family starve, I think many will go to work to help their family and themselves. A huge proportion will have no symptoms, so would be invisible to all as infected. I think we should make it simple and just get them paid. Even jury service, which is for the benefit of all in society, paya a larger amount. If we get on top of this, ir will be an ever dwindling number of people who would need to be reimbursed. Employing people to find people and punish them will also have a cost. If we are absolutely committed to getting this virus to the point where it's much less of a problem, we have to do something different to get people to self isolate. For the common good, it's reasonable that we give them something to help them to live. £13 isn't enough | |||
| |||
"I didn't realise that you could now tell where you contracted covid. You're more likely to catch it here in the U.K than the holiday destinations approved by the fco
But that to oneside, it's better than the nothing they get now, I think it would be better if it was a percentage of wages unless you earn 80k + annually
It was reasonably easy to tell where the virus had come from at the start, when people flying in from ski holidays etc brought it in. It would be much more speculative now.
This scheme that's being trialled in some localities with high levels of infection, doesn't speculate or discriminate against the virus's origins. If people get a positive test result or are contacted by the official track and trace team, they can be paid £13 for each day that they lose their pay, if unable to work from home. They have to submit evidence and will be amongst those getting working tax credits etc, probably aee paid daily, close to minimum wage.
Local authorities have been encouraging the government to recompense people for lost wages, to help to support people who have to quarantine. It's currently not in some areas with high levels of infection. £13 a day, for a full lost day's pay is obviously still going to mean that there's an incentive for people to work, whilst infected. That's in nobody's interest, so I'm not confident that £13 is going to achieve what we need, which is people kept away from others.
In other countries, the employer pays staff who would have worked, as the UK furlough scheme does. We seem to have decided to make things more complicated and bureaucratic, than we had to. Plus it's probably not going to be enough to calm people who are worried about every penny that they have coming in.
If people still go to work, knowing they should be isolating they should be fined, that's an incentive.
Now that would be hard to bring in after Cummings sticking to his isolation eh "Old news | |||
" It's sticks or carrots. We could have both, not just for people who break quarantine to work. As it is, people have to home themselves and family, as well as eat. If forced to make their family starve, I think many will go to work to help their family and themselves. A huge proportion will have no symptoms, so would be invisible to all as infected. I think we should make it simple and just get them paid. Even jury service, which is for the benefit of all in society, paya a larger amount. If we get on top of this, ir will be an ever dwindling number of people who would need to be reimbursed. Employing people to find people and punish them will also have a cost. If we are absolutely committed to getting this virus to the point where it's much less of a problem, we have to do something different to get people to self isolate. For the common good, it's reasonable that we give them something to help them to live. £13 isn't enough " As I said before, genuine cases should receive a percentage of their wage, capped to a reasonable amount. However, Terry from 3 doors down who just wants abit of a break shouldn't be allowed to access the scheme, they should have to prove that they have been told to isolate. | |||
"Love the thought of people blagging the system for £13 a day." | |||
"I didn't realise that you could now tell where you contracted covid. You're more likely to catch it here in the U.K than the holiday destinations approved by the fco
But that to oneside, it's better than the nothing they get now, I think it would be better if it was a percentage of wages unless you earn 80k + annually
It was reasonably easy to tell where the virus had come from at the start, when people flying in from ski holidays etc brought it in. It would be much more speculative now.
This scheme that's being trialled in some localities with high levels of infection, doesn't speculate or discriminate against the virus's origins. If people get a positive test result or are contacted by the official track and trace team, they can be paid £13 for each day that they lose their pay, if unable to work from home. They have to submit evidence and will be amongst those getting working tax credits etc, probably aee paid daily, close to minimum wage.
Local authorities have been encouraging the government to recompense people for lost wages, to help to support people who have to quarantine. It's currently not in some areas with high levels of infection. £13 a day, for a full lost day's pay is obviously still going to mean that there's an incentive for people to work, whilst infected. That's in nobody's interest, so I'm not confident that £13 is going to achieve what we need, which is people kept away from others.
In other countries, the employer pays staff who would have worked, as the UK furlough scheme does. We seem to have decided to make things more complicated and bureaucratic, than we had to. Plus it's probably not going to be enough to calm people who are worried about every penny that they have coming in.
If people still go to work, knowing they should be isolating they should be fined, that's an incentive.
