Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

MAYBE BABY: POPULATION POLITICS PART 2 – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited January 23 in General
imageMAYBE BABY: POPULATION POLITICS PART 2 – politicalbetting.com

Previously, I examined how conception and maternity rates had changed in England and Wales during the 2010s. Now for the tricky part – should the government seek to alter demographic trends, and if so, why, and how?

Read the full story here

«1345678

Comments

  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 68,582
    edited January 2
    Taz said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Why have [email protected] suspended the politics for all et al. network of accounts?

    They are clickbaity and recently been going into their own rubbish "exclusives", but unless i missed something it wasn't like they were massive fake news or antivaxxer etc.

    On the scale of dodgy social media accounts they are miles away from what I would consider fake news spreaders. 99% of it was literally just aggregator of all the main stream press articles.

    Did they buy a load of fake followers or something to boost their presence?

    They were often annoying in the way they reported things, but I didn't see anything that justified a ban or suspension.
    If you got banned from twitter for being annoying, 99% of accounts would be gone tomorrow....

    I can only presume,

    1) the AI made a mistake and confused their account with saying something verboten / confused it with another account,
    2) there was a bit of suspicion over how they had played the system so well to grow from nothing to a really big "news" aggregator account in a very short space of time. Perhaps they did some dodgy social media "hacks" like buying followers or engagement.

    I have to think it might #2, to ban the whole network of accounts and the personal account of the guy behind it in one go.

    The sort of people who walk the edge of the rules on social media, its normally they get their "business" suspended a number of times as the warning shot.
    The conspiracy theories on twitter are saying it is due to posting videos of the joy sponges in the Scottish police being heavy handed with people on New Year’s Eve

    Although these videos are still widely available on twitter so is it likely ?
    Why would that get their whole network of business and private accounts shut down? Seems unlikely.

    People have long been a bit suspicious of how they managed to gain such a large following and somehow always appear prominently. Now social media requires not only following, but engagement, in order for the algorithm to spread it.

    Lots of journalists from leading newspapers have said they play the game better than us, perhaps they have been rule bending to enable this.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 17,875
    dixiedean said:

    Second.
    Many thanks to @tlg for these.
    Demography is much more important and interesting than the general impression is given.
    Course. It all evolves outwith the electoral cycle, so we rarely hear anything about it.

    And thanks also to @tlg.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 68,582
    Third...Fourth...and Fifth....LFT of the day (for some).
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 68,582
    The kid on the right reminds me of Ian Blackford at most PMQs....
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 17,281
    "more hassle than it's worth."
    We do, however have a PM who boasts about having put a crown back on pint glasses. That nobody noticed had gone.
    So maybe not.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 68,582
    edited January 2
    Looks like the PCR website has broken.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 21,301

    The kid on the right reminds me of Ian Blackford at most PMQs....

    The one on the right was me at The Emirates yesterday.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 68,582
    tlg86 said:

    The kid on the right reminds me of Ian Blackford at most PMQs....

    The one on the right was me at The Emirates yesterday.
    Big fan of the old VAR?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 38,321
    dixiedean said:

    Second.
    Many thanks to @tlg for these.
    Demography is much more important and interesting than the generally realised.
    Course. It all evolves outwith the electoral cycle, so we rarely hear anything about it.

    In politics, the critical point arrives when the upcoming generations who have been shafted by the (and my) boomer generation finally achieve electoral mass
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    @MoonRabbit fpt

    I once took the president of Zoetis to Five Guys for lunch…
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 68,582
    edited January 2
    Charles said:

    @MoonRabbit fpt

    I once took the president of Zoetis to Five Guys for lunch…

    Very good choice....as long as it was the US Five Guys.
  • Taz said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Why have [email protected] suspended the politics for all et al. network of accounts?

    They are clickbaity and recently been going into their own rubbish "exclusives", but unless i missed something it wasn't like they were massive fake news or antivaxxer etc.

    On the scale of dodgy social media accounts they are miles away from what I would consider fake news spreaders. 99% of it was literally just aggregator of all the main stream press articles.

    Did they buy a load of fake followers or something to boost their presence?

    They were often annoying in the way they reported things, but I didn't see anything that justified a ban or suspension.
    If you got banned from twitter for being annoying, 99% of accounts would be gone tomorrow....

    I can only presume,

    1) the AI made a mistake and confused their account with saying something verboten / confused it with another account,
    2) there was a bit of suspicion over how they had played the system so well to grow from nothing to a really big "news" aggregator account in a very short space of time. Perhaps they did some dodgy social media "hacks" like buying followers or engagement.

    I have to think it might #2, to ban the whole network of accounts and the personal account of the guy behind it in one go.

    The sort of people who walk the edge of the rules on social media, its normally they get their "business" suspended a number of times as the warning shot.
    The conspiracy theories on twitter are saying it is due to posting videos of the joy sponges in the Scottish police being heavy handed with people on New Year’s Eve

    Although these videos are still widely available on twitter so is it likely ?
    Why would that get their whole network of business and private accounts shut down? Seems unlikely.

    People have long been a bit suspicious of how they managed to gain such a large following and somehow always appear prominently. Now social media requires not only following, but engagement, in order for the algorithm to spread it.

    Lots of journalists from leading newspapers have said they play the game better than us, perhaps they have been rule bending to enable this.
    Someone else has posted that it was due to providing "misleading news". I don't know how they know that, I'm just spreading informing people about rumours!
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 68,582

    Taz said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Why have [email protected] suspended the politics for all et al. network of accounts?

    They are clickbaity and recently been going into their own rubbish "exclusives", but unless i missed something it wasn't like they were massive fake news or antivaxxer etc.

    On the scale of dodgy social media accounts they are miles away from what I would consider fake news spreaders. 99% of it was literally just aggregator of all the main stream press articles.

    Did they buy a load of fake followers or something to boost their presence?

    They were often annoying in the way they reported things, but I didn't see anything that justified a ban or suspension.
    If you got banned from twitter for being annoying, 99% of accounts would be gone tomorrow....

    I can only presume,

    1) the AI made a mistake and confused their account with saying something verboten / confused it with another account,
    2) there was a bit of suspicion over how they had played the system so well to grow from nothing to a really big "news" aggregator account in a very short space of time. Perhaps they did some dodgy social media "hacks" like buying followers or engagement.

    I have to think it might #2, to ban the whole network of accounts and the personal account of the guy behind it in one go.

    The sort of people who walk the edge of the rules on social media, its normally they get their "business" suspended a number of times as the warning shot.
    The conspiracy theories on twitter are saying it is due to posting videos of the joy sponges in the Scottish police being heavy handed with people on New Year’s Eve

    Although these videos are still widely available on twitter so is it likely ?
    Why would that get their whole network of business and private accounts shut down? Seems unlikely.

    People have long been a bit suspicious of how they managed to gain such a large following and somehow always appear prominently. Now social media requires not only following, but engagement, in order for the algorithm to spread it.

    Lots of journalists from leading newspapers have said they play the game better than us, perhaps they have been rule bending to enable this.
    Someone else has posted that it was due to providing "misleading news". I don't know how they know that, I'm just spreading informing people about rumours!
    Prof Peston better watch out....
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 21,301

    tlg86 said:

    The kid on the right reminds me of Ian Blackford at most PMQs....

    The one on the right was me at The Emirates yesterday.
    Big fan of the old VAR?
    Funnily enough, no...

    https://twitter.com/KhophyPatrick/status/1466517763325845505

    https://twitter.com/idextratime/status/1467980323828891649
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 52,799
    Excellent thread to complement the previous one - very far from the first time PB.com treats us to far better quality of thoughtful analysis than to be found in any broadsheet - many thanks.

    As to the conclusion - I agree it would take a very “brave” politician to go anywhere near this, though I suspect the best chance is Labour via child care costs.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 52,799
    IanB2 said:

    dixiedean said:

    Second.
    Many thanks to @tlg for these.
    Demography is much more important and interesting than the generally realised.
    Course. It all evolves outwith the electoral cycle, so we rarely hear anything about it.

    In politics, the critical point arrives when the upcoming generations who have been shafted by the (and my) boomer generation finally achieve electoral mass
    Assuming their views have not changed as they grew older. I’d file this under “the Tories will die out” which I’ve been reading for over four decades.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 5,941
    edited January 2
    Thanks to tlg for the articles. I think I'd broadly agree on this article, where I think the broad thrust is that there is evidence that, overall, people are having fewer children than they would like due at least in part to economic factors and, since the fertility rate is well below the replacement level, we could take steps to make it easier for people to have more children (at a younger age), without that leading to an unsustainable increase in the population, thus increasing the sum total happiness of the country.

