|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2020 16:00:24 GMT
I would have thought it would make more sense to cut back on families mixing. So back to all of us who are alone being forced into effectively solitary confinement? Or do you mean people can mix with their own family but not others? Either way you condemn many, many people to a level of loneliness that some will find more unbearable than the risk of catching Covid. I feel like a broken record now, but this is so much more than a binary choice between taking measures to stop Covid and everything else. The "everything else" that has been lumped together (mental health, cancer, conditions causing severe chronic pain etc) is now quite possibly more dangerous than the virus risk. Not solitary confinement, but certainly reduced contact. Yes, it's tough â I was self-harming like crazy all through the lockdown â but the alternative is far tougher. Covid-19 isn't the only problem that exists right now but it is by far the most serious one in that if we can't keep it under control we won't have the resources to deal with any of the other problems. I remember a couple of months back you said that Covid-19 was less dangerous than driving, and I hope you don't still believe that because it's far, far more deadly. In a few months it has killed more people in the UK than have died on our roads this century (46210, against 45658 road fatalities), and thanks to lockdown it did that when only reaching a small fraction of the population. That makes it 300 to 500 times more dangerous than driving. It's also killed more people than the Blitz. You're right that we need to be able to deal with issues other than Covid-19, but the only way we can do that is by getting the number of infections down to a level where most of our medical equipment isn't tied up with Covid-19 patients and most of our medical professionals aren't putting their lives at risk every day by coming into contact with the disease everywhere they go. Until the recent upturn we were at the point where around a third of lower tier local authorities were going a whole week with no new cases reported. If we can get back down to that level and stay there then we'll be able to spend more effort on the other things. But it's only by doing the one that we get to do the other. There are some people around, and I get the impression you're one of them, who think we can just let this disease "run its course" and "live with it", but that's not going to happen. It kills around half a percent of even the healthiest people, you don't develop immunity to it after being infected, and recent evidence suggests that if you catch it once and recover you're left with long-term organ damage that makes you more likely to succumb the next time you're infected. The more we learn about this virus the more obvious it becomes that we can't lose this fight. Yes, it sucks, and for some people it sucks more than others. But there are 46,210 people for whom it sucks most of all and I want to see as few people join that number as possible, and by fighting Covid-19 effectively we get to reduce deaths from all causes. |
|
|
|
Post by clair on Aug 3, 2020 16:03:08 GMT
I'm sure I read 2 stories in the Mail about the Yeomen Warders being at risk of losing their jobs. No, they're not! The Tower is opening again and I'm going when I'm in London later this month. I maybe over 50, and suffer with asthma, but I'm not going without my much needed and anticipated break (1st. since Feb). Call me bloody-minded, but I will be taking plenty of precautions when on my travels. The Tower is open but yes some of them will be made redundant sadly - not enough visitors or income for the next few years for the charity to keep going on current staff levels. Just like every company in the sector. be it heritage, theatre or music, the sad fact is that very few if any will be able to avoid mass redundancies. Many jobs will be lost across all the sites HRP looks after, the Yeoman Warders are well known so make the headlines but all heritage sites are facing the same problem, National Trust have announced around 1200 jobs will go too. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2020 16:22:29 GMT
I'm sure I read 2 stories in the Mail about the Yeomen Warders being at risk of losing their jobs. No, they're not! The Tower is opening again and I'm going when I'm in London later this month. I maybe over 50, and suffer with asthma, but I'm not going without my much needed and anticipated break (1st. since Feb). Call me bloody-minded, but I will be taking plenty of precautions when on my travels. The Tower is open but yes some of them will be made redundant sadly - not enough visitors or income for the next few years for the charity to keep going on current staff levels. Just like every company in the sector. be it heritage, theatre or music, the sad fact is that very few if any will be able to avoid mass redundancies. Many jobs will be lost across all the sites HRP looks after, the Yeoman Warders are well known so make the headlines but all heritage sites are facing the same problem, National Trust have announced around 1200 jobs will go too. The Yeoman Warders are all former Warrant Officers ( Sgt Major rank) and must have had 22 years minimum service in the forces before they can apply for that role. So surely there would be guys there near or past normal retirement age, they would have sizeable army pensions given their ranks. A likely Yeoman Pension too. |
