Health Coronavirus 2020 / Worldwide (Stats live update in OP) Part 2

[Chief]

Australian Coronavirus Stats

Latest COVID-19 stats from Australia.

www.bigfooty.com

 

[Cruyff14]

Looks like I could be back in the office sooner rather than later then. Oh well, it was good while it lasted.

If you can WFH you must for June also Dan has said.

 

[Deliverance]

If you can WFH you must for June also Dan has said.

* that, I want to get back ASAP. My job is much more effective and enjoyable in person.

 

[Cruyff14]

I love WFH. It's ******* fantastic.

 

[PT Bar None]

I saw a lady in the Coles wearing a face mask fashioned from a Chux Superwipe.

My job is more effective and efficient in person.

WFH means no public transport and its assortment of odours.

I can live with the reduced efficiency. Heard rumours of another round of job cuts coming though

 

[peternorth]

I love WFH. It's ******* fantastic.

Going to the shops since the restrictions were lifted doesnt have the same feeling as pre lifting

 

[DIG]

Just 3 new cases in Australia today

 

[BACCS]

Just 3 new cases in Australia today

A couple of weeks like that will give more confidence for states to open borders

 

[burge13]

A couple of weeks like that will give more confidence for states to open borders

Get these silly restrictions out first imo. Proper pubs, proper local sport etc. Can borders wait for a minute until a january level local weekend can be had? Or are we assuming lifes normal prior to borders anyway (great if thats the general consensus)

 

[Forward Press]

Get these silly restrictions out first imo. Proper pubs, proper local sport etc. Can borders wait for a minute until a january level local weekend can be had? Or are we assuming lifes normal prior to borders anyway (great if thats the general consensus)

Logically, the first restrictions imposed would be the last ones wound back. Don't think you'll find much hand wringing if Australia continues on this trajectory and we start seeing more people in pubs, gyms re-open, sport resuming and then eventually interstate travel.

International travel is the one that seems very far off - unless maybe to a 'bubble' country like New Zealand. Just far too risky for the next few months.

 

[peternorth]

Has anyone felt a moment of awkwardness when approaching someone that you usually give handshakes to?

 

[FRUMPY]

Has anyone felt a moment of awkwardness when approaching someone that you usually give handshakes to?

Nope, just shake their hand

 

[BACCS]

Nope, just shake their hand

Yep have been with close mates recently, got absolutely no chance of catching it in SA anymore until borders open.

 

[FRUMPY]

I dont really understand why the government and Frydenberg need to defend themselves over the '$60b JobKeeper Bungle' - what bungle? They anticipated a lot more businesses would be in strife than actually occurred (due to the lack of Covid-19 cases etc) and the normality that occurred. Why do they need to defend themselves? Its due to their good management in part and the economic survival of Aussies still working/selling/buying.

 

[Gough]

I dont really understand why the government and Frydenberg need to defend themselves over the '$60b JobKeeper Bungle' - what bungle? They anticipated a lot more businesses would be in strife than actually occurred (due to the lack of Covid-19 cases etc) and the normality that occurred. Why do they need to defend themselves? Its due to their good management in part and the economic survival of Aussies still working/selling/buying.

Large sections notably the Arts and University sector were made ineligible for Jobkeeper under the pretense that there was not enough money. In reality what they've done is used this program to wallop some traditional rivals in the culture wars and dressed it up as a saving.

 

[FRUMPY]

Large sections notably the Arts and University sector where made ineligible for Jobkeeper under the pretense that there was not enough money. In reality what they've done is used this program to wallop some traditional rivals in the culture wars and dressed it up as a saving.

But these same people could get the JobSeeker payment - you cant make everyone eligible for the JobKeeper payment for the sake of it. There has to be limits, i thought they were pretty fair (although some casuals would be getting far too much extra compared to normal wage - but are probably the type to spend it so helps the economy)

 

[Forward Press]

I dont really understand why the government and Frydenberg need to defend themselves over the '$60b JobKeeper Bungle' - what bungle? They anticipated a lot more businesses would be in strife than actually occurred (due to the lack of Covid-19 cases etc) and the normality that occurred. Why do they need to defend themselves? Its due to their good management in part and the economic survival of Aussies still working/selling/buying.

