That’s just a long-winded way of saying that the government’s new strategy is to blame individuals if they fall ill and businesses if they close down.
In fairness, that would be part of any government’s strategy at some point.
If so, let’s cut the crap, abandon all this social distancing advice and let people make their own decisions about how to live and operate. Pretending that things can be made “safe” and that there will be a time when closed businesses can reopen using the new guidance is a cruel deception.
I really don't think that people are deceived. There is a virus. It is dangerous. Contact with others or with things others have touched creates risk. Be aware of that and act appropriately. But do not let yourself be paralysed into not living or earning.
Just follow Mr Ryan Price's advice, he is my new hero.
That’s just a long-winded way of saying that the government’s new strategy is to blame individuals if they fall ill and businesses if they close down.
In fairness, that would be part of any government’s strategy at some point.
If so, let’s cut the crap, abandon all this social distancing advice and let people make their own decisions about how to live and operate. Pretending that things can be made “safe” and that there will be a time when closed businesses can reopen using the new guidance is a cruel deception.
I really don't think that people are deceived. There is a virus. It is dangerous. Contact with others or with things others have touched creates risk. Be aware of that and act appropriately. But do not let yourself be paralysed into not living or earning.
I should have also mentioned that care home workers are dying at twice the rate of NHS workers. It is a scandal. Some of the people doing the most valuable work, poorly paid and little valued are being denied the PPE they need and are dying because of this. They are also a vector for retransmission into the wider community.
The whole purpose of lockdown was to protect the vulnerable. If we can’t even do that, really what is the point of it all?
If anything positive comes out of this it may be that people think twice about sending Mum off to a care home where greedy owners and (some) negligent staff are paid to see her through her dying days
What on Earth are you talking about?
I'm talking about more elderly people being cared for at home rather than being abandoned
Interesting approach - blame the families.
And an unproductive one. Those who are inclined to abandon their ageing parents are unlikely to change. And it's deeply offensive to those who make every effort to keep parents out of care until forced by circumstance.
"Abandon to care homes" is not a fair representation.
In the vast majority of cases it is about when families cannot provide the appropriate level of care. I doubt (without rereading the rules) that it saves money.
Before my mum passed away last year, for a short time I was in the position of having to wear earplugs to shut out her calling my name from bed because I knew that if I got up 4 or 5 times in the night I would not be able to care for here well during the next day.
If she had not passed away it may well have been a care home.
Does anyone know the cumulative excess deaths figure from the ONS?
Looking at the year-to-date (using the most up-to-date data we have available), the number of deaths up to 1 May 2020 was 247,251, which is 41,627 more than the five-year average (Figure 2). Of the deaths registered by 1 May, 33,408 mentioned COVID-19 on the death certificate, this is 13.5% of all deaths.
How are the government found it so complicated to come up with a plan to close the borders when everybody else has done it & we are a friggin island.
Are they?
The difference between closing the borders and not doing so doesn't seem to actually mean much. EG are we going to if we "close the borders" quarantine those bringing in freight. If someone is bringing in a lorry load of food for the supermarkets do they need to quarantine or will we give them an exception and let them go straight back after dropping off their produce and maybe picking up a load here to take overseas?
Given tourism globally has been cancelled who in reality is actually travelling now? Do we know that large numbers of people that wouldn't be exempted from quarantine anyway are actually coming in?
Fucking Shapps, knew he was the bed blocker on quarantine.
The thing is, I'd have been really keen on it 3 months ago. It doesn't really make a huge amount of sense right now.
We absolutely should have done it back in March. Patel is utterly useless. Doing it now still has a purpose if its an actual quarantine. As in escorted from the airport terminal to a nearby hotel to be quarantined. Not quarantine at home and use public transport to get there if you like and only if you come from these countries by air and not these other countries by sea.
Some 101 people have now tested positive for the coronavirus after a cluster outbreak at clubs in Seoul’s party district of Itaewon.
One night out, 100 new cases and still rising. I honestly don't see how we get back to indoor mass events.
Why are nightclubs open if football is being played behind closed doors? That does not make sense to me.
It is a good question. Sports are being played in empty stadiums, but you can go and dance in a hot sweaty room with 1000s of others. Seems a huge logical fail.
Young people, innit? If you were over 50, you would be ill-advised to attend such nightclubs.
The medical advice posted here recently to stay at home and have a wank seems apposite.
Well, yes, but those young people are liable to spread it through the rest of the population, although I guess South Korea are all over them with the track and trace stuff.
That is indeed the difference. The problem being that with prehistoric attitudes to wards gays still rife in Korean society, many of those who were there don't want to be tracked and traced.
Jesus Christ. Have the people with those attitudes never paid a moment's notice to their own pop scene? Never in the history of human civilisation have so many clean-shaven young men had so many beards...
I wonder how long before stay-home people in Scotland start seeing people in England free to do far more than they can - and start getting a bit aggrieved....
Fucking Shapps, knew he was the bed blocker on quarantine.
The thing is, I'd have been really keen on it 3 months ago. It doesn't really make a huge amount of sense right now.
We absolutely should have done it back in March. Patel is utterly useless. Doing it now still has a purpose if its an actual quarantine. As in escorted from the airport terminal to a nearby hotel to be quarantined. Not quarantine at home and use public transport to get there if you like and only if you come from these countries by air and not these other countries by sea.
Indeed.
I know people who have said they will just ignore it anyway.
The replies to the "just a plumber" are as you might expect. No one quite does condescension like #FBPE
I saw this interview last night, you could tell the interviewer was gutted
The media in a nutshell. Treating the public as thick. We can see that the interviewer and his employer have managed to come up with a solution to carrying on working, but expect thicko public won't be able to cope. It's embarrassing.
Does anyone know the cumulative excess deaths figure from the ONS?
Looking at the year-to-date (using the most up-to-date data we have available), the number of deaths up to 1 May 2020 was 247,251, which is 41,627 more than the five-year average (Figure 2). Of the deaths registered by 1 May, 33,408 mentioned COVID-19 on the death certificate, this is 13.5% of all deaths.
Scottish equivalent on bottom left, though curiously the excess and covid-19 death figures seem [edit] closer than in the ONS data, on an eyeball, not sure why. The last week's figures should be added to the graph soon.
How are the government found it so complicated to come up with a plan to close the borders when everybody else has done it & we are a friggin island.
Are they?
The difference between closing the borders and not doing so doesn't seem to actually mean much. EG are we going to if we "close the borders" quarantine those bringing in freight. If someone is bringing in a lorry load of food for the supermarkets do they need to quarantine or will we give them an exception and let them go straight back after dropping off their produce and maybe picking up a load here to take overseas?
Given tourism globally has been cancelled who in reality is actually travelling now? Do we know that large numbers of people that wouldn't be exempted from quarantine anyway are actually coming in?
Pretty much every country in Europe has managed it and the caveat is always freight. For lorry drivers you can put in place some sensible rules to minimize chances of onwards infection and it is just one individual driving their vehicle.
When you are talking 10,000s of arrivals from everywhere across the world at airports, very little you can do. The very act of being swished in the passport control queues etc is a really bad idea. Many are going to head straight out of the airport onto public transport etc etc etc
Social care is a mess because we value the right to pass and receive a large tax-free inheritance above the responsibility to provide dignity for all in old age. This is the choice we have made. Little point moaning about it if we are not prepared to make a different value judgment.
I am going to bite.
It was the party you supported which made a big hoo ha about people having to use their homes and savings to pay for their care, which was outraged at the idea that children might have to foregoing their large inheritances in order to pay for Mum’s care. This was the value judgment made by the party which likes to proclaim that it cares about the vulnerable.
Some 101 people have now tested positive for the coronavirus after a cluster outbreak at clubs in Seoul’s party district of Itaewon.
One night out, 100 new cases and still rising. I honestly don't see how we get back to indoor mass events.
Why are nightclubs open if football is being played behind closed doors? That does not make sense to me.
It is a good question. Sports are being played in empty stadiums, but you can go and dance in a hot sweaty room with 1000s of others. Seems a huge logical fail.
Young people, innit? If you were over 50, you would be ill-advised to attend such nightclubs.
The medical advice posted here recently to stay at home and have a wank seems apposite.
Well, yes, but those young people are liable to spread it through the rest of the population, although I guess South Korea are all over them with the track and trace stuff.
That is indeed the difference. The problem being that with prehistoric attitudes to wards gays still rife in Korean society, many of those who were there don't want to be tracked and traced.
Jesus Christ. Have the people with those attitudes never paid a moment's notice to their own pop scene? Never in the history of human civilisation have so many clean-shaven young men had so many beards...
Austin Powers : Yeah, and I can't believe Liberace was gay.
That’s just a long-winded way of saying that the government’s new strategy is to blame individuals if they fall ill and businesses if they close down.
It's not a question of blame, its a question of risk. We need to get on with life whilst being alert to the risks that this virus imposes.
Except we are not being allowed to get on with our lives, are we, and assess the risk for ourselves?