|
1,972 posts
|
Post by sf on Aug 3, 2020 18:24:47 GMT
So back to all of us who are alone being forced into effectively solitary confinement? Or do you mean people can mix with their own family but not others? Either way you condemn many, many people to a level of loneliness that some will find more unbearable than the risk of catching Covid. Certainly the government needs to be aware - more aware than they have been up to this point, because they've mostly left local councils and volunteers to do the heavy lifting - that isolation is very difficult for some people, and that there are people who need significant support under a stay-at-home order, whether because of underlying mental health issues or just simple loneliness. HOWEVER. There are times when it's necessary for people to make sacrifices for the greater good. This is one of them. I'm certainly not minimising how difficult isolation is - I do get it (actually, having been the primary caregiver for someone whose illness was such that there were long periods over the last ten years when I couldn't leave the house unless someone else could be there in my place, I get it better than a lot of people. That's a very, very lonely position to be in, but you do what has to be done) - but there are a limited range of options for getting covid-19 under control, and for the moment distancing is the best of them. And the best way of making sure other conditions get dealt with in a timely fashion, too, is to make sure medical personnel and facilities aren't tied up dealing with covid-19 patients. Nobody is being asked to storm a trench in a battlefield. As I said, I do understand that isolation and loneliness are serious issues, and that there are people who will need a great deal of support. That has to be kept in mind, and support must be provided to those who need it - but it's not a good enough reason for not, if necessary, imposing further preventative restrictions in order to protect sections of the public. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2020 19:19:48 GMT
The Tower is open but yes some of them will be made redundant sadly - not enough visitors or income for the next few years for the charity to keep going on current staff levels. Just like every company in the sector. be it heritage, theatre or music, the sad fact is that very few if any will be able to avoid mass redundancies. Many jobs will be lost across all the sites HRP looks after, the Yeoman Warders are well known so make the headlines but all heritage sites are facing the same problem, National Trust have announced around 1200 jobs will go too. The Yeoman Warders are all former Warrant Officers ( Sgt Major rank) and must have had 22 years minimum service in the forces before they can apply for that role. So surely there would be guys there near or past normal retirement age, they would have sizeable army pensions given their ranks. A likely Yeoman Pension too. Yes, as in all redundancy situations theyâre hoping the majority of losses will be covered by those who sort of âwantâ to go. But I imagine itâs one of those jobs where the pride in your work, and the fact that historically there havenât been that many people to take on the role, might make it pretty hard to take that decision. I donât know what visitor numbers are like now, maggiem, but I hope you enjoy your trip. (I went on their first day of reopening mid-July and there were probably only about 20-30 other tourists about the place. Which made it great for seeing the crown jewels, without the hustle and bustle, but not great for HRPâs income obviously.) Also very few of the other buildings were open at that stage, so I managed to zip round it in less than an hour. Hope they re-open the other buildings soon, as I bought a membership this year that I havenât been able to use properly! - but as historic buildings they may be too narrow and awkward to make this feasible, of course. |
|
|
|
Post by frappuccino on Aug 5, 2020 11:52:19 GMT
Aberdeen to go into lockdown
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2020 12:25:03 GMT
Aberdeen to go into lockdown Closing things in the evenings, daytime okay but travel restrictions. I thought theyâd be trying out âall work and no playâ lockdowns and this looks like a version of it. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2020 15:36:43 GMT
Aberdeen to go into lockdown Closing things in the evenings, daytime okay but travel restrictions. I thought theyâd be trying out âall work and no playâ lockdowns and this looks like a version of it. This outbreak was largely linked to a few bars so a lot of innocent people have been affected. NS isn't messing about with the Schools back next week. Maybe if it is the younger generation socializing which is causing these outbreaks or perhaps more correctly people recklessly socializing then hopefully others will start holding them to account as it was when the finger was pointed at certain Asian centric areas. Some younger Asian people may well have been ignoring guidelines but if they did cause outbreaks within their family or community I could well see them being held to account by their peers. We still need to know why our death rate has been so high even highlighted by the Orange President last night. Don't forget the Chief Scientific Advisor Sir Patrick Vallance talked about 20k deaths. People of his standing don't pluck a figure out of the air. That was likely a medium case scenario ballpark figure which would have been researched. So he might have been expecting something in say 15 to 25k region. |
