Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Aggy last won the day on March 22

Aggy had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

201 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Not sure if this was in response to my post or another, but I acknowledge there are lots of variables and the lack of testing etc. makes pretty much every stat about coronavirus fairly useless in isolation. I would though say that the total number of deaths from flu, pneumonia and covid this years vs flu and pneumonia in other years will be interesting to look back on - far fewer variables come in to play there. I would also point out that week ending March 20th (which the stats refer to) was before the ‘lockdown’, so people were still driving and at work. There are also stats in there for the whole year up to March 20th, so again deals with periods before the lock down when road deaths etc etc would presumably have still been roughly the same as the annual average. There are multiple factors every year (which is why they use a five year average as a comparison tool). My main point though would be that coronavirus figures are being reported irresponsibly - the first thing you see on the BBC app when you open it is “1.1 Million cases, 60,000 deaths”. That sounds scary! But that figure is over a three month period, worldwide. Around 56 million people die annually worldwide - so in a three month period, that’s about 14 million. 60,000 deaths is 0.4 per cent. So, yes, coronavirus is bad, but the way it is being reported causes more panic than is necessary and can only be bad for people’s mental health.
  2. Just to chuck some more stats in (as I’m sure we’ve not seen enough already), the government website link at the bottom of the post discusses total number of deaths (related to covid and not related to covid). Still some issues with how and when deaths are recorded (which the link acknowledges at the start). The latest publication ends week ending 20 March, so it’s a fortnight out of date, but we had our first cases of coronavirus in the UK in January and the first recorded transmission case (as opposed to case caught abroad and brought back by a traveller) at the end of February. So it’s far from perfect, but interesting perhaps all the same. Week 12 of 2020 (ending 20 March) had only 72 more total deaths than the five year average. The period 1 Jan - 20th March 2020 had 4,869 fewer deaths than the five year average. In week 12 of 2020 eighteen per cent of deaths were linked to “influenza, pneumonia or covid”. That’s actually lower than the five year average for week 12 - which has twenty per cent of deaths related to influenza or pneumonia. The number of deaths from influenza (ie; excluding covid) is lower than the five year average, which suggests that a proportion of the people dying from coronavirus would perhaps have died from influenza in any other year. Of course, the deaths related to coronavirus have started to go up since March 20th, so it’s likely to be a slightly different picture now. However, also worth remembering that a five year average means that in some of those years the numbers would have been even higher. I haven’t got the figures for each of the individual five years. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsregisteredweeklyinenglandandwalesprovisional/weekending20march2020#deaths-registered-by-week
  3. Aggy

    Players - Take A Pay Cut

    I’ve managed to convince my girlfriend there’s also no point buying new clothes, shoes, bags etc. because there’s nowhere to wear them to anyway. Saving a fortune!
  4. Aggy

    Players - Take A Pay Cut

    Agreed re “normal people”. The point about footballers though is that they are in a really high demand job. If you were a Man Utd player and Man Utd tried to force you (against your will) to take a twenty per cent pay cut then why wouldn’t you try and engineer a move to Real Madrid or Bayern or somewhere that would pay you more? If players choose themselves to take a pay cut, fine. If every club in the world took the same measures, fine. But a club can’t try and force the issue unilaterally or it will lose its players. And if the club furloughed players and topped up the salary, what’s the point? 97,500 instead of 100,000 probably won’t solve many problems. (Edit: Actually it’s not even 97,500 vs 100,000 if they’re on 100k a week. It would be c. 397,500 vs 400,000).
  5. Aggy

    Players - Take A Pay Cut

    Yes - why would a top club make a footballer redundant? Surely you’d try and sell them for a chunky sum. You do of course fairly regularly see clubs and players terminate the contract by mutual consent.
  6. Aggy

    Players - Take A Pay Cut

    It’s 80 per cent capped at 2,500 a month. So a footballer would go from £100k a week or whatever, down to about £600 a week. But your point about employee consent first is a fair one. If the employer was unilaterally refusing to pay and the employee was therefore missing out on a minimum of twenty per cent of the salary it is contractually entitled to (in practice likely to be more than 20 per cent if paid over £30k per annum), then hard to argue the employer isn’t in breach of contract basically allowing the employee to leave. If the employee consents first though then yes, more difficult for the employee to then try and leave I suppose.
  7. Aggy

    Players - Take A Pay Cut

    I’m not sure that can be correct Bb. I know it’s an emergency measure so the legal implications won’t have been fully thought through from every angle, but there would be huge competition law and freedom of movement issues if you are right. There is no obligation on the employer to take the employee back on at the end of the furlough period. But the employee can’t move jobs? You can force an employee to earn no more than 2,500 a month while not having to pay them yourselves? I’m not even sure how you could argue the employee has an obligation to serve notice before they can leave. If you as the employer aren’t paying them, why should they need to serve notice? If the employer doesn’t need to serve notice to terminate the furlough (and has no obligation to take you back on after the furlough period) why would the employee have to serve notice?
  8. Aggy