Now that would be hard to bring in after Cummings sticking to his isolation eh
Old news "But relevant... | |||
" Depends entirely on why they are self isolating, if it is due to a situation where they had to go to work and were exposed etc or picked it up from food shopping etc then minimum wage should be applied. If it is due to an optional activity such as holiday abroad or contact within a pub then I don't see why they should be paid at all as these were avoidable and voluntary exposures, not the governments responsibility." This was my thought too Mrs J | |||
"I didn't realise that you could now tell where you contracted covid. You're more likely to catch it here in the U.K than the holiday destinations approved by the fco
But that to oneside, it's better than the nothing they get now, I think it would be better if it was a percentage of wages unless you earn 80k + annually
It was reasonably easy to tell where the virus had come from at the start, when people flying in from ski holidays etc brought it in. It would be much more speculative now.
This scheme that's being trialled in some localities with high levels of infection, doesn't speculate or discriminate against the virus's origins. If people get a positive test result or are contacted by the official track and trace team, they can be paid £13 for each day that they lose their pay, if unable to work from home. They have to submit evidence and will be amongst those getting working tax credits etc, probably aee paid daily, close to minimum wage.
Local authorities have been encouraging the government to recompense people for lost wages, to help to support people who have to quarantine. It's currently not in some areas with high levels of infection. £13 a day, for a full lost day's pay is obviously still going to mean that there's an incentive for people to work, whilst infected. That's in nobody's interest, so I'm not confident that £13 is going to achieve what we need, which is people kept away from others.
In other countries, the employer pays staff who would have worked, as the UK furlough scheme does. We seem to have decided to make things more complicated and bureaucratic, than we had to. Plus it's probably not going to be enough to calm people who are worried about every penny that they have coming in.
If people still go to work, knowing they should be isolating they should be fined, that's an incentive.
Now that would be hard to bring in after Cummings sticking to his isolation eh
Old news
But relevant..."How so? Wasn't he investigated by the police and no further action taken? It's time to stop flogging a dead horse. | |||
| |||
"I didn't realise that you could now tell where you contracted covid. You're more likely to catch it here in the U.K than the holiday destinations approved by the fco
But that to oneside, it's better than the nothing they get now, I think it would be better if it was a percentage of wages unless you earn 80k + annually
It was reasonably easy to tell where the virus had come from at the start, when people flying in from ski holidays etc brought it in. It would be much more speculative now.
This scheme that's being trialled in some localities with high levels of infection, doesn't speculate or discriminate against the virus's origins. If people get a positive test result or are contacted by the official track and trace team, they can be paid £13 for each day that they lose their pay, if unable to work from home. They have to submit evidence and will be amongst those getting working tax credits etc, probably aee paid daily, close to minimum wage.
Local authorities have been encouraging the government to recompense people for lost wages, to help to support people who have to quarantine. It's currently not in some areas with high levels of infection. £13 a day, for a full lost day's pay is obviously still going to mean that there's an incentive for people to work, whilst infected. That's in nobody's interest, so I'm not confident that £13 is going to achieve what we need, which is people kept away from others.
In other countries, the employer pays staff who would have worked, as the UK furlough scheme does. We seem to have decided to make things more complicated and bureaucratic, than we had to. Plus it's probably not going to be enough to calm people who are worried about every penny that they have coming in.
If people still go to work, knowing they should be isolating they should be fined, that's an incentive. "Hmmm work or eviction . Which would you choose. Remember this is for the workers that are barely getting by. So that could be the stark choice for them. | |||
"I didn't realise that you could now tell where you contracted covid. You're more likely to catch it here in the U.K than the holiday destinations approved by the fco
But that to oneside, it's better than the nothing they get now, I think it would be better if it was a percentage of wages unless you earn 80k + annually
It was reasonably easy to tell where the virus had come from at the start, when people flying in from ski holidays etc brought it in. It would be much more speculative now.
This scheme that's being trialled in some localities with high levels of infection, doesn't speculate or discriminate against the virus's origins. If people get a positive test result or are contacted by the official track and trace team, they can be paid £13 for each day that they lose their pay, if unable to work from home. They have to submit evidence and will be amongst those getting working tax credits etc, probably aee paid daily, close to minimum wage.
