The Valencian Community establishes as of this Saturday the mandatory use of masks, regardless of whether the interpersonal safety distance of one and a half meters is kept, "at all times on public roads", in outdoor spaces, closed spaces for public use or open to the public. "It is not that there is an alternative, mask or distance, it is that there will have to be distancing and masks," said the Minister of Health, Ana Barceló. She has also stressed that its use "is also recommended" in private spaces, open or closed, "when there is a conflict with non-cohabitants or interpersonal distance cannot be guaranteed." The obligation, he has detailed, will not affect beaches, swimming pools or nature spaces, as it will also require people with diseases or respiratory problems that may be aggravated by the use of masks, as well as in other cases of dependency or disability.
Out of interest, is this "masks" or "face-coverings" in Valencia?
Here we have all our media morons rabbiting on about "compulsory masks" when the govt are actually talking about face-coverings - which is met by my snoods.
Just as the media morons have spent months gibbering confusingly about "The Rules", when such an entity does not even exist - we have The Regulations (Laws) and The Guidance (ie advice).
The regulations say masks no mention of face coverings, the main driver appears to be a significant rise in 30/40 year olds in recent days
There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.
Would it not create a hierarchy whereby NZs can go anywhere and Brazilians nowhere with the likes of us somewhere in between?
There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.
Would it not create a hierarchy whereby NZs can go anywhere and Brazilians nowhere with the likes of us somewhere in between?
NZs could go anywhere - but not come back. Hence the impasse. All the places that would be safe for you to return from are the places that don't consider you safe to travel to. Excepting those places with identical prevalence.
There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.
Would it not create a hierarchy whereby NZs can go anywhere and Brazilians nowhere with the likes of us somewhere in between?
What passport someone holds is irrelevant. What’s important is have they been tested? We need to either test or quarantine everyone entering the country.
I had vowed to keep off here after inadvertently pissing Charles off earlier, but this under reporting notion really is a crock!
The only figures worth looking at in terms of deaths from Covid are excess mortality rates against the 5 year average, and that goes for anywhere in the world. Even then, this doesn't tell the whole story but it tells a better one than anything else.
I had vowed to keep off here after inadvertently pissing Charles off earlier, but this under reporting notion really is a crock!
The only figures worth looking at in terms of deaths from Covid are excess mortality rates against the 5 year average, and that goes for anywhere in the world. Even then, this doesn't tell the whole story but it tells a better one than anything else.
You're exactly right. This "exaggeration" is a couple of % difference to the overall figure. More significant now, but to suggest the bulk of those being reported of dying are actual dying in car accidents etc. is absurd.
Completely bonkers, but entirely consistent with the arguments of those who go around accusing other people of cultural appropriation.
Good for her for finding joy in an element of another culture and going for it. Can you imagine if people followed appopriation arguments through to their conclusion, everyone stuck only enjoying or seeking to emulate things of their own upbringing? Ghastly. You'd have people thinking they have to like irish dancing if they were irish, for example. It's a truly weird concept. She at least seems to make a reasonable distinction about appreciatiating the heritage of something versus borrowing elements with acknowledgement.
Taken to its logical extreme, this idea of cultural appropriation would mean nobody could eat Chinese food unless they have Chinese ancestry. Which would be OK for me (Chinese grandmother) but would be an embuggerance for many on this board.
And it would also mean I couldn’t have an Indian, which would be rather a shame as I am rather partial to a good Indian. Admittedly, I like it with chips as well as rice which I know is heresy.
I am starting to think that the world has gone completely mad.
Curry half and half -- that will be your Welsh ancestry
I agree with Mr Herdson, with the qualification that I would go full-fat New Zealand and aim for eradication.
Looking at the upticks in France and Dpain, certainly we should discourage all non essential foreign travel. It would be a useful boost to the domestic tourist industry too.
I can't understand why our ability to go on expensive foreign holidays is so high on the list of measures showing we are returning to normal. The great bulk of initial tacing showed our Covid was imported not from China (0.1%) but from Italy, Spain and France.
In the future, we are at most risk from the sort of pillocks who play beer-pong on skiing trips. Personally, I'd treat them on a par with ISIS - and take away their passports....
There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.
Would it not create a hierarchy whereby NZs can go anywhere and Brazilians nowhere with the likes of us somewhere in between?
To resume the discussion of last night.
Brexit was a reaction to the previous decade not the 1980s.
It was the broken promises about immigration contrasted with the voices at the supermarket.
It was the bailout of the London bankers contrasted with the factories and steel works closing.
It was the throwing money at foreigners contrasted with the cuts in local areas.
I can't see why we are obsessed with "normality". There is nothing normal about a global pandemic which is still increasing in its prevalence. Pretending it isn't is wishful thinking.
Ardern's policy may have worked for now but it has also hammered the New Zealand tourist industry and the full effect of that may not be felt for months, an outright ban on tourists from America or elsewhere coming here rather than just quarantine for those with the highest cases would likely have the same effect
My nephew has returned home to Scotland permanently having lost his job as a sky diving professional in NZ for many years
On a positive note you’ll be able to see him more?
The failure to close our air borders will go down as a huge negative against both the scientific advice and the politicians who credulously accepted it.
Patrick Vallance was on Civil Service Live this week. he reckoned, with the benefit of hindsight, that completely closing the borders would have been effective, if done in *early February*. In fact he sort of indicated that SAGE had given that advice. However he also asked if it would have been seen as being in any way reasonable at the time.
What do you mean by effective? I can believe that to stop an outbreak of any sort in the UK would have needed a very early intervention, but I struggle to believe that a ban on foreign travel at the end of February wouldn't have at least made some difference to the overall numbers.
I agree with Mr Herdson, with the qualification that I would go full-fat New Zealand and aim for eradication.
Looking at the upticks in France and Dpain, certainly we should discourage all non essential foreign travel. It would be a useful boost to the domestic tourist industry too.
I can't understand why our ability to go on expensive foreign holidays is so high on the list of measures showing we are returning to normal. The great bulk of initial tacing showed our Covid was imported not from China (0.1%) but from Italy, Spain and France.
In the future, we are at most risk from the sort of pillocks who play beer-pong on skiing trips. Personally, I'd treat them on a par with ISIS - and take away their passports....
The reason for foreign holidays being high on the list, is the media demands for them - a combination of the Pollys feeling that their life isn’t worth living if they can’t ‘summer’ in Tuscany, and the huge amount of advertising the travel industry gives to the old fashioned press for those glossy Sunday supplements.
Everyone else should find a nice place close to where they are already, and take a few days there supporting the local economy.
The beer hounds heading to Majorca are likely to find most of what they went for closed when they arrive.
My sense is Central London is in real trouble. I think further out, it's more ok.
To put this in perspective, my brothers shop used to have around 400 people working in a single central London location.
Very few people want to go back. WFH is great and efficient, where clients want F2F they can travel to their homes, and where WFH is not possible they are renting small serviced offices.
There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.
Would it not create a hierarchy whereby NZs can go anywhere and Brazilians nowhere with the likes of us somewhere in between?
NZs could go anywhere - but not come back. Hence the impasse. All the places that would be safe for you to return from are the places that don't consider you safe to travel to. Excepting those places with identical prevalence.
Yes. Freedom of the planet but one way only working your way through ever more virusy places and winding up in Rio. Interesting concept.
I agree with Mr Herdson, with the qualification that I would go full-fat New Zealand and aim for eradication.
Looking at the upticks in France and Dpain, certainly we should discourage all non essential foreign travel. It would be a useful boost to the domestic tourist industry too.
A fantastic opportunity to circulate holiday Pounds within our own shores, particularly as we lose out on holiday Dollars and Yen, Sadly it passed the witless clown in Downing Street by..
There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.
Would it not create a hierarchy whereby NZs can go anywhere and Brazilians nowhere with the likes of us somewhere in between?
What passport someone holds is irrelevant. What’s important is have they been tested? We need to either test or quarantine everyone entering the country.
That makes sense but I don't think we have the motivation or capacity to pull off the necessary logistics.
The failure to close our air borders will go down as a huge negative against both the scientific advice and the politicians who credulously accepted it.
Yes, the telegraph had a good article on this a few weeks ago. The stats on how many cases we were importing was horrific. We need to cut off air travel to a lot of countries and then selectively reopen them once they have got the virus under control or there is a vaccine. We can't have a repeat of February and March of this year.
The government is obsessed with letting people have foreign holidays and in looking 'open for business'.
It wasn't holidays that were the cause, it was people returning from Pakistan that were the cause of 50% of the imported cases. That has been seen in other parts of Europe, Greece closed long haul flights when quite a few passengers who came from Pakistan via the Mid-East.
I'd close flights from all of South Asia, China, most of SE Asia, the US, Mexico and all of South America. No transit passengers either without 14 days quarantine in a safe country and a negative test result. Fuck whatever Trump's reaction will be, we've sacrificed a lot in this country to get where we are with the virus situation, we can't have it undone at this stage by letting diseased Americans in.
Completely bonkers, but entirely consistent with the arguments of those who go around accusing other people of cultural appropriation.
Good for her for finding joy in an element of another culture and going for it. Can you imagine if people followed appopriation arguments through to their conclusion, everyone stuck only enjoying or seeking to emulate things of their own upbringing? Ghastly. You'd have people thinking they have to like irish dancing if they were irish, for example. It's a truly weird concept. She at least seems to make a reasonable distinction about appreciatiating the heritage of something versus borrowing elements with acknowledgement.