    I'm surprised, though, at his conclusion that politicians are unlikely to take up this cause at all. Although the Conservatives have taken anti-natalist steps in recent years - such as the tax credits two child limit - the rhetoric of helping "hard-working families" is still de rigeur for British politicians, and the Tories also took a limited step towards his suggested tax change with the married couples allowance.

    Also, given the toxicity of immigration, politicians will find that they will need to find ways to boost the birth rate if they want to engineer a gentle demographic transition, rather than an abrupt one. Providing tax breaks to British families will win more votes than increasing the immigration rate.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 26,660
    Spooky or what! - the exact point I was musing about in response to part 1 is the very topic of part 2. So, yes, I agree with the main point made. This isn't about the economy or the environment it's about people's fulfillment. And I also agree that - important as it is - it shouldn't be a big focus of government policy to up the birthrate.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 21,301

    Excellent thread to complement the previous one - very far from the first time PB.com treats us to far better quality of thoughtful analysis than to be found in any broadsheet - many thanks.

    As to the conclusion - I agree it would take a very “brave” politician to go anywhere near this, though I suspect the best chance is Labour via child care costs.

    Thank you, that's very kind.

    I think you're right that Labour might take it up in the form of child care costs. The sensible course of action would be to make changes without explicitly having any aims around demographics.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 21,301

    Thanks to tlg for the articles. I think I'd broadly agree on this article, where I think the broad thrust is that there is evidence that, overall, people are having fewer children than they would like due at least in part to economic factors and, since the fertility rate is well below the replacement level, we could take steps to make it easier for people to have more children (at a younger age), without that leading to an unsustainable increase in the population, thus increasing the sum total happiness of the country.

    I'm surprised, though, at his conclusion that politicians are unlikely to take up this cause at all. Although the Conservatives have taken anti-natalist steps in recent years - such as the tax credits two child limit - the rhetoric of helping "hard-working families" is still de rigeur for British politicians, and the Tories also took a limited step towards his suggested tax change with the married couples allowance.

    Also, given the toxicity of immigration, politicians will find that they will need to find ways to boost the birth rate if they want to engineer a gentle demographic transition, rather than an abrupt one. Providing tax breaks to British families will win more votes than increasing the immigration rate.

    I wonder how much difference the two child limit on tax credits made? One thing I haven't tried to look at is the extent to which this is driven by people stopping at two or people just not starting at all. The Census might help in that regard.
  • AslanAslan Posts: 939
    Every time I see demographics discussed I always think of the collapse in fertility in 18th Century France. If it hadn't happened, they probably would never have lost wars to the Germans. It certainly seems like a sad state of affairs that the more liberal, wealthy societies in the world are collectively choosing to die out while populations boom among the poorest, low educated countries.

    Part of me also thinks there is something deeply off in a culture that is unwilling to sustain itself.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 68,582
    Who is sacked first Rafa or Boris?
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 5,941
    Aslan said:

    Every time I see demographics discussed I always think of the collapse in fertility in 18th Century France. If it hadn't happened, they probably would never have lost wars to the Germans. It certainly seems like a sad state of affairs that the more liberal, wealthy societies in the world are collectively choosing to die out while populations boom among the poorest, low educated countries.

    Part of me also thinks there is something deeply off in a culture that is unwilling to sustain itself.

    I can think of quite a bit of science fiction about future societies that have found various ways to control rapid population growth, or that face a population disaster because of some unknown cause that destroys fertility, but this scenario of a society simply choosing not to reproduce is not one that I've come across. There is something quite bleak about it.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 17,673
    PCR back positive so that’s +1 in the figures for Newcastle upon Tyne.

    Feeling better already though. Cleaned the bathroom and everything.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 5,153
    Yes, interesting articles with which I broadly agree.
    From a personal perspective, I'd say I always idealised having a large family (possibly aresult of being an only child!) If you'd asked me at any point in my life how many children I'd ideally want, the number would have probably always been greater than two (albeit, I hope, with a heavy dose of realism that children are tremendously hard work and that I may change my mind after having one!).Fortunately, my wife was similarly pro-natal - though unfortunately we only met at 33.
    Anyway, after, fairly quickly, having one child - who, fortunately for us, was pretty easygoing and a pleasure to parent, we decided we were reasonably well placed to go for a second, who arrived disconcertingly quickly after the first. Two under two is hard work! But it got easier, and we thought we'd go for a third. Three under five is hard work too, but not as hard as two under two.
    But, I'm very aware that there were economic decisions in all this. We only felt comfortable going for numbers 1 and 2 because we had a house and didn't have onerous mortgage repayments. Even so, at times, nursery fees per day were more than I earned in a day - I was going to work just in order that I'd still be employable when nursery fees dropped away. And our third, realistically, was only an option because we had had a large inheritance*, enabling us to afford a bigger house and fewer worries about pension etc. We were very lucky to have the option to bring them into the world. Realistically, however poor we were we'd have gone for one child, and struggled as much as we needed to. But beyond that we only had them because we were lucky enough to be able to afford them.
    Having children should be an economic decision. People shouldn't have children they can't afford. But I'm not sure its healthy that the only people who can decide to have more than one are those who have been lucky enough to inherit.

    *this is the other side to being an only child.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 68,582

    PCR back positive so that’s +1 in the figures for Newcastle upon Tyne.

    Feeling better already though. Cleaned the bathroom and everything.

    Checks another one off the PB regular list....are we going to have a pool, last reg not to catch it?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 38,321

    IanB2 said:

    dixiedean said:

    Second.
    Many thanks to @tlg for these.
    Demography is much more important and interesting than the generally realised.
    Course. It all evolves outwith the electoral cycle, so we rarely hear anything about it.

    In politics, the critical point arrives when the upcoming generations who have been shafted by the (and my) boomer generation finally achieve electoral mass
    Assuming their views have not changed as they grew older. I’d file this under “the Tories will die out” which I’ve been reading for over four decades.
    Until now they’ve avoided advancing the interests of the economically inactive at the expense of everyone else. I can’t see this new experiment ending happily for them.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:

    @MoonRabbit fpt

    I once took the president of Zoetis to Five Guys for lunch…

    Very good choice....as long as it was the US Five Guys.
    Of course. Although I am just in the St Paul’s Five Guys ordering lunch for my wife & daugter
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 1,617

    PCR back positive so that’s +1 in the figures for Newcastle upon Tyne.

    Feeling better already though. Cleaned the bathroom and everything.

    Checks another one off the PB regular list....are we going to have a pool, last reg not to catch it?
    Ah, but all those asymptomatic infections - how would one know whom amongst the never-ill had, in fact, already caught the thing?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 17,875
    edited January 2

    Aslan said:

    Every time I see demographics discussed I always think of the collapse in fertility in 18th Century France. If it hadn't happened, they probably would never have lost wars to the Germans. It certainly seems like a sad state of affairs that the more liberal, wealthy societies in the world are collectively choosing to die out while populations boom among the poorest, low educated countries.

    Part of me also thinks there is something deeply off in a culture that is unwilling to sustain itself.

    I can think of quite a bit of science fiction about future societies that have found various ways to control rapid population growth, or that face a population disaster because of some unknown cause that destroys fertility, but this scenario of a society simply choosing not to reproduce is not one that I've come across. There is something quite bleak about it.
    Perhaps not so much society choosing not tro, but rather not thinking things through. Housing price policy, promoting the interests of the elderly (one or even two generations removed from childbearing), and so on. And the planning of towns and cities. Not every family has 2 cars and if the main eartner needs the car during the day ... it's shit being a mummy in one of the poorer towns outwith a decent public transport area, and a lot of public transport is shit for parents and prams.

    There is also the wide social acceptance of the cuckoo male - inseminates as many females as he can by serial polygamy and infidelity. Used to be quite a demon brought out regularly at Tory party conferences - you know, the houysing estate working class Jack the lad who wouldn't face his responsibilities and cut his cloth according to his commitments, or whatever the metaphor is. Yet attacking single mothers with more than 2 weans by penalising their funding is attacking the children themselves.

    Edit: who'df be a parent and especially a mother if one might be abandoned in some peropheral housing estate?
  • PCR back positive so that’s +1 in the figures for Newcastle upon Tyne.

