Every three or four weeks we are visited in order to take lateral flow tests. There are also questions to answer and we have to give blood samples too. A few days after each visit we receive our results from the O.N.S.. Occasionally, on the BBC News, there will be reference to O.N.S. testing and those changing figures are derived from the very tests that I have described.
Being fine, upstanding citizens we were happy to join this study. We know that our participation helps to keep tabs on the coronavirus and will ultimately help to bring down this marauding coronavirus beast.
For every study visit, we receive a payment of £25 (US $35) and so far we have received £500 (US $700). For tax reasons, the payment does not arrive as cash. Instead you have to opt for vouchers from a range of businesses including Britain's top supermarkets. Then you have to print them off from the internet.
A couple of weeks ago I visited Sainsburys supermarket and spent £100 on groceries but with two vouchers in hand, everything I bought was effectively half price. I also bought new printer cartridges with vouchers we had received from The Office for National Statistics.
It is very easy money and we are not complaining. However, it would probably have been better if poor families were receiving the vouchers instead of us. Lord knows how much the O.N.S. study will have cost by the time of the final reckoning.
That's not a bad earner at all. The tax part is interesting, that is receiving goods by voucher not being taxable whereas I assume cash would be taxable
ReplyDeleteYou have got it Andrew! And I don't mean COVID!
DeleteMaybe the results of the study will reduce costs in other areas . I applaud you for volunteering in a study which could benefit people.
ReplyDeleteAnd I bow to your applause my cuddly Canadian friend!
DeleteWe have a lottery now, three draws of one million each to encourage people to get vaccinated, for those who are too stupid or too lazy to get vaccinated. Everyone can participate who has been vaccinated, regardless of when they got vaccinated so we've entered. If I suddenly retire, you'll know why.
ReplyDeleteMoney seems to be the way to get people to participate these days which is sad I think. Or maybe the world has always been this way and I just didn't notice. I agree that an impoverished family could have used the money more. Could you donate the cards to the food bank? Or something other charity?
I am afraid that would be impossible Lily. By the way, we regularly donate to a local food bank anyway.
DeleteYou could always donate them to a poor family.
ReplyDeleteGood point. I will ask Shirley about that.
DeleteI believe that many good citizens would participate in the study anyway and do not need the money as an incentive. As you say, it would be better spent on families who really need it.
ReplyDeleteWe would have certainly participated without the vouchers.
DeleteIt is important that these studies are randomised samples so targeting the incentives to certain income groups would - I suspect - be counter productive. Also, in the the scheme of things a relatively small incentive - most people in formal clinical trials receive far more.
ReplyDeleteSo enjoy your vouchers without guilt. Have a good weekend
Thank you for your reassurance Mark.
DeleteWhen the study is finally completed, I wonder what will happen to all the figures they have collected? Will the final financial reckoning be a subject for complaint and deemed a waste of money - the statistics being of no further use once the pandemic has subsided? Or will they be used as a base model for all future pandemics?
ReplyDeleteYes, the vouchers would be better used by people who really need them, and I'm rather horrified by your admittance that it's easy money. Surely the survey would be more acceptable if it's voluntary?
We did not ask for these vouchers and we would have happily got involved without that incentive. In using them we are supporting hard-pressed businesses so I guess it is just a cross that we have to bear Carol. Also bought a lovely new roasting pan with vouchers.
DeleteI would have been prepared to volunteer for no payment, although I know that P would very happily snap up the dosh.
ReplyDeleteThe aristocracy have no shame.
DeleteWould people not have volunteered free of payments? I'm sure you're very happy with your £500, but it does seem a big waste of public money. Personally I would not have refused a few quid.
ReplyDelete45,000 participants who have already each received £500 plus the costs incurred by office staff and the people who visit participants' homes. It is a huge expense and it's a long way from being over.
DeleteActually, I think that because you have to answer questions, take a test and give blood samples every time, and it involves everyone in the home, and also would mean having to self-isolate if you are discovered to be infected but symptomless, £25 is not excessive payment. I've been involved in conducting these kinds of studies and the last thing they want is the data being compromised by people dropping out because they can't be bothered any more. I realise that £25 for 45,000 people costs £1.25 million each time they test, but you if you want quality data, you can't get it on the cheap.