The government wants to get the credit for dealing with the virus while accepting none of the responsibility for its consequences.
It really doesn't. We have a heighway code. Does the government take the credit each time we complete a journey successfully? Of course not. Is the government to blame because some journeys end in an accident? Of course not. The job of the government is to provide medical and police services to clean up the mess so we can move on. And we all have a general duty to drive with due care and attention.
How are the government found it so complicated to come up with a plan to close the borders when everybody else has done it & we are a friggin island.
Are they?
The difference between closing the borders and not doing so doesn't seem to actually mean much. EG are we going to if we "close the borders" quarantine those bringing in freight. If someone is bringing in a lorry load of food for the supermarkets do they need to quarantine or will we give them an exception and let them go straight back after dropping off their produce and maybe picking up a load here to take overseas?
Given tourism globally has been cancelled who in reality is actually travelling now? Do we know that large numbers of people that wouldn't be exempted from quarantine anyway are actually coming in?
Pretty much every country in Europe has managed it and the caveat is always freight. For lorry drivers you can put in place some sensible rules to minimize chances of onwards infection and it is just one individual driving their vehicle.
When you are talking 10,000s of arrivals from everywhere across the world at airports, very little you can do. The very act of being swished in the passport control queues etc is a really bad idea.
That's my question, do we have any evidence that tens of thousands are arriving who wouldn't have been exempted? Given that airports are practically empty and airlines have shut down it seems unlikely to be as big a factor as people are making out.
A total of 2,618,862 participants reported their potential symptoms of COVID-19 on a smartphone-based app. Among the 18,401 who had undergone a SARS-CoV-2 test, the proportion of participants who reported loss of smell and taste was higher in those with a positive test result (4,668 of 7,178 individuals; 65.03%) than in those with a negative test result (2,436 of 11,223 participants; 21.71%) (odds ratio = 6.74; 95% confidence interval = 6.31–7.21). A model combining symptoms to predict probable infection was applied to the data from all app users who reported symptoms (805,753) and predicted that 140,312 (17.42%) participants are likely to have COVID-19.
That’s just a long-winded way of saying that the government’s new strategy is to blame individuals if they fall ill and businesses if they close down.
In fairness, that would be part of any government’s strategy at some point.
If so, let’s cut the crap, abandon all this social distancing advice and let people make their own decisions about how to live and operate. Pretending that things can be made “safe” and that there will be a time when closed businesses can reopen using the new guidance is a cruel deception.
I really don't think that people are deceived. There is a virus. It is dangerous. Contact with others or with things others have touched creates risk. Be aware of that and act appropriately. But do not let yourself be paralysed into not living or earning.
God Almighty! I am not being paralysed into not earning. Nor is my daughter. We are legally prevented from doing so. She would like nothing better than being able to go out and work. She is desperate to do so. But she can’t. She can’t assess the risk or take appropriate actions. She is being fed a lie that she may be able to reopen when she won’t be. And the government will not then help her. It will blame her. It is already calling her an “addict” for being on furlough. It is planning to make her poorer. It has nothing to say about what happens when she and many others like her will be unemployed and have no alternatives.
Mr. L, I think that's a sound point and it's worth considering the alternative.
How much control should the state have over individual actions? How many instructions/guidelines should be issued? How could this be policed/enforced?
Staying at home is easy and clear. Normal is easy and clear. The middle ground is necessarily vaguer and it's simply not possible for the state to produce instructions for every individual and situation and enforce that in the same way as a quarantine.
I should have also mentioned that care home workers are dying at twice the rate of NHS workers. It is a scandal. Some of the people doing the most valuable work, poorly paid and little valued are being denied the PPE they need and are dying because of this. They are also a vector for retransmission into the wider community.
The whole purpose of lockdown was to protect the vulnerable. If we can’t even do that, really what is the point of it all?
If anything positive comes out of this it may be that people think twice about sending Mum off to a care home where greedy owners and (some) negligent staff are paid to see her through her dying days
What on Earth are you talking about?
I'm talking about more elderly people being cared for at home rather than being abandoned
Interesting approach - blame the families.
I seem to remember someone with similar viewpoints disappeared off this site last week.
As we said then dealing with dementia is something that requires trained people who are detached from the family - otherwise it's beyond painful.
Unfortunately TGOHF is still with us - his view was that families put relatives into care homes because they smell a bit and interfere with their holiday plans.
That’s just a long-winded way of saying that the government’s new strategy is to blame individuals if they fall ill and businesses if they close down.
In fairness, that would be part of any government’s strategy at some point.
If so, let’s cut the crap, abandon all this social distancing advice and let people make their own decisions about how to live and operate. Pretending that things can be made “safe” and that there will be a time when closed businesses can reopen using the new guidance is a cruel deception.
I really don't think that people are deceived. There is a virus. It is dangerous. Contact with others or with things others have touched creates risk. Be aware of that and act appropriately. But do not let yourself be paralysed into not living or earning.
God Almighty! I am not being paralysed into not earning. Nor is my daughter. We are legally prevented from doing so. She would like nothing better than being able to go out and work. She is desperate to do so. But she can’t. She can’t assess the risk or take appropriate actions. She is being fed a lie that she may be able to reopen when she won’t be. And the government will not then help her. It will blame her. It is already calling her an “addict” for being on furlough. It is planning to make her poorer. It has nothing to say about what happens when she and many others like her will be unemployed and have no alternatives.
Yep, life is not good for many people and it will eventually feed through to everyone else. But that shouldn't stop people working where it is available and safe to do so.
The virus will either mutate out (Likely to something less harmful) or we'll find a vaccine if it doesn't. We won't live this way forever but we might for a couple of years.
I have seen a site advertising Roche one for £99, but no idea if they are legit or not. Until somebody like Boots sells it, I think i would steer clear.
The virus will either mutate out (Likely to something less harmful) or we'll find a vaccine if it doesn't. We won't live this way forever but we might for a couple of years.
Not even a couple of years. Eventually we'll have to live with the excess deaths and go for a herd immunity strategy.
I have seen a site advertising Roche one for £99, but no idea if they are legit or not. Until somebody like Boots sells it, I think i would steer clear.
I didn't realise the US were allowing export of those yet.
The virus will either mutate out (Likely to something less harmful) or we'll find a vaccine if it doesn't. We won't live this way forever but we might for a couple of years.
Not even a couple of years. Eventually we'll have to live with the excess deaths and go for a herd immunity strategy.
The Gov't can't force people out if they don't feel safe. And lots of the demand in the economy is from people who aren't going to head out any time soon.
The other element of this is that, although whether to discharge a patient is a clinical decision, the details of how that is done can fall into the hands of a cost-wrangling hospital administrator. It can be the same with hospital transfers.
Said cost-wrangling administrator has not taken any oath of care, is not licensed by a professional body, cannot be struck off. The target is her only higher impetus.
The care home outbreak in this is not wholly unique to the UK but, unlike other aspects where international comparison might lessen the criticism merited, the way this came about cannot be so diluted.
The virus will either mutate out (Likely to something less harmful) or we'll find a vaccine if it doesn't. We won't live this way forever but we might for a couple of years.
Not even a couple of years. Eventually we'll have to live with the excess deaths and go for a herd immunity strategy.
The Gov't can't force people out if they don't feel safe. And lots of the demand in the economy is from people who aren't going to head out any time soon.
They can if the furlough scheme is phased out and people are asked to live on UC.
I should have also mentioned that care home workers are dying at twice the rate of NHS workers. It is a scandal. Some of the people doing the most valuable work, poorly paid and little valued are being denied the PPE they need and are dying because of this. They are also a vector for retransmission into the wider community.
The whole purpose of lockdown was to protect the vulnerable. If we can’t even do that, really what is the point of it all?
If anything positive comes out of this it may be that people think twice about sending Mum off to a care home where greedy owners and (some) negligent staff are paid to see her through her dying days
What on Earth are you talking about?
I'm talking about more elderly people being cared for at home rather than being abandoned
Interesting approach - blame the families.
I seem to remember someone with similar viewpoints disappeared off this site last week.
As we said then dealing with dementia is something that requires trained people who are detached from the family - otherwise it's beyond painful.
Unfortunately TGOHF is still with us - his view was that families put relatives into care homes because they smell a bit and interfere with their holiday plans.
To be fair, there are some horrible people out there. Who would do exactly that.
There are also many, many people living in a sleep deprived hell, caring for someone who is literally fighting them.
That’s just a long-winded way of saying that the government’s new strategy is to blame individuals if they fall ill and businesses if they close down.
In fairness, that would be part of any government’s strategy at some point.
If so, let’s cut the crap, abandon all this social distancing advice and let people make their own decisions about how to live and operate. Pretending that things can be made “safe” and that there will be a time when closed businesses can reopen using the new guidance is a cruel deception.
I really don't think that people are deceived. There is a virus. It is dangerous. Contact with others or with things others have touched creates risk. Be aware of that and act appropriately. But do not let yourself be paralysed into not living or earning.