    Feeling better already though. Cleaned the bathroom and everything.

    Best wishes, I hope you've got plenty of hot broth to hand.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 26,660
    Cookie said:

    Yes, interesting articles with which I broadly agree.
    From a personal perspective, I'd say I always idealised having a large family (possibly aresult of being an only child!) If you'd asked me at any point in my life how many children I'd ideally want, the number would have probably always been greater than two (albeit, I hope, with a heavy dose of realism that children are tremendously hard work and that I may change my mind after having one!).Fortunately, my wife was similarly pro-natal - though unfortunately we only met at 33.
    Anyway, after, fairly quickly, having one child - who, fortunately for us, was pretty easygoing and a pleasure to parent, we decided we were reasonably well placed to go for a second, who arrived disconcertingly quickly after the first. Two under two is hard work! But it got easier, and we thought we'd go for a third. Three under five is hard work too, but not as hard as two under two.
    But, I'm very aware that there were economic decisions in all this. We only felt comfortable going for numbers 1 and 2 because we had a house and didn't have onerous mortgage repayments. Even so, at times, nursery fees per day were more than I earned in a day - I was going to work just in order that I'd still be employable when nursery fees dropped away. And our third, realistically, was only an option because we had had a large inheritance*, enabling us to afford a bigger house and fewer worries about pension etc. We were very lucky to have the option to bring them into the world. Realistically, however poor we were we'd have gone for one child, and struggled as much as we needed to. But beyond that we only had them because we were lucky enough to be able to afford them.
    Having children should be an economic decision. People shouldn't have children they can't afford. But I'm not sure its healthy that the only people who can decide to have more than one are those who have been lucky enough to inherit.

    *this is the other side to being an only child.

    I'd more say it should be decision based on desire to be a parent but with economics as a key factor playing into it. Eg you shouldn't have kids purely *because* you can afford it.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 17,875
    kinabalu said:

    Cookie said:

    Yes, interesting articles with which I broadly agree.
    From a personal perspective, I'd say I always idealised having a large family (possibly aresult of being an only child!) If you'd asked me at any point in my life how many children I'd ideally want, the number would have probably always been greater than two (albeit, I hope, with a heavy dose of realism that children are tremendously hard work and that I may change my mind after having one!).Fortunately, my wife was similarly pro-natal - though unfortunately we only met at 33.
    Anyway, after, fairly quickly, having one child - who, fortunately for us, was pretty easygoing and a pleasure to parent, we decided we were reasonably well placed to go for a second, who arrived disconcertingly quickly after the first. Two under two is hard work! But it got easier, and we thought we'd go for a third. Three under five is hard work too, but not as hard as two under two.
    But, I'm very aware that there were economic decisions in all this. We only felt comfortable going for numbers 1 and 2 because we had a house and didn't have onerous mortgage repayments. Even so, at times, nursery fees per day were more than I earned in a day - I was going to work just in order that I'd still be employable when nursery fees dropped away. And our third, realistically, was only an option because we had had a large inheritance*, enabling us to afford a bigger house and fewer worries about pension etc. We were very lucky to have the option to bring them into the world. Realistically, however poor we were we'd have gone for one child, and struggled as much as we needed to. But beyond that we only had them because we were lucky enough to be able to afford them.
    Having children should be an economic decision. People shouldn't have children they can't afford. But I'm not sure its healthy that the only people who can decide to have more than one are those who have been lucky enough to inherit.

    *this is the other side to being an only child.

    I'd more say it should be decision based on desire to be a parent but with economics as a key factor playing into it. Eg you shouldn't have kids purely *because* you can afford it.
    Apartt from seguing into the old argument about giving rich kids a better education because mummy and daddy can afford it, that 'purely because' also gives every taxpayer a letout in terms of helping other people's children even if one doesn't have any of one's own or has grown up children.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 68,582
    U.S. Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene's personal Twitter account (@mtgreenee) has been permanently suspended for misinformation about COVID-19
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 68,582
    edited January 2
    Stocky said:

    PCR back positive so that’s +1 in the figures for Newcastle upon Tyne.

    Feeling better already though. Cleaned the bathroom and everything.

    Checks another one off the PB regular list....are we going to have a pool, last reg not to catch it?
    It's progress in itself that a declaration of positive for Covid is greeted by little more than a shrug. This is where we need to get to. Contrast with how we would have responded a year or so ago to Gallowgate's news.
    Absolutely. I feel a bit bad actually out of making a joke out of it, because it is obviously still serious for some, but jabbed up and not already in the vulnerable category the reaction of of FFS 10 days inside what's on good on Netflix, rather than oh shit better make sure my will is in order is becoming much more of the norm (especially with Omicron).

    I certainly don't wish it on anybody, and I am not actively going out licking the plastic screens in the supermarket, but you are right the narrative has definitely changed in the way we react it hearing the news.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 27,139
    As we're all getting a little too positive about omicron:

    "The number of children hospitalized with COVID-19 in the US is skyrocketing amid the omicron wave, with new admissions up 66 percent in the last week and now past the all-time record high for the pandemic."

    https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/12/childrens-hospitals-are-filling-nationwide-amid-tidal-wave-of-omicron/
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 12,499
    Happy New Year everyone, hope everyone had a great Christmas. I’ve hosted 21 people, visited about 11 pubs and attended a great house party, so got my money’s worth. AFAIK I have never had Covid although maybe I have had it without any symptoms.

    Hope all are well and hearty and looking forward to the year ahead.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 21,301
    Cookie said:

    Even so, at times, nursery fees per day were more than I earned in a day - I was going to work just in order that I'd still be employable when nursery fees dropped away.

    I’ll admit that this is where my knowledge falls down. I did read this in the Guardian:

    https://www.theguardian.com/money/2021/sep/12/cost-insane-uk-parents-unable-afford-childcare

    “It was more than my salary – quite a bit more,” she says. “I started panicking. We tried to find a solution but in the end we couldn’t justify the cost. There was no point in me teaching because I’d be spending more money than I earned for someone else to look after the children.”

    What would be an optimal cost for childcare? I don’t know, but again, it’s interesting to hear that you worked irrespective of it being a net loss.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 4,334
    FPT
    stodge said:

    kle4 said:


    It has. For some people, in some ways, it is fine, as you say it is about individual makeup. Part of my concern, as someone who really does need to seperate home life from working life, even in the physical space, is some people are so excited by the rapid switch to the new way of working that they are jumping too fast to make it the norm for as many as people as possible, without taking the time to consider if that works for everyone, unlike you. I've lost count of the number of meetings I've been in where, despite lip service to such issues at other times, no consideration is given to mental impacts for some, or even the possibility people not like new ways, except as a criticism of people not moving with the times.

    Entirely valid points. I have never advocated anyone should be compelled to work from home as normal practice.

    I'm also opposed to people being compelled to come into an office - it should be possible in the 21st century to operate a hybrid work-life system which works for the greatest number of people.

    Unfortunately, money talks and companies look at half-full offices and are deciding whether it should either be empty (which works financially) or full (ditto). The notion the nature of work needs to evolve is a struggle for those especially managers who led by presenteeism and have this notion if they can't see you working you're not actually working.

    I'm hoping such attitudes, redolent as they are of former times, are on the way out.

    I do agree more time and thought needs to be given to how organisations operate in this new environment - I've heard the term "agile" banded about but it seems to mean something different to everyone. In my experience, running a mixed physical/remote meeting needs a different skillset to managing a wholly physical meeting.

    Of course we must consider the mental health impacts but it's not something employees or individuals always find easy to discuss in front of colleagues or managers. We see in larger organisations workplace counselling services under the catch all title of "wellness" and this needs to be more widely available.

    Suffering in silence is still suffering and there need to be support networks available for those who are in trouble and need to talk to someone. In a very real sense, we need to treat the mental health issues of hybrid working as we would the physical manifestations.

    The issue not being stated here though is that there are people dying to return to the office, there are people wanting to work from home in perpetuity. When you can return to the office however how many of the first group are going to be happy that only half the office is turning up and the rest are working from home. Presumably the return to office crowd want socialising....if half the office isnt turning up they arent getting what they want so they will start agitating that all should be forced to come in
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 68,582

    Happy New Year everyone, hope everyone had a great Christmas. I’ve hosted 21 people, visited about 11 pubs and attended a great house party, so got my money’s worth. AFAIK I have never had Covid although maybe I have had it without any symptoms.