1 - it's not a minor miscalculation - for reference, the entire NBN rollout cost less than this 'error'.
2 - the government have steadfastly refused to extend JobKeeper to casual workers (which disproportionately affects younger people and arts and entertainment)
3 - even in dire economic times, you'd reasonably think that surely a government wouldn't bungle it by this much

 

[Gough]

But these same people could get the JobSeeker payment - you cant make everyone eligible for the JobKeeper payment for the sake of it. There has to be limits, i thought they were pretty fair (although some casuals would be getting far too much extra compared to normal wage - but are probably the type to spend it so helps the economy)

But the money is there they budgeted for twice that amount and the reasoning they gave was that it was needed to simulate the economy. So in effect the scheme hasn't protected jobs and I expect in time we'll see it's failed to sufficently stimulate the economy as well.

 

[FRUMPY]

1 - it's not a minor miscalculation - for reference, the entire NBN rollout cost less than this 'error'.
2 - the government have steadfastly refused to extend JobKeeper to casual workers (which disproportionately affects younger people and arts and entertainment)
3 - even in dire economic times, you'd reasonably think that surely a government wouldn't bungle it by this much

So when this was rolled out, what was 99% of people here comparing the situation to......Italy/China who had full shutdowns - the government were predicting this - that would have led to the extra $60b jobkeeper payments prediction. It hasnt happened, im an accountant, 70% of businesses we do work for havent had their turnover drop enough to get the payment.

A s**t load of casual workers are getting the payment - those employed for under 12 months can still get the jobseeker payment which is a touch smaller than the jobkeeper payment.

Industries like the Arts etc are volatile industries and it would be expected at different situations to be without work/income at best of times let alone a full shut down.

Again, it cant be just a blanket $1500 for everyone - we cant afford that

 

[FRUMPY]

But the money is there they budgeted for twice that amount and the reasoning they gave was that it was needed to simulate the economy. So in effect the scheme hasn't protected jobs and I expect in time we'll see it's failed to sufficently stimulate the economy as well.

Its protected plenty of jobs - just that not as many needed protecting.

 

[Gough]

Its protected plenty of jobs - just that not as many needed protecting.

Correct and they had money in the budget to save these jobs but have chosen not to.

 

[Forward Press]

So when this was rolled out, what was 99% of people here comparing the situation to......Italy/China who had full shutdowns - the government were predicting this - that would have led to the extra $60b jobkeeper payments prediction. It hasnt happened, im an accountant, 70% of businesses we do work for havent had their turnover drop enough to get the payment.

A s**t load of casual workers are getting the payment - those employed for under 12 months can still get the jobseeker payment which is a touch smaller than the jobkeeper payment.

Industries like the Arts etc are volatile industries and it would be expected at different situations to be without work/income at best of times let alone a full shut down.

Again, it cant be just a blanket $1500 for everyone - we cant afford that

If there is $60 billion left, though - it indicates we could afford that. That is, to extend JobKeeper to any casual worker, and perhaps to scale it depending on the average numbers of hours worked per week.

People smarter than me I am sure can work it out but I do not see a reason why - after the government was able to set aside that much for anticipated job losses - that they can no longer still take part of it and help out those in the arts etc.

 

[FRUMPY]

If there is $60 billion left, though - it indicates we could afford that. That is, to extend JobKeeper to any casual worker, and perhaps to scale it depending on the average numbers of hours worked per week.

People smarter than me I am sure can work it out but I do not see a reason why - after the government was able to set aside that much for anticipated job losses - that they can no longer still take part of it and help out those in the arts etc.

They dont have the money, they are borrowing it

 

[Forward Press]

They dont have the money, they are borrowing it

That's part of my point - that they could borrow it, apparently, and they could have the ability to disperse those funds. So why not apportion a part of it for more casual workers?

The difference between $1100 and $1500 a fortnight is quite substantial.

 

[FRUMPY]

That's part of my point - that they could borrow it, apparently, and they could have the ability to disperse those funds. So why not apportion a part of it for more casual workers?

The difference between $1100 and $1500 a fortnight is quite substantial.

So getting in trouble for not putting the country into as much debt as they originally forecast.....got it

 

[Golden_6]

That's part of my point - that they could borrow it, apparently, and they could have the ability to disperse those funds. So why not apportion a part of it for more casual workers?

The difference between $1100 and $1500 a fortnight is quite substantial.

The money is absolutely not there. It is a huge amount of funds that were being borrowed to stop the economy from going considerably backwards. I'd imagine there is going to be significant reforms of the tax systems across all industries to bring in more revenue for decades to mitigate the borrowing to some degree.