The strategy of favouring the old and the vulnerable will prove disastrous long term.

pjohnson

_meehan_ wrote: »

Agree with you both. And can we not be simultaneously worried about our older relatives and our livelihoods?

I am currently temporarily laid off without pay and my other half is looking at being permanently laid off next week. The savings we have were supposed to be for a house deposit. That is out the window now. We are allowed to be worried about our ability to do basic things like buy a modest house and maybe start a family. We are allowed to be upset that our quality of life might be disrupted substantially for years after all of this is over.

Both of us are also worried about our grandparents' and parents' health and are basically staying at home unless we really need anything to abide by social distancing. It shouldn't be a shock that this can't go on forever, however. We need to spread the burden on our healthcare system but we can't just forget about people whose ability to earn and do the normal things (which require money!) has been obliterated.

This is an unimaginably difficult time for all of us. We can be anxious about both health and what the future holds financially...

Why would your O/H be permanently laid off? You acknowledge you are only temporarily laid off so what makes the other permanent? Was the company already on the verge of folding or did they already have official warnings before the virus and shutdowns?

Salty

pjohnson wrote: »

Why would she be permanently laid off? You acknowledge you are only temporarily laid off so what makes hers permanent? Was the company already on the verge of folding or did she have official warnings before the virus and shutdowns?

We are in completely different fields.

He is in the motors industry. Sales have plummeted. They have been advised by management that the likelihood of them all being hired back after this is over is minimal to completely unlikely. This week is probably his last week.

mariaalice

That is why any income support from the government will be linked to the job the person has if they go ahead with the 75% of the previous income it will come from the employer who will get it reimbursed from the government.

That will keep the person linked to their previous job.

ITman88

_meehan_ wrote: »

We are in completely different fields.

He is in the motors industry. Sales have plummeted. They have been advised by management that the likelihood of them all being hired back after this is over is minimal to completely unlikely. This week is probably his last week.

So many industries are being crippled, in such a short space of time.

Salty

ITman88 wrote: »

So many industries are being crippled, in such a short space of time.

Yes it's insane!

I am an allied health professional but I don't work for the HSE unfortunately, which is why I am out of work at the moment. The private clinic I work for closed for the time being. All any of us can do at this point is wait!

Lord TSC

mariaalice wrote: »

That is why any income support from the government will be linked to the job the person has if they go ahead with the 75% of the previous income it will come from the employer who will get it reimbursed from the government.

That will keep the person linked to their previous job.

I think you're underestimating the number of businesses who can afford even 25% of their employees' wages when the income of the business has dropped to 0%, and will be 0% for the foreseeable future (before we cover other expenses too, like rents, rates, etc)

Plus having to pay the 75% and then claim it back will be difficult if there's no money in the bank to begin with.

ITman88

Lord TSC wrote: »

I think you're underestimating the number of businesses who can afford even 25% of their employees' wages when the income of the business has dropped to 0%, and will be 0% for the foreseeable future (before we cover other expenses too, like rents, rates, etc)

Plus having to pay the 75% and then claim it back will be difficult if there's no money in the bank to begin with.

Yeah.

If a business has no revenue generation it would be insane to use cash on hand to cover employees wages

mariaalice

Lord TSC wrote: »

I think you're underestimating the number of businesses who can afford even 25% of their employees' wages when the income of the business has dropped to 0%, and will be 0% for the foreseeable future (before we cover other expenses too, like rents, rates, etc)

Plus having to pay the 75% and then claim it back will be difficult if there's no money in the bank to begin with.

I dont think the employer is expected to top the 25% the money might be directly deposited in the employer account.

If the business is not generating even one weeks spare cash it was most likely going to go under anyway.

mariaalice

It does mean for a while income will be down 25%

Salty

Lord TSC wrote: »

I think you're underestimating the number of businesses who can afford even 25% of their employees' wages when the income of the business has dropped to 0%, and will be 0% for the foreseeable future (before we cover other expenses too, like rents, rates, etc)

Plus having to pay the 75% and then claim it back will be difficult if there's no money in the bank to begin with.

The business I work for certainly wouldn't be able as they are newly opened. They are going to pay me the social welfare directly however!

I'm lucky I was able to just give up the room I was renting (I had to take a job a long way from home due to lack of opportunity in Cork) and move home for the moment. I'd rather contribute to my parents' bills and it saves me the rent.

storker

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

I believe a lot of its appeal right now is that everyone getting it means a lot of red tape would be eliminated

Some versions talk of giving it in the form of tax credits and such like to people who are employed, but I think ideas such as this miss a major point of the exercise: simplicity and low administrative overhead. If an employee is getting their UBI in the form of a tax credit loses their job, then they have to go through the whole process of applying to get a payment instead, with all the bureaucracy and delay that this entails. Much better to have that person know that at least their UBI payment will still some in next week/month and they can get on with looking for their next job instead of jumping through bureaucratic hoops.

