COVID-19 — Coronavirus

Status
Not open for further replies.
Churchlawtonblue said:
so when Liverpool got to 174 cases that was good enough to be classed as Tier 2. If and when GM gets to that level logically the area should be regraded to Tier 2. Do you know what GM level is at present Healdplace? Apologies if you have posted this already and i havent read it.
Click to expand...

That list is Liverpool city v Manchester city NOT any other parts of GM or of Merseyside included.

Liverpool's Pop for the past 7 days up to today is 124 as it has fallen since.

Manchester's Pop for the same 7 days is up a bit today to 232 (it was 228 yesterday).

On the 21 Nov data updated to cases allocated to the actual day Liverpool was down to 158 from 171 in that list THEN.

And Manchester down to 250 from 266 THEN.

Though in the 5 days since both have fallen further as shown above.
 
Last edited:
Healdplace said:
That list is Liverpool city v Manchester city NOT any other parts of GM or of Merseyside included.

Liverpool's Pop for the past 7 days up to today is 124 as it has fallen since.

Manchester's Pop for the same 7 days is up a bit today to 232.
Click to expand...
goodness me, its all a bit blinking confusing. lol There doesn't seem to be a case level where an area goes from tier 2 to 3. Is it an arbitary decision??
 
hammocity said:
So sorry to hear that, I seem to remember from previous posts you were hamstrung from receiving assistance as you were on a min wage with dividends paid from your limited company. Some people think this is a way to avoid tax, it isn't, quite often with small businesses it's about survival. I have a limited company but fortunately have retained around 70% of my turnover, if it gets worse I'll be joining you, I hope you find a way back when this whole destructive episode is finished, it's devastated lives, families, businesses, still here though so very best of luck to you.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that, best of luck with your own trials.

Yep, most media companies prefer freelancers to set up as Ltd, it affords them a degree of certainty and legal protections.

Freelancers never know what their income is from one month to the next, so paying a basic wage and Paye, with hopefully dividends to come, was always the most effective way to trade.

I was paying Paye, self assessment, dividend tax, corporation tax, VAT, accountancy for monthly pay roll and filings, plus confirmation certificate each April at Companies House.

At least with sole trader status I only have to deal with self assessment!
 
Last edited:
PannickAtTheDisco said:
Hopefully, their apparent fudge to get this through by not following the same standards as the other 2 programmes is a wake-up call and they get their act together and deliver honest, transparent results that clearly show what they were hinting at earlier in the week without much basis.
Click to expand...

You've no clue what you're on about.
 
Manc in London said:
I have not looked at the worst performing 100 authorities for a few days. I think Havering were there when I last looked.

Latest figs I can find (I am lazy, sorry) for n per 100,000:

Camden 97
Westminster 118.6
Islington 132.8
Hammersmith & Fulham 164.2
Richmond 109.6
Hillingdon 197.2
Kingston 158.9
Ealing 215.9
Barnet 165
Lambeth 138.9
Tower Hamlets 230
Sutton 151.7
Lewisham 113.1
Waltham Forest 207.6
Kensington & Chelsea 135.8
Harrow 182
Southwark 112.6
Hackney and City of London 160.2
Bexley 250.5
Haringey 140
Brent 205
Greenwich 200.7
Newham 229.4
Redbridge 300.8
Merton 179.1
Croydon 164.2
Havering 366.8
Barking & Dagenham 258.3
Enfield 212.1
Bromley 154.7
Hounslow 202.9

Those highlighted in bold (23 out of 32) are below the national average. Amusing that people keep referring to Havering when referring to the whole of London. It's a clear outlier at the moment. There is only one other borough wit a score within a 100 per 100,000.

I remember when Richmond was at c600/100,000 a few weeks ago. Now 109.6. Goodness knows what happened there.

Of course, it could all go tits up in the next week or two. It certainly does not appear stable in the capital at the moment. Looking at the figures it gives us all another excuse for not going to east London ;) (I remember where you live :) )

I blame that week before went into Tier 3. Where I live, people were acting as if things were back to normal. Misplaced confidence.
Click to expand...
Misplaced confidence?
Last hurrah I think.
 
Churchlawtonblue said:
goodness me, its all a bit blinking confusing. lol There doesn't seem to be a case level where an area goes from tier 2 to 3. Is it an arbitary decision??
Click to expand...

It is based on 5 different criteria I gather. Not just the cases. Over 60s cases is counted separately as this maximises risk to NHS as is % of hospital occupancy on icu in an area.
 
PannickAtTheDisco said:
maybe theirs is just better? I don't know why, if the UK rushed to get Oxford out if approved over here, you'd go and have that when you could potentially wait for a more effective one from elsewhere, particularly when there doesn't appear to be any confirmation that if you wanted to take a more effective one later it would still work.
Click to expand...

well, even if the rumours are true, for anyone under 55 it’s 90% effective?
 
My sister lives in Gatley and is in tier three but two miles down the road is in tier two. All down to postcodes. It's madness.
 
All the speculation on here about the different efficacy between the vaccines is a bit pointless.

All have good, positive headline results.

None have published details yet.

None have had a regulatory approval yet.

Some important things, like whether there is evidence of a difference in sustained immunity, is as yet unknowable.

How we emerge from this will probably depend more on logistics and availability than personal preference anyway.
 
Manc in London said:
I have not looked at the worst performing 100 authorities for a few days. I think Havering were there when I last looked.

Latest figs I can find (I am lazy, sorry) for n per 100,000:

Camden 97
Westminster 118.6
Islington 132.8
Hammersmith & Fulham 164.2
Richmond 109.6
Hillingdon 197.2
Kingston 158.9
Ealing 215.9
Barnet 165
Lambeth 138.9
Tower Hamlets 230
Sutton 151.7
Lewisham 113.1
Waltham Forest 207.6
Kensington & Chelsea 135.8
Harrow 182
Southwark 112.6
Hackney and City of London 160.2
Bexley 250.5
Haringey 140
Brent 205
Greenwich 200.7
Newham 229.4
Redbridge 300.8
Merton 179.1
Croydon 164.2
Havering 366.8
Barking & Dagenham 258.3
Enfield 212.1
Bromley 154.7
Hounslow 202.9

Those highlighted in bold (23 out of 32) are below the national average. Amusing that people keep referring to Havering when referring to the whole of London. It's a clear outlier at the moment. There is only one other borough wit a score within a 100 per 100,000.

I remember when Richmond was at c600/100,000 a few weeks ago. Now 109.6. Goodness knows what happened there.

Of course, it could all go tits up in the next week or two. It certainly does not appear stable in the capital at the moment. Looking at the figures it gives us all another excuse for not going to east London ;) (I remember where you live :) )

I blame that week before went into Tier 3. Where I live, people were acting as if things were back to normal. Misplaced confidence.
Click to expand...

Yes, Havering and one or two others in the east are bad, plus a few others.

And yes, it's grim out east. I don't go there if I can avoid it.
 
Dr Gloom is getting beyond a joke now.
If you have a problem with huging, close schools a week and a half before Christmas.
He's turning into the Child Catcher from Chitty Chitty Bang Bang
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top