Taken to its logical extreme, this idea of cultural appropriation would mean nobody could eat Chinese food unless they have Chinese ancestry. Which would be OK for me (Chinese grandmother) but would be an embuggerance for many on this board.
And it would also mean I couldn’t have an Indian, which would be rather a shame as I am rather partial to a good Indian. Admittedly, I like it with chips as well as rice which I know is heresy.
I am starting to think that the world has gone completely mad.
As she says in the video, demonstrating a wisdom beyond her years, there is a difference between appreciation and appropriation. That difference is being respectful and interested.
Appropriation is more a matter of mocking or parodying the culture.
That's your interpretation, and she does seem wise about these issues, but let us not pretend that your interpretations is everyone's. The idiots who would get angry at, say, a white artist taking influence from First Nations styles, or wearing dreadlocks, or a non white person irish dancing, may not be representative, but they exist.
And they and the very idea of going down that route, which is itself pretty darn racist, should be criticised and mocked at every opportunity to make sure it does not become representative.
Completely bonkers, but entirely consistent with the arguments of those who go around accusing other people of cultural appropriation.
Good for her for finding joy in an element of another culture and going for it. Can you imagine if people followed appopriation arguments through to their conclusion, everyone stuck only enjoying or seeking to emulate things of their own upbringing? Ghastly. You'd have people thinking they have to like irish dancing if they were irish, for example. It's a truly weird concept. She at least seems to make a reasonable distinction about appreciatiating the heritage of something versus borrowing elements with acknowledgement.
Taken to its logical extreme, this idea of cultural appropriation would mean nobody could eat Chinese food unless they have Chinese ancestry. Which would be OK for me (Chinese grandmother) but would be an embuggerance for many on this board.
And it would also mean I couldn’t have an Indian, which would be rather a shame as I am rather partial to a good Indian. Admittedly, I like it with chips as well as rice which I know is heresy.
I am starting to think that the world has gone completely mad.
Well, if it means that non-Italians stop buggering about with our coffee, maybe it isn’t so bad .......
This will distress you, but I am glad people messed about with your pizza too.
I agree with Mr Herdson, with the qualification that I would go full-fat New Zealand and aim for eradication.
Looking at the upticks in France and Dpain, certainly we should discourage all non essential foreign travel. It would be a useful boost to the domestic tourist industry too.
I can't understand why our ability to go on expensive foreign holidays is so high on the list of measures showing we are returning to normal. The great bulk of initial tacing showed our Covid was imported not from China (0.1%) but from Italy, Spain and France.
In the future, we are at most risk from the sort of pillocks who play beer-pong on skiing trips. Personally, I'd treat them on a par with ISIS - and take away their passports....
The reason for foreign holidays being high on the list, is the media demands for them - a combination of the Pollys feeling that their life isn’t worth living if they can’t ‘summer’ in Tuscany, and the huge amount of advertising the travel industry gives to the old fashioned press for those glossy Sunday supplements.
Everyone else should find a nice place close to where they are already, and take a few days there supporting the local economy.
The beer hounds heading to Majorca are likely to find most of what they went for closed when they arrive.
I'm going to visit friends in Holland the week after next, the Netherlands having lifted its (advisory) quarantine restriction on people coming from the UK. I live on my own and I'm working from home so I need to see something other than my own four walls for a bit. NL having started unlocking a couple of weeks before us, the situation is a bit more "mature" and it will be easier to travel about and do stuff.
There was a chap on the news earlier saying that he wasn't renewing the lease on his company's office and they would be going to a home working model. This was an outfit in the City of London.
There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.
Would it not create a hierarchy whereby NZs can go anywhere and Brazilians nowhere with the likes of us somewhere in between?
What passport someone holds is irrelevant. What’s important is have they been tested? We need to either test or quarantine everyone entering the country.
That makes sense but I don't think we have the motivation or capacity to pull off the necessary logistics.
We have the capacity. There are oodles of empty hotels. We housed the homeless virtually overnight after all. It only took the fear of them infecting us. What we don't have is the will to stop the wealthy and influential being inconvenienced slightly in their desire to gallivant about the world.
There was a chap on the news earlier saying that he wasn't renewing the lease on his company's office and they would be going to a home working model. This was an outfit in the City of London.
When the economy returns to normality he's going to find it very difficult to retain his staff under 40.
The failure to close our air borders will go down as a huge negative against both the scientific advice and the politicians who credulously accepted it.
Patrick Vallance was on Civil Service Live this week. he reckoned, with the benefit of hindsight, that completely closing the borders would have been effective, if done in *early February*. In fact he sort of indicated that SAGE had given that advice. However he also asked if it would have been seen as being in any way reasonable at the time.
How “sort of” is “sort of”
If it was that clear in the minutes surely someone would be beating the government with a stinky stick about it?
On the whole working from home issue we have heard a lot about what the government wants and what companies want and lots of anecdotes about colleagues both champing to get back and never wanting to go back to the office again.
Another slant to consider is one I and some colleagues were chatting about the other day. None of us wish to go back to the office. If the company wishes us to most seem of the opinion they will begrudgingly go back but will also start looking for another job that allows full time home working. They have had a taste and they like it.
What governments want and what companies want may be irrelevant if enough workers are thinking that way and home working might end up being a must offer thing to recruit good staff
There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.
Would it not create a hierarchy whereby NZs can go anywhere and Brazilians nowhere with the likes of us somewhere in between?
To resume the discussion of last night.
Brexit was a reaction to the previous decade not the 1980s.
It was the broken promises about immigration contrasted with the voices at the supermarket.
It was the bailout of the London bankers contrasted with the factories and steel works closing.
It was the throwing money at foreigners contrasted with the cuts in local areas.
I think it was more about identity than economics. But you are more likely to fret about identity when you're poor. Can we attribute the relative poverty of these places to the 1980s and Thatcher? No, not entirely. Other and more recent issues - including some of those you mention - are relevant too. Seeds sown in the 80s though.
I am anxiously waiting for the Irish Government to decide, next Monday, whether England is on their green list. If it is I won't have to do 14 days isolation when I go there in 10 days time (by car and ferry).
My car will be packed with provisions for 14 days and the house my wife built in Co Galway is isolated in 20 acres so I can cope and will be very busy with strimmers, mowers, chain saw etc. Currently I won't need to self isolate when I return in September.
The criterion the Irish government will use is the average daily cases per million compared with Ireland. Ireland currently has 6 cases per million, England has 10 and London has 5. The US certainly won't be on the Irish green list!
My uncle is going there today via NI. I don’t think there are restrictions on that border
There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.
Would it not create a hierarchy whereby NZs can go anywhere and Brazilians nowhere with the likes of us somewhere in between?
What passport someone holds is irrelevant. What’s important is have they been tested? We need to either test or quarantine everyone entering the country.
That makes sense but I don't think we have the motivation or capacity to pull off the necessary logistics.
It’s really easy to do it. At the airport or port of entry, people join one of three queues.
Queue 1 is for people who have been tested within the last two days, they show their certificate (from an approved testing station) and can continue into the country.
Queue 2 is for people who want an on-the-spot test. They are tested there and then, and are free to leave the airport once the result comes back. We can charge £100 for the tests, and have them back within a few hours. At major ports like Heathrow and Dover, can have the lab on site.
Queue 3 is for those who wish to quarantine. They can choose either an hotel at their own expense, or a barracks at the government’s expense. Those under quarantine can buy a test at any time if they need to leave, otherwise they spend 14 days in the facility.
The important thing is to stop non-essential travel, and make sure that everyone arriving gets either tested or quarantined. We can draft in the military to help, if we don’t have enough people.
I am anxiously waiting for the Irish Government to decide, next Monday, whether England is on their green list. If it is I won't have to do 14 days isolation when I go there in 10 days time (by car and ferry).
My car will be packed with provisions for 14 days and the house my wife built in Co Galway is isolated in 20 acres so I can cope and will be very busy with strimmers, mowers, chain saw etc. Currently I won't need to self isolate when I return in September.
The criterion the Irish government will use is the average daily cases per million compared with Ireland. Ireland currently has 6 cases per million, England has 10 and London has 5. The US certainly won't be on the Irish green list!
My uncle is going there today via NI. I don’t think there are restrictions on that border
On a warm summer Saturday, the Cotswold villages are absolutely heaving. The shopkeepers are doing the best inside, but out in the street it’s as if the virus doesn’t exist.
Living here must be a nightmare. It’s all yummy mummies and city types speeding about (insofar that you can) in open topped sports cars as it is. But beautiful villages and scenery; walking here during lockdown must have been a joy.
Probably due to the low level of infectuions. If you have 1 person infected who then gives it to someone else in a pub who infects his wife and two children, suddently R0 is 4.
Just a reminder of what’s actually happening in the world as a whole: It’s not too late to insist on forcing people to quarantine on your terms.
Some countries have a system whereby you go from the airport to a government quarantine centre (hotel) at your own expense, and can buy yourself out with a negative test. Other countries have a system whereby you have to get tested two days before you travel, and can’t get on the plane (at the origin) without the negative result.
Failure to impose either option now, makes a second wave pretty much inevitable in the U.K.
There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.
Would it not create a hierarchy whereby NZs can go anywhere and Brazilians nowhere with the likes of us somewhere in between?
What passport someone holds is irrelevant. What’s important is have they been tested? We need to either test or quarantine everyone entering the country.
But the principal theatre of transmission is likely the flight, and a test won’t show positive for days afterwards.
Completely bonkers, but entirely consistent with the arguments of those who go around accusing other people of cultural appropriation.
