Re: Coronavirus
 

So, AZ are going to start deliveries of a still unproven vaccine which is still in development/testing without knowing if it works or its efficiacy.

Which one will it be of the c.170 being developed?

Re: Coronavirus
 

All this rushing to get a vaccine sends a chill down my spine,i won't be trying it till it's a few years old and i know the side effects,come to think of it i just won't be trying it;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

:Yes: I feel the same

If it goes well, then fair play to them

If it goes awfully wrong, we may see an end to overpopulation :shocked:

Re: Coronavirus
 

You might have to wait a while as workable vaccines take generally on average 5 years plus before they can be used safely on the wider populace.

Re: Coronavirus
 

No - it has put in place agreements to produce and deliver the vaccine once it has been proved.

Re: Coronavirus
 

That is not what the quote said.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Agreed but that it not what he said:

Re: Coronavirus
 

Ideally, a university or public health body comes up with the vaccine first. We make sure that if there are any possible constraints on the chemicals needed that we have that in abundance first and then release the patent, or let people develop it elsewhere under licence, so that it can be mass-produced around the world as fast as possible.

The motivation to get to it first is so no one can deprive us of it. We don't need to deprive others of it though.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Welcome news from the Chancellor:

Coronavirus: Arts venues welcome £1.57bn government support

I just hope enough gets through to the grassroots organisations ..

Re: Coronavirus
 

What happens if a university or public health body finds a vaccine first, do they tend to freely share the info or do they usually make any money from it?

Re: Coronavirus
 

I imagine the data is published into the "public domain", but since the university won't have the facilities to mass produce it, a private company could then manufacture it at profit. But since it is public domain, anyone can compete in manufacture.

That is what usually happens in public science. Although maybe there are special considerations for vaccine research.

Re: Coronavirus
 

As long as you don't reach 70 years of age, don't have (or develop) any health problems that would help the virus rake your life, I think this is a viable option.

I've heard a doctor say (on Channel 5) that a healthy over 70 year old is more at risk than an unhealthy younger person. She also said that people over 50 are more at risk, but this rockets once a person is over 70.

What are the side effects of a vaccine, surely we won't know until it's found?? Could they be any worse than what it feels like to catch the virus for a mature person?? Don't forget that for some people it doesn't just go away, it leaves permanent damage to the body.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yes each vaccine will need to be tested thoroughly. Unfortunately our biological knowledge just isn't good enough to predict exactly how everything will work.

Re: Coronavirus
 

It's a shame we can't exploit it to our financial advantage, after all, this will be done if another country/private company finds it first. This would help our finances too.

To counter the moral argument we could use some of the money to pay for supplying the third world, or even better, insist that any manufacturers supply the third world at no cost as part of any agreement.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well done you’ve just created the biggest black market for drugs in human history.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I read somewhere that a lot of these vaccines are being based of existing ones and therefore won't need the usual roll-out.

Now I have no idea how you 'build a vaccine' and how you can have parts of it 'be the same' only with a different virus but I guess a vaccine is a lot more complicated than just a nerfed version of the virus. Maybe they need to adapt the stuff in it and that combination of stuff is what's being tested.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Normally, Universities have spin-off companies, which the Universities have shareholdings in, and gain revenue from licensing their discoveries to others who then produce them - an example would be the Oxford University Innovation Group, a wholly owned subsidiary of Oxford Uni.

https://eship.ox.ac.uk/organiser/oxf...ty-innovation/

Re: Coronavirus
 

That's good to know. I imagine that the revenue is then used to fund other research.

Re: Coronavirus
 

More evidence against the discredited herd immunity theory.

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/07/06/h...&utm_term=link

Well not against herd immunity as such, as long as you are willing to let a lot of people die to get there, over a sustained period of time. It’s really just Darwinism at that point, you aren’t “achieving” anything.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well in that case ours and other governmentS will have to tread an even finer line, of letting as many people get infected without overwhelming the NHS in the process, because I doubt there is very much an appetite to go backwards.

I doubt Spain, Greece, France, Italy etc will want to cancel summer. Likewise our tourism and hospitality sector, having just opened. Will not want to see a further lockdown.