KyussB

That persons wage will get cut by the business over time, by the same amount as the UBI - so that the business can profit from the UBI instead - so in the end the worker loses out on wages with a UBI.

TheCitizen

ITman88 wrote: »

So many industries are being crippled, in such a short space of time.

There are more immediate concerns

TheCitizen

_meehan_ wrote: »

Yes it's insane!

I am an allied health professional but I don't work for the HSE unfortunately, which is why I am out of work at the moment. The private clinic I work for closed for the time being. All any of us can do at this point is wait!

I'm sure someone with healthcare qualifications can get a contract with the HSE in the current environment. They've put out a call for people with qualifications.

ITman88

TheCitizen wrote: »

There are more immediate concerns

Absolutely. No one says there isn’t. This is however a discussion thread, for the secondary effects of the virus.

You contributions to which have been limited

TheCitizen

ITman88 wrote: »

Absolutely. No one says there isn’t. This is however a discussion thread, for the secondary effects of the virus.

You contributions to which have been limited

But This isn’t a thread about secondary affects, if it was that would be a perfectly reasonable thread. The title of the thread is basically a criticism of the correct draconian medically advised approach to the crisis. You don’t like my contributions so you label them limited, you’re a limited poor poster.

Jinglejangle69

ITman88 wrote: »

Yeah.

If a business has no revenue generation it would be insane to use cash on hand to cover employees wages

Bit like the governments situation.

Salty

TheCitizen wrote: »

I'm sure someone with healthcare qualifications can get a contract with the HSE in the current environment. They've put out a call for people with qualifications.

I applied the first day this was announced. Not much else I can do.

ITman88

TheCitizen wrote: »

But This isn’t a thread about secondary affects, if it was that would be a perfectly reasonable thread. The title of the thread is basically a criticism of the correct draconian medically advised approach to the crisis. You don’t like my contributions so you label them limited, you’re a limited poor poster.

The title isn’t a criticism, it’s a thought provoking title which forward thinking folk have considered since the restriction’s came into effect.
People giving consideration into the economic effects of this are every bit as entitled to, as the people who stocked up on 3 months worth of toilet roll.
The virus needs to be contained and the effects limited that’s the primary concern.
Ultimately our kids and grandkids will never live the lives we lived, as medical, quality of life and longevity of life will all be reduced.
It’s important to consider who’s coming after us as well, not just worry for the effects on us.

Nermal

TheCitizen wrote: »

The title of the thread is basically a criticism of the correct draconian medically advised approach to the crisis.

So, you always follow current medical advice, in all aspects of your life?

You don’t judge cost and benefit for yourself, having taken the advice on board?

A doctor giving you advice is the start of the conversation, not the end. That’s why they give you advice rather than orders.

TheCitizen

ITman88 wrote: »

The title isn’t a criticism, it’s a thought provoking title which forward thinking folk have considered since the restriction’s came into effect.
People giving consideration into the economic effects of this are every bit as entitled to, as the people who stocked up on 3 months worth of toilet roll.
The virus needs to be contained and the effects limited that’s the primary concern.
Ultimately our kids and grandkids will never live the lives we lived, as medical, quality of life and longevity of life will all be reduced.
It’s important to consider who’s coming after us as well, not just worry for the effects on us.

It is a criticism of the current correct strategy, a stupid criticism

TheCitizen

Nermal wrote: »

So, you always follow current medical advice, in all aspects of your life?

You don’t judge cost and benefit for yourself, having taken the advice on board?

A doctor giving you advice is the start of the conversation, not the end. That’s why they give you advice rather than orders.

You follow the medical advice until the situation shows signs of abating

trapp

ITman88 wrote: »

The title isn’t a criticism, it’s a thought provoking title which forward thinking folk have considered since the restriction’s came into effect.
People giving consideration into the economic effects of this are every bit as entitled to, as the people who stocked up on 3 months worth of toilet roll.
The virus needs to be contained and the effects limited that’s the primary concern.
Ultimately our kids and grandkids will never live the lives we lived, as medical, quality of life and longevity of life will all be reduced.
It’s important to consider who’s coming after us as well, not just worry for the effects on us.

Whatever way we look at it, long term the decisions will have to take into account the interests of the children of the country, the kids and the much maligned teenagers for they are the future of Ireland and it's the same in every country.

The current measures around Europe are very short term and there will have to be another method or solution thought of until a vaccine or treatment arrives.

The politicians are in an extremely difficult place with no easy way out.