Good for her for finding joy in an element of another culture and going for it. Can you imagine if people followed appopriation arguments through to their conclusion, everyone stuck only enjoying or seeking to emulate things of their own upbringing? Ghastly. You'd have people thinking they have to like irish dancing if they were irish, for example. It's a truly weird concept. She at least seems to make a reasonable distinction about appreciatiating the heritage of something versus borrowing elements with acknowledgement.
Taken to its logical extreme, this idea of cultural appropriation would mean nobody could eat Chinese food unless they have Chinese ancestry. Which would be OK for me (Chinese grandmother) but would be an embuggerance for many on this board.
And it would also mean I couldn’t have an Indian, which would be rather a shame as I am rather partial to a good Indian. Admittedly, I like it with chips as well as rice which I know is heresy.
I am starting to think that the world has gone completely mad.
Well, if it means that non-Italians stop buggering about with our coffee, maybe it isn’t so bad .......
We’re not messing with the coffee.
Just gentle sprinkling some chocolate on the milk foam
I am anxiously waiting for the Irish Government to decide, next Monday, whether England is on their green list. If it is I won't have to do 14 days isolation when I go there in 10 days time (by car and ferry).
My car will be packed with provisions for 14 days and the house my wife built in Co Galway is isolated in 20 acres so I can cope and will be very busy with strimmers, mowers, chain saw etc. Currently I won't need to self isolate when I return in September.
The criterion the Irish government will use is the average daily cases per million compared with Ireland. Ireland currently has 6 cases per million, England has 10 and London has 5. The US certainly won't be on the Irish green list!
My uncle is going there today via NI. I don’t think there are restrictions on that border
There are no restrictions on that border, but the restricted travel advice/instruction applies to people travelling from Britain, even if they've travelled via NI (as I did in March).
So you don't have to fill in the passenger locator form, but it's a question of personal responsibility to follow the guidelines regardless.
I had vowed to keep off here after inadvertently pissing Charles off earlier, but this under reporting notion really is a crock!
The only figures worth looking at in terms of deaths from Covid are excess mortality rates against the 5 year average, and that goes for anywhere in the world. Even then, this doesn't tell the whole story but it tells a better one than anything else.
It's a basic error in one of the figures being used to track progress - all-settings deaths with COVID. At the beginning of the pandemic it would have made very little difference. However now there are many people who tested positive up to 4 months ago, and will be unnecessarily included in the figures. When the daily death rate is under a hundred, and individual days often well below this, this could be having a significant impact on the numbers and making the "tail" of the data look a lot longer than it really is. While hospital deaths have fallen off dramatically (I think England hospital deaths was 16 yesterday but that's from memory) all-settings UK deaths was 114. The error may or may not be significant at these levels of daily deaths, which probably depends on the demographics of people who have been tested.
Completely bonkers, but entirely consistent with the arguments of those who go around accusing other people of cultural appropriation.
Good for her for finding joy in an element of another culture and going for it. Can you imagine if people followed appopriation arguments through to their conclusion, everyone stuck only enjoying or seeking to emulate things of their own upbringing? Ghastly. You'd have people thinking they have to like irish dancing if they were irish, for example. It's a truly weird concept. She at least seems to make a reasonable distinction about appreciatiating the heritage of something versus borrowing elements with acknowledgement.
Taken to its logical extreme, this idea of cultural appropriation would mean nobody could eat Chinese food unless they have Chinese ancestry. Which would be OK for me (Chinese grandmother) but would be an embuggerance for many on this board.
And it would also mean I couldn’t have an Indian, which would be rather a shame as I am rather partial to a good Indian. Admittedly, I like it with chips as well as rice which I know is heresy.
I am starting to think that the world has gone completely mad.
As she says in the video, demonstrating a wisdom beyond her years, there is a difference between appreciation and appropriation. That difference is being respectful and interested.
Appropriation is more a matter of mocking or parodying the culture.
That's your interpretation, and she does seem wise about these issues, but let us not pretend that your interpretations is everyone's. The idiots who would get angry at, say, a white artist taking influence from First Nations styles, or wearing dreadlocks, or a non white person irish dancing, may not be representative, but they exist.
And they and the very idea of going down that route, which is itself pretty darn racist, should be criticised and mocked at every opportunity to make sure it does not become representative.
I agree they are completely in the wrong. However, the evidence of the last decade is certainly not supportive of a theory that constant mocking of incorrect ideas stops them being representative. Quite the reverse, people dig in and become more entrenched.
There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.
Would it not create a hierarchy whereby NZs can go anywhere and Brazilians nowhere with the likes of us somewhere in between?
What passport someone holds is irrelevant. What’s important is have they been tested? We need to either test or quarantine everyone entering the country.
That makes sense but I don't think we have the motivation or capacity to pull off the necessary logistics.
We have the capacity. There are oodles of empty hotels. We housed the homeless virtually overnight after all. It only took the fear of them infecting us. What we don't have is the will to stop the wealthy and influential being inconvenienced slightly in their desire to gallivant about the world.
Why should people give up travelling when half the country can't even be arsed to wear a mask for the common good? We're off to the west coast of France shortly and to be honest I suspect I'll be at far less risk than in our nearest city.
I had vowed to keep off here after inadvertently pissing Charles off earlier, but this under reporting notion really is a crock!
The only figures worth looking at in terms of deaths from Covid are excess mortality rates against the 5 year average, and that goes for anywhere in the world. Even then, this doesn't tell the whole story but it tells a better one than anything else.
But you are talking in absolute terms - and as a means of comparing what has happened so far. Part of the “fear” often comes not from the realistic assessment of level of risk, but a simple belief that we are *currently* doing worse than other comparable countries, leading to a perception that the Govt is being reckless and opening things up too soon and too fast.
In which case the PHE current methods of reporting deaths create a problem. And it’s not just the extreme examples of “deaths in car accidents”. It’s ANY deaths of any cause, which may have nothing to do with positive COVID tests weeks or months ago.
On the whole working from home issue we have heard a lot about what the government wants and what companies want and lots of anecdotes about colleagues both champing to get back and never wanting to go back to the office again.
Another slant to consider is one I and some colleagues were chatting about the other day. None of us wish to go back to the office. If the company wishes us to most seem of the opinion they will begrudgingly go back but will also start looking for another job that allows full time home working. They have had a taste and they like it.
What governments want and what companies want may be irrelevant if enough workers are thinking that way and home working might end up being a must offer thing to recruit good staff
I think the problem is going to be some people will want to work from home full time. Some will want to go back to the office full time. Some will want to mix and match.
But the company will likely end up having to look at it in a purely binary way i.e we have an office with capacity for X. If we only have X/2 in it at most, is it worth it at all now, or do we just shut X entirely?
Sure, some might downsize appropriately, but in most cases the office is either going to stay open for everyone to come back (half the folk who don't want to be damned), or the office is going to close (half the folk who don't want to WFH be damned).
Just a reminder of what’s actually happening in the world as a whole: It’s not too late to insist on forcing people to quarantine on your terms.
Some countries have a system whereby you go from the airport to a government quarantine centre (hotel) at your own expense, and can buy yourself out with a negative test. Other countries have a system whereby you have to get tested two days before you travel, and can’t get on the plane (at the origin) without the negative result.
Failure to impose either option now, makes a second wave pretty much inevitable in the U.K.
Option 2 sounds good
I think Iceland tests you at the border, and with a negative result you can do what you like. That could be a third option. Far, far better than brainless complete bans on people 99% of whom won't have a virus and who will spend €100/day on average while they're here, which our economy desperately needs.
The failure to close our air borders will go down as a huge negative against both the scientific advice and the politicians who credulously accepted it.
Patrick Vallance was on Civil Service Live this week. he reckoned, with the benefit of hindsight, that completely closing the borders would have been effective, if done in *early February*. In fact he sort of indicated that SAGE had given that advice. However he also asked if it would have been seen as being in any way reasonable at the time.
How “sort of” is “sort of”
If it was that clear in the minutes surely someone would be beating the government with a stinky stick about it?
It wasn't that clear and I might have misremembered it. It might have been more an "if we had". I might go and look for the transcript if it exists (Alex Chisholm's opening address does but I am not sure if they are doing that with all of them)
On the whole working from home issue we have heard a lot about what the government wants and what companies want and lots of anecdotes about colleagues both champing to get back and never wanting to go back to the office again.
Another slant to consider is one I and some colleagues were chatting about the other day. None of us wish to go back to the office. If the company wishes us to most seem of the opinion they will begrudgingly go back but will also start looking for another job that allows full time home working. They have had a taste and they like it.
What governments want and what companies want may be irrelevant if enough workers are thinking that way and home working might end up being a must offer thing to recruit good staff
The issue as I see it is rather different.
For a lot of people home working works fine - you save the commute time and costs and things continue as normal
For a lot of others it just isn't working because either their home location isn't suitable, they have children to look after or need training or (as is often the case) the communication links don't work correctly. In those cases working from home is a problem.
And I suspect most people aged 40+ are in the former camp and a lot of the latter group are younger.
There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.
Would it not create a hierarchy whereby NZs can go anywhere and Brazilians nowhere with the likes of us somewhere in between?
What passport someone holds is irrelevant. What’s important is have they been tested? We need to either test or quarantine everyone entering the country.
But the principal theatre of transmission is likely the flight, and a test won’t show positive for days afterwards.
Yes, that’s possible. If it becomes too much of an issue, then there might need to be a few days of mandatory quarantine for all arrivals.
Just a reminder of what’s actually happening in the world as a whole: It’s not too late to insist on forcing people to quarantine on your terms.