Difficult times ahead.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Shows that if they don’t tread carefully a further lockdown is inevitable - some optimistically hoped all these asymptomatic carriers would mean that a significant portion of the population would have immunity helping slow the spread and keep R below 1. The evidence is now not there. There’s no miracles out there other than to have an effective public health response.

While some countries would like to keep the holiday sectors open it’s not really their choice if the figures get out of control. Even if they keep borders open, will significant numbers want to travel to resorts affected by the virus, only to quarantine for two weeks when they get home? Will countries want to accept foreign visitors from more affected areas to risk the health of their own population?

Burying their head in the sand and hoping for the best does not make for a prosperous economy. A few months of summer tourism won’t fund a long hard winter of a medical emergency and internal lockdown for countries who have a significant tourism sector.

“Herd immunity” is going to take two years, or more, of treading carefully at this rate. Two years of recession minimum and probably just as long to get out of it.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Cheers Seph :tu:

Re: Coronavirus
 

Herd immunity is not "discredited", nor is it a theory.

If you lock down everyone for 3+ months then of course not many people are going to get immune, you cannot develop immunity unless you are exposed in the first place.

Herd immunity is a fact, and works, but only if the "herd" is exposed in the first place, which we are not prepared to do.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well that’s my point - we aren’t prepared to do it given the human cost. It’s not a viable (and has been discredited as a) solution previously with modelling, but now that stance is supported by antibody testing. Antibody testing that, of course, was once hailed as the solution for opening back up - certifying those who have had the virus and proving we were further on in the epidemic than we actually are.

We have locked everyone down for 3+ months to stop the NHS being overrun. Exposing significant numbers to the virus quickly results in this happening.

It was only a solution if the number of people that get serious complications is small. The last hope for that idea was those clinging to the notion that there’s a disproportionately significant number of asymptomatic infections. Which is not the case.

Herd immunity by letting the virus loose is tantamount to euthanising AIDS sufferers (101,600 estimated sufferers) and claiming the UK has eradicated AIDS. Again, not something I’d view as genuinely credible.

Achieving herd immunity by vaccination of course is realistic, and scientifically proven.

Re: Coronavirus
 

More misleading drama. AIDS sufferers are prone to die from any number of things, and pretty much all 100,000 of them will dies regardless of CV19. Its also perfectly easy for them to take precautions to protect themselves (which they should be doing anyway, from everything else likely to kill them).

Re: Coronavirus
 

I’m not really sure what your stance is here, Paul.

Is it that the Government should just let coronavirus spread uncontrolled (which even they recognise is a bad idea)? Or are you just arguing the point because it’s me?

I think if you leave the fact you disagree with me on almost everything (especially politics) to the side and concentrated on the public health angle you’d accept things have moved on since the start of March and we know much more now than we did then.

Re: Coronavirus
 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-53315178#

Seems a bit harsh considering it was the NHS who also didn't follow 'procedures' when releasing people back into care homes and there was so little PPE available to anyone.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Boris has been making overtures to the NHS this entire time. Whether this is because he doesn't want to piss them off during a pandemic or annoy his new northern constituencies I couldn't say.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Why harsh? NHS England were following Government policy:

https://fullfact.org/health/coronavi...mes-discharge/

In summary, the Government instructed the NHS to transfer patients from hospitals into care homes without testing to see if they were infected.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

I would agree with you that we need to 'control' coronavirus if that was feasible, jfmzn, but it's not. Carrying on as we are, we will get spikes all over the place ad infinitum. The virus can only be controlled by slowing it down until a vaccine is found, and we don't know if a vaccine will ever be found. We cannot go on disrupting lives and the economy like this. Sooner or later, the public is going to signal that enough is enough.

Protect the vulnerable by all means, and of course. But the virus really does needto spread or it will never be gone. That is one thing that most of the public is beginning to realise, and they will behave accordingly.

The spike in Melbourne is pretty worrying. If they let it get into New South Wales, the most populous of the Australian states, it will start all over again. They thought that they had nipped it in the bud. They haven't, and nowhere is safe from this.

---------- Post added at 13:54 ---------- Previous post was at 13:50 ----------

That is how you read it, but do you expect the government to lead the NHS by the nose? It is a professional body and as such, they should have ensured that no infected person left hospital. Bloody hell, ianch, you really have a slanted approach to politics!