    Hope all are well and hearty and looking forward to the year ahead.

    You are a right old Keith Moon..no roller in the swimming pool?
  • RogerRoger Posts: 15,380
    Good for all of them. I'm with Ken Loach on this. After hearing that Charles Moore was Baron Moore of Etchingham I'm sure I'm not the only one who felt like retching

    https://news.sky.com/story/new-years-honours-nine-people-who-said-no-11593840
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 68,582
    edited January 2

    Seems much calmer and sensible on here than before Christmas, when the hysteria was raging.

    I might stick around a bit this time!

    You missed the news out of Xian City on lasts nights thread....its either Delta Covid (official response), Omicron Covid (most likely), new super mutant strain of Covid or Viral Hemorrhagic Fever outbreak....depending on the poster and how much twitter they have been reading.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 12,499
    Stocky said:

    PCR back positive so that’s +1 in the figures for Newcastle upon Tyne.

    Feeling better already though. Cleaned the bathroom and everything.

    Checks another one off the PB regular list....are we going to have a pool, last reg not to catch it?
    It's progress in itself that a declaration of positive for Covid is greeted by little more than a shrug. This is where we need to get to. Contrast with how we would have responded a year or so ago to Gallowgate's news.
    Yes plenty of my close mates have had it now, and all have staged a complete recovery from mild symptoms in a few days. Sounds like @Gallowgate is doing well too.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 12,499

    Seems much calmer and sensible on here than before Christmas, when the hysteria was raging.

    I might stick around a bit this time!

    You missed the news out of Xian City on lasts nights thread....its either Delta Covid (official response), Omicron Covid (most likely), new super mutant strain of Covid or Viral Hemorrhagic Fever outbreak....depending on the poster and how much twitter they have been reading.
    I saw it actually - usual Leon doom porn.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 38,321

    Seems much calmer and sensible on here than before Christmas, when the hysteria was raging.

    I might stick around a bit this time!

    Leon still has a hangover, and needs to reboot his laptop before surfing for more predictions of conspiracy and imminent doom for humanity, that he can thoughtlessly repost up here. Just give it an hour or two….
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 12,499

    Happy New Year everyone, hope everyone had a great Christmas. I’ve hosted 21 people, visited about 11 pubs and attended a great house party, so got my money’s worth. AFAIK I have never had Covid although maybe I have had it without any symptoms.

    Hope all are well and hearty and looking forward to the year ahead.

    You are a right old Keith Moon..no roller in the swimming pool?
    Ha ha. I was kinda bounced into the mass hosting for family logistics reasons, but still enjoyed hosting many generations and arms of the wider Anabob Clan!

    Hope you had a good Christmas, Francis.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 7,664

    Happy New Year everyone, hope everyone had a great Christmas. I’ve hosted 21 people, visited about 11 pubs and attended a great house party, so got my money’s worth. AFAIK I have never had Covid although maybe I have had it without any symptoms.

    Hope all are well and hearty and looking forward to the year ahead.

    Quiet New Year's for us - homemade beef curry - after a fabulous Christmas on the slopes in France. Feeling quite chipper at the moment.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 12,499
    IanB2 said:

    Seems much calmer and sensible on here than before Christmas, when the hysteria was raging.

    I might stick around a bit this time!

    Leon still has a hangover, and needs to reboot his laptop before surfing for more predictions of conspiracy and imminent doom for humanity, that he can thoughtlessly repost up here. Just give it an hour or two….
    If he does, I’ll be off.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 12,499
    Stocky said:

    Happy New Year everyone, hope everyone had a great Christmas. I’ve hosted 21 people, visited about 11 pubs and attended a great house party, so got my money’s worth. AFAIK I have never had Covid although maybe I have had it without any symptoms.

    Hope all are well and hearty and looking forward to the year ahead.

    Quiet New Year's for us - homemade beef curry - after a fabulous Christmas on the slopes in France. Feeling quite chipper at the moment.
    Lovely. We are off to France this spring. How annoying were restrictions there?
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 14,756
    edited January 2
    Guardian article, surprisingly.

    "Britain got it wrong on Covid: long lockdown did more harm than good, says scientist
    A new book outlines the mistakes and missteps that made UK pandemic worse"

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/02/britain-got-it-wrong-on-covid-long-lockdown-did-more-harm-than-good-says-scientist
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 9,163
    IanB2 said:

    Seems much calmer and sensible on here than before Christmas, when the hysteria was raging.

    I might stick around a bit this time!

    Leon still has a hangover, and needs to reboot his laptop before surfing for more predictions of conspiracy and imminent doom for humanity, that he can thoughtlessly repost up here. Just give it an hour or two….
    His regular use of unscientific hyperbole (aka bollox) makes the Daily Express look like a reliable source of balanced and restrained opinion.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 17,281
    Allison Firmino and Matip have tested positive and won't play.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 5,153
    tlg86 said:

    Cookie said:

    Even so, at times, nursery fees per day were more than I earned in a day - I was going to work just in order that I'd still be employable when nursery fees dropped away.

    I’ll admit that this is where my knowledge falls down. I did read this in the Guardian:

    https://www.theguardian.com/money/2021/sep/12/cost-insane-uk-parents-unable-afford-childcare

    “It was more than my salary – quite a bit more,” she says. “I started panicking. We tried to find a solution but in the end we couldn’t justify the cost. There was no point in me teaching because I’d be spending more money than I earned for someone else to look after the children.”

    What would be an optimal cost for childcare? I don’t know, but again, it’s interesting to hear that you worked irrespective of it being a net loss.
    Yes, for a bit more context, childcare was about £40-£45 a day at the time (about 8 years ago). I had two children at nursery, neither qualifying for assisted fees. I could take up to £243 a month of my salary in tax free childcare vouchers, as could my wife. I had recently changed career so wasn't earning massive amounts - about £24000 FTE, though we were both doing four days a week (so we only needed 3 days a week childcare). My youngest also went to grandparents' one day a week, which helped.
    So a small net loss each time I worked rather than looked after the kids.
    But on the other hand, it also costs money to spend the day at home with the kids - they need feeding and entertaining.
    And had I taken two years out of the workplace I don't think I'd be in the position career-wise that I'm in now. So I think, financially at least, it was still the right decision.
  • TimTTimT Posts: 5,188
    Good and bad news for US democracy in a new poll:

    "An overwhelming majority (72%) of Americans believe the people involved in the attack on the Capitol were "threatening democracy," while 1 in 4 Americans believes that the individuals involved were "protecting democracy." Broken down by party identification, Democrats are nearly unanimous (96%) in believing that those involved in the attacks were threatening democracy. Republicans are more split, with 45% saying it was a threat and 52% saying those involved in the riot were "protecting democracy.""

    "Sixty-five percent of Americans believe Biden's victory in the 2020 election was legitimate, which is similar to the results of a January 2021 ABC News/Ipsos poll (68%). Nearly all Democrats -- 93% -- think the election results were legitimate while most Republicans do not. Among Republicans, 71% sided with Trump's false claims that he was the rightful winner."

    The GOP is in deep shit.

    https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/majority-americans-jan-attack-threatened-democracy-poll/story?id=81990555
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 9,163

    PCR back positive so that’s +1 in the figures for Newcastle upon Tyne.

    Feeling better already though. Cleaned the bathroom and everything.

    I had it over Christmas :( . I hope yours was as mild as mine: I have had many colds that were a lot worse. To me the cure (the quarantine) was significantly worse than the symptoms, but hey, maybe I should be grateful!
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 41,681
    TimT said:

    Good and bad news for US democracy in a new poll:

    "An overwhelming majority (72%) of Americans believe the people involved in the attack on the Capitol were "threatening democracy," while 1 in 4 Americans believes that the individuals involved were "protecting democracy." Broken down by party identification, Democrats are nearly unanimous (96%) in believing that those involved in the attacks were threatening democracy. Republicans are more split, with 45% saying it was a threat and 52% saying those involved in the riot were "protecting democracy.""

    "Sixty-five percent of Americans believe Biden's victory in the 2020 election was legitimate, which is similar to the results of a January 2021 ABC News/Ipsos poll (68%). Nearly all Democrats -- 93% -- think the election results were legitimate while most Republicans do not. Among Republicans, 71% sided with Trump's false claims that he was the rightful winner."