|
2,342 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Aug 5, 2020 15:54:23 GMT
Closing things in the evenings, daytime okay but travel restrictions. I thought theyâd be trying out âall work and no playâ lockdowns and this looks like a version of it. This outbreak was largely linked to a few bars so a lot of innocent people have been affected. NS isn't messing about with the Schools back next week. Maybe if it is the younger generation socializing which is causing these outbreaks or perhaps more correctly people recklessly socializing then hopefully others will start holding them to account as it was when the finger was pointed at certain Asian centric areas. Some younger Asian people may well have been ignoring guidelines but if they did cause outbreaks within their family or community I could well see them being held to account by their peers. We still need to know why our death rate has been so high even highlighted by the Orange President last night. Don't forget the Chief Scientific Advisor Sir Patrick Vallance talked about 20k deaths. People of his standing don't pluck a figure out of the air. That was likely a medium case scenario ballpark figure which would have been researched. So he might have been expecting something in say 15 to 25k region. Wasn't he saying 250k two weeks before that? |
|
2,412 posts
|
Post by theatreian on Aug 5, 2020 16:05:34 GMT
|
|
1,863 posts
|
Post by NeilVHughes on Aug 5, 2020 16:08:33 GMT
250K if we did nothing, only wash our hands and limit contact.
20K if we locked down.
The elephant in the room is Care Homes which was not adequately mitigated:
25K General Population.
20K Care Homes.
(Government figures not ONS Excess Deaths)
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2020 16:48:04 GMT
If firms do offer redundancy then there may be older staff who wish to take it especially given the risks in the current climate. A fair number of older people who may have been furloughed may have effectively been tasting what retirement would be like and if they wanted to take up the offer then they should be welcomed to do so. But you cannot force people to give up work especially as retirement age has been raised. Some jobs do have a minimum age, some a maximum age for example you cannot be a JP over the age of 70. The Supreme Court Law Lords have to finish at 75. But would you want to lose 7 of the 12 Law Lords under this rule. About 75 MPs are over 65 and they have no mandatory retirement age or age they cannot stand past. Would be just say to all actors over 65 please retire? |
|
641 posts
|
Post by christya on Aug 5, 2020 20:40:33 GMT
People over 65 who are still capable of working, and who would find their lifestyle impacted by losing their income, are not likely to just give up their job for a younger person. Doesn't sound particularly reasonable.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2020 20:56:35 GMT
Closing things in the evenings, daytime okay but travel restrictions. I thought theyâd be trying out âall work and no playâ lockdowns and this looks like a version of it. This outbreak was largely linked to a few bars so a lot of innocent people have been affected. NS isn't messing about with the Schools back next week. Maybe if it is the younger generation socializing which is causing these outbreaks or perhaps more correctly people recklessly socializing then hopefully others will start holding them to account as it was when the finger was pointed at certain Asian centric areas. Some younger Asian people may well have been ignoring guidelines but if they did cause outbreaks within their family or community I could well see them being held to account by their peers. We still need to know why our death rate has been so high even highlighted by the Orange President last night. Don't forget the Chief Scientific Advisor Sir Patrick Vallance talked about 20k deaths. People of his standing don't pluck a figure out of the air. That was likely a medium case scenario ballpark figure which would have been researched. So he might have been expecting something in say 15 to 25k region. I wouldnât call others in bars âinnocentâ. They are mixing with others knowing full well the risks of doing so. The truly innocent are the taxi driver, the bar staff and the person they get a takeaway off. They are the ones I have the most sympathy for. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2020 21:05:01 GMT