Local authorities have been encouraging the government to recompense people for lost wages, to help to support people who have to quarantine. It's currently not in some areas with high levels of infection. £13 a day, for a full lost day's pay is obviously still going to mean that there's an incentive for people to work, whilst infected. That's in nobody's interest, so I'm not confident that £13 is going to achieve what we need, which is people kept away from others.
In other countries, the employer pays staff who would have worked, as the UK furlough scheme does. We seem to have decided to make things more complicated and bureaucratic, than we had to. Plus it's probably not going to be enough to calm people who are worried about every penny that they have coming in.
If people still go to work, knowing they should be isolating they should be fined, that's an incentive. Hmmm work or eviction .
Which would you choose.
Remember this is for the workers that are barely getting by.
So that could be the stark choice for them."For some people their choice might possibly become life or death. | |||
"I didn't realise that you could now tell where you contracted covid. You're more likely to catch it here in the U.K than the holiday destinations approved by the fco
But that to oneside, it's better than the nothing they get now, I think it would be better if it was a percentage of wages unless you earn 80k + annually
It was reasonably easy to tell where the virus had come from at the start, when people flying in from ski holidays etc brought it in. It would be much more speculative now.
This scheme that's being trialled in some localities with high levels of infection, doesn't speculate or discriminate against the virus's origins. If people get a positive test result or are contacted by the official track and trace team, they can be paid £13 for each day that they lose their pay, if unable to work from home. They have to submit evidence and will be amongst those getting working tax credits etc, probably aee paid daily, close to minimum wage.
Local authorities have been encouraging the government to recompense people for lost wages, to help to support people who have to quarantine. It's currently not in some areas with high levels of infection. £13 a day, for a full lost day's pay is obviously still going to mean that there's an incentive for people to work, whilst infected. That's in nobody's interest, so I'm not confident that £13 is going to achieve what we need, which is people kept away from others.
In other countries, the employer pays staff who would have worked, as the UK furlough scheme does. We seem to have decided to make things more complicated and bureaucratic, than we had to. Plus it's probably not going to be enough to calm people who are worried about every penny that they have coming in.
If people still go to work, knowing they should be isolating they should be fined, that's an incentive.
Now that would be hard to bring in after Cummings sticking to his isolation eh
Old news
But relevant...
How so? Wasn't he investigated by the police and no further action taken? It's time to stop flogging a dead horse. "Point is it's still very touchy to some eh. And it's made a rod for their own backs when it comes making laws...plus public trust in them disappeared after that event. As I said relevant.. | |||
"Didn't want to use the full quote
But that was brilliantly put sophie
Thanks sweetie x"Your welcome | |||
"I didn't realise that you could now tell where you contracted covid. You're more likely to catch it here in the U.K than the holiday destinations approved by the fco
But that to oneside, it's better than the nothing they get now, I think it would be better if it was a percentage of wages unless you earn 80k + annually
It was reasonably easy to tell where the virus had come from at the start, when people flying in from ski holidays etc brought it in. It would be much more speculative now.
This scheme that's being trialled in some localities with high levels of infection, doesn't speculate or discriminate against the virus's origins. If people get a positive test result or are contacted by the official track and trace team, they can be paid £13 for each day that they lose their pay, if unable to work from home. They have to submit evidence and will be amongst those getting working tax credits etc, probably aee paid daily, close to minimum wage.
Local authorities have been encouraging the government to recompense people for lost wages, to help to support people who have to quarantine. It's currently not in some areas with high levels of infection. £13 a day, for a full lost day's pay is obviously still going to mean that there's an incentive for people to work, whilst infected. That's in nobody's interest, so I'm not confident that £13 is going to achieve what we need, which is people kept away from others.
In other countries, the employer pays staff who would have worked, as the UK furlough scheme does. We seem to have decided to make things more complicated and bureaucratic, than we had to. Plus it's probably not going to be enough to calm people who are worried about every penny that they have coming in.
If people still go to work, knowing they should be isolating they should be fined, that's an incentive.
Now that would be hard to bring in after Cummings sticking to his isolation eh
Old news
But relevant...
How so? Wasn't he investigated by the police and no further action taken? It's time to stop flogging a dead horse.