Some countries have a system whereby you go from the airport to a government quarantine centre (hotel) at your own expense, and can buy yourself out with a negative test. Other countries have a system whereby you have to get tested two days before you travel, and can’t get on the plane (at the origin) without the negative result.
Failure to impose either option now, makes a second wave pretty much inevitable in the U.K.
Option 2 sounds good
I think Iceland tests you at the border, and with a negative result you can do what you like. That could be a third option. Far, far better than brainless complete bans on people 99% of whom won't have a virus and who will spend €100/day on average while they're here, which our economy desperately needs.
I believe you can be infectious without it being obvious (not feeling ill) nor accurately tested. Which is why there is a 14 day isolation period, you could be infectious but not know it yet and the tests may not show it...
There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.
Would it not create a hierarchy whereby NZs can go anywhere and Brazilians nowhere with the likes of us somewhere in between?
To resume the discussion of last night.
Brexit was a reaction to the previous decade not the 1980s.
It was the broken promises about immigration contrasted with the voices at the supermarket.
It was the bailout of the London bankers contrasted with the factories and steel works closing.
It was the throwing money at foreigners contrasted with the cuts in local areas.
I think it was more about identity than economics. But you are more likely to fret about identity when you're poor. Can we attribute the relative poverty of these places to the 1980s and Thatcher? No, not entirely. Other and more recent issues - including some of those you mention - are relevant too. Seeds sown in the 80s though.
Your 1980s comfort zone is still an addiction - it was all the fault of Fatcha
Thatcher might not have been liked, might have been viewed as 'the enemy' even but she wasn't thought to have 'betrayed' such places.
Whereas in 2016 the feeling was that the establishment had lied to, and in Labour's case betrayed, them. And that the establishment did not only not like them but viewed them as 'the enemy'.
Just a reminder of what’s actually happening in the world as a whole: It’s not too late to insist on forcing people to quarantine on your terms.
Some countries have a system whereby you go from the airport to a government quarantine centre (hotel) at your own expense, and can buy yourself out with a negative test. Other countries have a system whereby you have to get tested two days before you travel, and can’t get on the plane (at the origin) without the negative result.
Failure to impose either option now, makes a second wave pretty much inevitable in the U.K.
I think South Asia a high risk travel area, partly because of the diaspora meaning close contact with family members, but also testing by people like this:
On the whole working from home issue we have heard a lot about what the government wants and what companies want and lots of anecdotes about colleagues both champing to get back and never wanting to go back to the office again.
Another slant to consider is one I and some colleagues were chatting about the other day. None of us wish to go back to the office. If the company wishes us to most seem of the opinion they will begrudgingly go back but will also start looking for another job that allows full time home working. They have had a taste and they like it.
What governments want and what companies want may be irrelevant if enough workers are thinking that way and home working might end up being a must offer thing to recruit good staff
The issue as I see it is rather different.
For a lot of people home working works fine - you save the commute time and costs and things continue as normal
For a lot of others it just isn't working because either their home location isn't suitable, they have children to look after or need training or (as is often the case) the communication links don't work correctly. In those cases working from home is a problem.
And I suspect most people aged 40+ are in the former camp and a lot of the latter group are younger.
I didn't claim everyone wanted to work from home in what I wrote. I was merely pointing out though that a lot do and if it's a sizeable percentage then companies that don't offer it are going to find that people who want to wfh full time will leave for companies that do allow them to.
Personally I haven't seen this after hours drink culture in any company I have worked with since the early 90's. Most firms have also discouraged a pint at lunch time even. I also don't know many that socialise with other members of staff out of office hours. The exception to these last two being middle managers and up.
Most of us peasant workers leave at 5.30 and go straight home because even then we wont be home till 7pm. I would expect the split to be about 65:35 in favour of home working purely because I suspect the big split will be not between young and old but between worker/manager
There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.
Would it not create a hierarchy whereby NZs can go anywhere and Brazilians nowhere with the likes of us somewhere in between?
What passport someone holds is irrelevant. What’s important is have they been tested? We need to either test or quarantine everyone entering the country.
That makes sense but I don't think we have the motivation or capacity to pull off the necessary logistics.
It’s really easy to do it. At the airport or port of entry, people join one of three queues.
Queue 1 is for people who have been tested within the last two days, they show their certificate (from an approved testing station) and can continue into the country.
Queue 2 is for people who want an on-the-spot test. They are tested there and then, and are free to leave the airport once the result comes back. We can charge £100 for the tests, and have them back within a few hours. At major ports like Heathrow and Dover, can have the lab on site.
Queue 3 is for those who wish to quarantine. They can choose either an hotel at their own expense, or a barracks at the government’s expense. Those under quarantine can buy a test at any time if they need to leave, otherwise they spend 14 days in the facility.
The important thing is to stop non-essential travel, and make sure that everyone arriving gets either tested or quarantined. We can draft in the military to help, if we don’t have enough people.
On the whole working from home issue we have heard a lot about what the government wants and what companies want and lots of anecdotes about colleagues both champing to get back and never wanting to go back to the office again.
Another slant to consider is one I and some colleagues were chatting about the other day. None of us wish to go back to the office. If the company wishes us to most seem of the opinion they will begrudgingly go back but will also start looking for another job that allows full time home working. They have had a taste and they like it.
What governments want and what companies want may be irrelevant if enough workers are thinking that way and home working might end up being a must offer thing to recruit good staff
The issue as I see it is rather different.
For a lot of people home working works fine - you save the commute time and costs and things continue as normal
For a lot of others it just isn't working because either their home location isn't suitable, they have children to look after or need training or (as is often the case) the communication links don't work correctly. In those cases working from home is a problem.
And I suspect most people aged 40+ are in the former camp and a lot of the latter group are younger.
Though how many of those problems are intrinsic to WFH, and how many are because we were all thrown into it in a mad rush in March with barely time to get a final haircut?
For example, the childcare situation should become a lot easier as schools and nurseries reopen. If you're committing to WFH, proper desks and chairs are a sensible investment, as is a faster internet connection at home. If you don't have to travel into work every day, maybe a flat share in Clapham is less optimal as a place to live?
There are other problems which will take longer to fix; what does apprenticeship look like without an office? But again, that feels more like a problem to be solved than a reason not to try.
Right not, London's CBD and commuterland look a bit like a peacock's tail. You can understand how it evolved that way, and it looks fantastic, but it's a bit of a dead end. Anyway, the genie is out of the bottle; companies will need a really good justification to spend so much on offices, and staff will need a really good justification to spend so much money and time on commuting. Might as well try to make this work.
There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.
Would it not create a hierarchy whereby NZs can go anywhere and Brazilians nowhere with the likes of us somewhere in between?
What passport someone holds is irrelevant. What’s important is have they been tested? We need to either test or quarantine everyone entering the country.
That makes sense but I don't think we have the motivation or capacity to pull off the necessary logistics.
It’s really easy to do it. At the airport or port of entry, people join one of three queues.
Queue 1 is for people who have been tested within the last two days, they show their certificate (from an approved testing station) and can continue into the country.
Queue 2 is for people who want an on-the-spot test. They are tested there and then, and are free to leave the airport once the result comes back. We can charge £100 for the tests, and have them back within a few hours. At major ports like Heathrow and Dover, can have the lab on site.
Queue 3 is for those who wish to quarantine. They can choose either an hotel at their own expense, or a barracks at the government’s expense. Those under quarantine can buy a test at any time if they need to leave, otherwise they spend 14 days in the facility.
The important thing is to stop non-essential travel, and make sure that everyone arriving gets either tested or quarantined. We can draft in the military to help, if we don’t have enough people.
Logical but that does not sound easy to me.
Also it will not pick up people who got infected the day before or on the plane, as it takes a few days for the virus to show up in test sample.
There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.
Would it not create a hierarchy whereby NZs can go anywhere and Brazilians nowhere with the likes of us somewhere in between?
What passport someone holds is irrelevant. What’s important is have they been tested? We need to either test or quarantine everyone entering the country.
That makes sense but I don't think we have the motivation or capacity to pull off the necessary logistics.
We have the capacity. There are oodles of empty hotels. We housed the homeless virtually overnight after all. It only took the fear of them infecting us. What we don't have is the will to stop the wealthy and influential being inconvenienced slightly in their desire to gallivant about the world.
Why should people give up travelling when half the country can't even be arsed to wear a mask for the common good? We're off to the west coast of France shortly and to be honest I suspect I'll be at far less risk than in our nearest city.
Because our wonderful government told us repeatedly that face masks were not helpful. And now the policy imperative is different, we have to go back to work and to spend money - and so the use of masks is a absolute imperative. But only from Friday onwards. Masks are not helpful until then. What a difference a day makes!
I agree with Mr Herdson, with the qualification that I would go full-fat New Zealand and aim for eradication.
I think our position as an international junction box, both for travel and movement-of-population, compared to New Zealand's middle-of-the-back-of-beyond, makes that difficult.
But I think David is talking sense on the general principle.
Excellent article, David, but I suspect the reason such action would never be taken is that it would incur the wrath of the US Government and we are just not in a position to cope with that, regardless of the ehalth consequences.
I am anxiously waiting for the Irish Government to decide, next Monday, whether England is on their green list. If it is I won't have to do 14 days isolation when I go there in 10 days time (by car and ferry).
My car will be packed with provisions for 14 days and the house my wife built in Co Galway is isolated in 20 acres so I can cope and will be very busy with strimmers, mowers, chain saw etc. Currently I won't need to self isolate when I return in September.
