Coronavirus **support** thread
3 lurkers |
160 watchers
Jun 2020
1:59pm, 5 Jun 2020
1,148 posts
|
Roberto
Fingers crossed lmh. We were meant to be meeting our puppy for the first time tomorrow as well so gutted about that. (Not a rush lockdown decision, had been talking about getting one for a year now). But my priority is the kids I work with and while I may just be having a bad day and feel fine tomorrow, or it could be hayfever or anything, I'd rather not take the risk for their/their carers sake. |
Jun 2020
2:48pm, 5 Jun 2020
2,662 posts
|
Little Miss Happy
That is bad timing Roberto but I agree totally. I just hope it is a minor and shortlived inconvenience.
|
Jun 2020
3:40pm, 5 Jun 2020
16,629 posts
|
Bazoaxe
Hi question on the furlough. Are employers obliged to top up to the 80% after July? I thought they were but wife has had a call from employer which indicates that may not be the case.
|
Jun 2020
4:09pm, 5 Jun 2020
64,369 posts
|
swittle
canute: mine is a lay person's interpretation of the article and its tone. From professional experience of peer review, its efficacy is improved by the number of peers involved and the time taken to arrive at a conclusion. Regarding approaches to fighting covid-19, time to carry out the research needed to stand up to rigorous scrutiny is very much at a premium. |
Jun 2020
4:22pm, 5 Jun 2020
3,572 posts
|
K5 Gus
Baz, from gov.uk It says employers WILL pay, not MAY pay, so I'd say you're right at first looking at it. "The scheme updates mean that the following will apply for the period people are furloughed: June and July: The government will pay 80% of wages up to a cap of £2,500 as well as employer National Insurance (ER NICS) and pension contributions. Employers are not required to pay anything. August: The government will pay 80% of wages up to a cap of £2,500. Employers will pay ER NICs and pension contributions – for the average claim, this represents 5% of the gross employment costs the employer would have incurred had the employee not been furloughed. September: The government will pay 70% of wages up to a cap of £2,187.50. Employers will pay ER NICs and pension contributions and 10% of wages to make up 80% total up to a cap of £2,500. For the average claim, this represents 14% of the gross employment costs the employer would have incurred had the employee not been furloughed. October: The government will pay 60% of wages up to a cap of £1,875. Employers will pay ER NICs and pension contributions and 20% of wages to make up 80% total up to a cap of £2,500. For the average claim, this represents 23% of the gross employment costs the employer would have incurred had the employee not been furloughed." |
Jun 2020
4:25pm, 5 Jun 2020
41,016 posts
|
Lip Gloss
I was tested on Tuesday afternoon and results back on Wednesday afternoon. Found the whole process surreal and would have preferred someone carrying out the test on us but for some reason we were put to the self testing site at the airport and not the site For NHS workers at the hospital. Hope everyone has negative results but better safe than sorry. I can’t run with a buff covering my nose and mouth but have it in my bag for going shopping. |
|
Jun 2020
4:29pm, 5 Jun 2020
16,631 posts
|
Bazoaxe
Yeah that’s what I thought Gus. Message seemed to be prepare yourself for 60% when I took that to be redundancy as the likely next step if they are not prepared to top up. Apparently the poor girl who makes these weekly phone calls is getting a torrid time from many of the staff who are not happy with the situation and reduced pay. Mrs ace has kept away from all that and I think has got more info as the girl looks forward to that call over many of the others. There is a teams call set up for 16 June which seems to be timed just right if they are going into consultation. |
Jun 2020
4:50pm, 5 Jun 2020
27 posts
|
kaysdee
Bazo, I’m currently furloughed at 80%. K5 is exactly right and I’ve just had a discussion with my company in the last couple of days. These are the figures if no work is done by the employee - they must receive 80% up to the caps - just that the employer also contributes from August. However, from July on, employers can ask employees to return to work, on an ad hoc basis. Current rules (to end of June) are an ee can be unfurloughed and refurloughed as many times as companies want (if put back on furlough, this must be for a minimum of 3 weeks though). From July, this doesn’t apply, so you might be asked to work x days / remain furloughed for the remainder, possibly week on / week off, BUT any actual work done (and any bank holidays/annual leave) has to be be paid at 100% salary (I have been asked to take half of my annual leave before July and our holiday year is calendar year. Companies can do this, but again, it is at 100% rate). I’m expecting to be furloughed in some way until the end of the scheme. I suspect once the finance department has worked out the tipping point for them in terms of cost, this will determine how much they will want me to work (admin/office based, but can wfh). If it’s cheaper for them to keep me on furlough and maybe work one day a week, that’s what will happen. If 2 days of work means them paying me 100% for time worked compared to their contribution if I was furloughed, I’ll stay furloughed. Clear as mud 😀. Very uncertain times ahead. Hopefully I’ll have a job to return to, but no guarantees. I have a clinically vulnerable 16 yr old with many health issues/disabilities and two other teens doing online schooling, so for now, furlough is a godsend! If they asked me to return to the office I would have a dilemma due to my son’s safety. |
Jun 2020
4:53pm, 5 Jun 2020
2,365 posts
|
Canute
Swittle I did not mean to imply criticism of you. I intended to emphasize the challenge that 'science' faces in providing reliable advice within in a short time frame. I think we both agree that scrutiny of findings is crucial. As I see it, there are advantages in fairly rapid publication that exposes findings to wide ranging scrutiny, compared with a protracted process of peer review, but there are problems either way. I certainly do believe in the value of thorough peer review, but I am aware of its shortcomings. As mentioned in a previous blog, I also think that the advance publication of findings prior to peer review in on line sites such as medRxiv and bioRxiv has merits, as it can lead to rapid identification of flaws, but it is dangerous if readers place faith in the results. The really crucial thing is not placing too much faith in any single study, whether reported in a peer reviewed journal such as Lancet, or in medRxiv/bioRxiv. We should be extremely cautious of anything in medRxiv or bioRxiv. |
Jun 2020
5:05pm, 5 Jun 2020
7,396 posts
|
Too Much Water
Bazo - as per my post the other day that teams call is unfortunately very likely to be the beginning of a consultation process as 45 days till August 1st
|
Related Threads
-
Coronavirus discussion thread
Feb 2024
-
Long Covid
Apr 2022
-
Children off school, check in here for support.
Mar 2021
-
Working From Home
Jan 2021
-
How to occupy yourself during lockdown
Jun 2020
-
What are you missing at the moment?
Jun 2020
-
Coronavirus. Antibody testing. Priority post box.
May 2020
-
Hey Fetchies how are you?
May 2020
-
Silver Lining!
Apr 2020
-
Coronavirus Regulations UK: What is permitted and prohibited
Apr 2020