Point is it's still very touchy to some eh. And it's made a rod for their own backs when it comes making laws...plus public trust in them disappeared after that event. As I said relevant.."Someone found not to be in breach of isolation guidance isn't relevant to people being paid £13 per day to isolate. As I said, flogging a dead horse. | |||
"Love the thought of people blagging the system for £13 a day. "Mad ismt it? Millions getting wasted on unusable gear. Dodgy deals given to companies with close links to the gmnt. But the big issue is someone having the gmnt off for just over a tenner. | |||
"Love the thought of people blagging the system for £13 a day.
Mad ismt it?
Millions getting wasted on unusable gear.
Dodgy deals given to companies with close links to the gmnt.
But the big issue is someone having the gmnt off for just over a tenner."So that money comes direct out of the government's pocket? They aren't 'having the government off', who do you think pays for it? | |||
| |||
"Love the thought of people blagging the system for £13 a day.
Mad ismt it?
Millions getting wasted on unusable gear.
Dodgy deals given to companies with close links to the gmnt.
But the big issue is someone having the gmnt off for just over a tenner."Yep as I said earlier it's crumbs. But some on here are scared stiff if a poor bugger gets a penny that they think they are not entitled too...its total madness. | |||
"Love the thought of people blagging the system for £13 a day.
Mad ismt it?
Millions getting wasted on unusable gear.
Dodgy deals given to companies with close links to the gmnt.
But the big issue is someone having the gmnt off for just over a tenner.
Yep as I said earlier it's crumbs.
But some on here are scared stiff if a poor bugger gets a penny that they think they are not entitled too...its total madness."Agreed Its absolute peanuts for someone who is in work poverty. | |||
"Love the thought of people blagging the system for £13 a day.
Mad ismt it?
Millions getting wasted on unusable gear.
Dodgy deals given to companies with close links to the gmnt.
But the big issue is someone having the gmnt off for just over a tenner.
Yep as I said earlier it's crumbs.
But some on here are scared stiff if a poor bugger gets a penny that they think they are not entitled too...its total madness.
Agreed
Its absolute peanuts for someone who is in work poverty. "
Totally because they have sod all in the bank to start with. Its madness to even suggest fining them...do we have to always knee the poorest in society in the balls ffs
| |||
"Love the thought of people blagging the system for £13 a day.
Mad ismt it?
Millions getting wasted on unusable gear.
Dodgy deals given to companies with close links to the gmnt.
But the big issue is someone having the gmnt off for just over a tenner.
So that money comes direct out of the government's pocket? They aren't 'having the government off', who do you think pays for it? "Who do you think pays for all those dodgy deals? | |||
| |||
"Love the thought of people blagging the system for £13 a day.
Mad ismt it?
Millions getting wasted on unusable gear.
Dodgy deals given to companies with close links to the gmnt.
But the big issue is someone having the gmnt off for just over a tenner.
So that money comes direct out of the government's pocket? They aren't 'having the government off', who do you think pays for it? "Who do you think pays for those million pound cock ups? | |||
| |||
| |||
"The same people who where paying some people to furlough upto 2 and a half grand a week!" Too true. I didn’t even get half of that per three months. All because I had the audacity to be self employed before the lockdown while having worked for an employer 3 years ago. I’ve subsidised furlough, I’ve subsidised eat out to help out while not being able to afford to eat out. I even donated 2615 faceshields to the nhs and care sector while Jef Bezos sells them to hairdressers at £25 a pop. What do I get? Fuck all. | |||
"So you feel fit and healthy, you some how get roped or forced into having a test, for the deadliest most contagious air-borne disease known to man, it’s so deadly that 80% don’t know they’ve got it, the recovery rate is well over 99 %, the treatment, for this virus to end all virus’s is, “stay home for two weeks” ? You may lose your job, your house, your sanity, you may have already lost them. Don’t panic, you can have 13 quid a day. At least I can smell the coffee " Some fool poured boiling water on this coffee. (That’s not a dig at you, I am bitter and scorched.) | |||
"£13 per day is more than a carer is paid if they are looking after a family member... so it's not exactly pittance.. not sure why people stuck in isolation need extra money as surely your not doing anything or going anywhere... I was under the assumption this was on top of people benefits so wasnt aimed at those working. I could be wrong though as just heard it in passing x" I think it's for zero hour contracts or your pay I's that low you qualify for benefits. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Maybe keeping the pay low will stop those working from crowding in pubs not social distancing knowing they could impact not only their income but a their colleagues. " Jesus wept. | |||