    The GOP is in deep shit.

    https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/majority-americans-jan-attack-threatened-democracy-poll/story?id=81990555

    American democracy is in deep shit.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 9,163
    TimT said:

    Good and bad news for US democracy in a new poll:

    "An overwhelming majority (72%) of Americans believe the people involved in the attack on the Capitol were "threatening democracy," while 1 in 4 Americans believes that the individuals involved were "protecting democracy." Broken down by party identification, Democrats are nearly unanimous (96%) in believing that those involved in the attacks were threatening democracy. Republicans are more split, with 45% saying it was a threat and 52% saying those involved in the riot were "protecting democracy.""

    "Sixty-five percent of Americans believe Biden's victory in the 2020 election was legitimate, which is similar to the results of a January 2021 ABC News/Ipsos poll (68%). Nearly all Democrats -- 93% -- think the election results were legitimate while most Republicans do not. Among Republicans, 71% sided with Trump's false claims that he was the rightful winner."

    The GOP is in deep shit.

    https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/majority-americans-jan-attack-threatened-democracy-poll/story?id=81990555

    America, and therefore, by extension, the world, is in deep shit
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 17,281
    edited January 2
    I think it all depends, doesn't it?
    Unfortunately, you don't know till you've had kids how you will react to having them all day.
    My missus hated it even though she had been a kindergarten teacher. I loved it at weekends, and hated my job. So we swapped over. We were skint for a while while she trained up and earned what I did before. She worked. I looked after the kids and house.
    But it was the best thing we ever did. Never occurred to us that was what we should have done in the first place.
    Because we just didn't know. And there was some unconscious, ingrained sexism in there, too I confess.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 41,681
    Andy_JS said:

    Guardian article, surprisingly.

    "Britain got it wrong on Covid: long lockdown did more harm than good, says scientist
    A new book outlines the mistakes and missteps that made UK pandemic worse"

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/02/britain-got-it-wrong-on-covid-long-lockdown-did-more-harm-than-good-says-scientist

    Surely, it should say scientists got it wrong...?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 46,526

    TimT said:

    Good and bad news for US democracy in a new poll:

    "An overwhelming majority (72%) of Americans believe the people involved in the attack on the Capitol were "threatening democracy," while 1 in 4 Americans believes that the individuals involved were "protecting democracy." Broken down by party identification, Democrats are nearly unanimous (96%) in believing that those involved in the attacks were threatening democracy. Republicans are more split, with 45% saying it was a threat and 52% saying those involved in the riot were "protecting democracy.""

    "Sixty-five percent of Americans believe Biden's victory in the 2020 election was legitimate, which is similar to the results of a January 2021 ABC News/Ipsos poll (68%). Nearly all Democrats -- 93% -- think the election results were legitimate while most Republicans do not. Among Republicans, 71% sided with Trump's false claims that he was the rightful winner."

    The GOP is in deep shit.

    https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/majority-americans-jan-attack-threatened-democracy-poll/story?id=81990555

    American democracy is in deep shit.
    Yep. The clock is close to midnight and I get no sense that anyone is doing much about it. Trump 2024 and it is over.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 12,499

    PCR back positive so that’s +1 in the figures for Newcastle upon Tyne.

    Feeling better already though. Cleaned the bathroom and everything.

    I had it over Christmas :( . I hope yours was as mild as mine: I have had many colds that were a lot worse. To me the cure (the quarantine) was significantly worse than the symptoms, but hey, maybe I should be grateful!
    Sorry to hear you lost your Christmas to it. I think we need to look again at the isolation rules. The US has moved to five days, which is a step forward but we should perhaps look at the evidence for test and release after 3 days?
  • TimTTimT Posts: 5,188

    TimT said:

    Good and bad news for US democracy in a new poll:

    "An overwhelming majority (72%) of Americans believe the people involved in the attack on the Capitol were "threatening democracy," while 1 in 4 Americans believes that the individuals involved were "protecting democracy." Broken down by party identification, Democrats are nearly unanimous (96%) in believing that those involved in the attacks were threatening democracy. Republicans are more split, with 45% saying it was a threat and 52% saying those involved in the riot were "protecting democracy.""

    "Sixty-five percent of Americans believe Biden's victory in the 2020 election was legitimate, which is similar to the results of a January 2021 ABC News/Ipsos poll (68%). Nearly all Democrats -- 93% -- think the election results were legitimate while most Republicans do not. Among Republicans, 71% sided with Trump's false claims that he was the rightful winner."

    The GOP is in deep shit.

    https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/majority-americans-jan-attack-threatened-democracy-poll/story?id=81990555

    American democracy is in deep shit.
    Yep. The clock is close to midnight and I get no sense that anyone is doing much about it. Trump 2024 and it is over.
    I think it is closer than that. Mid-terms 2022 will decide Trump 2024.
  • TimTTimT Posts: 5,188
    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    Allison Firmino and Matip have tested positive and won't play.

    By contrast. The Everton team tested negative and wouldn't play either.
    Have Everton played since the first few weeks of the season?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    U.S. Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene's personal Twitter account (@mtgreenee) has been permanently suspended for misinformation about COVID-19

    I’ve made this point before. Isn’t anyone else worried about a major means if communication being restricted to politicians who agree with the owner of that channel.

    Either Twitter is a publisher who can chose what to publish, or it is a medium for others communication with which case it can’t
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 17,281
    edited January 2
    Charles said:

    U.S. Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene's personal Twitter account (@mtgreenee) has been permanently suspended for misinformation about COVID-19

    I’ve made this point before. Isn’t anyone else worried about a major means if communication being restricted to politicians who agree with the owner of that channel.

    Either Twitter is a publisher who can chose what to publish, or it is a medium for others communication with which case it can’t
    You mean just like newspapers?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    tlg86 said:

    Cookie said:

    Even so, at times, nursery fees per day were more than I earned in a day - I was going to work just in order that I'd still be employable when nursery fees dropped away.

    I’ll admit that this is where my knowledge falls down. I did read this in the Guardian:

    https://www.theguardian.com/money/2021/sep/12/cost-insane-uk-parents-unable-afford-childcare

    “It was more than my salary – quite a bit more,” she says. “I started panicking. We tried to find a solution but in the end we couldn’t justify the cost. There was no point in me teaching because I’d be spending more money than I earned for someone else to look after the children.”

    What would be an optimal cost for childcare? I don’t know, but again, it’s interesting to hear that you worked irrespective of it being a net loss.
    IIRC the Tory part of the coalition tried to address this by allowing nursery teachers to look after 6 kids not 4 but were shouted down by the “won’t you think of the children” producer interest
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 1,617

    PCR back positive so that’s +1 in the figures for Newcastle upon Tyne.

    Feeling better already though. Cleaned the bathroom and everything.

    I had it over Christmas :( . I hope yours was as mild as mine: I have had many colds that were a lot worse. To me the cure (the quarantine) was significantly worse than the symptoms, but hey, maybe I should be grateful!
    Sorry to hear you lost your Christmas to it. I think we need to look again at the isolation rules. The US has moved to five days, which is a step forward but we should perhaps look at the evidence for test and release after 3 days?
    Things are going to move increasingly quickly from this point forwards. I'm expecting a very substantial number of hospitalisations and an astronomical number of cases as the month progresses, the latter leading in turn to mass absenteeism from workplaces and ever-increasing pressure on the limited number of available tests.

    The point may come, and soon, when the Government is forced to admit defeat, prioritise testing for health and care workers and vulnerable people, and either restrict or abandon testing and isolation for the general population. Omicron may well simply be too infectious for the whole system to cope with.
  • ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 12

    As we're all getting a little too positive about omicron:

    "The number of children hospitalized with COVID-19 in the US is skyrocketing amid the omicron wave, with new admissions up 66 percent in the last week and now past the all-time record high for the pandemic."

    https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/12/childrens-hospitals-are-filling-nationwide-amid-tidal-wave-of-omicron/

    If it's of any cheer - I heard a doctor from SA saying they'd seen a similar thing with Omicron and Delta before it. When they looked into it it turned out to _largely_ be GP's/midwives/etc being over-cautious when a new variant hit the news and referring kids onto hospital 'just in case'.