God Almighty! I am not being paralysed into not earning. Nor is my daughter. We are legally prevented from doing so. She would like nothing better than being able to go out and work. She is desperate to do so. But she can’t. She can’t assess the risk or take appropriate actions. She is being fed a lie that she may be able to reopen when she won’t be. And the government will not then help her. It will blame her. It is already calling her an “addict” for being on furlough. It is planning to make her poorer. It has nothing to say about what happens when she and many others like her will be unemployed and have no alternatives.
Yep, life is not good for many people and it will eventually feed through to everyone else. But that shouldn't stop people working where it is available and safe to do so.
The point I am trying to make is that life is being made worse for many people by the government’s actions in response to this. And the government should not wash its hands of responsibility for that. Though I fear that it will.
The virus will either mutate out (Likely to something less harmful) or we'll find a vaccine if it doesn't. We won't live this way forever but we might for a couple of years.
Not even a couple of years. Eventually we'll have to live with the excess deaths and go for a herd immunity strategy.
I think that is predicated on better treatments. Herd immunity by infection becomes a more feasible outcome if the mortality rate can be reduced significantly. As it stands now the price is too high for society to accept.
The situation in Singapore is interesting. They've been reporting more than 500 new cases every day since April 16th (with two exceptions) and yet there has been no consequent increase in deaths.
Is it because this wave of infection is limited to migrant workers who are all young?
The virus will either mutate out (Likely to something less harmful) or we'll find a vaccine if it doesn't. We won't live this way forever but we might for a couple of years.
Not even a couple of years. Eventually we'll have to live with the excess deaths and go for a herd immunity strategy.
The Gov't can't force people out if they don't feel safe. And lots of the demand in the economy is from people who aren't going to head out any time soon.
They can if the furlough scheme is phased out and people are asked to live on UC.
I spoke to someone yesterday who was furloughed because his company has no orders coming in. He knows the reality of his situation.
That’s just a long-winded way of saying that the government’s new strategy is to blame individuals if they fall ill and businesses if they close down.
It's not a question of blame, its a question of risk. We need to get on with life whilst being alert to the risks that this virus imposes.
Except we are not being allowed to get on with our lives, are we, and assess the risk for ourselves?
The government wants to get the credit for dealing with the virus while accepting none of the responsibility for its consequences.
It really doesn't. We have a heighway code. Does the government take the credit each time we complete a journey successfully? Of course not. Is the government to blame because some journeys end in an accident? Of course not. The job of the government is to provide medical and police services to clean up the mess so we can move on. And we all have a general duty to drive with due care and attention.
I think a great example how to continue to work following government guidance and showing common sense is my local chip shop. They have one guy doing the frying,one doing the preparing and one doing the serving. The serving takes place at the door (no one is allowed in ths shop and they have a card machine on a length of wood for payment to keep distance. When an order is placed he takes your name and you wait outside keeping two metres from everyone else . They do have a queueing system,of barriers and tape as well for busy times. When your food is ready he places the chips on a table by the door, calls your name, steps back and you collect your food. The Government has not issued a manual for how to operate a chip shop but is has provided guidance on social distancing etc and these have been followed and they have developed a "Covid Safe" system of operating. Im sure hundreds of thousands of other businesses have done the same.
The virus will either mutate out (Likely to something less harmful) or we'll find a vaccine if it doesn't. We won't live this way forever but we might for a couple of years.
Not even a couple of years. Eventually we'll have to live with the excess deaths and go for a herd immunity strategy.
The Gov't can't force people out if they don't feel safe. And lots of the demand in the economy is from people who aren't going to head out any time soon.
They can if the furlough scheme is phased out and people are asked to live on UC.
If reports are accurate that Rishi Sunak is about to announce an extension to the furlough scheme but cutting wage support to 60% without employers making up difference it means the government has adopted the basic principle of a time old policy of starving workers back to work.
A total of 2,618,862 participants reported their potential symptoms of COVID-19 on a smartphone-based app. Among the 18,401 who had undergone a SARS-CoV-2 test, the proportion of participants who reported loss of smell and taste was higher in those with a positive test result (4,668 of 7,178 individuals; 65.03%) than in those with a negative test result (2,436 of 11,223 participants; 21.71%) (odds ratio = 6.74; 95% confidence interval = 6.31–7.21). A model combining symptoms to predict probable infection was applied to the data from all app users who reported symptoms (805,753) and predicted that 140,312 (17.42%) participants are likely to have COVID-19.
Interestingly Guernsey's Medical Officer also noted that loss of taste and smell was a common pre-curser to more serious symptoms and added it to the criteria for getting tested early in the epidemic.
The virus will either mutate out (Likely to something less harmful) or we'll find a vaccine if it doesn't. We won't live this way forever but we might for a couple of years.
Not even a couple of years. Eventually we'll have to live with the excess deaths and go for a herd immunity strategy.
The Gov't can't force people out if they don't feel safe. And lots of the demand in the economy is from people who aren't going to head out any time soon.
They can if the furlough scheme is phased out and people are asked to live on UC.
If reports are accurate that Rishi Sunak is about to announce an extension to the furlough scheme but cutting wage support to 60% without employers making up difference it means the government has adopted the basic principle of a time old policy of starving workers back to work.
That’s just a long-winded way of saying that the government’s new strategy is to blame individuals if they fall ill and businesses if they close down.
In fairness, that would be part of any government’s strategy at some point.
If so, let’s cut the crap, abandon all this social distancing advice and let people make their own decisions about how to live and operate. Pretending that things can be made “safe” and that there will be a time when closed businesses can reopen using the new guidance is a cruel deception.
I really don't think that people are deceived. There is a virus. It is dangerous. Contact with others or with things others have touched creates risk. Be aware of that and act appropriately. But do not let yourself be paralysed into not living or earning.
God Almighty! I am not being paralysed into not earning. Nor is my daughter. We are legally prevented from doing so. She would like nothing better than being able to go out and work. She is desperate to do so. But she can’t. She can’t assess the risk or take appropriate actions. She is being fed a lie that she may be able to reopen when she won’t be. And the government will not then help her. It will blame her. It is already calling her an “addict” for being on furlough. It is planning to make her poorer. It has nothing to say about what happens when she and many others like her will be unemployed and have no alternatives.
Yep, life is not good for many people and it will eventually feed through to everyone else. But that shouldn't stop people working where it is available and safe to do so.
The point I am trying to make is that life is being made worse for many people by the government’s actions in response to this. And the government should not wash its hands of responsibility for that. Though I fear that it will.
Don't worry, the government will get round to that, but they have other priorities right now. I suspect that nice Mr Sunak will become public enemy number 1 in a month's time. The unpalatable truth will be that most businesses built around face to face interaction are done for the foreseeable future.
That’s just a long-winded way of saying that the government’s new strategy is to blame individuals if they fall ill and businesses if they close down.
It's not a question of blame, its a question of risk. We need to get on with life whilst being alert to the risks that this virus imposes.
Except we are not being allowed to get on with our lives, are we, and assess the risk for ourselves?
The government wants to get the credit for dealing with the virus while accepting none of the responsibility for its consequences.
It really doesn't. We have a heighway code. Does the government take the credit each time we complete a journey successfully? Of course not. Is the government to blame because some journeys end in an accident? Of course not. The job of the government is to provide medical and police services to clean up the mess so we can move on. And we all have a general duty to drive with due care and attention.
I think a great example how to continue to work following government guidance and showing common sense is my local chip shop. They have one guy doing the frying,one doing the preparing and one doing the serving. The serving takes place at the door (no one is allowed in ths shop and they have a card machine on a length of wood for payment to keep distance. When an order is placed he takes your name and you wait outside keeping two metres from everyone else . They do have a queueing system,of barriers and tape as well for busy times. When your food is ready he places the chips on a table by the door, calls your name, steps back and you collect your food. The Government has not issued a manual for how to operate a chip shop but is has provided guidance on social distancing etc and these have been followed and they have developed a "Covid Safe" system of operating. Im sure hundreds of thousands of other businesses have done the same.
There's never going to be a 'size fits all' set of rules, which I think some people are somehow expecting there will be. A binary ok/not ok world doesn't exist.
The virus will either mutate out (Likely to something less harmful) or we'll find a vaccine if it doesn't. We won't live this way forever but we might for a couple of years.
Not even a couple of years. Eventually we'll have to live with the excess deaths and go for a herd immunity strategy.
The Gov't can't force people out if they don't feel safe. And lots of the demand in the economy is from people who aren't going to head out any time soon.
They can if the furlough scheme is phased out and people are asked to live on UC.
If reports are accurate that Rishi Sunak is about to announce an extension to the furlough scheme but cutting wage support to 60% without employers making up difference it means the government has adopted the basic principle of a time old policy of starving workers back to work.
I should have also mentioned that care home workers are dying at twice the rate of NHS workers. It is a scandal. Some of the people doing the most valuable work, poorly paid and little valued are being denied the PPE they need and are dying because of this. They are also a vector for retransmission into the wider community.