ReplyDeleteHave also been thinking about your post yesterday (must have been a good one). Did Hymers affect friendships in your village? Was it difficult travelling in winter? It must have had lots of implications. I know of children who travelled on the train from places like Howden, Brough and Goole and they were regarded as a bit eccentric. Future posts?
It did have plenty of implications that have affected me throughout my life. I did not belong there and to tell you the truth I am in no mood to rake up those embers. I guess you are right about accepting payment for being involved in the COVID study for O.N.S..
DeleteThere is also the payment and travelling expenses of the testers and salaries of those analysing the data. At a quick estimate this is at least a fifty million pound survey, and could be a lot more.
DeleteYou are right Mr Human Calculator! At least 50 million so our £500 thus far is like a drop in the ocean.
DeleteCrikey. I participate in similar studies and I don't receive a penny. I'm not sure I'd be happy to take any money to be honest.
ReplyDeleteYou are more morally upright than we are ADDY.
DeleteI wouldn't fret too much. In order for a study like that to be accurate, they have to track the spread of Covid among the rich as well as the poor and middle class. We usually make a larger than normal contribution to a church charity when faced with such things.
ReplyDeleteI guess that the sample is not entirely random.
DeleteI really don't feel qualified to comment on this. I will just say that at the very least you have been cheerfully inconvenienced for the sake of science. There is no shame in that.
ReplyDeleteIt isn't very onerous. Usually the visits are all over and done with in twenty minutes.
DeleteKet;s seem £500 in vouchers received to date at £25 per voucher comes to, divide by 7, carry the 4, TWENTY visits by the O.N.S to your home so far??? That's a lot of government intrusion, iffen you ask me (which you didn't). Even if you and Shirley each get a voucher, that is still TEN visits since the program began. Maybe they install a secret camera to record your every move or put rat poison in your oatmeal when you're not looking, you never know. All I'm saying is, enjoy the fruit of your vouchers while you can, if you get my drift.
ReplyDeleteAn oops at the begnning, sorry, "Ket;s seem" should have been "Let's see," so the fingers of the right hand were in the wrong place on the keyboard.
DeleteWe receive £25 each Bob so for that reason your initial arithmetic may be faulty. I appreciate your blessing.
DeleteMy initial arithmetic was perfect. The part about dividing by 7 and carrying the 4 was just a joke.
DeleteEh? I never realised that arithmetic could ever be a source of humour!
DeleteI suspect, just like the government, we often enter into things without looking forward to all the implications. You and Shirley have donated time to a statistical analysis, and have been offered a reward. What you do with that reward is your concern, think I would donate the vouchers to Trussell Trust and spare myself any 'virtuous signalling' and guilt overload that may come with it. Tongue in cheek of course!
ReplyDelete"Tongue in cheek" is one of my favourites dishes. Makes lovely gravy.
DeleteHey, take the payment! You're benefitting science and it is an inconvenience, even if a mild one, for you.
ReplyDeleteOkay, I will take your advice Steve.
DeleteThat is a brilliant idea that the government had about the vouchers. Do the vouchers have your name on them? If you really feel that the monies should go to others, perhaps you could purchase non-perishable items and then give it to your Oxfam the next time you work there. Colorado has decided that they will give away one million dollars or 723,640 British pounds to one person each week, for five weeks, who has received full vaccination according to the state health records. The first one who won the million was a nurse who has worked throughout the pandemic. I was so happy about that!
ReplyDeleteHow wonderful that a nurse won the big prize! I wonder if she/he will carry on nursing? By the way, I resigned from the Oxfam shop after giving just over five years service there.
DeleteP.S. I enjoyed flying above your two Colorado homes like a condor but I did not see you waving!
If you had gotten close enough to the mountain house a few days ago, you would have seen a mama bear and her cubs decimate and kill a flock of chickens that the new owners were raising. I feel so sorry for the chickens. The humans that live there now should have known better!
Delete