Heaven forbid that people might actually use property as a pension fund. Heaven forbid that in order for there to be a private rental sector, people need to be able to make a profit from it. Heaven forbid that landlords should make any money at all.

My wife owns a house which she rents out. If the tenant decides not to pay rent for three months then there is no help for my wife for the lost income - she will just have to 'suck it up'. But that's fine.

Originally Posted by: Justin W 

Switzerland says young children can hug grandparents
From the BBC news ticker:
"Across the world, elderly people have been separated from their grandchildren as part of social distancing to prevent the spread of the virus.
The emotional impact of this has been hard on many families - it was the topic of the first question from a member of the public at the UK government briefing on Monday.
In Switzerland - which is beginning to ease its lockdown measures - authorities say they consider that it is now safe for children under the age of 10 to hug their grandparents.
The health ministry's infectious diseases chief Daniel Koch said scientists had concluded that young children did not transmit the virus.
Switzerland has recorded 1,699 deaths linked to coronavirus".

Just hope they are right about this!

Originally Posted by: Phil G 

If people choose to use property as an investment fund then that's also a risk they have to take. The market used to go up and down a lot more than it has done in the last 20 years. There are no guarantees. Why should they be exempt from falls. I have just lost 20% on my pension in 'properly' invested funds. In truth I was cacking myself when the markets were falling, but the advice was expect sharp falls as well as rises. It comes with the 'territory'.

Originally Posted by: Phil G 

It will be a worrying time for the care home sector, in terms of economic viability. 

Once they were a bit of a cash cow for investors. There was a private home sector catering chiefly for mostly comfortable-off pensioners, alongside a massive public sector provision.

From the early 90s onwards, there was a programme of this public provision being privatised as councils were pressured (by restrictive central funding) into outsourcing. It started slowly, but built quickly in the 00s. By 2010, a clear majority were in private hands.

By 2019, only 3% of care home beds were provided by LAs, with the private sector providing 84% (the remainder by the voluntary sector).

The reasons were simple. Local authority homes employed permanent staff on nationally-agreed pay scales, with the same T&Cs and pension and holidays and sick leave, etc as other local authority staff. It was a decently-paid and secure vocation for those working there.

By outsourcing, the private providers would have freedom to decide their own pay rates and T&Cs. The result has been a downward shift in pay and T&Cs, the proliferation of temporary contracts and agency workers, and the steady increase of foreign workers.

Local authorities would assess the finances of those entering care homes and pay for all or part of the care when financial criteria were met. The rates paid to care homes were set. For those with too great an income or assets, they had to pay full whack to the provider. 

Big profits were made by the sector, and the involvement of private equity (around 15-20% of beds are with PE-owned providers) helped drive this.

But problems started post-2010 when local authority budgets began to be slashed by central government. Councils drew in the purse strings and found ways to reduce what they paid private providers.

Some gave gone bust, including a few big players, and the residents have had to endure declining levels of care quality as staff numbers were cut and staff turnover led to under-experience and demotivated carers.

Brexit was already going to be a cliff edge, losing a high proportion of staff as they are unwanted, dirty foreigners.

But the impact on care home residents of this coronavirus pandemic - and the scandal is still emerging; when the smoke eventually clears, there's going to be serious implications and allegations - is going to hit private sector providers in two ways. Firstly, they are losing 'existing customers' as they are dying by the thousand. Secondly, there's going to be a reticence to go into these homes in case there's further 'waves' that kill more thousands (whilst the government seems to shrug its shoulders as they build PR stunt temporary hospitals).

I can a whole new approach being needed for how we care for our elderly. 

Originally Posted by: Saint Snow 

But fine for tenants to take a rental holiday, no questions asked. They must be exempt from risk

Originally Posted by: Justin W 

Follows on from the Iceland study that someone posted yesterday that suggested that children did not transmit the virus 

Originally Posted by: speckledjim 

Whilst acknowledging all the science studies have an outcome of risk, this is particularly risky especially given what Switzerland are introducing. I hope they are right otherwise it is a recipe for disaster. 

Haven't there been other studies saying children are equally as infectious? Just not as symptomatic.

Originally Posted by: SJV 

NuLabour introduced a law stipulating the number of houses per [acre/hectare/whatever] that needed to be fit onto anything other than very small developments. Most developers would therefore include some small townhouse or even apartment builds. But that, argued house builders, suppressed the prices they could charge for their 4- and 5-bedroom 'executive' houses, as who in their right mind wants plebs in 2-bed hovels on their doorstep?

They successfully lobbied the Tories (house builders are amongst the biggest and most loyal Tory Party donors going back years... they need some bang for their buck after all) and soon after the 2010 GE, the legal requirements were quickly dropped. And I also remember that fat c**t Pickles gleefully announcing a free-for-all to build on greenbelt land.

