Originally posted by Old Greg
View Post
- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Who are SAGE?
Collapse
X
-
I was an IPSE Consultative Council Member, until the BoD abolished it. I am not an IPSE Member, since they have no longer have any relevance to me, as an IT Contractor. Read my lips...I recommend QDOS for ALL your Insurance requirements (Contact me for a referral code). -
Former Brexit secretary David Davis has said no political appointee should attend Sage meetings to ensure there are no outside influences to the formulation of scientific advice.
I wonder if David Davis is naive or that comment was sarcastic.Comment
-
Originally posted by elsergiovolador View PostScientists are probably more corrupt than politicians. If you want a study that says anything you need to support your cause, you can just find a team of scientist and send them grants through some bogus charities so it is not suspicious, tell them what the study should find and then pay their colleagues for favourable peer reviews. Then send these studies to tabloids with selection of catchy headlines. Some things are off limits e.g. you no longer can buy study that says cigarettes are good.
I wonder if David Davis is naive or that comment was sarcastic.Comment
-
-
Maybe a sockie, maybe not. What he/she/they/it said though is correct. Paid for scientific studies to try and sway legislation / public opinion are a real thing. As for sockies, they help pass the time and this is General so let them play IMOComment
-
hmm... I wonder if Neil Ferguson was being 'influenced' in any way?...
surprised ZH hasn't done this one yetComment
-
Just had an interesting conversation with a care worker.
Husband and wife in their 60s both tested.
She has COVID-19 symptoms but tests negative.
He has no symptoms but tests positive.
They were chatting to their ex-classmate from uni who now teaches English in China. One of their students has had three tests, several weeks apart and the results were positive, then negative, then positive. Either the tests are unreliable or you can indeed get it twice. Either way, not great news.The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he didn't existComment
-
Part of the redacted material:
The framework proposes four new suggestions for increasing adherence, numbered as options 17 to 20 that SPI-B have not commented on before. These focus on: 17) increasing the financial penalties imposed; 18) introducing self-validation for movements; 19) reducing exercise and/or shopping; 20) reducing non-home working. We have reservations about options 17 to 19.
First, we are unclear what the evidence base is that the targeted behaviours are a substantial contribution to disease transmission, particularly given the high adherence rates currently observed in the community. Is there evidence, for example, that exercise conducted more than 1km away from the house leads to higher rates of transmission than exercise conducted within 1km of the house? Indeed, for this option, there is a risk that reducing the ability of people to apply some flexibility in choosing where to exercise will increase risk by preventing people from spreading out in nearby open space. Tightening restrictions without clear epidemiological need may lose support among people who have been attempting to adhere.
Second, the implicit assumption underlying options 17 to 19 is that people lack motivation to adhere to current guidance. This may apply to some specific subgroups (the example of young men has been given), but broadly the current levels of adherence we are witnessing suggest this is not the issue.
Third, there are equity issues within options 17 to 19. Any flat rate financial penalty will have a higher impact on poorer households, while the assumption that printing and completing paperwork is straightforward for all households can also be challenged. The assumption underlying restrictions on shopping frequency is that people can afford to buy in larger quantities. The risk of tension arising as the police are required to start penalising those who are not adhering should also be factored into considerations.“Brexit is having a wee in the middle of the room at a house party because nobody is talking to you, and then complaining about the smell.”Comment
-
-
When the fun stops, STOP.Comment
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Labour’s plan to regulate umbrella companies: a closer look Yesterday 09:24
- When HMRC misses an FTT deadline but still wins another CJRS case Nov 20 09:20
- How 15% employer NICs will sting the umbrella company market Nov 19 09:16
- Contracting Awards 2024 hails 19 firms as best of the best Nov 18 09:13
- How to answer at interview, ‘What’s your greatest weakness?’ Nov 14 09:59
- Business Asset Disposal Relief changes in April 2025: Q&A Nov 13 09:37
- How debt transfer rules will hit umbrella companies in 2026 Nov 12 09:28
- IT contractor demand floundering despite Autumn Budget 2024 Nov 11 09:30
- An IR35 bill of £19m for National Resources Wales may be just the tip of its iceberg Nov 7 09:20
- Micro-entity accounts: Overview, and how to file with HMRC Nov 6 09:27
Comment