Re: Coronavirus
 

The public won’t signal enough is enough as the body could racks up. We are back to test, trace, isolate. You speak of the economic harm which is where investing in our response reaps dividends in returning life as close to normality as we can. But we need the systems in place.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Have you only just woken up to this truth? There is no spin, it was government policy on 19 March to send hospital patients back into care homes, without making it mandatory for them to be tested for Covid-19. This is a fact.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Government does lead NHS though, hence why it (and PHE) public guidance. However this is all a distraction politicising past mistakes, polarising the public and distraction from the work that needs to be done going forward.

Re: Coronavirus
 

It is not "how" I read it, it is just the facts. There is no slanted approach, just the facts.

I understand the facts make you uncomfortable so you try and spin this to be a fault of NHS administrators but I am faraid at some point you will need to accept that this administration is culpable of a gross mistake. I doubt that you would see it the same way if this was your parent or relative who died as a result of this policy.

---------- Post added at 15:28 ---------- Previous post was at 15:22 ----------

There is no distraction here. Many people would like to know how & why their loved ones had to die. This is not being politicised as you put it: if this was a Labour administration, people would be asking the same questions.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I’m sure they would, and I’m certain some members of the forum would be positively frothing at the mouth with incredulity if it was a Labour Government right now. However, as some lack objectivity it leads to circuitous debates about herd immunity, airport screening, testing, facemasks, “it’s a mild flu”, it’s much more prevalent than we thought, it’ll go away in the summer and raking over the same old debates.

By criticising the Government that delivered Brexit we immediately get tarred with equating an efficient public health response as a remainery conspiracy. Which it isn’t, however we are fighting against a narrative that’s difficult to control give the tendency of some to selectively quote, obfuscate or simply ignore reality when it suits. Government does the bidding of scientists and agencies, not the other way round apparently.

I find it easier to simply move on because the proof is in the pudding with the death figures and imminent economic recession, there will be plenty of time for a damning public enquiry in due course.

While some pretend “normal” is just a case of Boris standing up there and pretending all is fine, most on the forum now accept that without a health driven response necessary that the economy tanks either way. Even Pierre now accepts that managing the numbers carefully is a necessity.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The fact that the government didn't make it 'mandatory' does not excuse a so-called 'professional' health service from sending infected patients back into care homes! The professionals I worked with during my employment have all had their own professional codes of practice. Does the NHS not have one that provides that no-one with a highly contageous and deadly disease should be discharged into the community? If not, why not?

---------- Post added at 19:28 ---------- Previous post was at 19:13 ----------

It's you who is going round in circles, jfman. There is no proof of anything with the figures. They are a correct statement of current figures, but you keep putting them in the context of deaths in other countries, who compile their figures in different ways. Moreover, the virus is still out there - the most recent serious outbreak is in Melbourne, which threatens the whole of Australia with a second peak. This will keep happening until the 'herd immunity', which you dismiss so casually, is achieved.

Don't expect a vaccine any time soon. We may have scientists all over the world working on it, but we have not found an effective one against any coronovirus yet, and we are unlikely to in the foreseeable future.

The virus is here to stay until it is finished with us. We either prolong the agony or we acknowledge it for what it is, protecting the vulnerable.

The time to judge is when this is over. This is nothing to do with Brexit.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Of course there is spin
The NHS should not need to be told to test them.

What you are saying is you think the NHS is so completely useless at their profession that they must specifically be instructed to test patients are not infected before sending them back to a care home.

---------- Post added at 20:17 ---------- Previous post was at 20:14 ----------

Simple, you made a false statement about herd immunity, I pointed this out.

To "defend" it you made up ridiculous statements about AIDS, and then bring politics into it, none of which was in any way relevant.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Herd immunity by allowing the virus to circulate is not a credible solution - I don’t really see what your objection to the word “discredited” was other than I said it.

We went from herd immunity one week to total lockdown the next. A marked change in policy based on the evidence. I don’t view that straightforward observation as political, to be honest. However as I’ve said before it’s somewhat circuitous and the evidence is there for all to see - even the countries that gave it any credibility have a) economic problems and b) high death counts. Nobody else is going down that route in a hurry, and there’s good reasons why.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Why did the Government guidance explicitly say it wasn’t a requirement then, if they were actually leaving it to be a judgement call?

