Exactly, as @Graphista says. But it is wrong to have this wretched 'furlough' as a word for unemployed and never likely to get similar work again. It would have been better to, naturally, divert extra staff, but the day people stopped working, let them all, every last one, be treated equally. Just as anyone else is expected to apply for benefits, let them do the same, get the same amount, with the same tules. It's true there are anomalies, but let a wider public see for themselves, so there's hope of public opinion pushing change.
The savings thing is an example of where what was basically a logical system has become illogical. Own a house worth millions, with a partner living in it, but no savings in your name, and get council tax payers to fund you in a care home. Live anxiously in your last years, hoping your entire life savings will be enough to keep your rented roof over your head, with no housing benefit, no pension supplement and no private pension, and not only will the modest remains of your savings stop you qualifying for benefits, they stop you being eligible for a council place, even when street homeless, if your private landlord wants to sell, and no other private landlord will take an old or disabled person. (If you do finish up in a care home, you pay full fees, plus a premium to subsidise your fellow residents, such as the owner of that multimillion house.)
Savings, to someone old and disabled and with no private pension, are not the same as savings to a person who owns a house and has a large pension.