    Players - Take A Pay Cut

    KG, many other industries have put admin staff on furlough but not ‘fee earners’. Edit: the reason being multiple, but one of which is that they don’t want to lose their best/most lucrative workers to competitors at a later date.
  9. Aggy

    Players - Take A Pay Cut

    I think this is probably correct. My understanding is that, if people are put on furlough, you are effectively terminating their contract and then putting them on the furlough scheme so they can benefit from the government scheme. You can only put people on furlough if you were otherwise going to make them redundant. I don’t think there’s any obligation on the employer to take the employee back into employment whenever the furlough scheme ends - which would lead me to believe there’s no obligation on the employee to go back either.
  10. Aggy

    Players - Take A Pay Cut

    I only saw Hancock’s comments yesterday which I thought were very unfair. “The best thing premier league players can do to help is take a pay cut.” Took the first opportunity to call out footballers but I can’t remember any similar comments about directors or other high earning employees in other industries. As I understand it, you aren’t allowed to do any work at all for your employer whilst on furlough. If the players were training even on their own, is there an argument they are working for their employers? If they are generating income through sponsorship deals and other rights etc do they qualify for the furlough scheme? Not sure.
  11. Sorry for multiple posts in a row, replying to one at a time as I read through. It’s a good article Bill. What I would say though is that to an extent doctors and nurses in certain departments do put their lives at risk every day of their careers. They deal with infectious diseases all the time. They haven’t had the right equipment for years. Again, it comes down to the point I have made a couple of times now. Regardless of what the government has or hasn’t done or how quickly it has done it in the last two months, my far bigger concern is the longer term funding. I’ve said that I don’t think you can ever fully prepare for every possible pandemic that there ever might be. I think however well funded/prepared the NHS had been, we would have been scrapping around urgently trying to find more masks and ventilators when coronavirus hit. But take, for instance, hospital beds. Simple beds. That’s not specific to a certain pandemic. You don’t need a face mask to treat someone with cancer, but a hospital bed helps. In 2007, 88 per cent of acute trusts said one of the main reasons they failed to hit their a&e targets was a lack of beds. Thirteen years later and we’re scrapping around because we still don’t have enough beds. The rhetoric the article criticises Hancock for using is not much different to the idea behind the public clapping for the NHS. It’s is a lovely thing, but it’s almost as if people think the NHS staff are stepping up for their country to deal with some sort of war time crisis. In fact, they’re just doing what they do every day, with a lack of funding they try to deal with every day as best they can, it’s just a different disease. Are those people who voted for austerity but are now out clapping the NHS staff any different to Hancock using his “war” rhetoric?
  12. I live fairly centrally in Manchester and the centre itself (as you’d expect as it’s largely offices and retail etc.) and the (more heavily residential) outskirts are still extremely quiet. I ventured out of town for a (non-corona related) hospital appointment this evening though and it was comparatively teeming!
  13. Look as though the league leaders were crowned champions. What is very strange is that the mirror inMarch this year (and a bbc article from last November) suggest there was no relegation or promotion. Other sources suggest there was. Most league tables you can find online show 18 teams in the prem (two more than the season before), but then espn (and a couple of others) only show 16 for this season. Wikipedia though confirms it is as you say Purple. Even stranger though is the way they’re deciding relegation. Normally two sides go down. Because there are two additional teams this season, three teams are going down (okay so far). The teams to be relegated are: (1) the team who finishes bottom this season (2) the team who finishes bottom in a combined table from the cancelled last season and this season and (3) the loser of a playoff between the side who finishes second bottom in the combined table and the side who finishes second bottom in the current season. Please can we just scrap the whole thing - my head hurts just typing the above!
  14. To be fair, the main idea behind protecting yourselves and others has mainly been ‘stay at home’, something I don’t think Boris et al could really have done. As for your first post, regarding trust, yes you’re probably right, but I think the economic package that has been provided (fairly quickly as well other than perhaps for the self employed) will also live long in the memory - especially as I fear we will be seeing absolute devastation for huge numbers of people in some countries where the economic package isn’t anywhere near as good as ours. The other point I made yesterday though is that how the government reacted to the outbreak is only one part of the story. The other is the long term lack of funding of the NHS. I’m sure there will be more than a few people considering how a decade of austerity under the Tories may or may not have impacted things.
  15. Has not the ability or just hasn’t?