This outbreak was largely linked to a few bars so a lot of innocent people have been affected. NS isn't messing about with the Schools back next week. Maybe if it is the younger generation socializing which is causing these outbreaks or perhaps more correctly people recklessly socializing then hopefully others will start holding them to account as it was when the finger was pointed at certain Asian centric areas. Some younger Asian people may well have been ignoring guidelines but if they did cause outbreaks within their family or community I could well see them being held to account by their peers. We still need to know why our death rate has been so high even highlighted by the Orange President last night. Don't forget the Chief Scientific Advisor Sir Patrick Vallance talked about 20k deaths. People of his standing don't pluck a figure out of the air. That was likely a medium case scenario ballpark figure which would have been researched. So he might have been expecting something in say 15 to 25k region. I wouldnât call others in bars âinnocentâ. They are mixing with others knowing full well the risks of doing so. The truly innocent are the taxi driver, the bar staff and the person they get a takeaway off. They are the ones I have the most sympathy for. I met innocent people who have been affected by the lockdown not those who may have been in the bar, A wide area has been affected due to the actions of a minority in a bar. |
|
311 posts
|
Post by olliebean on Aug 8, 2020 8:55:24 GMT
Spotted this on Facebook, and it seems quite apposite to the Government's lack of joined-up thinking in its coronavirus strategies: "In Manchester, you can be sacked for refusing to go and sit with someone in an office, fined ÂŁ100 for sitting with them at home, and given a money-off deal to sit with them in a busy restaurant."
|
|
2,412 posts
|
Post by theatreian on Aug 8, 2020 14:29:21 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2020 16:17:36 GMT
It's good to see these economic experts setting the medical experts straight about medical matters. Their unrivalled knowledge of everything is undoubtedly the reason why the world has never known any sort of financial crisis.
|
|
1,972 posts
|
Post by sf on Aug 8, 2020 16:39:41 GMT
Valid points? By "it's the poor who'll suffer", what she really means is that the value of the companies they work for may drop. And of course a right-wing financier is always going to be my first port of call when I'm looking for advice on how to keep the workforce safe during a global pandemic. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2020 16:55:19 GMT
Valid points? By "it's the poor who'll suffer", what she really means is that the value of the companies they work for may drop. And of course a right-wing financier is always going to be my first port of call when I'm looking for advice on how to keep the workforce safe during a global pandemic. The first few comments I read* were all calling her out on it. When even Daily Mail readers think your views are unreasonable it's time to take a long look at what you've become. * It's the Mail. I'm always afraid that if I read too far my blood will start boiling. |
|
2,412 posts
|
Post by theatreian on Aug 8, 2020 16:56:08 GMT
Some of the points making reference to the lack of return to offices and the impact this is having on cities and towns are worth mentioning as this will have a direct impact on peoples livelihoods and jobs. I wasn't saying I agreed with everything she says but the comparison with other countries and the percentage of those who have returned to working in offices is worth mentioning. There will be a real threat that a lot of businesses will go under. I think that is a valid point that can be made.
|
|
1,972 posts
|
Post by sf on Aug 8, 2020 17:03:13 GMT
Valid points? By "it's the poor who'll suffer", what she really means is that the value of the companies they work for may drop. And of course a right-wing financier is always going to be my first port of call when I'm looking for advice on how to keep the workforce safe during a global pandemic. The first few comments I read* were all calling her out on it. When even Daily Mail readers think your views are unreasonable it's time to take a long look at what you've become. * It's the Mail. I'm always afraid that if I read too far my blood will start boiling. I wasn't brave enough to get into the comments section. It's too hot in here to wear rubber gloves. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2020 17:17:58 GMT
Some of the points making reference to the lack of return to offices and the impact this is having on cities and towns are worth mentioning as this will have a direct impact on peoples livelihoods and jobs. I see it as merely hastening a trend that was already happening. I work from home full time but I know quite a few people who, even before Covid-19, were only expected to go in to a central location a couple of days a week. With remote working being increasingly easy to operate there's a strong financial benefit to many businesses in downsizing their offices and having people go in to work on a rotating or as-needed basis if they wish to. A structure that was essential in the 1970s and 1980s is no longer the only option in the 2020s. I doubt the idea of offices will vanish completely. Companies still need places to meet with customers â when one company has completely dispensed with offices they can always go to meet the customer at the customer's own site but they can't do that if neither business has any office space of their own, and renting somewhere temporarily doesn't create a great impression â and there's a considerable amount of management inertia that will make most companies very reluctant to give up the idea of "the office" entirely. But I do think there'll be an increase in home working and a shift away from business districts to a more mixed environment. And of course although shops in dedicated business districts will suffer, the people who used to work in those districts but are now working from home will still want to go to the shops at lunch time. They'll just be going to different shops, and they'll have more money to spend and more time in which to spend it. It's not a loss of shopping habits but a change in them. |