And laughable Old Boy that you now acknowledge it as highly contagious and deadly when you were underplaying it for so long. It’ll go away in the summer, won’t it?

I casually dismiss it because it’s not a credible solution - Melbourne are indeed going into a lockdown. They do not take these decisions “casually”, it’s the emergency break to stop the spread - one that we will apply just as we had to in March if other measures are unsuccessful at slowing the spread.

I asbsolutely cannot wait until it is over and I can reflect on being vindicated throughout. Years of economic calamity for countries with no effective public health response, economic prosperity for those who do.

There’s no return to ‘normal’ without a vaccine Old Boy, to claim there is holds no more validity than to claim the earth to be flat. Even if we went down the herd immunity route, making the NHS the Coronavirus Health Service for two years or more leaving to the side important lifesaving treatments for cancer etc, it would take so long and damage the economy without any knowledge of how long any meaningful immunity lasts.

If this idea is so good why did we bother locking down in March? It’s a waste of time, effort and money to end up in the same situation in September but apply no brakes.

Of course those who can see no wrong in any of the Government responses will find some kind of mental gymnastics, as always, to pursue the agenda that the Government is always right even when it contradicts itself.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

jfman is correct:
https://fullfact.org/health/coronavi...mes-discharge/

Re: Coronavirus
 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...ss-government/ https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/52674073

Re: Coronavirus
 

From Telegraph link

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yup, Matt Hancock and his colleagues.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Do you mean the Care Homes that couldn’t purchase the PPE to follow the strict guidelines because most of the available PPE had to go to the NHS because the stockpiles had been run down?

Re: Coronavirus
 

There are more basic precautions that can be taken, that don't require a mountain of PPE. Much of which they should be doing in normal times. Using hand sanitiser is meant to be a basic matter of routine.


WHO advice

Re: Coronavirus
 

It's amazing the number of things the Government isn't responsible for. It seems everyone else from the NHS to the opposition are to blame for the bad response to this virus. Not having testing in place wasn't their fault, the slow lockdown wasn't their fault, lack of track and trace wasn't their fault, not much PPE wasn't their fault, the advice given to hospitals wasn't their fault and the high death rate in care homes isn't their fault.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Your example

a) has nothing to do with Care Homes
b) says PPE is critical (medical masks are PPE)

U.K. Government guidelines for PPE in Care Homes

Recommended PPE items
- disposable gloves
- disposable pladtic aprons
- fluid-repellent surgical mask
- eye protection

Re: Coronavirus
 

:clap:And Boris never,ever apologises.

---------- Post added at 08:58 ---------- Previous post was at 08:56 ----------

We won't get it from Boris either..

---------- Post added at 08:59 ---------- Previous post was at 08:58 ----------

:tu:

Re: Coronavirus
 

Nothing ever is their fault as its far easier to deny and to blame it on others and and having one of the most obsequious media in the world helps their cause considerably as well as none of them ever scrutinises and questions them and their decisions..

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

From post 446 in this thread, further up the page...

Re: Coronavirus
 

Nope, sorry. Does not follow. “No longer need care in hospital” is not synonymous with “No longer Covid-19 positive”, no matter how hard you squint at it.

The simple explanation here is that government could not mandate testing because government knew there weren’t enough testing kits available to do it. The hospital would have rapidly filled with elderly bed blockers, most of whom were Covid-19 negative and safe to discharge but with no means to prove it in law. In a worst case scenario the Nightingale hospitals would have begun to fill not because the regular facilities were overwhelmed by Covid but because they couldn’t discharge people back to nursing homes quickly enough.

In these circumstances government did what its paid to do - take a difficult decision based on a calculated risk. Our democracy allows us to decide whether this speaks to their general competence, next time we go to the polls.

Re: Coronavirus
 

But that's a March document whilst FullFact is citing the 2nd April guidance. But having seen Chris's response, he points out the bigger picture very clearly.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

What with, bearing in mind there were insufficient kits?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Could you point out, please, where it states they should be performed (as nothing in the April 2 document (which I have fully read) says that tests on patients about to be discharged should be performed)...

Re: Coronavirus
 

The way you reply to my point is as usual disappointing. As you can see from the posts above, it is not just me that thinks that in a national crisis where the Government directs via policy that care home transfers require no testing, then they are ultimately responsible for these deaths.