| |||
"Luxuries like having enough food? Like having enough to pay for electricity and gas? The rent ? Those luxuries? One of the problems is some people think that being without money for two weeks is a minor inconvenience when for those already on the breadline it’s a total fucking disaster. That’s why folk are going to work and passing on the virus - they can’t afford not to. " Spot on | |||
"Being realistic pay full time minimum wage for isolation u would have masses of people claiming they had symptoms or been in contact " An efficient, world heating testing system would prevent that... | |||
"Being realistic pay full time minimum wage for isolation u would have masses of people claiming they had symptoms or been in contact An efficient, world heating testing system would prevent that..." Let's hope the heating system would be free as we have winter coming and 13 quid will go nowhere... Yeah I know you meant "beating"  | |||
| |||
"If you are self isolating due to a holiday that you knew was affected then it’s self inflicted so why should a company pay? You knew the consequences. If you’re already there when a country is added to the list then I have sympathy. The £13 is a a joke as SSP I totally agree. The example of the Ryan air flight where the couple were taken off the flight. They went for testing so must have had worries yes still went ahead with their plans without any thought for other travellers until they got the text. No sympathy for stupid people and if you have symptoms aren’t you supposed to isolate anyway? As said earlier In the thread, people will ignore the self isolation as we are a selfish bunch and always stamp our feet if we can’t have it all ways. Plus I agree some people simply can’t afford to. No easy answers " As lionel said earlier....the people this is aimed at already on low wages. So hardly likely to need it because of a holiday. No likely catch it in the home of a person they are caring for whilst on their starvation wage. Point is if they do they need to self isolate. But they are just getting by as it is...so really we should at least pay the full wage to keep the country safe...as 13 quid will not do it. | |||
| |||
"Being realistic pay full time minimum wage for isolation u would have masses of people claiming they had symptoms or been in contact An efficient, world heating testing system would prevent that... Let's hope the heating system would be free as we have winter coming and 13 quid will go nowhere... Yeah I know you meant "beating" " | |||
| |||
"I think there's a consensus - everyone should be self isolating when they get a positive test result or when the track and trace team tells them they have been in close contact with someone and so should test and isolate. £13 isn't enough for people on minimum wage zero hours type contracts, to afford to pay their bills, so it should be increased, probably to full pay. " | |||
"I think there's a consensus - everyone should be self isolating when they get a positive test result or when the track and trace team tells them they have been in close contact with someone and so should test and isolate. £13 isn't enough for people on minimum wage zero hours type contracts, to afford to pay their bills, so it should be increased, probably to full pay. " You can't see that idea being a logistical nightmare then? | |||
"I think there's a consensus - everyone should be self isolating when they get a positive test result or when the track and trace team tells them they have been in close contact with someone and so should test and isolate. £13 isn't enough for people on minimum wage zero hours type contracts, to afford to pay their bills, so it should be increased, probably to full pay. You can't see that idea being a logistical nightmare then? " Of course there are going to be difficulties and your input is welcome. The current nightmare is that our infection levels are too high. People who are infected and interacting with others are going to keep this level high, potentially increasing it. People who are in or close to poverty need guaranteed income if they are to stop working. If they don't get it, you create a nightmare for every 1 of them. Currently targeted at areas with high infection levels, payments aren't sufficient. We're introducing a new system. We may as well do it right, if we're 100% committed to reducing the infection levels. | |||