The whole purpose of lockdown was to protect the vulnerable. If we can’t even do that, really what is the point of it all?
If anything positive comes out of this it may be that people think twice about sending Mum off to a care home where greedy owners and (some) negligent staff are paid to see her through her dying days
What on Earth are you talking about?
I'm talking about more elderly people being cared for at home rather than being abandoned
Interesting approach - blame the families.
I seem to remember someone with similar viewpoints disappeared off this site last week.
As we said then dealing with dementia is something that requires trained people who are detached from the family - otherwise it's beyond painful.
Unfortunately TGOHF is still with us - his view was that families put relatives into care homes because they smell a bit and interfere with their holiday plans.
To be fair, there are some horrible people out there. Who would do exactly that.
There are also many, many people living in a sleep deprived hell, caring for someone who is literally fighting them.
Using care homes is not compulsory - and many are not run by the government.
The virus will either mutate out (Likely to something less harmful) or we'll find a vaccine if it doesn't. We won't live this way forever but we might for a couple of years.
I don't think the media or the public fully appreciate that the above is the most likely best case scenario. I think most people think if they just hide away for another month, then things will be safe again. I am not sure how useful the hyping up of the Oxford vaccine is, in relation to getting people back out of their homes.
We have become so accustomed to our every day lives being incredibly safe. Lots of H&S rules and regs at work, violent crime against random members of the public is by historic standards very low, etc.
The new reality is that every day there will be an increased element of risk. Now for most under 40s that risk is tiny, but the government can't honestly with hand on heart say we can make this 100% safe in the way you can basically can when it comes to best practice when operating a piece of machinery in a prescribed way.
People have been conditioned to governments saying they can, and on the odd occasion there is a failure, it is normally because a flaw in the rules which can be fixed or not obeying them.
The government can't really say it, but people have to go out again but it will be riskier and there is only a limited amount anybody can do.
It's slightly more than that. It goes back to, pre-the 2016 election, the FBI had been granted permission to spy on the Trump campaign without telling the courts that it was off the back of information paid for by Hillary Clinton's team. When Trump unexpectedly won, Trump is claiming that Obama deliberately tried to sabotage the incoming administration by playing up the Russian links and that Flynn was specifically targeted because he was the one member of the incoming administration who knew how the intelligence services operated and therefore what would have been the chain of command for seeking permission to spy on Trump i.e. to Obama himself.
Except it wasn't "off the back of information paid for by Clinton's team". That's more spin. Flynn was charged because he blatantly violated the law (and subsequently pled guilty). The dismissal of the case against him is exceedingly dubious.
The virus will either mutate out (Likely to something less harmful) or we'll find a vaccine if it doesn't. We won't live this way forever but we might for a couple of years.
Not even a couple of years. Eventually we'll have to live with the excess deaths and go for a herd immunity strategy.
The Gov't can't force people out if they don't feel safe. And lots of the demand in the economy is from people who aren't going to head out any time soon.
They can if the furlough scheme is phased out and people are asked to live on UC.
If reports are accurate that Rishi Sunak is about to announce an extension to the furlough scheme but cutting wage support to 60% without employers making up difference it means the government has adopted the basic principle of a time old policy of starving workers back to work.
The virus will either mutate out (Likely to something less harmful) or we'll find a vaccine if it doesn't. We won't live this way forever but we might for a couple of years.
Not even a couple of years. Eventually we'll have to live with the excess deaths and go for a herd immunity strategy.
The Gov't can't force people out if they don't feel safe. And lots of the demand in the economy is from people who aren't going to head out any time soon.
They can if the furlough scheme is phased out and people are asked to live on UC.
I spoke to someone yesterday who was furloughed because his company has no orders coming in. He knows the reality of his situation.
The orders aren't coming in because everyone is sitting at home not spending money.
The virus will either mutate out (Likely to something less harmful) or we'll find a vaccine if it doesn't. We won't live this way forever but we might for a couple of years.
Not even a couple of years. Eventually we'll have to live with the excess deaths and go for a herd immunity strategy.
The Gov't can't force people out if they don't feel safe. And lots of the demand in the economy is from people who aren't going to head out any time soon.
They can if the furlough scheme is phased out and people are asked to live on UC.
If reports are accurate that Rishi Sunak is about to announce an extension to the furlough scheme but cutting wage support to 60% without employers making up difference it means the government has adopted the basic principle of a time old policy of starving workers back to work.
I have seen a site advertising Roche one for £99, but no idea if they are legit or not. Until somebody like Boots sells it, I think i would steer clear.
I would be sceptical. Abbott does indeed make such a test, but the PR from them refers to distributing it to US hospitals, not licencing it to UK (assuming it is) based companies
Social care is a mess because we value the right to pass and receive a large tax-free inheritance above the responsibility to provide dignity for all in old age. This is the choice we have made. Little point moaning about it if we are not prepared to make a different value judgment.
I am going to bite.
It was the party you supported which made a big hoo ha about people having to use their homes and savings to pay for their care, which was outraged at the idea that children might have to foregoing their large inheritances in order to pay for Mum’s care. This was the value judgment made by the party which likes to proclaim that it cares about the vulnerable.
Well I personally thought the Dementia Tax was a good policy. As was Andy Burnham's Death Tax a few years prior. But both got trashed by political opportunism from the other side. Opportunism that succeeded because - as I say - it is in line with the value judgment the public have made. That sorting out social care is less important than the right to pass and receive a chunky inheritance free of tax.
I should have also mentioned that care home workers are dying at twice the rate of NHS workers. It is a scandal. Some of the people doing the most valuable work, poorly paid and little valued are being denied the PPE they need and are dying because of this. They are also a vector for retransmission into the wider community.
The whole purpose of lockdown was to protect the vulnerable. If we can’t even do that, really what is the point of it all?
If anything positive comes out of this it may be that people think twice about sending Mum off to a care home where greedy owners and (some) negligent staff are paid to see her through her dying days
What on Earth are you talking about?
I'm talking about more elderly people being cared for at home rather than being abandoned
Interesting approach - blame the families.
And an unproductive one. Those who are inclined to abandon their ageing parents are unlikely to change. And it's deeply offensive to those who make every effort to keep parents out of care until forced by circumstance.
"Abandon to care homes" is not a fair representation.
In the vast majority of cases it is about when families cannot provide the appropriate level of care. I doubt (without rereading the rules) that it saves money.
Before my mum passed away last year, for a short time I was in the position of having to wear earplugs to shut out her calling my name from bed because I knew that if I got up 4 or 5 times in the night I would not be able to care for here well during the next day.
If she had not passed away it may well have been a care home.
Of course, and I absolutely agree with that view. There are undoubtedly cases where the families don't care (though I suspect they are a fairly small minority) - one of the things you notice if visiting a care home frequently is the lonely individuals who are rarely if ever visited by family. My point was that changing the rules won't change that.
That’s just a long-winded way of saying that the government’s new strategy is to blame individuals if they fall ill and businesses if they close down.
It's not a question of blame, its a question of risk. We need to get on with life whilst being alert to the risks that this virus imposes.
Except we are not being allowed to get on with our lives, are we, and assess the risk for ourselves?
The government wants to get the credit for dealing with the virus while accepting none of the responsibility for its consequences.
It really doesn't. We have a heighway code. Does the government take the credit each time we complete a journey successfully? Of course not. Is the government to blame because some journeys end in an accident? Of course not. The job of the government is to provide medical and police services to clean up the mess so we can move on. And we all have a general duty to drive with due care and attention.
I think a great example how to continue to work following government guidance and showing common sense is my local chip shop. They have one guy doing the frying,one doing the preparing and one doing the serving. The serving takes place at the door (no one is allowed in ths shop and they have a card machine on a length of wood for payment to keep distance. When an order is placed he takes your name and you wait outside keeping two metres from everyone else . They do have a queueing system,of barriers and tape as well for busy times. When your food is ready he places the chips on a table by the door, calls your name, steps back and you collect your food. The Government has not issued a manual for how to operate a chip shop but is has provided guidance on social distancing etc and these have been followed and they have developed a "Covid Safe" system of operating. Im sure hundreds of thousands of other businesses have done the same.
That works if you are just a takeaway. It works if you are a restaurant doing takeaway in the interim, have most of your staff on furlough and have received a grant. It does not work when that ends and you have to cover your full costs but cannot serve the number of people you could before and therefore cannot make a profit.
Social care is a mess because we value the right to pass and receive a large tax-free inheritance above the responsibility to provide dignity for all in old age. This is the choice we have made. Little point moaning about it if we are not prepared to make a different value judgment.
I am going to bite.
It was the party you supported which made a big hoo ha about people having to use their homes and savings to pay for their care, which was outraged at the idea that children might have to foregoing their large inheritances in order to pay for Mum’s care. This was the value judgment made by the party which likes to proclaim that it cares about the vulnerable.