|
7,199 posts
|
Post by Jon on Aug 8, 2020 17:29:56 GMT
I see it as merely hastening a trend that was already happening. I work from home full time but I know quite a few people who, even before Covid-19, were only expected to go in to a central location a couple of days a week. With remote working being increasingly easy to operate there's a strong financial benefit to many businesses in downsizing their offices and having people go in to work on a rotating or as-needed basis if they wish to. A structure that was essential in the 1970s and 1980s is no longer the only option in the 2020s. I doubt the idea of offices will vanish completely. Companies still need places to meet with customers â when one company has completely dispensed with offices they can always go to meet the customer at the customer's own site but they can't do that if neither business has any office space of their own, and renting somewhere temporarily doesn't create a great impression â and there's a considerable amount of management inertia that will make most companies very reluctant to give up the idea of "the office" entirely. But I do think there'll be an increase in home working and a shift away from business districts to a more mixed environment. And of course although shops in dedicated business districts will suffer, the people who used to work in those districts but are now working from home will still want to go to the shops at lunch time. They'll just be going to different shops, and they'll have more money to spend and more time in which to spend it. It's not a loss of shopping habits but a change in them. I think a tower or building that is solely an office is probably now redundant but office space that is mixed with retail and leisure is going to be more prominent. Lloyd Dorfman recently bought the lease of One Soho Place which is being built as part of Crossrail which has the mix of office, retail and leisure as Nimax will operate a theatre that's within the complex. That's also the situation with Facebook's new UK offices in Kings Cross which also will be the home of a new theatre operated by London Theatre Company. Change can be scary but cities have always evolved to meet the requirements of their times. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2020 18:54:44 GMT
Some of the points making reference to the lack of return to offices and the impact this is having on cities and towns are worth mentioning as this will have a direct impact on peoples livelihoods and jobs. I wasn't saying I agreed with everything she says but the comparison with other countries and the percentage of those who have returned to working in offices is worth mentioning. There will be a real threat that a lot of businesses will go under. I think that is a valid point that can be made. It was a perfectly valid link to post, and a well-written piece that drew on multiple sources to form its conclusions. I didnât find much to disagree with when I read it this morning myself. But apparently itâs possible to think that when people say sensible, measured things like this in an article, theyâre clearly *rolls eyes* evil: 1. âMany, I accept, will have been working productively from home. But the abandonment of the traditional workplace is causing real damage, particularly to the huge sector â often small, independent businesses â that is dependent on thriving office life, including cafes, sandwich shops, bars, newsagents and taxi drivers.â 2. âWhat makes the myopia about coronavirus all the more dangerous is that it leads to neglect of other, often serious, conditions, as the Mail reported this week. âMany cancer patients, for example, are finding tests, operations and treatment delayed, while mental health care, drug rehabilitation, care for the elderly and even getting an appointment with the GP are adversely impacted. âThe pursuit of safety has become its own menace. On top of the economic damage, the Covid lockdown has brought a host of social problems, from fractured relationships to an increase in excessive drinking â in July alone, alcohol sales were up by 40 per cent. âThen there are the profound feelings of alienation and oppression, so different from the freedoms we took for granted until recently.â 3. âCovid inequalities can be seen on every front â between rich and poor, male (who are at greater risk) and female, white and BAME (the latter group are far more likely to work in the front line of essential services and are significantly more vulnerable to the disease).â 4. âAs a lifelong campaigner for equality, I am all in favour of more flexible working. But we must also be aware of the broader ramifications of a wholesale retreat.â |
|