"I think there's a consensus - everyone should be self isolating when they get a positive test result or when the track and trace team tells them they have been in close contact with someone and so should test and isolate. £13 isn't enough for people on minimum wage zero hours type contracts, to afford to pay their bills, so it should be increased, probably to full pay. You can't see that idea being a logistical nightmare then? " These things always seem to be impossible to do when it come down to paying someone around £9 a hour. When it comes to paying 80% of 2 and a half grand a week it worked ok. Surely we dont just dismiss doing the right thing for these people and for the benefit of stopping the spread. That we just say it's a logistical nightmare. | |||
"I think there's a consensus - everyone should be self isolating when they get a positive test result or when the track and trace team tells them they have been in close contact with someone and so should test and isolate. £13 isn't enough for people on minimum wage zero hours type contracts, to afford to pay their bills, so it should be increased, probably to full pay. You can't see that idea being a logistical nightmare then? These things always seem to be impossible to do when it come down to paying someone around £9 a hour. When it comes to paying 80% of 2 and a half grand a week it worked ok. Surely we dont just dismiss doing the right thing for these people and for the benefit of stopping the spread. That we just say it's a logistical nightmare." | |||
"I think there's a consensus - everyone should be self isolating when they get a positive test result or when the track and trace team tells them they have been in close contact with someone and so should test and isolate. £13 isn't enough for people on minimum wage zero hours type contracts, to afford to pay their bills, so it should be increased, probably to full pay. You can't see that idea being a logistical nightmare then? These things always seem to be impossible to do when it come down to paying someone around £9 a hour. When it comes to paying 80% of 2 and a half grand a week it worked ok. Surely we dont just dismiss doing the right thing for these people and for the benefit of stopping the spread. That we just say it's a logistical nightmare." Its not impossible but there are many problems. Determining zero contract pay is one, the same for self-employed. Any scheme has to be simple, quick and easy to administer. A better way would to be raise SSP (which this scheme is based on) but that will take a longer timescale than we probably have. | |||
"Its crumbs for the poorest in society who are already on a pittance. But it makes out the government is doing something. Piss poorer really though... Depends entirely on why they are self isolating, if it is due to a situation where they had to go to work and were exposed etc or picked it up from food shopping etc then minimum wage should be applied. If it is due to an optional activity such as holiday abroad or contact within a pub then I don't see why they should be paid at all as these were avoidable and voluntary exposures, not the governments responsibility.
Even if they where out using the governments eat out to help out?"I don't know. I change my mind more than the government. 
It's too Schrödinger's for my old brain. | |||
| |||
"Its crumbs for the poorest in society who are already on a pittance. But it makes out the government is doing something. Piss poorer really though... Depends entirely on why they are self isolating, if it is due to a situation where they had to go to work and were exposed etc or picked it up from food shopping etc then minimum wage should be applied. If it is due to an optional activity such as holiday abroad or contact within a pub then I don't see why they should be paid at all as these were avoidable and voluntary exposures, not the governments responsibility.
Even if they where out using the governments eat out to help out?
I don't know. I change my mind more than the government.
It's too Schrödinger's for my old brain."That damn cat  | |||
| |||
"Whilst £13 is a miniscule amount to many people, I can remember times in my not too distant past where finding a £1 coin in the supermarket carpark doubled the amount of money I had and meant I could eat for another week. When you have absolutely nothing then even a miniscule something makes all the difference. " Hey I'm far from skint but finding one of those £1 coins still gives me a lift | |||
"Its crumbs for the poorest in society who are already on a pittance. But it makes out the government is doing something. Piss poorer really though... Depends entirely on why they are self isolating, if it is due to a situation where they had to go to work and were exposed etc or picked it up from food shopping etc then minimum wage should be applied. If it is due to an optional activity such as holiday abroad or contact within a pub then I don't see why they should be paid at all as these were avoidable and voluntary exposures, not the governments responsibility.
Even if they where out using the governments eat out to help out?
I don't know. I change my mind more than the government.
It's too Schrödinger's for my old brain.