Well I personally thought the Dementia Tax was a good policy. As was Andy Burnham's Death Tax a few years prior. But both got trashed by political opportunism from the other side. Opportunism that succeeded because - as I say - it is in line with the value judgment the public have made. That sorting out social care is less important than the right to pass and receive a chunky inheritance free of tax.
So did I. But you cannot deny that your Labour Party did much to trash the dementia tax - out of political opportunism. Where were its supposed values then?
The virus will either mutate out (Likely to something less harmful) or we'll find a vaccine if it doesn't. We won't live this way forever but we might for a couple of years.
Not even a couple of years. Eventually we'll have to live with the excess deaths and go for a herd immunity strategy.
The Gov't can't force people out if they don't feel safe. And lots of the demand in the economy is from people who aren't going to head out any time soon.
They can if the furlough scheme is phased out and people are asked to live on UC.
If reports are accurate that Rishi Sunak is about to announce an extension to the furlough scheme but cutting wage support to 60% without employers making up difference it means the government has adopted the basic principle of a time old policy of starving workers back to work.
Is the government really going to cut the money paid to those employees legally forbidden from going back to work?
How long should the scheme last? not being flippant but there has been no discussion by you of what the choices are; you blame the government for legally stopping you working but then also blame them for locking down too late meaning you think you should have been prevented from working earlier. You are always telling people detailed unemotive discussion of issues is the most important thing so I am genuinely interested in what your version of the furlough scheme would look like and how long you think it is sustainable for? What safety regulations would you have that are different to the ones published by the HSE so that your daughter can get back into work?
For example in Denmark the government today changed the distance advice to 1 metre without explaining why or informing the other parties who though they had negotiated an unlockdown agreement last week. Some claim it is because they wanted to allow more offices to open and also the schools said they couldn't do it at 2m but could probably open at 1m. is that the sort of change you would support?
That’s just a long-winded way of saying that the government’s new strategy is to blame individuals if they fall ill and businesses if they close down.
In fairness, that would be part of any government’s strategy at some point.
If so, let’s cut the crap, abandon all this social distancing advice and let people make their own decisions about how to live and operate. Pretending that things can be made “safe” and that there will be a time when closed businesses can reopen using the new guidance is a cruel deception.
I really don't think that people are deceived. There is a virus. It is dangerous. Contact with others or with things others have touched creates risk. Be aware of that and act appropriately. But do not let yourself be paralysed into not living or earning.
God Almighty! I am not being paralysed into not earning. Nor is my daughter. We are legally prevented from doing so. She would like nothing better than being able to go out and work. She is desperate to do so. But she can’t. She can’t assess the risk or take appropriate actions. She is being fed a lie that she may be able to reopen when she won’t be. And the government will not then help her. It will blame her. It is already calling her an “addict” for being on furlough. It is planning to make her poorer. It has nothing to say about what happens when she and many others like her will be unemployed and have no alternatives.
You are not paralysed into not working because your business, like mine, can be done online to a limited extent. Your daughter's business is one that the government thinks is too risky right now but is seeking to work towards allowing it to operate (unlike the Scottish government). There is no lie. Does the government "lie" when it fixes a 20mph limit outside a school knowing full well some will not comply? There is no blame either. The furlough scheme will be extended today to help. That help, like the advice, may not prove sufficient but I think you are seeking to bring "blame" and "fault" and even "lie" into situations where it is simply not appropriate.
The virus will either mutate out (Likely to something less harmful) or we'll find a vaccine if it doesn't. We won't live this way forever but we might for a couple of years.
I don't think the media or the public fully appreciate that the above is the most likely best case scenario. I think most people think if they just hide away for another month, then things will be safe again. I am not sure how useful the hyping up of the Oxford vaccine is, in relation to getting people back out of their homes.
We have become so accustomed to our every day lives being incredibly safe. Lots of H&S rules and regs at work, violent crime against random members of the public is by historic standards very low, etc.
The new reality is that every day there will be an increased element of risk. Now for most under 40s that risk is tiny, but the government can't honestly with hand on heart say we can make this 100% safe in the way you can basically can when it comes to best practice when operating a piece of machinery in a prescribed way.
People have been conditioned to governments saying they can, and on the odd occasion there is a failure, it is normally because a flaw in the rules which can be fixed or not obeying them.
The government can't really say it, but people have to go out again but it will be riskier and there is only a limited amount anybody can do.
Pubs are a huge problem for Sunak and Hancock, I don't envy their choices on those.
I honestly don't see how most of them can survive without propping up. We aren't going to be able to have rammed pubs, which is what most need to be to survive. And those that make their money out of food, again they will only be able to run at a tiny fraction of usage covers.
The virus will either mutate out (Likely to something less harmful) or we'll find a vaccine if it doesn't. We won't live this way forever but we might for a couple of years.
I don't think the media or the public fully appreciate that the above is the most likely best case scenario. I think most people think if they just hide away for another month, then things will be safe again. I am not sure how useful the hyping up of the Oxford vaccine is, in relation to getting people back out of their homes.
We have become so accustomed to our every day lives being incredibly safe. Lots of H&S rules and regs at work, violent crime against random members of the public is by historic standards very low, etc.
The new reality is that every day there will be an increased element of risk. Now for most under 40s that risk is tiny, but the government can't honestly with hand on heart say we can make this 100% safe in the way you can basically can when it comes to best practice when operating a piece of machinery in a prescribed way.
People have been conditioned to governments saying they can, and on the odd occasion there is a failure, it is normally because a flaw in the rules which can be fixed or not obeying them.
The government can't really say it, but people have to go out again but it will be riskier and there is only a limited amount anybody can do.
Expecting life to be 100% safe is ridiculous.
It is, but that is the mindset of most people. Go on Facebook and see parents reaction to the thought of sending the rugrats back to school. They are shit scared for the tiny tots, when the science says they are at near zero risk. In a way, it would be better just to have all those without any underlying conditions to get this thing out the way asap.
We have become conditioned to the things like it not being safe for kids to go on a trip without one member of staff to 10 or 15 (or whatever the number is). I am not saying it isn't sensible regulation, but the risk of 16 vs 15, especially when you get a certain age and most kids aren't thick, is negligible. But the mindset is, not safe if we don't do this.
Now we are in a world where there is just a higher risk and very little we can do for the majority.
Lots of chat on the ex-colleagues WhatsApp group this morning after one school sent parents a detailed takedown of the new guidelines. The key point being that it is Unsafe to see your grandkids or nephews but Safe to have 15 kids from 15 households in your care. Unsafe to see your parents unless they employ you as their cleaner when its Safe.
The virus will either mutate out (Likely to something less harmful) or we'll find a vaccine if it doesn't. We won't live this way forever but we might for a couple of years.
Not even a couple of years. Eventually we'll have to live with the excess deaths and go for a herd immunity strategy.
The Gov't can't force people out if they don't feel safe. And lots of the demand in the economy is from people who aren't going to head out any time soon.
They can if the furlough scheme is phased out and people are asked to live on UC.
If reports are accurate that Rishi Sunak is about to announce an extension to the furlough scheme but cutting wage support to 60% without employers making up difference it means the government has adopted the basic principle of a time old policy of starving workers back to work.
60% of your old salary or Universal Credit - take your pick...
I suspect government thinking will be that businesses that genuinely want to retain their staff will top up. Those that don't, or don't care won't. It is similar to the Dom Cummings Herd Immunity quote, combined with the Brexiteers' "fuck business" attitude. It is a kind of Neo-Darwinism beloved of those that will not have to suffer the consequences of such an approach.
The virus will either mutate out (Likely to something less harmful) or we'll find a vaccine if it doesn't. We won't live this way forever but we might for a couple of years.
Not even a couple of years. Eventually we'll have to live with the excess deaths and go for a herd immunity strategy.
The Gov't can't force people out if they don't feel safe. And lots of the demand in the economy is from people who aren't going to head out any time soon.
They can if the furlough scheme is phased out and people are asked to live on UC.
If reports are accurate that Rishi Sunak is about to announce an extension to the furlough scheme but cutting wage support to 60% without employers making up difference it means the government has adopted the basic principle of a time old policy of starving workers back to work.
Is the government really going to cut the money paid to those employees legally forbidden from going back to work?
How long should the scheme last? not being flippant but there has been no discussion by you of what the choices are; you blame the government for legally stopping you working but then also blame them for locking down too late meaning you think you should have been prevented from working earlier. You are always telling people detailed unemotive discussion of issues is the most important thing so I am genuinely interested in what your version of the furlough scheme would look like and how long you think it is sustainable for? What safety regulations would you have that are different to the ones published by the HSE so that your daughter can get back into work?
For example in Denmark the government today changed the distance advice to 1 metre without explaining why or informing the other parties who though they had negotiated an unlockdown agreement last week. Some claim it is because they wanted to allow more offices to open and also the schools said they couldn't do it at 2m but could probably open at 1m. is that the sort of change you would support?
How long it lasts is probably a function of how many people it is supporting. Currently (I believe) 23% of employees is on furlough. About 20% of the working population overall, I think.
