Coronavirus

[Mucker1884]

15 minutes ago, JoetheRam said:

Wish we could work from home permanently with maybe a monthly day at the office/meeting venue to chew the fat in person. 

Got to go back from September as the bosses have pulled the old 'we need face to face meetings' and 'we'll be able to talk through problems better' cards. Even though I'll fundamentally be doing exactly the same as I would be at home, except now in an office of 15 or so in shitty lighting, poor air quality and with a half hour commute each way.

Boils down to a lack of trust in people to not swing the lead I think.

Can't wait to hear about Brenda from HR's latest diet and how Deborah's kids are doing.

Ah... well... That's the thing... I probably wouldn't mention Deborah's kid's to her, if I were you!
Turns out her 15 year old daughter Chantelle, ain't no kid any more.  Debs is furious she's gonna be a gran at her age!

[JoetheRam]

Oh also just been told by the Mrs that someone came into their veterinary practice today and was asked to put a mask on as is customary. She then proceded to say Covid was a Government conspiracy and the virus didn't exist, then licked her hand and rubbed it over the reception desk saying "see, it's not contagious".

This infront of receptionist who's father died from the virus.

People are so feckin stupid it's unreal. 

[Bob Mash]

Totally get all the positives about working from home/more family time etc. All good. Find some of the flippant suggestions for hospitality businesses a bit concerning though. My partner runs one and is barely making enough to pay the rent, never mind making enough for a wage, due to lack of people going out. The UK economy completely revolves around productive city centres and the knock on effect from office/work place to transport links/shops/pubs/cafés etc. If everyone continues to work from home the economy will crash and working from home won't be an option as there won't be an economy to provide jobs. And if we ever get football back, forgot going for a pint before or after the match, because there won't be any pubs left either. Apologies for the negative post but I don't believe a lot of people get the magnitude of what we are facing economically and socially. 

[Van der MoodHoover]

20 minutes ago, Bearwood Ram said:

Totally get all the positives about working from home/more family time etc. All good. Find some of the flippant suggestions for hospitality businesses a bit concerning though. My partner runs one and is barely making enough to pay the rent, never mind making enough for a wage, due to lack of people going out. The UK economy completely revolves around productive city centres and the knock on effect from office/work place to transport links/shops/pubs/cafés etc. If everyone continues to work from home the economy will crash and working from home won't be an option as there won't be an economy to provide jobs. And if we ever get football back, forgot going for a pint before or after the match, because there won't be any pubs left either. Apologies for the negative post but I don't believe a lot of people get the magnitude of what we are facing economically and socially. 

This is a huge problem. Certainly in the short term and maybe in the longer term.

The theory would say that as old business models are shown to be obsolete new ones move in to replace them.

However I fear that if you make a step change such as stopping moving millions of people around daily purely to get to a place of work then this would require a massive adjustment, which would need supporting.

Where it will end I don't know. The shift of some food businesses to delivery only is part of the story. But I agree (having had a partner striving at her ice cream business) that not all of the sector can be sustained. 

So then where does that human capital go?

[Bob Mash]

9 minutes ago, Van der MoodHoover said:

This is a huge problem. Certainly in the short term and maybe in the longer term.

The theory would say that as old business models are shown to be obsolete new ones move in to replace them.

However I fear that if you make a step change such as stopping moving millions of people around daily purely to get to a place of work then this would require a massive adjustment, which would need supporting.

Where it will end I don't know. The shift of some food businesses to delivery only is part of the story. But I agree (having had a partner striving at her ice cream business) that not all of the sector can be sustained. 

So then where does that human capital go?

Where indeed?! I think the country is close to a million redundancies already since March and I'm fairly sure that's just the start. A mate of mine works for a large corporate hospitality firm that is about to go under because the big office contracts that kept them in business have now dried up. So as great as avoiding the commute is, the downside is the negative impact on wider society and other employment such as this example. 

[iolanthe]

Obviously working from home works well for some whilst others have problems or miss the human contact.For me it’s great but I have space at home in the study,no kids hassling.If I were younger still living with my folks or sharing a tiny house it would be awful.I think companies need to discuss people’s circumstances and adapt to a hybrid solution  especially if social distancing within the office means there isn’t enough room for everyone to be in at once.One thing I hope we’ve seen the end of is trekking halfway across the country for an hours meeting that is nearly always pointless ,wastes most of the day and can usually be dealt with on a conference call.

[SSD]

12 hours ago, Bearwood Ram said:

Totally get all the positives about working from home/more family time etc. All good. Find some of the flippant suggestions for hospitality businesses a bit concerning though. My partner runs one and is barely making enough to pay the rent, never mind making enough for a wage, due to lack of people going out. The UK economy completely revolves around productive city centres and the knock on effect from office/work place to transport links/shops/pubs/cafés etc. If everyone continues to work from home the economy will crash and working from home won't be an option as there won't be an economy to provide jobs. And if we ever get football back, forgot going for a pint before or after the match, because there won't be any pubs left either. Apologies for the negative post but I don't believe a lot of people get the magnitude of what we are facing economically and socially. 