That damn cat "Schrödinger's bat.  | |||
"I think there's a consensus - everyone should be self isolating when they get a positive test result or when the track and trace team tells them they have been in close contact with someone and so should test and isolate. £13 isn't enough for people on minimum wage zero hours type contracts, to afford to pay their bills, so it should be increased, probably to full pay. You can't see that idea being a logistical nightmare then? These things always seem to be impossible to do when it come down to paying someone around £9 a hour. When it comes to paying 80% of 2 and a half grand a week it worked ok. Surely we dont just dismiss doing the right thing for these people and for the benefit of stopping the spread. That we just say it's a logistical nightmare. Its not impossible but there are many problems. Determining zero contract pay is one, the same for self-employed. Any scheme has to be simple, quick and easy to administer. A better way would to be raise SSP (which this scheme is based on) but that will take a longer timescale than we probably have. " I'm assuming, without knowing any of the IT systems that will administer this, not to mention the staff that would need training, that payment of a current benefit will be quicker than if a new 1 is created, if the government is to pay this directly to claimants. The alternative is to get the employer that would have paid them for each day, to continue to pay them whatever they are due - whether full/partial wage or a sum stipulated by the benefits agency. A validation of the virus or quarantine requirements could be sourced from test results or track and tracing team, which may be better than individuals having to submit paperwork for each claim. The details of the process are important and streamlining them with current systems, processes and staff ideal, but it's ideal to fix the requirement for people to be reimbursed a fit and proper amount of money that will keep people safe and secure, whilst closing any incentives for them to work instead. Ideally there would be no delay with reimbursement later than paydays and the government are currently aiming to pay within 2 days. Full pay will almost certainly mean much closer to 100% of these desperate people will stay at home. The lower the payments, the greater the amount of people there will be who go out to work. If we are to avoid infection levels climbing, we should get these people who have been identified as some of the most likely to be spreading the disease targeted with an effective, near cast-iron solution that suppresses this key area of danger to everyone. | |||
"I think there's a consensus - everyone should be self isolating when they get a positive test result or when the track and trace team tells them they have been in close contact with someone and so should test and isolate. £13 isn't enough for people on minimum wage zero hours type contracts, to afford to pay their bills, so it should be increased, probably to full pay. You can't see that idea being a logistical nightmare then? These things always seem to be impossible to do when it come down to paying someone around £9 a hour. When it comes to paying 80% of 2 and a half grand a week it worked ok. Surely we dont just dismiss doing the right thing for these people and for the benefit of stopping the spread. That we just say it's a logistical nightmare. Its not impossible but there are many problems. Determining zero contract pay is one, the same for self-employed. Any scheme has to be simple, quick and easy to administer. A better way would to be raise SSP (which this scheme is based on) but that will take a longer timescale than we probably have. I'm assuming, without knowing any of the IT systems that will administer this, not to mention the staff that would need training, that payment of a current benefit will be quicker than if a new 1 is created, if the government is to pay this directly to claimants. The alternative is to get the employer that would have paid them for each day, to continue to pay them whatever they are due - whether full/partial wage or a sum stipulated by the benefits agency. A validation of the virus or quarantine requirements could be sourced from test results or track and tracing team, which may be better than individuals having to submit paperwork for each claim. The details of the process are important and streamlining them with current systems, processes and staff ideal, but it's ideal to fix the requirement for people to be reimbursed a fit and proper amount of money that will keep people safe and secure, whilst closing any incentives for them to work instead. Ideally there would be no delay with reimbursement later than paydays and the government are currently aiming to pay within 2 days. Full pay will almost certainly mean much closer to 100% of these desperate people will stay at home. The lower the payments, the greater the amount of people there will be who go out to work. If we are to avoid infection levels climbing, we should get these people who have been identified as some of the most likely to be spreading the disease targeted with an effective, near cast-iron solution that suppresses this key area of danger to everyone. " Logistics sorted Now let's hope they do it | |||
| |||
"Thanks MD - I'll skip the long quote too. I'll be contacting my MP and encourage others to do the same. These newly identified people are truly the ones that should be targeted with appropriate resources " | |||
Only thing I would say is that it might be better for Local Authorities to reuse their systems rather than central government.
They know their citizens, the geographic areas and special circumstances around them.
They are also more likely to be able to leverage existing systems to get a consistent and rapid result as well.
| |||
"Sounds like a good plan.
Only thing I would say is that it might be better for Local Authorities to reuse their systems rather than central government.
They know their citizens, the geographic areas and special circumstances around them.
They are also more likely to be able to leverage existing systems to get a consistent and rapid result as well.