This strongly suggests that the idea that that the number in work is over 60% - unless the a vast number of *employees* have been fired....
The next question is how far that 23% will reduce, due to people being able to go back to work in the next phase.
The virus will either mutate out (Likely to something less harmful) or we'll find a vaccine if it doesn't. We won't live this way forever but we might for a couple of years.
I don't think the media or the public fully appreciate that the above is the most likely best case scenario. I think most people think if they just hide away for another month, then things will be safe again. I am not sure how useful the hyping up of the Oxford vaccine is, in relation to getting people back out of their homes.
We have become so accustomed to our every day lives being incredibly safe. Lots of H&S rules and regs at work, violent crime against random members of the public is by historic standards very low, etc.
The new reality is that every day there will be an increased element of risk. Now for most under 40s that risk is tiny, but the government can't honestly with hand on heart say we can make this 100% safe in the way you can basically can when it comes to best practice when operating a piece of machinery in a prescribed way.
People have been conditioned to governments saying they can, and on the odd occasion there is a failure, it is normally because a flaw in the rules which can be fixed or not obeying them.
The government can't really say it, but people have to go out again but it will be riskier and there is only a limited amount anybody can do.
Expecting life to be 100% safe is ridiculous.
It is, but that is the mindset of most people. Go on Facebook and see parents reaction to the thought of sending the rugrats back to school. They are shit scared for the tiny tots, when the science says they are at near zero risk.
Hence Whitty was ramming home the message last night that the virus is only very dangerous for a minority.
Expect to see this message repeated over the next week.
The tide of opinion is already turning from Sunday - soon everyone will be adapting to the next phase.
Biggest push to restart school will be kids - mine would go back tomorrow - and I'd let them - hellish to keep them in solitary confinement.
How long should the scheme last? not being flippant but there has been no discussion by you of what the choices are; you blame the government for legally stopping you working but then also blame them for locking down too late meaning you think you should have been prevented from working earlier. You are always telling people detailed unemotive discussion of issues is the most important thing so I am genuinely interested in what your version of the furlough scheme would look like and how long you think it is sustainable for? What safety regulations would you have that are different to the ones published by the HSE so that your daughter can get back into work?
For example in Denmark the government today changed the distance advice to 1 metre without explaining why or informing the other parties who though they had negotiated an unlockdown agreement last week. Some claim it is because they wanted to allow more offices to open and also the schools said they couldn't do it at 2m but could probably open at 1m. is that the sort of change you would support?
What % increase risk does the sceince say you have by halving the distance. If the answer is "not much", then there's some bigger questions to be answered.
That’s just a long-winded way of saying that the government’s new strategy is to blame individuals if they fall ill and businesses if they close down.
In fairness, that would be part of any government’s strategy at some point.
If so, let’s cut the crap, abandon all this social distancing advice and let people make their own decisions about how to live and operate. Pretending that things can be made “safe” and that there will be a time when closed businesses can reopen using the new guidance is a cruel deception.
I really don't think that people are deceived. There is a virus. It is dangerous. Contact with others or with things others have touched creates risk. Be aware of that and act appropriately. But do not let yourself be paralysed into not living or earning.
God Almighty! I am not being paralysed into not earning. Nor is my daughter. We are legally prevented from doing so. She would like nothing better than being able to go out and work. She is desperate to do so. But she can’t. She can’t assess the risk or take appropriate actions. She is being fed a lie that she may be able to reopen when she won’t be. And the government will not then help her. It will blame her. It is already calling her an “addict” for being on furlough. It is planning to make her poorer. It has nothing to say about what happens when she and many others like her will be unemployed and have no alternatives.
Yep, life is not good for many people and it will eventually feed through to everyone else. But that shouldn't stop people working where it is available and safe to do so.
The point I am trying to make is that life is being made worse for many people by the government’s actions in response to this. And the government should not wash its hands of responsibility for that. Though I fear that it will.
Don't worry, the government will get round to that, but they have other priorities right now. I suspect that nice Mr Sunak will become public enemy number 1 in a month's time. The unpalatable truth will be that most businesses built around face to face interaction are done for the foreseeable future.
And the point I am making is that businesses built around face to face interaction are far more than a few small cafes/pubs/restaurants etc.
It’s whole sectors: entertainment of all kinds, the arts, heritage, all sorts of personal therapeutic, beauty and teaching services, tourism, eating and drinking out, socialising, sport, every kind of group activity etc.
That is an enormous part of our economic and social life gone.
Is the government really going to cut the money paid to those employees legally forbidden from going back to work?
I gather Sunak will be talking about this later today. He has a fine balance to strike. Needs to cut furlough to incentivize work but maintain support to prevent public and political grief. If I were him I'd err on the side of fiscal laxity right now. When you're in a hole you might as well keep digging a little longer - that's what they say, isn't it?
Lots of chat on the ex-colleagues WhatsApp group this morning after one school sent parents a detailed takedown of the new guidelines. The key point being that it is Unsafe to see your grandkids or nephews but Safe to have 15 kids from 15 households in your care. Unsafe to see your parents unless they employ you as their cleaner when its Safe.
The problem is nothing is "safe". What the government are trying to do is allow the lower risk activities to start to begin again, and there isn't really a one size fits all. The handbook to rewrite life would be worse than Brown's tax code.
That isn't to say everything the government is doing is right or perfectly thought out, but the new reality is, higher risk, and the government can't regulate every single edge case e.g. some Granny who does childcare for 10 kids. If they get into the weeds of only under 40s can do commercial childcare, every single occupation would have to be similarly regulated (and I have no idea about the actual laws in terms of age discrimination).
That’s just a long-winded way of saying that the government’s new strategy is to blame individuals if they fall ill and businesses if they close down.
In fairness, that would be part of any government’s strategy at some point.
If so, let’s cut the crap, abandon all this social distancing advice and let people make their own decisions about how to live and operate. Pretending that things can be made “safe” and that there will be a time when closed businesses can reopen using the new guidance is a cruel deception.
I really don't think that people are deceived. There is a virus. It is dangerous. Contact with others or with things others have touched creates risk. Be aware of that and act appropriately. But do not let yourself be paralysed into not living or earning.
God Almighty! I am not being paralysed into not earning. Nor is my daughter. We are legally prevented from doing so. She would like nothing better than being able to go out and work. She is desperate to do so. But she can’t. She can’t assess the risk or take appropriate actions. She is being fed a lie that she may be able to reopen when she won’t be. And the government will not then help her. It will blame her. It is already calling her an “addict” for being on furlough. It is planning to make her poorer. It has nothing to say about what happens when she and many others like her will be unemployed and have no alternatives.
Yep, life is not good for many people and it will eventually feed through to everyone else. But that shouldn't stop people working where it is available and safe to do so.
The point I am trying to make is that life is being made worse for many people by the government’s actions in response to this. And the government should not wash its hands of responsibility for that. Though I fear that it will.
Don't worry, the government will get round to that, but they have other priorities right now. I suspect that nice Mr Sunak will become public enemy number 1 in a month's time. The unpalatable truth will be that most businesses built around face to face interaction are done for the foreseeable future.
And the point I am making is that businesses built around face to face interaction are far more than a few small cafes/pubs/restaurants etc.
It’s whole sectors: entertainment of all kinds, the arts, heritage, all sorts of personal therapeutic, beauty and teaching services, tourism, eating and drinking out, socialising, sport, every kind of group activity etc.
That is an enormous part of our economic and social life gone.
Yes, we're heading for very bad times economically that will have a far greater impact on most people than the virus. That's not to say I am against the action taken to combat the virus. It's just the reality of the situation.
That’s just a long-winded way of saying that the government’s new strategy is to blame individuals if they fall ill and businesses if they close down.
It's not a question of blame, its a question of risk. We need to get on with life whilst being alert to the risks that this virus imposes.
Except we are not being allowed to get on with our lives, are we, and assess the risk for ourselves?
The government wants to get the credit for dealing with the virus while accepting none of the responsibility for its consequences.
It really doesn't. We have a heighway code. Does the government take the credit each time we complete a journey successfully? Of course not. Is the government to blame because some journeys end in an accident? Of course not. The job of the government is to provide medical and police services to clean up the mess so we can move on. And we all have a general duty to drive with due care and attention.
I think a great example how to continue to work following government guidance and showing common sense is my local chip shop. They have one guy doing the frying,one doing the preparing and one doing the serving. The serving takes place at the door (no one is allowed in ths shop and they have a card machine on a length of wood for payment to keep distance. When an order is placed he takes your name and you wait outside keeping two metres from everyone else . They do have a queueing system,of barriers and tape as well for busy times. When your food is ready he places the chips on a table by the door, calls your name, steps back and you collect your food. The Government has not issued a manual for how to operate a chip shop but is has provided guidance on social distancing etc and these have been followed and they have developed a "Covid Safe" system of operating. Im sure hundreds of thousands of other businesses have done the same.