I don't think this a negative post at all, you have bought up some great points. This shift has been extremely drastic for the retail and hospitality sectors and I understand concerns. For me it's been a lightbulb moment. I have wasted thousands travelling to work, the stress of commuting hours every week when I could happily work from home the majority of the time. I think the city centre has been slowly dying since the world of online has been so dominant in the last 20 years. The big cities where offices are prominent, I think they will be hit the hardest. Smaller cities like Derby I think will be no worse off than it is at the moment. I was walking around the other day and it looked like a "normal" Friday afternoon.

I don't work in the city centre, my place of work is a mixture of warehouse and offices just off the motorway. There is little in the way of shops where I work. For my personal circumstances it is pointless me travelling every day of the week when I could cut it down to once a week. Face to face communication is still so important for social interaction. I'm not suggesting we all work from home full time, it should be about choice. If it's easier to work from home, great. If you prefer to work in an office environment, great. There's no incentive for me to go into the office every day of the week. Important meetings and training, I agree that going to work is the best place to be. 

I think businesses need to give a very good case for non essential office workers to go back full time to an office environment. They seem to think they lack control over their employees when they work from home. I monitor my team all the time. I know what tasks they need to do every day. If I don't see them performing, I'll message them or video call them. It's not rocket science. If there are pee takers not pulling their weight, I will tell them straight.

The majority of people I've spoken to dont want to go back to commuting full time. For the sake of our environment targets and our poorly invested infrastructure, I think we could seriously make lives easier for millions of other people who need to go to a place of work every day.

[Comrade 86]

On 25/08/2020 at 13:54, G STAR RAM said:

Should only be the people not wearing masks getting it though as the masks are keeping everyone else safe arent they?

Masks are mainly to prevent people spreading the disease, not catching it. 

[G STAR RAM]

3 minutes ago, 86 Schmokes & a Pancake said:

Masks are mainly to prevent people spreading the disease, not catching it. 

Surely it is hard to catch it if the masks are stopping people from spreading it though?

[Comrade 86]

2 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Surely it is hard to catch it if the masks are stopping people from spreading it though?

Isn't that what I've just said?

[G STAR RAM]

10 minutes ago, 86 Schmokes & a Pancake said:

Isn't that what I've just said?

Crossed wires I think...ignore me ?

[TimRam]

[uttoxram75]

I 'm struggling to find much info about symptoms from the localised outbreaks going on. 

There is an outbreak at a poultry site in Norfolk, 75 positive tests so the facility housing them has been shut down for two weeks. There is anecdotal evidence of one person in hospital, not ICU, may not even be covid symptoms but an unrelated health issue.

Outbreaks in Burton and Stoke have not caused any extra hospitalisations according to people I know who work there.

I'm not saying the virus is not out there but it does  appear not to be making people ill like the first wave.

[Sith Happens]

1 minute ago, uttoxram75 said:

I 'm struggling to find much info about symptoms from the localised outbreaks going on. 

There is an outbreak at a poultry site in Norfolk, 75 positive tests so the facility housing them has been shut down for two weeks. There is anecdotal evidence of one person in hospital, not ICU, may not even be covid symptoms but an unrelated health issue.

Outbreaks in Burton and Stoke have not caused any extra hospitalisations according to people I know who work there.

I'm not saying the virus is not out there but it does  appear not to be making people ill like the first wave.

I did see that the general age of people who are catching it has shifted from it being older people in the early days to now being mostly younger people, so that probably naturally prevents the illness levels that we had originally.

There are also much less people catching it now too.

Its not as newsworthy I guess for the media either.

There was one report I read that suggested the virus itself may be mutating into something less dangerous although it did say to take that with a pinch of salt.

Guess we will have a clearer picture come Christmas time as people are holed in indoors with heating blasting out and less ventilation.

 

[Ghost of Clough]

13 hours ago, Van der MoodHoover said:

This is a huge problem. Certainly in the short term and maybe in the longer term.

The theory would say that as old business models are shown to be obsolete new ones move in to replace them.

However I fear that if you make a step change such as stopping moving millions of people around daily purely to get to a place of work then this would require a massive adjustment, which would need supporting.

Where it will end I don't know. The shift of some food businesses to delivery only is part of the story. But I agree (having had a partner striving at her ice cream business) that not all of the sector can be sustained. 

So then where does that human capital go?