The criterion the Irish government will use is the average daily cases per million compared with Ireland. Ireland currently has 6 cases per million, England has 10 and London has 5. The US certainly won't be on the Irish green list!
My uncle is going there today via NI. I don’t think there are restrictions on that border
There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.
Would it not create a hierarchy whereby NZs can go anywhere and Brazilians nowhere with the likes of us somewhere in between?
What passport someone holds is irrelevant. What’s important is have they been tested? We need to either test or quarantine everyone entering the country.
But the principal theatre of transmission is likely the flight, and a test won’t show positive for days afterwards.
Is there evidence that flights are a major source of transmission or is this an urban myth?
On the whole working from home issue we have heard a lot about what the government wants and what companies want and lots of anecdotes about colleagues both champing to get back and never wanting to go back to the office again.
Another slant to consider is one I and some colleagues were chatting about the other day. None of us wish to go back to the office. If the company wishes us to most seem of the opinion they will begrudgingly go back but will also start looking for another job that allows full time home working. They have had a taste and they like it.
What governments want and what companies want may be irrelevant if enough workers are thinking that way and home working might end up being a must offer thing to recruit good staff
The issue as I see it is rather different.
For a lot of people home working works fine - you save the commute time and costs and things continue as normal
For a lot of others it just isn't working because either their home location isn't suitable, they have children to look after or need training or (as is often the case) the communication links don't work correctly. In those cases working from home is a problem.
And I suspect most people aged 40+ are in the former camp and a lot of the latter group are younger.
I didn't claim everyone wanted to work from home in what I wrote. I was merely pointing out though that a lot do and if it's a sizeable percentage then companies that don't offer it are going to find that people who want to wfh full time will leave for companies that do allow them to.
Personally I haven't seen this after hours drink culture in any company I have worked with since the early 90's. Most firms have also discouraged a pint at lunch time even. I also don't know many that socialise with other members of staff out of office hours. The exception to these last two being middle managers and up.
Most of us peasant workers leave at 5.30 and go straight home because even then we wont be home till 7pm. I would expect the split to be about 65:35 in favour of home working purely because I suspect the big split will be not between young and old but between worker/manager
The increasing commute times have cut into the after work drinks culture.
Which is why many younger people paid through the nose (for a shoebox) to be be at least on the Night Bus routes in London. When you are 20 something, its out of work and straight out on town....
Lunchtime drinking has been a near sackable offence for years, in most places.
In most places I have worked there is a on going social culture, at least within teams.
I've only just come into this thread, so apologies if this has already been discussed.
With scheme proposed in the main article, the assumption is that the traveller has been in the same country for the last 3 weeks or more, which is the same as the point of origin.
How do you know that some one flying from Portugal has not just had a 48 hour stopover on the way from Brazil? How do you deal with someone who flew from Toronto, but lives in the USA? How do you deal with someone who flew from Toronto, lives in Toronto but spent the last week in the USA? How do you deal with someone who flew from Toronto, lives in Toronto but spent time in the USA two weeks ago? Etc.
Even if there were clear rulings on this it would be difficult to police. You can't use nationality, and it can be difficult to insist that that a Canadian living in Michigan must declare his Michigan residency, when he has flown from a Canadian airport and shown a Canadian passport.
There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.
Would it not create a hierarchy whereby NZs can go anywhere and Brazilians nowhere with the likes of us somewhere in between?
What passport someone holds is irrelevant. What’s important is have they been tested? We need to either test or quarantine everyone entering the country.
But the principal theatre of transmission is likely the flight, and a test won’t show positive for days afterwards.
Is there evidence that flights are a major source of transmission or is this an urban myth?
During the last 24 hours, Catalonia has added 1,226 new positives, of which 133 correspond to the Segrià region, 349 to the city of Barcelona and 894 to the entire metropolitan area, 73% of the total. According to data released by the Health Department, the total number of positive cases -CRP and antibodies- accumulated since the start of the pandemic in Catalonia amounts to 81,932. The number of positives, which includes PCR and antibody tests of people who have already passed the disease, grows because infections are increasing in many areas with community transmission and because more tests are being detected that detect many asymptomatic patients, since they always do PCR at patients with symptoms. Also, many companies have started testing their workers, bringing out people who are positive but have no symptoms.
There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.
Would it not create a hierarchy whereby NZs can go anywhere and Brazilians nowhere with the likes of us somewhere in between?
What passport someone holds is irrelevant. What’s important is have they been tested? We need to either test or quarantine everyone entering the country.
But the principal theatre of transmission is likely the flight, and a test won’t show positive for days afterwards.
Is there evidence that flights are a major source of transmission or is this an urban myth?
I had vowed to keep off here after inadvertently pissing Charles off earlier, but this under reporting notion really is a crock!
The only figures worth looking at in terms of deaths from Covid are excess mortality rates against the 5 year average, and that goes for anywhere in the world. Even then, this doesn't tell the whole story but it tells a better one than anything else.
It's a basic error in one of the figures being used to track progress - all-settings deaths with COVID. At the beginning of the pandemic it would have made very little difference. However now there are many people who tested positive up to 4 months ago, and will be unnecessarily included in the figures. When the daily death rate is under a hundred, and individual days often well below this, this could be having a significant impact on the numbers and making the "tail" of the data look a lot longer than it really is. While hospital deaths have fallen off dramatically (I think England hospital deaths was 16 yesterday but that's from memory) all-settings UK deaths was 114. The error may or may not be significant at these levels of daily deaths, which probably depends on the demographics of people who have been tested.
The England hospital deaths was, indeed, 16 yesterday.
The following is the data for yesterday for England deaths in all settings. The orange shows when the reported 114 deaths actually occured.
I had vowed to keep off here after inadvertently pissing Charles off earlier, but this under reporting notion really is a crock!
The only figures worth looking at in terms of deaths from Covid are excess mortality rates against the 5 year average, and that goes for anywhere in the world. Even then, this doesn't tell the whole story but it tells a better one than anything else.
It's a basic error in one of the figures being used to track progress - all-settings deaths with COVID. At the beginning of the pandemic it would have made very little difference. However now there are many people who tested positive up to 4 months ago, and will be unnecessarily included in the figures. When the daily death rate is under a hundred, and individual days often well below this, this could be having a significant impact on the numbers and making the "tail" of the data look a lot longer than it really is. While hospital deaths have fallen off dramatically (I think England hospital deaths was 16 yesterday but that's from memory) all-settings UK deaths was 114. The error may or may not be significant at these levels of daily deaths, which probably depends on the demographics of people who have been tested.
The England hospital deaths was, indeed, 16 yesterday.
The following is the data for yesterday for England deaths in all settings. The orange shows when the reported 114 deaths actually occured.
I really can't see what excuse there is to have deaths with Covid going back a month just coming to light. Give it a seven day cut-off.
There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.
Would it not create a hierarchy whereby NZs can go anywhere and Brazilians nowhere with the likes of us somewhere in between?
What passport someone holds is irrelevant. What’s important is have they been tested? We need to either test or quarantine everyone entering the country.
But the principal theatre of transmission is likely the flight, and a test won’t show positive for days afterwards.
Is there evidence that flights are a major source of transmission or is this an urban myth?
On the whole working from home issue we have heard a lot about what the government wants and what companies want and lots of anecdotes about colleagues both champing to get back and never wanting to go back to the office again.
Another slant to consider is one I and some colleagues were chatting about the other day. None of us wish to go back to the office. If the company wishes us to most seem of the opinion they will begrudgingly go back but will also start looking for another job that allows full time home working. They have had a taste and they like it.
What governments want and what companies want may be irrelevant if enough workers are thinking that way and home working might end up being a must offer thing to recruit good staff
The issue as I see it is rather different.
For a lot of people home working works fine - you save the commute time and costs and things continue as normal
For a lot of others it just isn't working because either their home location isn't suitable, they have children to look after or need training or (as is often the case) the communication links don't work correctly. In those cases working from home is a problem.
And I suspect most people aged 40+ are in the former camp and a lot of the latter group are younger.
I didn't claim everyone wanted to work from home in what I wrote. I was merely pointing out though that a lot do and if it's a sizeable percentage then companies that don't offer it are going to find that people who want to wfh full time will leave for companies that do allow them to.
Personally I haven't seen this after hours drink culture in any company I have worked with since the early 90's. Most firms have also discouraged a pint at lunch time even. I also don't know many that socialise with other members of staff out of office hours. The exception to these last two being middle managers and up.
Most of us peasant workers leave at 5.30 and go straight home because even then we wont be home till 7pm. I would expect the split to be about 65:35 in favour of home working purely because I suspect the big split will be not between young and old but between worker/manager
The increasing commute times have cut into the after work drinks culture.
Which is why many younger people paid through the nose (for a shoebox) to be be at least on the Night Bus routes in London. When you are 20 something, its out of work and straight out on town....
Lunchtime drinking has been a near sackable offence for years, in most places.
In most places I have worked there is a on going social culture, at least within teams.
When you were 20 it might have been straight out of work and out on the town. Attitudes in the young have shifted significantly about pubbing it. My son mid 20's hardly ever goes to the pub nor do most of the people he knows. Now they go play badminton/gym/martial arts etc. Same as university was in my day looked at as a 4 year party by most whereas now not so much.
As to the london shoe box I suspect that is more down to they had to goto London for a job and it was actually cheaper to share rent on a london shoe box that live somewhere with affordable rent and fork out the eye watering cost of commuting.
Now only 30% of the population goes to pubs, I supect it the 90's it was more like 60 to 70%
There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.