It will not be the next election where this premise will be tested, it will be in a public enquiry or in the courts.

---------- Post added at 12:31 ---------- Previous post was at 12:25 ----------

So true and even when they patently at fault, there are disturbing numbers of people who will still try and convince you the earth is indeed flat.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I'd like to jump out of the box if I may:

Question: when did we start extensive testing of care home workers for Covid 19?

Many care home workers are on low pay, and can be temporary/agency which involves working in different care homes to cover shortages.

If just one of these agency workers has the virus, but no symptoms, the amount of people in an enclosed area containing highly vulnerable people that can be infected is quite high . . and widespread considering they may work in 2 or 3 homes in a working week.

Just saying it's not only patients released from hospitals that are a possible (probable) cause.

Re: Coronavirus
 

A reasonable post, and I 100% agree. The social care sector, rightly or wrongly, is funded to cover 99% of eventualities. Global pandemic unfortunately within that 1% left it horribly exposed.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

BREAKING: Chancellor says the Government will reward employers who successfully bring staff back from furlough.

"If you bring back someone who was furloughed - and continuously employ them through to January we'll pay you a Job Retention Bonus of £1,000 per person. #PlanForJobs

The total cost if all staff in furlough return, will cost £9 Billion. :eek:

Re: Coronavirus
 

Doesn't seem fair to me.

How about rewarding the businesses that have carried on working, the ones who have had to lay out a great deal of money on preventative measures to ensure they comply with Government rules.

Maybe they should bill the Government for the outlay involved just to ensure some people had jobs and the public had necessities ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Because the idea was to stop people working.

Re: Coronavirus
 

aah, so the Gov't pays employers to lay people off, then pays them again to bring them back.


*back soon, off to shops for another case of Brandy ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Chancellor Latest: VAT cut on Food, Attractions and Accommodation. From 20% to 5%

Wow that’s massive cut.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I do believe I made some sort of prediction about taxes. Not super accurate but the jist is there.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Most of the benefits are for the restaraunts and take-away trade:

I'm sure the devil is in the detail. I can't imagine the public health fanatics would like to see confectionary, crisps etc made cheaper.

Re: Coronavirus
 

With the tests that weren’t available, and they had to get them out of hospital very quickly to make beds available?

Thoughtless unprofessional negligent medics not doing tests that weren’t widely available...

Re: Coronavirus
 

Anyone who doesn't support beer getting 15% off for VAT is deeply suspicious as far as i am concerned.

Re: Coronavirus
 

four men went to a pub
went to drown their sorrows
spent 10 quid on a round of drinks
and had some left for tomorrow

:D

Re: Coronavirus
 

If Boris is responsible for the whole of the UK, how come Sturgeon keeps announcing different rules?:rolleyes: Scotland had its OWN separate pandemic plans. Link from 2011. Just as in the US, it is the State Governors that set and announce any rules. The individual states run their OWN health systems. Scotland is responsible for NHS Scotland.

Re: Coronavirus
 

They weren't Londoners that's for sure.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Even though l am not a drinker l do support it.:D

---------- Post added at 13:49 ---------- Previous post was at 13:47 ----------

More like a tenner for a pint up there.

Re: Coronavirus
 

That’s a very simplistic view - the Federal Government has a huge input re funding, regulations, and resources.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK218212/

Re: Coronavirus
 

Great news, totally support it. :)

---------- Post added at 13:58 ---------- Previous post was at 13:57 ----------

The bus fares are cheaper though. ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Good news - half price meals in restaurants :)

Bad News - same day the Deputy Chief Medical Officer says we should lose weight to fight the virus ! :D

I'm sure the left and right hands know what they are doing !

Re: Coronavirus
 

The thing with London buses is you wait ages for one to come and then three come along at once.;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

The tests WERE available. It's just that they were kept for just people showing symptoms. No different to many other countries, and that DOES include South Korea.
Even Germany and South Korea had shortages of PPE and testing kits.


An independent report placed the UK, 2nd best prepared for a pandemic.

Another independent report found that the NHS had a £100m stockpile of items ready for a pandemic. Although it didn't say what items.

Link

From 2007 report by British Thoracic Society.