    Made sense to me. But whether it's entirely what's going on - not sure.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 15,858
    Pagan2 said:

    FPT

    stodge said:

    kle4 said:


    It has. For some people, in some ways, it is fine, as you say it is about individual makeup. Part of my concern, as someone who really does need to seperate home life from working life, even in the physical space, is some people are so excited by the rapid switch to the new way of working that they are jumping too fast to make it the norm for as many as people as possible, without taking the time to consider if that works for everyone, unlike you. I've lost count of the number of meetings I've been in where, despite lip service to such issues at other times, no consideration is given to mental impacts for some, or even the possibility people not like new ways, except as a criticism of people not moving with the times.

    Entirely valid points. I have never advocated anyone should be compelled to work from home as normal practice.

    I'm also opposed to people being compelled to come into an office - it should be possible in the 21st century to operate a hybrid work-life system which works for the greatest number of people.

    Unfortunately, money talks and companies look at half-full offices and are deciding whether it should either be empty (which works financially) or full (ditto). The notion the nature of work needs to evolve is a struggle for those especially managers who led by presenteeism and have this notion if they can't see you working you're not actually working.

    I'm hoping such attitudes, redolent as they are of former times, are on the way out.

    I do agree more time and thought needs to be given to how organisations operate in this new environment - I've heard the term "agile" banded about but it seems to mean something different to everyone. In my experience, running a mixed physical/remote meeting needs a different skillset to managing a wholly physical meeting.

    Of course we must consider the mental health impacts but it's not something employees or individuals always find easy to discuss in front of colleagues or managers. We see in larger organisations workplace counselling services under the catch all title of "wellness" and this needs to be more widely available.

    Suffering in silence is still suffering and there need to be support networks available for those who are in trouble and need to talk to someone. In a very real sense, we need to treat the mental health issues of hybrid working as we would the physical manifestations.

    The issue not being stated here though is that there are people dying to return to the office, there are people wanting to work from home in perpetuity. When you can return to the office however how many of the first group are going to be happy that only half the office is turning up and the rest are working from home. Presumably the return to office crowd want socialising....if half the office isnt turning up they arent getting what they want so they will start agitating that all should be forced to come in
    Hybrid is the new normal for us. With teams organising themselves so that they all come in on the same days.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 5,083
    Charles said:

    tlg86 said:

    Cookie said:

    Even so, at times, nursery fees per day were more than I earned in a day - I was going to work just in order that I'd still be employable when nursery fees dropped away.

    I’ll admit that this is where my knowledge falls down. I did read this in the Guardian:

    https://www.theguardian.com/money/2021/sep/12/cost-insane-uk-parents-unable-afford-childcare

    “It was more than my salary – quite a bit more,” she says. “I started panicking. We tried to find a solution but in the end we couldn’t justify the cost. There was no point in me teaching because I’d be spending more money than I earned for someone else to look after the children.”

    What would be an optimal cost for childcare? I don’t know, but again, it’s interesting to hear that you worked irrespective of it being a net loss.
    IIRC the Tory part of the coalition tried to address this by allowing nursery teachers to look after 6 kids not 4 but were shouted down by the “won’t you think of the children” producer interest
    I think it's a bit cynical to call it producer interest. Should someone be looking after six small children?
  • TimTTimT Posts: 5,188
    ohnotnow said:

    As we're all getting a little too positive about omicron:

    "The number of children hospitalized with COVID-19 in the US is skyrocketing amid the omicron wave, with new admissions up 66 percent in the last week and now past the all-time record high for the pandemic."

    https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/12/childrens-hospitals-are-filling-nationwide-amid-tidal-wave-of-omicron/

    If it's of any cheer - I heard a doctor from SA saying they'd seen a similar thing with Omicron and Delta before it. When they looked into it it turned out to _largely_ be GP's/midwives/etc being over-cautious when a new variant hit the news and referring kids onto hospital 'just in case'.

    Made sense to me. But whether it's entirely what's going on - not sure.
    Yes. It's always good to read the details:

    "SEATTLE (AP) — The omicron-fueled surge that is sending COVID-19 cases rocketing in the U.S. is putting children in the hospital in record numbers, and experts lament that most of the youngsters are not vaccinated. ...

    "During the week of Dec. 22-28, an average of 378 children 17 and under were admitted per day to hospitals with the coronavirus, a 66% increase from the week before, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported Thursday. ...

    "On a more hopeful note, children continue to represent a small percentage of those being hospitalized with COVID-19: An average of nearly 10,200 people of all ages were admitted per day during the same week in December. And many doctors say the youngsters seem less sick than those who came in during the delta surge over the summer."
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 17,281
    edited January 2
    Charles said:

    tlg86 said:

    Cookie said:

    Even so, at times, nursery fees per day were more than I earned in a day - I was going to work just in order that I'd still be employable when nursery fees dropped away.

    I’ll admit that this is where my knowledge falls down. I did read this in the Guardian:

    https://www.theguardian.com/money/2021/sep/12/cost-insane-uk-parents-unable-afford-childcare

    “It was more than my salary – quite a bit more,” she says. “I started panicking. We tried to find a solution but in the end we couldn’t justify the cost. There was no point in me teaching because I’d be spending more money than I earned for someone else to look after the children.”

    What would be an optimal cost for childcare? I don’t know, but again, it’s interesting to hear that you worked irrespective of it being a net loss.
    IIRC the Tory part of the coalition tried to address this by allowing nursery teachers to look after 6 kids not 4 but were shouted down by the “won’t you think of the children” producer interest
    Yeah. The PM is a shining example of how to look after 6 kids or more all day.
    Makes it look easy.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 28,869
    dixiedean said:

    I think it all depends, doesn't it?
    Unfortunately, you don't know till you've had kids how you will react to having them all day.
    My missus hated it even though she had been a kindergarten teacher. I loved it at weekends, and hated my job. So we swapped over. We were skint for a while while she trained up and earned what I did before. She worked. I looked after the kids and house.
    But it was the best thing we ever did. Never occurred to us that was what we should have done in the first place.
    Because we just didn't know. And there was some unconscious, ingrained sexism in there, too I confess.

    I always wanted a big family and would have happily had a half dozen and Mrs Foxy too, but life doesn't always happen as planned.

    I think the biggest change is the rising age of first Conception, which quite obviously reduces the time available for more. No question too that sleepless nights were tougher at 37 than 30. Mrs Foxy did most of the parenting, but we did tag team a lot. She worked nights and weekends, while I was in a research job with Fox Jr a baby, so free nights and weekends. It worked for us.

    Some questions for @tlg86 on his chart of changes in fertility by SE Status:

    1) are these figures adjusted for the size of these groups? For example there are far fewer long term unemployed, and more white collar workers than 1990.

    2) The Conception rate for professionals is broadly stable over the period (presuming the denominator is unchanged) while others have dropped. Is that the other SE classes coming into line with the SE professionals? In other words, are the other classes merely coming into line with a change that had already occurred in SE1?
  • TimTTimT Posts: 5,188
    Foxy said:

    dixiedean said:

    I think it all depends, doesn't it?
    Unfortunately, you don't know till you've had kids how you will react to having them all day.
    My missus hated it even though she had been a kindergarten teacher. I loved it at weekends, and hated my job. So we swapped over. We were skint for a while while she trained up and earned what I did before. She worked. I looked after the kids and house.
    But it was the best thing we ever did. Never occurred to us that was what we should have done in the first place.
    Because we just didn't know. And there was some unconscious, ingrained sexism in there, too I confess.

    I always wanted a big family and would have happily had a half dozen and Mrs Foxy too, but life doesn't always happen as planned.

    I think the biggest change is the rising age of first Conception, which quite obviously reduces the time available for more. No question too that sleepless nights were tougher at 37 than 30. Mrs Foxy did most of the parenting, but we did tag team a lot. She worked nights and weekends, while I was in a research job with Fox Jr a baby, so free nights and weekends. It worked for us.

    Some questions for @tlg86 on his chart of changes in fertility by SE Status:

    1) are these figures adjusted for the size of these groups? For example there are far fewer long term unemployed, and more white collar workers than 1990.

    2) The Conception rate for professionals is broadly stable over the period (presuming the denominator is unchanged) while others have dropped. Is that the other SE classes coming into line with the SE professionals? In other words, are the other classes merely coming into line with a change that had already occurred in SE1?
    I wonder if this also has something to do with immigrant family sizes falling more in line with the overall population? Any data on this?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    dixiedean said:

    Charles said:

    U.S. Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene's personal Twitter account (@mtgreenee) has been permanently suspended for misinformation about COVID-19

    I’ve made this point before. Isn’t anyone else worried about a major means if communication being restricted to politicians who agree with the owner of that channel.