Would it not create a hierarchy whereby NZs can go anywhere and Brazilians nowhere with the likes of us somewhere in between?
If a Kiwi went abroad then how would (s)he get back with that rule in place? edit - I see LostPassword gave the answer earlier.
Just booked a break on Anglesey 1.9.20 to 4.9.20 - £108 bargain
Hope their not banning those from Nations with high Covid 19 Mortality
I spent nearly 4 years at RAF Valley and loved it. I wrote off 2 Golf GTIs and an RAF Mini van in that time.
I'm sure the locals were delighted when you relocated!
Chough-ed, even. (RSPB South Stack the best place to see Chough. Smart member of the Corvid family, long thing orange bill, tumbling display flights around the cliffs.)
There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.
Would it not create a hierarchy whereby NZs can go anywhere and Brazilians nowhere with the likes of us somewhere in between?
What passport someone holds is irrelevant. What’s important is have they been tested? We need to either test or quarantine everyone entering the country.
But the principal theatre of transmission is likely the flight, and a test won’t show positive for days afterwards.
Is there evidence that flights are a major source of transmission or is this an urban myth?
I had vowed to keep off here after inadvertently pissing Charles off earlier, but this under reporting notion really is a crock!
The only figures worth looking at in terms of deaths from Covid are excess mortality rates against the 5 year average, and that goes for anywhere in the world. Even then, this doesn't tell the whole story but it tells a better one than anything else.
It's a basic error in one of the figures being used to track progress - all-settings deaths with COVID. At the beginning of the pandemic it would have made very little difference. However now there are many people who tested positive up to 4 months ago, and will be unnecessarily included in the figures. When the daily death rate is under a hundred, and individual days often well below this, this could be having a significant impact on the numbers and making the "tail" of the data look a lot longer than it really is. While hospital deaths have fallen off dramatically (I think England hospital deaths was 16 yesterday but that's from memory) all-settings UK deaths was 114. The error may or may not be significant at these levels of daily deaths, which probably depends on the demographics of people who have been tested.
The England hospital deaths was, indeed, 16 yesterday.
The following is the data for yesterday for England deaths in all settings. The orange shows when the reported 114 deaths actually occured.
I really can't see what excuse there is to have deaths with Covid going back a month just coming to light. Give it a seven day cut-off.
It's the date of death on the x-axis. So there was just a delay in them being reported.
On the whole working from home issue we have heard a lot about what the government wants and what companies want and lots of anecdotes about colleagues both champing to get back and never wanting to go back to the office again.
Another slant to consider is one I and some colleagues were chatting about the other day. None of us wish to go back to the office. If the company wishes us to most seem of the opinion they will begrudgingly go back but will also start looking for another job that allows full time home working. They have had a taste and they like it.
What governments want and what companies want may be irrelevant if enough workers are thinking that way and home working might end up being a must offer thing to recruit good staff
The issue as I see it is rather different.
For a lot of people home working works fine - you save the commute time and costs and things continue as normal
For a lot of others it just isn't working because either their home location isn't suitable, they have children to look after or need training or (as is often the case) the communication links don't work correctly. In those cases working from home is a problem.
And I suspect most people aged 40+ are in the former camp and a lot of the latter group are younger.
Though how many of those problems are intrinsic to WFH, and how many are because we were all thrown into it in a mad rush in March with barely time to get a final haircut?
For example, the childcare situation should become a lot easier as schools and nurseries reopen. If you're committing to WFH, proper desks and chairs are a sensible investment, as is a faster internet connection at home. If you don't have to travel into work every day, maybe a flat share in Clapham is less optimal as a place to live?
There are other problems which will take longer to fix; what does apprenticeship look like without an office? But again, that feels more like a problem to be solved than a reason not to try.
Right not, London's CBD and commuterland look a bit like a peacock's tail. You can understand how it evolved that way, and it looks fantastic, but it's a bit of a dead end. Anyway, the genie is out of the bottle; companies will need a really good justification to spend so much on offices, and staff will need a really good justification to spend so much money and time on commuting. Might as well try to make this work.
It has been noticeable that many organisations have cited the COVID pandemic as a justification for reducing the services that they provide, including for customers with existing contracts. This includes public organisations like local councils, and private enterprises such as banks. Assuming that there is a vaccine by next year, and the epidemic is eliminated in the UK, service levels will be expected to go back to normal.
Can normal service levels be provided if most staff are working from home? I suspect not, in many cases. But certainly, even after a vaccine has become available it will take a long time for things to go back to normal.
I had vowed to keep off here after inadvertently pissing Charles off earlier, but this under reporting notion really is a crock!
The only figures worth looking at in terms of deaths from Covid are excess mortality rates against the 5 year average, and that goes for anywhere in the world. Even then, this doesn't tell the whole story but it tells a better one than anything else.
It's a basic error in one of the figures being used to track progress - all-settings deaths with COVID. At the beginning of the pandemic it would have made very little difference. However now there are many people who tested positive up to 4 months ago, and will be unnecessarily included in the figures. When the daily death rate is under a hundred, and individual days often well below this, this could be having a significant impact on the numbers and making the "tail" of the data look a lot longer than it really is. While hospital deaths have fallen off dramatically (I think England hospital deaths was 16 yesterday but that's from memory) all-settings UK deaths was 114. The error may or may not be significant at these levels of daily deaths, which probably depends on the demographics of people who have been tested.
The England hospital deaths was, indeed, 16 yesterday.
The following is the data for yesterday for England deaths in all settings. The orange shows when the reported 114 deaths actually occured.
I really can't see what excuse there is to have deaths with Covid going back a month just coming to light. Give it a seven day cut-off.
It's the date of death on the x-axis. So there was just a delay in them being reported.
But why is there month delay in reporting? Get them in within the week if they are to be included in the Covid stats. Government is having to take action based on getting confidence back. It has had to take an unprecedented number of 51:49 decisions. Having people think we've still got triple figure daily deaths will hammer that confidence.
There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.
Would it not create a hierarchy whereby NZs can go anywhere and Brazilians nowhere with the likes of us somewhere in between?
To resume the discussion of last night.
Brexit was a reaction to the previous decade not the 1980s.
It was the broken promises about immigration contrasted with the voices at the supermarket.
It was the bailout of the London bankers contrasted with the factories and steel works closing.
It was the throwing money at foreigners contrasted with the cuts in local areas.
I think it was more about identity than economics. But you are more likely to fret about identity when you're poor. Can we attribute the relative poverty of these places to the 1980s and Thatcher? No, not entirely. Other and more recent issues - including some of those you mention - are relevant too. Seeds sown in the 80s though.
Your 1980s comfort zone is still an addiction - it was all the fault of Fatcha
Thatcher might not have been liked, might have been viewed as 'the enemy' even but she wasn't thought to have 'betrayed' such places.
Whereas in 2016 the feeling was that the establishment had lied to, and in Labour's case betrayed, them. And that the establishment did not only not like them but viewed them as 'the enemy'.
I'm not saying Thatcher caused Brexit. I'm opining 3 things -
Brexit is about identity not economics.
But identity concerns come to the fore when you are getting a raw deal.
The seeds of today's relative poverty of post industrial regions were sewn under Thatcher.
Dem veep slot -- Kamala Harris drifting again; Rice in a bit.
That discussion seems to have been going on longer than the primaries did.
Announcement expected in August so at some point between now and then, a decision will be made and might leak, in which case there could be a very dramatic price crash. Until then, the market is probably mostly noise. The continued slow drift of Kamala Harris from odds-on out to 6/4 over the past few weeks is noteworthy but not necessarily informed.
On the whole working from home issue we have heard a lot about what the government wants and what companies want and lots of anecdotes about colleagues both champing to get back and never wanting to go back to the office again.
Another slant to consider is one I and some colleagues were chatting about the other day. None of us wish to go back to the office. If the company wishes us to most seem of the opinion they will begrudgingly go back but will also start looking for another job that allows full time home working. They have had a taste and they like it.
What governments want and what companies want may be irrelevant if enough workers are thinking that way and home working might end up being a must offer thing to recruit good staff
The issue as I see it is rather different.
For a lot of people home working works fine - you save the commute time and costs and things continue as normal
For a lot of others it just isn't working because either their home location isn't suitable, they have children to look after or need training or (as is often the case) the communication links don't work correctly. In those cases working from home is a problem.
And I suspect most people aged 40+ are in the former camp and a lot of the latter group are younger.
I didn't claim everyone wanted to work from home in what I wrote. I was merely pointing out though that a lot do and if it's a sizeable percentage then companies that don't offer it are going to find that people who want to wfh full time will leave for companies that do allow them to.
Personally I haven't seen this after hours drink culture in any company I have worked with since the early 90's. Most firms have also discouraged a pint at lunch time even. I also don't know many that socialise with other members of staff out of office hours. The exception to these last two being middle managers and up.
Most of us peasant workers leave at 5.30 and go straight home because even then we wont be home till 7pm. I would expect the split to be about 65:35 in favour of home working purely because I suspect the big split will be not between young and old but between worker/manager
The increasing commute times have cut into the after work drinks culture.
Which is why many younger people paid through the nose (for a shoebox) to be be at least on the Night Bus routes in London. When you are 20 something, its out of work and straight out on town....
Lunchtime drinking has been a near sackable offence for years, in most places.
In most places I have worked there is a on going social culture, at least within teams.
When you were 20 it might have been straight out of work and out on the town. Attitudes in the young have shifted significantly about pubbing it. My son mid 20's hardly ever goes to the pub nor do most of the people he knows. Now they go play badminton/gym/martial arts etc. Same as university was in my day looked at as a 4 year party by most whereas now not so much.