That works if you are just a takeaway. It works if you are a restaurant doing takeaway in the interim, have most of your staff on furlough and have received a grant. It does not work when that ends and you have to cover your full costs but cannot serve the number of people you could before and therefore cannot make a profit.
Whether you make a profit obviously depends on what you charge them. The cost of complying with CV safety requirements is every bit as much as the overhead of the business as the food hygiene regulations in the kitchen. Whether people are willing or able to pay that extra cost is the issue. Demand will certainly fall. Will it fall as much as capacity or more? Very hard to tell at this point but eating out is going back to being an occasional treat, not a routine. There will be fewer restaurants, of that there is no doubt.
The virus will either mutate out (Likely to something less harmful) or we'll find a vaccine if it doesn't. We won't live this way forever but we might for a couple of years.
I don't think the media or the public fully appreciate that the above is the most likely best case scenario. I think most people think if they just hide away for another month, then things will be safe again. I am not sure how useful the hyping up of the Oxford vaccine is, in relation to getting people back out of their homes.
We have become so accustomed to our every day lives being incredibly safe. Lots of H&S rules and regs at work, violent crime against random members of the public is by historic standards very low, etc.
The new reality is that every day there will be an increased element of risk. Now for most under 40s that risk is tiny, but the government can't honestly with hand on heart say we can make this 100% safe in the way you can basically can when it comes to best practice when operating a piece of machinery in a prescribed way.
People have been conditioned to governments saying they can, and on the odd occasion there is a failure, it is normally because a flaw in the rules which can be fixed or not obeying them.
The government can't really say it, but people have to go out again but it will be riskier and there is only a limited amount anybody can do.
Expecting life to be 100% safe is ridiculous.
It is, but that is the mindset of most people. Go on Facebook and see parents reaction to the thought of sending the rugrats back to school. They are shit scared for the tiny tots, when the science says they are at near zero risk.
Hence Whitty was ramming home the message last night that the virus is only very dangerous for a minority.
Expect to see this message repeated over the next week.
The tide of opinion is already turning from Sunday - soon everyone will be adapting to the next phase.
Biggest push to restart school will be kids - mine would go back tomorrow - and I'd let them - hellish to keep them in solitary confinement.
Its a really tricky. Initially people weren't scared enough, the gentle people be sensible, wash your hands, don't have big parties round your mates house, didn't work. So we got the "look tw@ts, this is f##king dangerous, get in your house and stay there".
Now they have to try to walk the tightrope of please come out, but don't go back to your normal way of life.
It is another reason why the Swedish Mr Witty thinks they have a better long term strategy. They have adapted normal life with some sensible changes, people have taken onboard these and that can continue for a very long time with this new reality.
The virus will either mutate out (Likely to something less harmful) or we'll find a vaccine if it doesn't. We won't live this way forever but we might for a couple of years.
Not even a couple of years. Eventually we'll have to live with the excess deaths and go for a herd immunity strategy.
The Gov't can't force people out if they don't feel safe. And lots of the demand in the economy is from people who aren't going to head out any time soon.
They can if the furlough scheme is phased out and people are asked to live on UC.
I spoke to someone yesterday who was furloughed because his company has no orders coming in. He knows the reality of his situation.
I am sure most people do. It must be a huge worry. especially for htose with mortgages and families. Characterising them as being on holiday or having to "wean" then back to work when they almost certainly had no say about going onto furlough in the first place is politically obtuse at best. The furlough scheme was a great initiative and has been implemented well, but there is actually not much in having done it if we give up on it now.
The situation in Singapore is interesting. They've been reporting more than 500 new cases every day since April 16th (with two exceptions) and yet there has been no consequent increase in deaths.
Is it because this wave of infection is limited to migrant workers who are all young?
Probably partly that, and partly because the number of infections is still rising rapidly. Deaths have been rising too, but the apparently fatality rate is still only about 0.1%. Once the number of infections starts to drop, no doubt the apparent fatality rate will rise.
Sunak should Keep the furlough scheme as is for those businesses which will be able to reopen shortly (e.g. Caravan parks); Go to 60% for those that can open but aren't. Cut it completely for those that won't be able to - another plan for those, perhaps a special class of bankruptcy (Nightclub businesses ? )
Lots of chat on the ex-colleagues WhatsApp group this morning after one school sent parents a detailed takedown of the new guidelines. The key point being that it is Unsafe to see your grandkids or nephews but Safe to have 15 kids from 15 households in your care. Unsafe to see your parents unless they employ you as their cleaner when its Safe.
OK, I am definitely not an apologist for this god-awful government, or the clown that claims its leadership, BUT, there is a "takedown" of this takedown, and it is that while pure logic says, yes these things when compared in isolation look illogical, but when taken as a population as a whole, such discrepancies will reduce the amount of social interaction and therefore the overall transmission rate. We can accept that children being properly schooled is in most cases most likely a greater importance than their individual teacher being able to visit their immediate family. Health workers have already been forced to make a similar calculation. It is all going to have to be a trade off.
The virus will either mutate out (Likely to something less harmful) or we'll find a vaccine if it doesn't. We won't live this way forever but we might for a couple of years.
I don't think the media or the public fully appreciate that the above is the most likely best case scenario. I think most people think if they just hide away for another month, then things will be safe again. I am not sure how useful the hyping up of the Oxford vaccine is, in relation to getting people back out of their homes.
We have become so accustomed to our every day lives being incredibly safe. Lots of H&S rules and regs at work, violent crime against random members of the public is by historic standards very low, etc.
The new reality is that every day there will be an increased element of risk. Now for most under 40s that risk is tiny, but the government can't honestly with hand on heart say we can make this 100% safe in the way you can basically can when it comes to best practice when operating a piece of machinery in a prescribed way.
People have been conditioned to governments saying they can, and on the odd occasion there is a failure, it is normally because a flaw in the rules which can be fixed or not obeying them.
The government can't really say it, but people have to go out again but it will be riskier and there is only a limited amount anybody can do.
Expecting life to be 100% safe is ridiculous.
It is, but that is the mindset of most people. Go on Facebook and see parents reaction to the thought of sending the rugrats back to school. They are shit scared for the tiny tots, when the science says they are at near zero risk.
Hence Whitty was ramming home the message last night that the virus is only very dangerous for a minority.
Expect to see this message repeated over the next week.
The tide of opinion is already turning from Sunday - soon everyone will be adapting to the next phase.
Biggest push to restart school will be kids - mine would go back tomorrow - and I'd let them - hellish to keep them in solitary confinement.
I don't think there is enough consideration being given to the potentially disastrous impact for some kids of having their education disrupted. Some, in supportive middle-class homes with access to laptops etc - will be OK. Many others will simply never properly get back into the routine. Life prospects severely compromised.
Very easy for some politicians to go for a "safety first" approach and lock down everything and then criticise others for introducing measures which relax the lockdown (which, inevitably, leads to the potential for grey areas, compared to the black and white of "Stay at Home").
While I initially thought Sturgeon was behaving responsibly, unfortunately she is now being opportunistic in being so critical. Easy for her just to sit up here and do nothing and let someone else pioneer the moves needed to get the country on the road again.
The virus will either mutate out (Likely to something less harmful) or we'll find a vaccine if it doesn't. We won't live this way forever but we might for a couple of years.
Not even a couple of years. Eventually we'll have to live with the excess deaths and go for a herd immunity strategy.
The Gov't can't force people out if they don't feel safe. And lots of the demand in the economy is from people who aren't going to head out any time soon.
They can if the furlough scheme is phased out and people are asked to live on UC.
If reports are accurate that Rishi Sunak is about to announce an extension to the furlough scheme but cutting wage support to 60% without employers making up difference it means the government has adopted the basic principle of a time old policy of starving workers back to work.
Is the government really going to cut the money paid to those employees legally forbidden from going back to work?
How long should the scheme last? not being flippant but there has been no discussion by you of what the choices are; you blame the government for legally stopping you working but then also blame them for locking down too late meaning you think you should have been prevented from working earlier. You are always telling people detailed unemotive discussion of issues is the most important thing so I am genuinely interested in what your version of the furlough scheme would look like and how long you think it is sustainable for? What safety regulations would you have that are different to the ones published by the HSE so that your daughter can get back into work?
For example in Denmark the government today changed the distance advice to 1 metre without explaining why or informing the other parties who though they had negotiated an unlockdown agreement last week. Some claim it is because they wanted to allow more offices to open and also the schools said they couldn't do it at 2m but could probably open at 1m. is that the sort of change you would support?
What % increase risk does the sceince say you have by halving the distance. If the answer is "not much", then there's some bigger questions to be answered.
“In response: Well, I have already written a number of headers on what the choices are and what I think should be done by way of help and how to pay for it.
I am in the middle of trying to write another one on what might happen next. But I am (a) waiting to see what Sunak says and (b) trying to read the govt’s strategy and guidelines papers so I know a little of what I am talking about.
Comments
The government wants to get the credit for dealing with the virus while accepting none of the responsibility for its consequences.