Originally Posted by: Saint Snow 

Maybe so. Do they have to make up this money to you when things 'improve'? Again, if you own a house, you run a risk, sometimes because of events unforeseen.

Originally Posted by: Phil G 

Whilst acknowledging all the science studies have an outcome of risk, this is particularly risky especially given what Switzerland are introducing. I hope they are right otherwise it is a recipe for disaster. 

Haven't there been other studies saying children are equally as infectious? Just not as symptomatic.

Originally Posted by: SJV 

We already have forced exercise in schools, it's called PE and games. My experience of it was enough to put me off any form of exercise for life, it was utterly awful (between being bullied because I didn't know the rules of football, being called gay and a poof because I'm crap at sports in general, between teachers making you run until you're out of breath, or through the snow in plimsolls and a t-shirt in the name of cross-country... utter rubbish.

Swimming lessons were just as bad... those of us deemed useless were left in the toddler pool, while those who could swim were given all the attention. I still can't swim even today, I've no motivation whatsoever to learn either.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who was put off so badly by their various schools!).

At least at school these days the teachers actually seem to care more and - shock horror - actually teach and explain techniques etc, rather than just tossing a football at you and doing next to nothing for the hour.

Originally Posted by: Retron 

Have you a link to the Iceland study? What I have read suggests that children are less likely to get the disease not that those that have it are less likely to transmit it.

Originally Posted by: doctormog 

I don't actually know! Although if the tenant is not able to make up the missed payments, I suspect that my wife will work with her to ensure that she can stay in the house. However, if you rent a house you should also run a risk because of unforeseen events, IMO. The risk cannot be placed entirely on the shoulders of the property's owner.

Originally Posted by: Justin W 

Accurately reflects the situation and my view entirely. I would love to see the breakdown of the typical costs and overheads though. £2000 per week as many are round here does seem a lot.

Originally Posted by: fairweather 

https://www.sciencemuseumgroup.org.uk/hunting-down-covid-19/

Originally Posted by: speckledjim 

https://www.sciencemuseumgroup.org.uk/hunting-down-covid-19/

Originally Posted by: speckledjim 

We already have forced exercise in schools, it's called PE and games. My experience of it was enough to put me off any form of exercise for life, it was utterly awful (between being bullied because I didn't know the rules of football, being called gay and a poof because I'm crap at sports in general, between teachers making you run until you're out of breath, or through the snow in plimsolls and a t-shirt in the name of cross-country... utter rubbish.

Swimming lessons were just as bad... those of us deemed useless were left in the toddler pool, while those who could swim were given all the attention. I still can't swim even today, I've no motivation whatsoever to learn either.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who was put off so badly by their various schools!).

At least at school these days the teachers actually seem to care more and - shock horror - actually teach and explain techniques etc, rather than just tossing a football at you and doing next to nothing for the hour.

Originally Posted by: Retron 

When all the previous advice and evidence suggests there is very little or no advantage in wearing face masks or similar coverings, either for contracting or infecting others, why is this now being considered?

Discuss.

Originally Posted by: nsrobins 

When all the previous advice and evidence suggests there is very little or no advantage in wearing face masks or similar coverings, either for contracting or infecting others, why is this now being considered?
Discuss.
Having seen the arguments I’ll probably consider face masks to be a step too far, but I do have a tendency to question most of the advice HMG give out because it hasn’t worked that well so far going by the current deaths/population ratio in the UK compared to the global situation.

Originally Posted by: nsrobins 

When all the previous advice and evidence suggests there is very little or no advantage in wearing face masks or similar coverings, either for contracting or infecting others, why is this now being considered?
Discuss.
Having seen the arguments I’ll probably consider face masks to be a step too far, but I do have a tendency to question most of the advice HMG give out because it hasn’t worked that well so far going by the current deaths/population ratio in the UK compared to the global situation.

Originally Posted by: nsrobins 

I have to agree it’s a step too far and I think it lulls the wearer into a false sense of security.  The past couple of times I’ve been in a supermarket, there has been someone wearing a mask and completely ignoring social distancing.  They seem to think a mask makes them invincible!  Masked crusaders or something!  I am also now very wary of anyone wearing one, as I think they may have the virus!  

Originally Posted by: Caz 

I have been wondering that images from the far east have been showing people wearing masks for some time now, but mainly because of air pollution. Since the outbreak its hard to distinguish if wearing masks has gone up, maybe from voluntary to compulsory. To me, there must be 'something in it' and all those people are wearing masks not just for the sake of it. I heard, from somewhere that they did not want people here to wear masks otherwise we would take away what little chance the NHS would be able to get hold of these. In my last shop at Morrison's, there were definitely more people wearing these so something is driving the need here to use them, comfort value maybe?

Originally Posted by: Phil G