As to the london shoe box I suspect that is more down to they had to goto London for a job and it was actually cheaper to share rent on a london shoe box that live somewhere with affordable rent and fork out the eye watering cost of commuting.
Now only 30% of the population goes to pubs, I supect it the 90's it was more like 60 to 70%
Fox jr goes out for post work drinks perhaps once per fortnight, similar to myself. It is not just moving with the times, it is the changing nature of the workforce. Asian colleagues, including Hindus and Sikhs rarely want to come, though there are exceptions. The feminisation of the medical workforce makes a difference too. The blokish pub crowd is diminishing, and can be quite exclusionary. We tend to favour more inclusive social events as a result, such as meals out, and in hours coffee and cakes etc.
I had vowed to keep off here after inadvertently pissing Charles off earlier, but this under reporting notion really is a crock!
The only figures worth looking at in terms of deaths from Covid are excess mortality rates against the 5 year average, and that goes for anywhere in the world. Even then, this doesn't tell the whole story but it tells a better one than anything else.
It's a basic error in one of the figures being used to track progress - all-settings deaths with COVID. At the beginning of the pandemic it would have made very little difference. However now there are many people who tested positive up to 4 months ago, and will be unnecessarily included in the figures. When the daily death rate is under a hundred, and individual days often well below this, this could be having a significant impact on the numbers and making the "tail" of the data look a lot longer than it really is. While hospital deaths have fallen off dramatically (I think England hospital deaths was 16 yesterday but that's from memory) all-settings UK deaths was 114. The error may or may not be significant at these levels of daily deaths, which probably depends on the demographics of people who have been tested.
The England hospital deaths was, indeed, 16 yesterday.
The following is the data for yesterday for England deaths in all settings. The orange shows when the reported 114 deaths actually occured.
I really can't see what excuse there is to have deaths with Covid going back a month just coming to light. Give it a seven day cut-off.
It's the date of death on the x-axis. So there was just a delay in them being reported.
But why is there month delay in reporting? Get them in within the week if they are to be included in the Covid stats. Government is having to take action based on getting confidence back. It has had to take an unprecedented number of 51:49 decisions. Having people think we've still got triple figure daily deaths will hammer that confidence.
I don't know, but I don't think this is not the same as the issue discussed earlier where someone diagnosed ten weeks ago will still be categorised as a covid-19 death. This is just a delay in getting the death certificate into the system.
There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.
Would it not create a hierarchy whereby NZs can go anywhere and Brazilians nowhere with the likes of us somewhere in between?
To resume the discussion of last night.
Brexit was a reaction to the previous decade not the 1980s.
It was the broken promises about immigration contrasted with the voices at the supermarket.
It was the bailout of the London bankers contrasted with the factories and steel works closing.
It was the throwing money at foreigners contrasted with the cuts in local areas.
I think it was more about identity than economics. But you are more likely to fret about identity when you're poor. Can we attribute the relative poverty of these places to the 1980s and Thatcher? No, not entirely. Other and more recent issues - including some of those you mention - are relevant too. Seeds sown in the 80s though.
Your 1980s comfort zone is still an addiction - it was all the fault of Fatcha
Thatcher might not have been liked, might have been viewed as 'the enemy' even but she wasn't thought to have 'betrayed' such places.
Whereas in 2016 the feeling was that the establishment had lied to, and in Labour's case betrayed, them. And that the establishment did not only not like them but viewed them as 'the enemy'.
I'm not saying Thatcher caused Brexit. I'm opining 3 things -
Brexit is about identity not economics.
But identity concerns come to the fore when you are getting a raw deal.
The seeds of today's relative poverty of post industrial regions were sewn under Thatcher.
I would argue that the seeds of today's relative poverty of post-industrial regions were sown when those industries either exhausted their natural resources or ceased to be globally competitive - both of which pre-dated Thatcher. You can blame her for lack of appropriate policies to address that issue, but then you'd have to attach the same blame to every government ever since too, including Labour.
There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.
Would it not create a hierarchy whereby NZs can go anywhere and Brazilians nowhere with the likes of us somewhere in between?
What passport someone holds is irrelevant. What’s important is have they been tested? We need to either test or quarantine everyone entering the country.
But the principal theatre of transmission is likely the flight, and a test won’t show positive for days afterwards.
Is there evidence that flights are a major source of transmission or is this an urban myth?
I have seen no data of any case of transmission on a flight. The same was true for Ebola.
I think two things might be at play in this - the number of air changes per hour through HEPA filters, and the dryness of the air.
I thought I had read of a flight out of Dubai to the Far East that resulted in 8 Covid cases?
I suspect all 8 cases could have been caught queuing to get on to the plane just as much as while being on the plane..
Reluctance to want to get back on a plane is down to the whole airport experience... Where you can rub shoulders with people from the US, Russia, Brazil, South Africa....
There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.
Would it not create a hierarchy whereby NZs can go anywhere and Brazilians nowhere with the likes of us somewhere in between?
To resume the discussion of last night.
Brexit was a reaction to the previous decade not the 1980s.
It was the broken promises about immigration contrasted with the voices at the supermarket.
It was the bailout of the London bankers contrasted with the factories and steel works closing.
It was the throwing money at foreigners contrasted with the cuts in local areas.
I think it was more about identity than economics. But you are more likely to fret about identity when you're poor. Can we attribute the relative poverty of these places to the 1980s and Thatcher? No, not entirely. Other and more recent issues - including some of those you mention - are relevant too. Seeds sown in the 80s though.
Your 1980s comfort zone is still an addiction - it was all the fault of Fatcha
Thatcher might not have been liked, might have been viewed as 'the enemy' even but she wasn't thought to have 'betrayed' such places.
Whereas in 2016 the feeling was that the establishment had lied to, and in Labour's case betrayed, them. And that the establishment did not only not like them but viewed them as 'the enemy'.
I'm not saying Thatcher caused Brexit. I'm opining 3 things -
Brexit is about identity not economics.
But identity concerns come to the fore when you are getting a raw deal.
The seeds of today's relative poverty of post industrial regions were sewn under Thatcher.
I disagree on the third.
It was Labour bailing out the London bankers while letting factories and steelworks shut down where the mood changed.
That was the great betrayal.
Now that didn't bear full fruit until 2016 and 2019 but even in 2010 and 2015 it was working class votes which made Cameron PM.
On the whole working from home issue we have heard a lot about what the government wants and what companies want and lots of anecdotes about colleagues both champing to get back and never wanting to go back to the office again.
Another slant to consider is one I and some colleagues were chatting about the other day. None of us wish to go back to the office. If the company wishes us to most seem of the opinion they will begrudgingly go back but will also start looking for another job that allows full time home working. They have had a taste and they like it.
What governments want and what companies want may be irrelevant if enough workers are thinking that way and home working might end up being a must offer thing to recruit good staff
The issue as I see it is rather different.
For a lot of people home working works fine - you save the commute time and costs and things continue as normal
For a lot of others it just isn't working because either their home location isn't suitable, they have children to look after or need training or (as is often the case) the communication links don't work correctly. In those cases working from home is a problem.
And I suspect most people aged 40+ are in the former camp and a lot of the latter group are younger.
I didn't claim everyone wanted to work from home in what I wrote. I was merely pointing out though that a lot do and if it's a sizeable percentage then companies that don't offer it are going to find that people who want to wfh full time will leave for companies that do allow them to.
Personally I haven't seen this after hours drink culture in any company I have worked with since the early 90's. Most firms have also discouraged a pint at lunch time even. I also don't know many that socialise with other members of staff out of office hours. The exception to these last two being middle managers and up.
Most of us peasant workers leave at 5.30 and go straight home because even then we wont be home till 7pm. I would expect the split to be about 65:35 in favour of home working purely because I suspect the big split will be not between young and old but between worker/manager
The increasing commute times have cut into the after work drinks culture.
Which is why many younger people paid through the nose (for a shoebox) to be be at least on the Night Bus routes in London. When you are 20 something, its out of work and straight out on town....
Lunchtime drinking has been a near sackable offence for years, in most places.
In most places I have worked there is a on going social culture, at least within teams.
When you were 20 it might have been straight out of work and out on the town. Attitudes in the young have shifted significantly about pubbing it. My son mid 20's hardly ever goes to the pub nor do most of the people he knows. Now they go play badminton/gym/martial arts etc. Same as university was in my day looked at as a 4 year party by most whereas now not so much.
As to the london shoe box I suspect that is more down to they had to goto London for a job and it was actually cheaper to share rent on a london shoe box that live somewhere with affordable rent and fork out the eye watering cost of commuting.
Now only 30% of the population goes to pubs, I supect it the 90's it was more like 60 to 70%
Fox jr goes out for post work drinks perhaps once per fortnight, similar to myself. It is not just moving with the times, it is the changing nature of the workforce. Asian colleagues, including Hindus and Sikhs rarely want to come, though there are exceptions. The feminisation of the medical workforce makes a difference too. The blokish pub crowd is diminishing, and can be quite exclusionary. We tend to favour more inclusive social events as a result, such as meals out, and in hours coffee and cakes etc.
Which confims the point I was making. The finish work and down the pub culture is fast going the way of the Dodo. My work place has regular meals out every 3 months or so....out of our team of 6 at least 3 have never attended a single one. Two of the team don't even attend the company christmas do. This seems par for the course across all teams that were in the office.