Spot on
+1 +1 +1
In the vast majority of cases it is about when families cannot provide the appropriate level of care. I doubt (without rereading the rules) that it saves money.
Before my mum passed away last year, for a short time I was in the position of having to wear earplugs to shut out her calling my name from bed because I knew that if I got up 4 or 5 times in the night I would not be able to care for here well during the next day.
If she had not passed away it may well have been a care home.
https://tinyurl.com/ybzw6r5t
The difference between closing the borders and not doing so doesn't seem to actually mean much. EG are we going to if we "close the borders" quarantine those bringing in freight. If someone is bringing in a lorry load of food for the supermarkets do they need to quarantine or will we give them an exception and let them go straight back after dropping off their produce and maybe picking up a load here to take overseas?
Given tourism globally has been cancelled who in reality is actually travelling now? Do we know that large numbers of people that wouldn't be exempted from quarantine anyway are actually coming in?
https://twitter.com/IanMurrayMP/status/1260133661460049925?s=20
I know people who have said they will just ignore it anyway.
Sigh, politics as normal will kill us.
Scottish equivalent on bottom left, though curiously the excess and covid-19 death figures seem [edit] closer than in the ONS data, on an eyeball, not sure why. The last week's figures should be added to the graph soon.
When you are talking 10,000s of arrivals from everywhere across the world at airports, very little you can do. The very act of being swished in the passport control queues etc is a really bad idea. Many are going to head straight out of the airport onto public transport etc etc etc
It was the party you supported which made a big hoo ha about people having to use their homes and savings to pay for their care, which was outraged at the idea that children might have to foregoing their large inheritances in order to pay for Mum’s care. This was the value judgment made by the party which likes to proclaim that it cares about the vulnerable.
THIS is precisely why the police were right to taser the man at the petrol station in Manchester
https://www.itv.com/news/granada/2020-05-10/manchester-police-issue-statement-over-incident-where-a-man-was-tasered-in-front-of-child/
A total of 2,618,862 participants reported their potential symptoms of COVID-19 on a smartphone-based app. Among the 18,401 who had undergone a SARS-CoV-2 test, the proportion of participants who reported loss of smell and taste was higher in those with a positive test result (4,668 of 7,178 individuals; 65.03%) than in those with a negative test result (2,436 of 11,223 participants; 21.71%) (odds ratio = 6.74; 95% confidence interval = 6.31–7.21). A model combining symptoms to predict probable infection was applied to the data from all app users who reported symptoms (805,753) and predicted that 140,312 (17.42%) participants are likely to have COVID-19.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0916-2
Also, i bloody hope the government are going to be doing this, not a free for all for those who have £90.
How much control should the state have over individual actions? How many instructions/guidelines should be issued? How could this be policed/enforced?
Staying at home is easy and clear. Normal is easy and clear. The middle ground is necessarily vaguer and it's simply not possible for the state to produce instructions for every individual and situation and enforce that in the same way as a quarantine.
I have seen a site advertising Roche one for £99, but no idea if they are legit or not. Until somebody like Boots sells it, I think i would steer clear.
The other element of this is that, although whether to discharge a patient is a clinical decision, the details of how that is done can fall into the hands of a cost-wrangling hospital administrator. It can be the same with hospital transfers.
Said cost-wrangling administrator has not taken any oath of care, is not licensed by a professional body, cannot be struck off. The target is her only higher impetus.
The care home outbreak in this is not wholly unique to the UK but, unlike other aspects where international comparison might lessen the criticism merited, the way this came about cannot be so diluted.
There are also many, many people living in a sleep deprived hell, caring for someone who is literally fighting them.
Is it because this wave of infection is limited to migrant workers who are all young?
We have become so accustomed to our every day lives being incredibly safe. Lots of H&S rules and regs at work, violent crime against random members of the public is by historic standards very low, etc.
The new reality is that every day there will be an increased element of risk. Now for most under 40s that risk is tiny, but the government can't honestly with hand on heart say we can make this 100% safe in the way you can basically can when it comes to best practice when operating a piece of machinery in a prescribed way.
People have been conditioned to governments saying they can, and on the odd occasion there is a failure, it is normally because a flaw in the rules which can be fixed or not obeying them.
The government can't really say it, but people have to go out again but it will be riskier and there is only a limited amount anybody can do.
Seems a reasonable compromise, though I'd prefer 80% for sectors shut down by statute and 60% for the rest personally.
Flynn was charged because he blatantly violated the law (and subsequently pled guilty). The dismissal of the case against him is exceedingly dubious.
I don't think we should starve people back to work.
But if they have the option of working, let them do 40% of their hours for 40% of their pay and the government can make up the rest.
I doubt they will now - but could move to a sector by sector basis.
There are undoubtedly cases where the families don't care (though I suspect they are a fairly small minority) - one of the things you notice if visiting a care home frequently is the lonely individuals who are rarely if ever visited by family.
My point was that changing the rules won't change that.
How long should the scheme last? not being flippant but there has been no discussion by you of what the choices are; you blame the government for legally stopping you working but then also blame them for locking down too late meaning you think you should have been prevented from working earlier. You are always telling people detailed unemotive discussion of issues is the most important thing so I am genuinely interested in what your version of the furlough scheme would look like and how long you think it is sustainable for? What safety regulations would you have that are different to the ones published by the HSE so that your daughter can get back into work?
For example in Denmark the government today changed the distance advice to 1 metre without explaining why or informing the other parties who though they had negotiated an unlockdown agreement last week. Some claim it is because they wanted to allow more offices to open and also the schools said they couldn't do it at 2m but could probably open at 1m. is that the sort of change you would support?
We have become conditioned to the things like it not being safe for kids to go on a trip without one member of staff to 10 or 15 (or whatever the number is). I am not saying it isn't sensible regulation, but the risk of 16 vs 15, especially when you get a certain age and most kids aren't thick, is negligible. But the mindset is, not safe if we don't do this.
Now we are in a world where there is just a higher risk and very little we can do for the majority.
None of them are going to be able to operate in a commercially manner for quite some time.
I suspect government thinking will be that businesses that genuinely want to retain their staff will top up. Those that don't, or don't care won't. It is similar to the Dom Cummings Herd Immunity quote, combined with the Brexiteers' "fuck business" attitude. It is a kind of Neo-Darwinism beloved of those that will not have to suffer the consequences of such an approach.
For example in Denmark the government today changed the distance advice to 1 metre without explaining why or informing the other parties who though they had negotiated an unlockdown agreement last week. Some claim it is because they wanted to allow more offices to open and also the schools said they couldn't do it at 2m but could probably open at 1m. is that the sort of change you would support?
How long it lasts is probably a function of how many people it is supporting. Currently (I believe) 23% of employees is on furlough. About 20% of the working population overall, I think.
This strongly suggests that the idea that that the number in work is over 60% - unless the a vast number of *employees* have been fired....
The next question is how far that 23% will reduce, due to people being able to go back to work in the next phase.
Expect to see this message repeated over the next week.
The tide of opinion is already turning from Sunday - soon everyone will be adapting to the next phase.
Biggest push to restart school will be kids - mine would go back tomorrow - and I'd let them - hellish to keep them in solitary confinement.
It’s whole sectors: entertainment of all kinds, the arts, heritage, all sorts of personal therapeutic, beauty and teaching services, tourism, eating and drinking out, socialising, sport, every kind of group activity etc.
That is an enormous part of our economic and social life gone.
That isn't to say everything the government is doing is right or perfectly thought out, but the new reality is, higher risk, and the government can't regulate every single edge case e.g. some Granny who does childcare for 10 kids. If they get into the weeds of only under 40s can do commercial childcare, every single occupation would have to be similarly regulated (and I have no idea about the actual laws in terms of age discrimination).
Now they have to try to walk the tightrope of please come out, but don't go back to your normal way of life.
It is another reason why the Swedish Mr Witty thinks they have a better long term strategy. They have adapted normal life with some sensible changes, people have taken onboard these and that can continue for a very long time with this new reality.
Keep the furlough scheme as is for those businesses which will be able to reopen shortly (e.g. Caravan parks);
Go to 60% for those that can open but aren't.
Cut it completely for those that won't be able to - another plan for those, perhaps a special class of bankruptcy (Nightclub businesses ? )
Very easy for some politicians to go for a "safety first" approach and lock down everything and then criticise others for introducing measures which relax the lockdown (which, inevitably, leads to the potential for grey areas, compared to the black and white of "Stay at Home").
While I initially thought Sturgeon was behaving responsibly, unfortunately she is now being opportunistic in being so critical. Easy for her just to sit up here and do nothing and let someone else pioneer the moves needed to get the country on the road again.
“In response:
Well, I have already written a number of headers on what the choices are and what I think should be done by way of help and how to pay for it.
I am in the middle of trying to write another one on what might happen next. But I am (a) waiting to see what Sunak says and (b) trying to read the govt’s strategy and guidelines papers so I know a little of what I am talking about.
So you will have to wait.“