An increase in online retail. With more spare time on my hands, more spend has increased. It peaked immediately once lockdown started (5 times higher than what i was averaging for the 32 months prior). It's since dropped down to about 2.5 times my pre-lockdown spend.
Outgoings related to my car halved, and we almost entirely stopped eating out (which will revert once it feels 'safer' to do so). All other areas (bills, groceries, etc.) have remained fairly steady.

I wouldn't be surprised if it's the same for most people.

[Wolfie]

35 minutes ago, uttoxram75 said:

I 'm struggling to find much info about symptoms from the localised outbreaks going on. 

There is an outbreak at a poultry site in Norfolk, 75 positive tests so the facility housing them has been shut down for two weeks. There is anecdotal evidence of one person in hospital, not ICU, may not even be covid symptoms but an unrelated health issue.

Outbreaks in Burton and Stoke have not caused any extra hospitalisations according to people I know who work there.

I'm not saying the virus is not out there but it does  appear not to be making people ill like the first wave.

 

29 minutes ago, Paul71 said:

I did see that the general age of people who are catching it has shifted from it being older people in the early days to now being mostly younger people, so that probably naturally prevents the illness levels that we had originally.

There are also much less people catching it now too.

Its not as newsworthy I guess for the media either.

There was one report I read that suggested the virus itself may be mutating into something less dangerous although it did say to take that with a pinch of salt.

Guess we will have a clearer picture come Christmas time as people are holed in indoors with heating blasting out and less ventilation.

 

There was a section on the BBC news last night about this.

Basically...

1. We're finding more cases in recent weeks because we are testing way more (and concentrating in known hot-spots)than we did in March-May.

2. Most cases are in younger people, so symptoms are less severe

3. Due to social distancing, the viral load people are getting (lower exposure even if they get it) means symptoms are less severe.

[Tyler Durden]

23 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

An increase in online retail. With more spare time on my hands, more spend has increased. It peaked immediately once lockdown started (5 times higher than what i was averaging for the 32 months prior). It's since dropped down to about 2.5 times my pre-lockdown spend.
Outgoings related to my car halved, and we almost entirely stopped eating out (which will revert once it feels 'safer' to do so). All other areas (bills, groceries, etc.) have remained fairly steady.

I wouldn't be surprised if it's the same for most people.

I wouldn't say that was a reflective generalisation, am assuming you're basing this on an average family on furlough. There have been millions of people who have been made redundant, moved jobs only to find that the original job offer was later rescinded before they started and also those who left jobs at the wrong time then laid off ineligible for furlough payments whom I guarantee will have incurred far, far smaller outgoings on online retail and everything else for that matter. 

[G STAR RAM]

1 hour ago, uttoxram75 said:

I 'm struggling to find much info about symptoms from the localised outbreaks going on. 

There is an outbreak at a poultry site in Norfolk, 75 positive tests so the facility housing them has been shut down for two weeks. There is anecdotal evidence of one person in hospital, not ICU, may not even be covid symptoms but an unrelated health issue.

Outbreaks in Burton and Stoke have not caused any extra hospitalisations according to people I know who work there.

I'm not saying the virus is not out there but it does  appear not to be making people ill like the first wave.

I'd wager that it is down to demographic.

The vulnerable were wiped out during the original panic.

It's been quite clear for many months now that if you're below 50 and have no underlying health problems the virus is highly unlikely to affect you any more than the normal flu.

Unfortunately we still seem to be treating the virus the same as we were during the original panic back in March.

[Van der MoodHoover]

1 hour ago, Ghost of Clough said:

An increase in online retail. With more spare time on my hands, more spend has increased. It peaked immediately once lockdown started (5 times higher than what i was averaging for the 32 months prior). It's since dropped down to about 2.5 times my pre-lockdown spend.
Outgoings related to my car halved, and we almost entirely stopped eating out (which will revert once it feels 'safer' to do so). All other areas (bills, groceries, etc.) have remained fairly steady.

I wouldn't be surprised if it's the same for most people.

So were you furloughed? I speak as a wfh who was not affected by Covid-19 and so the time gained is purely commuting time, so overall.....

- spend reduced (£80 pw commuting cost)

- some spend transferred (coffee/tea shop to increased shopping bill) c £20 pw

- additional spend negligible - possibly a bit at the weekends as i am not buying teas/coffees out during the week

we haven't really altered our living habits, we were grumpy antisocial gits before and I am happy to report have remained so (as @sage will attest)! ?

 

[EtoileSportiveDeDerby]

59 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

I'd wager that it is down to demographic.

The vulnerable were wiped out during the original panic.

It's been quite clear for many months now that if you're below 50 and have no underlying health problems the virus is highly unlikely to affect you any more than the normal flu.

Unfortunately we still seem to be treating the virus the same as we were during the original panic back in March.

This is in line with an article I read that first wave hit hardest those in poor health and now although we are seeing on the continent high number of infections it does not mean high death rates.