A "What If" article from 2018.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Where’s this?

Positive steps from Sunak, but this is just the beginning.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The operational side of things(which is the one that matters) is set at State level. Are you denying that NHS Scotland doesn't exist? And isn't run by Scotland?


Link

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Given the chaotic and limited role government plays in healthcare in the USA, is it worthwhile even discussing it with relation to the U.K.?

Remember also that only the Westminster parliament is sovereign. Powers are devolved to Scotland and Wales and if a crisis became sufficiently acute they could be exercised directly by the U.K. government if authorised to do so by the U.K. parliament. Even under present arrangements the devolved administrations depend on central emergency funding and on scientific advice that may be delivered in Edinburgh and London but is given by experts who are in regular contact, who are drawing from the same research and whose advice (and any action taken on it) is readily comparable. They also depend on U.K. government decision making and control in situations where the devolved administrations require military assistance.

This crisis has allowed Sturgeon in Edinburgh and whatever that goon in Cardiff is called to strut about and look far more important and influential than they actually are, but in reality they’re all paying for the party out of the same bank account and there’s barely a hair’s breadth of a difference between the decisions they’re taking; almost all the differences amount to timing that befits local differences, and in any case there are now examples of local differences in regulations within England and Scotland.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Diners to get a 50% discount off their restaurant bill during August
Shame its only Monday to Wednesday.
That said, I normally eat out every Tuesday & Wednesday, so should be good for me. :D

Re: Coronavirus
 

Wonder how they are going to stop fraud happening on a truly epic scale. Eg "So you really had 1,000 people in your restaurant each night?":rolleyes:

Re: Coronavirus
 

l think the reason its only Monday to Wednesday because those days are usually far less busier then the other more busier days of the week.

Thats only my view mind.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The number of places I had in my head ready to book before they added that £10 limit would have seen me doing a food tour of London every Monday-Wednesday throughout August.

---------- Post added at 15:46 ---------- Previous post was at 15:44 ----------

Any large fraud would fall apart instantly if the Government examined it. They get any transaction would have to be accounted for and they would know your typical demand though previous tax years. If your little greasy spoon cafe suddenly started seeing the equivelemt of Wembley stadium in attendance it would show.

Re: Coronavirus
 

They’ll also have a socially distanced capacity.

Re: Coronavirus
 

"If" being the operative word. Are they going to investigate each one? How do you tell the difference between a genuine cash transaction and a fake one? They could even just bump up their prices, so that after the 50% discount it is the same as before. They then pocket that 50% discount refund.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I imagine any large amounts would be looked into and who cares about the smaller amounts?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Like all things HMRC they’ll work with ratios. If you are within the ratio at the end of your VAT period they’ll consider you to be legit, or close enough to legit, to be unworthy of investigation.

If your costs don’t match the upturn in sales and your end of quarter/year profit similarly don’t reflect this then alarm bells go all over the shop and suddenly your are under scrutiny for the last six tax years that you really don’t want if you are actually dodgy.

Re: Coronavirus
 

It’s good to see you think highly of people...

I know the prices in my local restaurants, and if they bumped them up by £10 per head, they would son lose any business.

Re: Coronavirus
 

That makes sense to me. Pre lock-down, some places even closed on Mondays.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Exactly. HMRC have been known to cross reference declared takings with the amount of takeaway cartons purchased. In the case of a hairdresser, they cross referenced with the amount of shampoo, perm solution etc that she had purchased.

---------- Post added at 19:35 ---------- Previous post was at 19:30 ----------

Do we know if people can only do this once, or as many times as they like?

Will it definitely apply to takeaways, or is it just eat in?

The 50% off is a bit disingenuous though, it's only up to a maximum of £10 and I can't think of many places where you could get a three course a la carte meal for £20! It'll be alright for a curry or something though.

Let's hope that it won't involve copious amounts of form filling either.

---------- Post added at 19:37 ---------- Previous post was at 19:35 ----------

I've just had a chuckle at the social distancing sign in Parliament behind an interviewee, 'Keep left at all times' :D

Re: Coronavirus
 

"The discount can be used unlimited times and will be valid Monday to Wednesday on any eat-in meal"
(But the VAT reduction may also apply to takeaways)

You could go for three one-course meals. :)