I'm not sure the title is accurate as I don't think the current strategy is favouring the old and vulnerable, it's protecting them.

Implemented short term there won't be too many negative effects but they need an alternative soon as long term it would be disastrous.

Do we want our kids to grow up living in a world without friends, without the chance to build relationships, without school, without sport, without being able to play, fearing coming into contact with anyone?

They are our future and we can't and shouldn't condemn them to that.

Also with these restrictions, as I've posted before, they're doomed to failure long term anyway as the human need for personal relationships will always overcome the fear of death, that's how society has functioned from the beginning of time and this will be no different.

After a certain period of time, more and more people would start meeting others, out of sight perhaps but it would happen and the purpose would be defeated.

Short term yes but eventually these options just become unsustainable.

trapp

TheCitizen wrote: »

You follow the medical advice until the situation shows signs of abating

Eventually the human need for friendship and relationships overcomes the fear of death.

That's a fact, it's indisputable and it's why these measures can't last long term.

Cilldara_2000

Well I think a world with no friends, relationships, etc is here to stay now. So they’ll just have to get used to it. Handshakes, hugs and going outside are likely to banned forever. There’ll be no other way around it. Even if you thought we could get out again in 20 years, the virus will be lurking just outside your door ready to ambush you.

But give it a few years and these kids will have reached the age where physical and emotional contact with other people is unnecessary so it will be ok then.

CtevenSrowder

Cilldara_2000 wrote: »

Well I think a world with no friends, relationships, etc is here to stay now. So they’ll just have to get used to it. Handshakes, hugs and going outside are likely to banned forever. There’ll be no other way around it. Even if you thought we could get out again in 20 years, the virus will be lurking just outside your door ready to ambush you.

But give it a few years and these kids will have reached the age where physical and emotional contact with other people is unnecessary so it will be ok then.

Hahaha

auspicious

Hypothetically, if we faced an equivalent virus that has a high mortality rate in the under 20s would the thread be much different if it was titled The strategy of favouring the under 20s will prove disastrous long term?

We are a social species and civilisation has grown from this attribute. We never need to see the balance tip away; without high level social standards 'community' struggles to exist. To purposefully allow cold logic to triumph over empathy would see soceity unravel or morph in to something sickly when other albeit harder solutions are achievable.
We need to pick each other up when we are down.

trapp

auspicious wrote: »

Hypothetically, if we faced an equivalent virus that has a high mortality rate in the under 20s would the thread be much different if it was titled The strategy of favouring the under 20s will prove disastrous long term?

We are a social species and civilisation has grown from this attribute. We never need to see the balance tip away; without high level social standards 'community' struggles to exist. To purposefully allow cold logic to triumph over empathy would see soceity unravel or morph in to something sickly when other albeit harder solutions are achievable.
We need to pick each other up when we are down.

That comment there sums it up for you.

Favouring under 20s would never be disastrous long term as they are the future of the world.

ITman88

auspicious wrote: »

Hypothetically, if we faced an equivalent virus that has a high mortality rate in the under 20s would the thread be much different if it was titled The strategy of favouring the under 20s will prove disastrous long term?

We are a social species and civilisation has grown from this attribute. We never need to see the balance tip away; without high level social standards 'community' struggles to exist. To purposefully allow cold logic to triumph over empathy would see soceity unravel or morph in to something sickly when other albeit harder solutions are achievable.
We need to pick each other up when we are down.

If that virus came to be, it would be our last as humans, and the economic effects would be short lived!!!

ITman88

trapp wrote: »

Whatever way we look at it, long term the decisions will have to take into account the interests of the children of the country, the kids and the much maligned teenagers for they are the future of Ireland and it's the same in every country.

The current measures around Europe are very short term and there will have to be another method or solution thought of until a vaccine or treatment arrives.

The politicians are in an extremely difficult place with no easy way out.

I'm not sure the title is accurate as I don't think the current strategy is favouring the old and vulnerable, it's protecting them.

Implemented short term there won't be too many negative effects but they need an alternative soon as long term it would be disastrous.

Do we want our kids to grow up living in a world without friends, without the chance to build relationships, without school, without sport, without being able to play, fearing coming into contact with anyone?

They are our future and we can't and shouldn't condemn them to that.

Also with these restrictions, as I've posted before, they're doomed to failure long term anyway as the human need for personal relationships will always overcome the fear of death, that's how society has functioned from the beginning of time and this will be no different.

After a certain period of time, more and more people would start meeting others, out of sight perhaps but it would happen and the purpose would be defeated.

Short term yes but eventually these options just become unsustainable.

Yes, everything you have said, is what I wish I had articulated better!
Short term the current policy is fine