"I know they have increased their activities to help to suppress rising infection levels but I'm unsure whether many will have the financial resources to be able to fund it. I don't think central government has been very forthcoming with money for them. We should just be doing what's best for everyone and the country. At present, the majority of people testing positive get nothing, it's just been trialled in a couple of local areas where rates were very high. We don't seem to have used a lot of common sense this year  | |||
" I know they have increased their activities to help to suppress rising infection levels but I'm unsure whether many will have the financial resources to be able to fund it. I don't think central government has been very forthcoming with money for them. " No they haven't been at all forthcoming and that needs sorting out. A big chunk of this £2TN is either dumped in the laps of LA's who were told "just sort it and send us the bill" or it's not been counted at all... | |||
" I know they have increased their activities to help to suppress rising infection levels but I'm unsure whether many will have the financial resources to be able to fund it. I don't think central government has been very forthcoming with money for them. No they haven't been at all forthcoming and that needs sorting out. A big chunk of this £2TN is either dumped in the laps of LA's who were told "just sort it and send us the bill" or it's not been counted at all... " I think the money has generally been flowing towards private companies, many of them with links to people in government, where the contracts didn't require competitive tendering at all. We've spent £millions that way but a couple of million to pay the lowest paid seems to be a problem, alongside letting local authorities do what they are good at, though they are as good as broke. | |||
" I think the money has generally been flowing towards private companies, many of them with links to people in government, where the contracts didn't require competitive tendering at all. We've spent £millions that way but a couple of million to pay the lowest paid seems to be a problem, alongside letting local authorities do what they are good at, though they are as good as broke. " Not too sure where the money has been going but I do know my LA was £60M out of pocket back in July and are now having to lay off staff again - that's twice in less than 12 months now. Cuts to front line services are looking inevitable, but the general public will expect everything to be tickedyboo and accuse them of incompetence as always... | |||
" I know they have increased their activities to help to suppress rising infection levels but I'm unsure whether many will have the financial resources to be able to fund it. I don't think central government has been very forthcoming with money for them. No they haven't been at all forthcoming and that needs sorting out. A big chunk of this £2TN is either dumped in the laps of LA's who were told "just sort it and send us the bill" or it's not been counted at all... I think the money has generally been flowing towards private companies, many of them with links to people in government, where the contracts didn't require competitive tendering at all. We've spent £millions that way but a couple of million to pay the lowest paid seems to be a problem, alongside letting local authorities do what they are good at, though they are as good as broke. " OK so you would put out a tender wait for months if not a year for the process to follow then order masks as an example? You make it sound like the tender process is quick. Also yes people know people. You will always find a link, 6 degrees if separation and that. | |||
" OK so you would put out a tender wait for months if not a year for the process to follow then order masks as an example? You make it sound like the tender process is quick. Also yes people know people. You will always find a link, 6 degrees if separation and that. " If that's how you would do it, it's certainly not the reasonable approach. Always primarily keep your focus on what your objectives are. This will include the dates for the deliverables. This is, in any event, off topic from the requirements to ensure that people on the breadline are not incentivised inadvertently to work whilst infected or after a track and trace notifications to quarantine. | |||
"Its the same amount as being put on ssp though, why should isolation people get more than sick people? Surely it should be the same? Everything should relate to what our objectives are, otherwise we will be more likely to miss the boat. If we are trying to stop people from going out to work in a public environment, then it needs to be motivating enough for them to do so, above and beyond wanting to do the right thing, for the greater good. A basic understanding of human needs, such as the Maslow proposal, shows that people will instinctively seek to survive and keep their home, before they will seek to fulfill broader aims. They will have homes and food to pay for, for themselves and family. Other countries are paying full pay, whilst people have an imposed quarantine. In this category, the furlough pay, which could be topped up with 20% employer pay, would be a reasonable way to motivate people to quarantine. The group of young people who returned from Zante to Plymouth this week, who appear to have spawned towards 40 people possibly being infected there, during social engagement, highlights how easily much larger problems can happen, when infected people mix amongst others. Workforce teams may be brought down by the odd individual who is infected, as can wider general public populations. As people are now several months into this, where incomes have been impaired to a great extent, we have to focus on what we want to achieve. If we're fully behind making drastic cuts to infection levels, rewarding people appropriately for their efforts to help all of us, has to be meaningful enough to get full leverage to get this done. People shouldn't be rewarded for doing the right thing. If people refuse to self isolate when told to do so there should be fines. I understand that people may suffer financially but there's going to have to be compromise, maybe some luxuries will have to be missed for a few weeks. I agree that if you've decided to go abroad and bring back covid you should have to finance your own time off work, holidays abroad are unnecessary at the moment." | |||
| |||
"£13 a day we wouldn't self isolate When mortgage food bills need to be paid.its ok for those with money or those who believe can afford..." I think that's how most people who feel pretty well would be, when money is in short supply. We shouldn't perhaps be too surprised that we end up with a system that doesn't understand the obvious and leaves everyone worse off. | |||