    Either Twitter is a publisher who can chose what to publish, or it is a medium for others communication with which case it can’t
    You mean just like newspapers?
    Newspapers are publishers. They can be sued for what they publish.

    Twitter claims to be a conduit and therefore can’t be sued as it makes not publishing decision.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 14,756
    Quote from the Guardian article I posted earlier, from Professor Mark Woolhouse, an expert on infectious diseases at Edinburgh University

    "“We did serious harm to our children and young adults who were robbed of their education, jobs and normal existence, as well as suffering damage to their future prospects, while they were left to inherit a record-breaking mountain of public debt,” he argues. “All this to protect the NHS from a disease that is a far, far greater threat to the elderly, frail and infirm than to the young and healthy.

    “We were mesmerised by the once-in-a-century scale of the emergency and succeeded only in making a crisis even worse. In short, we panicked. This was an epidemic crying out for a precision public health approach and it got the opposite.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/02/britain-got-it-wrong-on-covid-long-lockdown-did-more-harm-than-good-says-scientist
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:

    tlg86 said:

    Cookie said:

    Even so, at times, nursery fees per day were more than I earned in a day - I was going to work just in order that I'd still be employable when nursery fees dropped away.

    I’ll admit that this is where my knowledge falls down. I did read this in the Guardian:

    https://www.theguardian.com/money/2021/sep/12/cost-insane-uk-parents-unable-afford-childcare

    “It was more than my salary – quite a bit more,” she says. “I started panicking. We tried to find a solution but in the end we couldn’t justify the cost. There was no point in me teaching because I’d be spending more money than I earned for someone else to look after the children.”

    What would be an optimal cost for childcare? I don’t know, but again, it’s interesting to hear that you worked irrespective of it being a net loss.
    IIRC the Tory part of the coalition tried to address this by allowing nursery teachers to look after 6 kids not 4 but were shouted down by the “won’t you think of the children” producer interest
    I think it's a bit cynical to call it producer interest. Should someone be looking after six small children?
    I’ve no idea. But the unions thought it would require their members to do more work
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 19,088
    Charles said:

    U.S. Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene's personal Twitter account (@mtgreenee) has been permanently suspended for misinformation about COVID-19

    I’ve made this point before. Isn’t anyone else worried about a major means if communication being restricted to politicians who agree with the owner of that channel.

    Either Twitter is a publisher who can chose what to publish, or it is a medium for others communication with which case it can’t
    Twitter, FB etc should be held accountable for what appears on their sites.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 5,083

    TimT said:

    Good and bad news for US democracy in a new poll:

    "An overwhelming majority (72%) of Americans believe the people involved in the attack on the Capitol were "threatening democracy," while 1 in 4 Americans believes that the individuals involved were "protecting democracy." Broken down by party identification, Democrats are nearly unanimous (96%) in believing that those involved in the attacks were threatening democracy. Republicans are more split, with 45% saying it was a threat and 52% saying those involved in the riot were "protecting democracy.""

    "Sixty-five percent of Americans believe Biden's victory in the 2020 election was legitimate, which is similar to the results of a January 2021 ABC News/Ipsos poll (68%). Nearly all Democrats -- 93% -- think the election results were legitimate while most Republicans do not. Among Republicans, 71% sided with Trump's false claims that he was the rightful winner."

    The GOP is in deep shit.

    https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/majority-americans-jan-attack-threatened-democracy-poll/story?id=81990555

    America, and therefore, by extension, the world, is in deep shit
    The fig leaf is that Republican support for the conspiracy claims is not universal. It suggests that a conspiracy endorsing Trumpian would struggle to win at the presidential level. State and congressional level perhaps.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 28,869
    TimT said:

    Foxy said:

    dixiedean said:

    I think it all depends, doesn't it?
    Unfortunately, you don't know till you've had kids how you will react to having them all day.
    My missus hated it even though she had been a kindergarten teacher. I loved it at weekends, and hated my job. So we swapped over. We were skint for a while while she trained up and earned what I did before. She worked. I looked after the kids and house.
    But it was the best thing we ever did. Never occurred to us that was what we should have done in the first place.
    Because we just didn't know. And there was some unconscious, ingrained sexism in there, too I confess.

    I always wanted a big family and would have happily had a half dozen and Mrs Foxy too, but life doesn't always happen as planned.

    I think the biggest change is the rising age of first Conception, which quite obviously reduces the time available for more. No question too that sleepless nights were tougher at 37 than 30. Mrs Foxy did most of the parenting, but we did tag team a lot. She worked nights and weekends, while I was in a research job with Fox Jr a baby, so free nights and weekends. It worked for us.

    Some questions for @tlg86 on his chart of changes in fertility by SE Status:

    1) are these figures adjusted for the size of these groups? For example there are far fewer long term unemployed, and more white collar workers than 1990.

    2) The Conception rate for professionals is broadly stable over the period (presuming the denominator is unchanged) while others have dropped. Is that the other SE classes coming into line with the SE professionals? In other words, are the other classes merely coming into line with a change that had already occurred in SE1?
    I wonder if this also has something to do with immigrant family sizes falling more in line with the overall population? Any data on this?
    Yes, that is a definite phenomenon. As the generations pass fertility rates drop to be closer to national norms. Indeed in some groups below.
  • ReduxRedux Posts: 7
    Very interesting topic. Demographics are hugely important in the long term, especially the (delayed) interrelationship between changes in Fertility Rates and Population. As a good (extreme on the low side) example is Hong Kong where the Fertility Rate fell to around 1 just over 20 years ago. Since then the population has risen from 6.5m to 7.4m, as the pre-low fertility rate generation moved through the fertile age groups, but a sharp long term natural population decline is pretty well baked into things for the next 25 year or so. Indeed in 2021 the provision Fertility Rate is put at 0.776 with the total population down 87,000. In most advanced economies low long term Fertility Rates are offset by net immigration but in the case of Hong Kong we are likely to see mass departures especially to the UK, particularly of fertile age groups, so the population could well collapse - unless new immigrants are sought from China or other countries.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:

    U.S. Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene's personal Twitter account (@mtgreenee) has been permanently suspended for misinformation about COVID-19

    I’ve made this point before. Isn’t anyone else worried about a major means if communication being restricted to politicians who agree with the owner of that channel.

    Either Twitter is a publisher who can chose what to publish, or it is a medium for others communication with which case it can’t
    Twitter, FB etc should be held accountable for what appears on their sites.
    Sure - and then they would have reasonable grounds for deciding (although I’d still want some kind of BBC type protections - I’m nervous about such a ubiquitous channel with no alternative being denied to some politicians)
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 5,572
    Andy_JS said:

    Quote from the Guardian article I posted earlier, from Professor Mark Woolhouse, an expert on infectious diseases at Edinburgh University

    "“We did serious harm to our children and young adults who were robbed of their education, jobs and normal existence, as well as suffering damage to their future prospects, while they were left to inherit a record-breaking mountain of public debt,” he argues. “All this to protect the NHS from a disease that is a far, far greater threat to the elderly, frail and infirm than to the young and healthy.

    “We were mesmerised by the once-in-a-century scale of the emergency and succeeded only in making a crisis even worse. In short, we panicked. This was an epidemic crying out for a precision public health approach and it got the opposite.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/02/britain-got-it-wrong-on-covid-long-lockdown-did-more-harm-than-good-says-scientist

    Some very good points, but the suggestion of better testing neglects that mass testing wasn’t available for a fair time in 2020, certainly not in the first lockdown.
  • TresTres Posts: 680
    edited January 2
    Charles said:

    U.S. Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene's personal Twitter account (@mtgreenee) has been permanently suspended for misinformation about COVID-19

    I’ve made this point before. Isn’t anyone else worried about a major means if communication being restricted to politicians who agree with the owner of that channel.

    Either Twitter is a publisher who can chose what to publish, or it is a medium for others communication with which case it can’t
    You think Trump being taken off Twitter was a bad decision?
  • Simon_PeachSimon_Peach Posts: 195
    Competition update: the wait goes on, another day with vaccination data from NI only means that @Northern_Al remains firmly attached to the tenterhooks…
  • londoneyelondoneye Posts: 112
    pigeon said:

    PCR back positive so that’s +1 in the figures for Newcastle upon Tyne.

    Feeling better already though. Cleaned the bathroom and everything.

    I had it over Christmas :( . I hope yours was as mild as mine: I have had many colds that were a lot worse. To me the cure (the quarantine) was significantly worse than the symptoms, but hey, maybe I should be grateful!
    Sorry to hear you lost your Christmas to it. I think we need to look again at the isolation rules. The US has moved to five days, which is a step forward but we should perhaps look at the evidence for test and release after 3 days?
    Things are going to move increasingly quickly from this point forwards. I'm expecting a very substantial number of hospitalisations and an astronomical number of cases as the month progresses, the latter leading in turn to mass absenteeism from workplaces and ever-increasing pressure on the limited number of available tests.

    The point may come, and soon, when the Government is forced to admit defeat, prioritise testing for health and care workers and vulnerable people, and either restrict or abandon testing and isolation for the general population. Omicron may well simply be too infectious for the whole system to cope with.
    key to this is deaths...if deaths spike to around 500 a day say the govt will be in a very difficult situation....killing granny just to keep the economy open
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 28,869
    edited January 2
    Andy_JS said:

    Quote from the Guardian article I posted earlier, from Professor Mark Woolhouse, an expert on infectious diseases at Edinburgh University

    "“We did serious harm to our children and young adults who were robbed of their education, jobs and normal existence, as well as suffering damage to their future prospects, while they were left to inherit a record-breaking mountain of public debt,” he argues. “All this to protect the NHS from a disease that is a far, far greater threat to the elderly, frail and infirm than to the young and healthy.

    “We were mesmerised by the once-in-a-century scale of the emergency and succeeded only in making a crisis even worse. In short, we panicked. This was an epidemic crying out for a precision public health approach and it got the opposite.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/02/britain-got-it-wrong-on-covid-long-lockdown-did-more-harm-than-good-says-scientist

    There maybe some truth in that, particularly for 2021, but there is a fundamental flaw in the logic. The alternative was not normality, it was education, economic and social life heavily disrupted by an uncontrolled pandemic.

    It's like when people try to argue that lockdown created health care backlogs. It didn't. Hospitals having to convert operating theatres to ICU, surgical wards to respiratory wards and orthopedic docs to respiratory physicians that did it. It was the pandemic not the lockdown that dunnit.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 28,869
    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    tlg86 said:

    Cookie said:

    Even so, at times, nursery fees per day were more than I earned in a day - I was going to work just in order that I'd still be employable when nursery fees dropped away.

    I’ll admit that this is where my knowledge falls down. I did read this in the Guardian:

    https://www.theguardian.com/money/2021/sep/12/cost-insane-uk-parents-unable-afford-childcare

    “It was more than my salary – quite a bit more,” she says. “I started panicking. We tried to find a solution but in the end we couldn’t justify the cost. There was no point in me teaching because I’d be spending more money than I earned for someone else to look after the children.”

    What would be an optimal cost for childcare? I don’t know, but again, it’s interesting to hear that you worked irrespective of it being a net loss.
    IIRC the Tory part of the coalition tried to address this by allowing nursery teachers to look after 6 kids not 4 but were shouted down by the “won’t you think of the children” producer interest
    I think it's a bit cynical to call it producer interest. Should someone be looking after six small children?
    I’ve no idea. But the unions thought it would require their members to do more work
    Are childminders unionised?
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 9,163

    PCR back positive so that’s +1 in the figures for Newcastle upon Tyne.

    Feeling better already though. Cleaned the bathroom and everything.

    I had it over Christmas :( . I hope yours was as mild as mine: I have had many colds that were a lot worse. To me the cure (the quarantine) was significantly worse than the symptoms, but hey, maybe I should be grateful!
    Sorry to hear you lost your Christmas to it. I think we need to look again at the isolation rules. The US has moved to five days, which is a step forward but we should perhaps look at the evidence for test and release after 3 days?
    Absolutely agree. I know it is only anecdotal, but for me (admittedly triple vaxxed) it was a mild to medium cold.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 22,380

    Charles said:

    U.S. Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene's personal Twitter account (@mtgreenee) has been permanently suspended for misinformation about COVID-19

    I’ve made this point before. Isn’t anyone else worried about a major means if communication being restricted to politicians who agree with the owner of that channel.

    Either Twitter is a publisher who can chose what to publish, or it is a medium for others communication with which case it can’t
    Twitter, FB etc should be held accountable for what appears on their sites.
    Charles said:

    tlg86 said:

    Cookie said:

    Even so, at times, nursery fees per day were more than I earned in a day - I was going to work just in order that I'd still be employable when nursery fees dropped away.

    I’ll admit that this is where my knowledge falls down. I did read this in the Guardian:

    https://www.theguardian.com/money/2021/sep/12/cost-insane-uk-parents-unable-afford-childcare

    “It was more than my salary – quite a bit more,” she says. “I started panicking. We tried to find a solution but in the end we couldn’t justify the cost. There was no point in me teaching because I’d be spending more money than I earned for someone else to look after the children.”

    What would be an optimal cost for childcare? I don’t know, but again, it’s interesting to hear that you worked irrespective of it being a net loss.
    IIRC the Tory part of the coalition tried to address this by allowing nursery teachers to look after 6 kids not 4 but were shouted down by the “won’t you think of the children” producer interest
    When New Labour introduced the new rules for nurseries a number of people pointed out the problem that was going to happen.

    The regulations (which were stricture than those in places like Denmark) caused prices to rocket.

    This was fine with the government, since they didn't pay.

    So the middle classes paid private school fee level fees for legitimate nurseries. Which was financial training for affording private school, I suppose.

    Meanwhile a comfortable black market in "watching a couple of kids" took off for those who find £1K a month a bit much.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 3,511
    edited January 2
    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    tlg86 said:

    Cookie said:

    Even so, at times, nursery fees per day were more than I earned in a day - I was going to work just in order that I'd still be employable when nursery fees dropped away.

    I’ll admit that this is where my knowledge falls down. I did read this in the Guardian:

    https://www.theguardian.com/money/2021/sep/12/cost-insane-uk-parents-unable-afford-childcare

    “It was more than my salary – quite a bit more,” she says. “I started panicking. We tried to find a solution but in the end we couldn’t justify the cost. There was no point in me teaching because I’d be spending more money than I earned for someone else to look after the children.”

    What would be an optimal cost for childcare? I don’t know, but again, it’s interesting to hear that you worked irrespective of it being a net loss.
    IIRC the Tory part of the coalition tried to address this by allowing nursery teachers to look after 6 kids not 4 but were shouted down by the “won’t you think of the children” producer interest
    I think it's a bit cynical to call it producer interest. Should someone be looking after six small children?
    I’ve no idea. But the unions thought it would require their members to do more work
    You do talk utter nonsense sometimes. Do you think childminders are unionised, seriously? What planet are you on?

    The ratios for childminders (and nurseries) are set by government. A childminder can have up to 6 children under the age of 8, as long as no more than 3 are under 5.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 41,681
    londoneye said:

    pigeon said:

    PCR back positive so that’s +1 in the figures for Newcastle upon Tyne.

    Feeling better already though. Cleaned the bathroom and everything.

    I had it over Christmas :( . I hope yours was as mild as mine: I have had many colds that were a lot worse. To me the cure (the quarantine) was significantly worse than the symptoms, but hey, maybe I should be grateful!
    Sorry to hear you lost your Christmas to it. I think we need to look again at the isolation rules. The US has moved to five days, which is a step forward but we should perhaps look at the evidence for test and release after 3 days?
    Things are going to move increasingly quickly from this point forwards. I'm expecting a very substantial number of hospitalisations and an astronomical number of cases as the month progresses, the latter leading in turn to mass absenteeism from workplaces and ever-increasing pressure on the limited number of available tests.

    The point may come, and soon, when the Government is forced to admit defeat, prioritise testing for health and care workers and vulnerable people, and either restrict or abandon testing and isolation for the general population. Omicron may well simply be too infectious for the whole system to cope with.
    key to this is deaths...if deaths spike to around 500 a day say the govt will be in a very difficult situation....killing granny just to keep the economy open
    But the 500 a day will be largely unvaccinated. Yes, there will be the unfortunates who are double jabbed and boosted amongst, but the unvaccinated clogging the NHS will give the Govt. cover. Why do you think the PM has been doing the rounds of booster stations?

    "We have done all we could to get the nation protected. But if people decide to stand outside the protection the NHS has offered them, that has, very sadly, been their poor choice."
This discussion has been closed.