As an aside I think the socialising at work thing is dying for one very good reason. It is common wisdom amongst peasant workers in firms that the best way of getting a payrise or promotion is to move firm. A lot now consider 2 to 3 years to be the correct time to stay in a job therefore before moving on for more money and a higher position. If you are only going to be there for 2 or 3 years it is hardly worth getting to know co workers that well
Comments
(Or have I been reading too much Jilly Cooper / DH Lawrence?)
Satirist John Farnham, on being told this, replied drily ‘I notice his poor horse doesn’t get a mention.’
The only figures worth looking at in terms of deaths from Covid are excess mortality rates against the 5 year average, and that goes for anywhere in
the world. Even then, this doesn't tell the whole story but it tells a better one than anything else.
In the future, we are at most risk from the sort of pillocks who play beer-pong on skiing trips. Personally, I'd treat them on a par with ISIS - and take away their passports....
Brexit was a reaction to the previous decade not the 1980s.
It was the broken promises about immigration contrasted with the voices at the supermarket.
It was the bailout of the London bankers contrasted with the factories and steel works closing.
It was the throwing money at foreigners contrasted with the cuts in local areas.
There is nothing normal about a global pandemic which is still increasing in its prevalence.
Pretending it isn't is wishful thinking.
Diagnosticados últimas 24 horas: 20 Diagnosticados últimos 7 días: 156 Diagnosticados últimos 14 días: 273 Incidencia Acumulada (IA): 5,46 Número reproductivo básico (Rt): 2,4
Fallecidos:1.432
Fallecidos últimos 7 días: 0
Recuperados:18-05-20209.970
Hospitalizados: 5.850 Hospitalizados últimos 7 días: 14 UCI: 746 UCI últimos 7 días: 2
PCR totales: 35.512
PCR/1000 hab: 33,4 Incremento capacidad PCR última semana: 10%
Everyone else should find a nice place close to where they are already, and take a few days there supporting the local economy.
The beer hounds heading to Majorca are likely to find most of what they went for closed when they arrive.
Very few people want to go back. WFH is great and efficient, where clients want F2F they can travel to their homes, and where WFH is not possible they are renting small serviced offices.
Have a great holiday
Perhaps that’s where he’s getting the confused messages about sex from...
I'd close flights from all of South Asia, China, most of SE Asia, the US, Mexico and all of South America. No transit passengers either without 14 days quarantine in a safe country and a negative test result. Fuck whatever Trump's reaction will be, we've sacrificed a lot in this country to get where we are with the virus situation, we can't have it undone at this stage by letting diseased Americans in.
And they and the very idea of going down that route, which is itself pretty darn racist, should be criticised and mocked at every opportunity to make sure it does not become representative.
What we don't have is the will to stop the wealthy and influential being inconvenienced slightly in their desire to gallivant about the world.
If it was that clear in the minutes surely someone would be beating the government with a stinky stick about it?
Another slant to consider is one I and some colleagues were chatting about the other day. None of us wish to go back to the office. If the company wishes us to most seem of the opinion they will begrudgingly go back but will also start looking for another job that allows full time home working. They have had a taste and they like it.
What governments want and what companies want may be irrelevant if enough workers are thinking that way and home working might end up being a must offer thing to recruit good staff
(I’ve been watching discovery channel again 😆)
Queue 1 is for people who have been tested within the last two days, they show their certificate (from an approved testing station) and can continue into the country.
Queue 2 is for people who want an on-the-spot test. They are tested there and then, and are free to leave the airport once the result comes back. We can charge £100 for the tests, and have them back within a few hours. At major ports like Heathrow and Dover, can have the lab on site.
Queue 3 is for those who wish to quarantine. They can choose either an hotel at their own expense, or a barracks at the government’s expense. Those under quarantine can buy a test at any time if they need to leave, otherwise they spend 14 days in the facility.
The important thing is to stop non-essential travel, and make sure that everyone arriving gets either tested or quarantined. We can draft in the military to help, if we don’t have enough people.
Living here must be a nightmare. It’s all yummy mummies and city types speeding about (insofar that you can) in open topped sports cars as it is. But beautiful villages and scenery; walking here during lockdown must have been a joy.
Just gentle sprinkling some chocolate on the milk foam
So you don't have to fill in the passenger locator form, but it's a question of personal responsibility to follow the guidelines regardless.
In which case the PHE current methods of reporting deaths create a problem. And it’s not just the extreme examples of “deaths in car accidents”. It’s ANY deaths of any cause, which may have nothing to do with positive COVID tests weeks or months ago.
But the company will likely end up having to look at it in a purely binary way i.e we have an office with capacity for X. If we only have X/2 in it at most, is it worth it at all now, or do we just shut X entirely?
Sure, some might downsize appropriately, but in most cases the office is either going to stay open for everyone to come back (half the folk who don't want to be damned), or the office is going to close (half the folk who don't want to WFH be damned).
For a lot of people home working works fine - you save the commute time and costs and things continue as normal
For a lot of others it just isn't working because either their home location isn't suitable, they have children to look after or need training or (as is often the case) the communication links don't work correctly. In those cases working from home is a problem.
And I suspect most people aged 40+ are in the former camp and a lot of the latter group are younger.
Thatcher might not have been liked, might have been viewed as 'the enemy' even but she wasn't thought to have 'betrayed' such places.
Whereas in 2016 the feeling was that the establishment had lied to, and in Labour's case betrayed, them. And that the establishment did not only not like them but viewed them as 'the enemy'.
https://twitter.com/pash22/status/1283681583271161857?s=09
Personally I haven't seen this after hours drink culture in any company I have worked with since the early 90's. Most firms have also discouraged a pint at lunch time even. I also don't know many that socialise with other members of staff out of office hours. The exception to these last two being middle managers and up.
Most of us peasant workers leave at 5.30 and go straight home because even then we wont be home till 7pm. I would expect the split to be about 65:35 in favour of home working purely because I suspect the big split will be not between young and old but between worker/manager
For example, the childcare situation should become a lot easier as schools and nurseries reopen. If you're committing to WFH, proper desks and chairs are a sensible investment, as is a faster internet connection at home. If you don't have to travel into work every day, maybe a flat share in Clapham is less optimal as a place to live?
There are other problems which will take longer to fix; what does apprenticeship look like without an office? But again, that feels more like a problem to be solved than a reason not to try.
Right not, London's CBD and commuterland look a bit like a peacock's tail. You can understand how it evolved that way, and it looks fantastic, but it's a bit of a dead end. Anyway, the genie is out of the bottle; companies will need a really good justification to spend so much on offices, and staff will need a really good justification to spend so much money and time on commuting. Might as well try to make this work.
Dove Holes in the Peak District - a site for 83 dwellings including 30% affordable and a shop.
There is a Section 106 Planning Gain agreement in place.
The suggested sales price is Offers over £24k per plot, which they may (or may not) get ie £2m+.
There will already be sunk costs in that of up to £200k for developing the project / fees.
How much more can these particular pips be made to squeak?
https://www.rightmove.co.uk/commercial-property-for-sale/property-67322012.html
Don't you just love this Conservative Government?
Headline - 13 - low, even for a weekend.
Seven days - 13
Yesterday - 3
I thought that aircraft had efficient airflows from above to below through Hepa filters.
https://www.iata.org/contentassets/f1163430bba94512a583eb6d6b24aa56/cabin-air-quality.pdf
Which is why many younger people paid through the nose (for a shoebox) to be be at least on the Night Bus routes in London. When you are 20 something, its out of work and straight out on town....
Lunchtime drinking has been a near sackable offence for years, in most places.
In most places I have worked there is a on going social culture, at least within teams.
With scheme proposed in the main article, the assumption is that the traveller has been in the same country for the last 3 weeks or more, which is the same as the point of origin.
How do you know that some one flying from Portugal has not just had a 48 hour stopover on the way from Brazil?
How do you deal with someone who flew from Toronto, but lives in the USA?
How do you deal with someone who flew from Toronto, lives in Toronto but spent the last week in the USA?
How do you deal with someone who flew from Toronto, lives in Toronto but spent time in the USA two weeks ago?
Etc.
Even if there were clear rulings on this it would be difficult to police. You can't use nationality, and it can be difficult to insist that that a Canadian living in Michigan must declare his Michigan residency, when he has flown from a Canadian airport and shown a Canadian passport.
I think two things might be at play in this - the number of air changes per hour through HEPA filters, and the dryness of the air.
The following is the data for yesterday for England deaths in all settings. The orange shows when the reported 114 deaths actually occured.
As to the london shoe box I suspect that is more down to they had to goto London for a job and it was actually cheaper to share rent on a london shoe box that live somewhere with affordable rent and fork out the eye watering cost of commuting.
Now only 30% of the population goes to pubs, I supect it the 90's it was more like 60 to 70%
edit - I see LostPassword gave the answer earlier.
Can normal service levels be provided if most staff are working from home? I suspect not, in many cases. But certainly, even after a vaccine has become available it will take a long time for things to go back to normal.
Brexit is about identity not economics.
But identity concerns come to the fore when you are getting a raw deal.
The seeds of today's relative poverty of post industrial regions were sewn under Thatcher.
It was Labour bailing out the London bankers while letting factories and steelworks shut down where the mood changed.
That was the great betrayal.
Now that didn't bear full fruit until 2016 and 2019 but even in 2010 and 2015 it was working class votes which made Cameron PM.
And this is on Fox News.
As an aside I think the socialising at work thing is dying for one very good reason. It is common wisdom amongst peasant workers in firms that the best way of getting a payrise or promotion is to move firm. A lot now consider 2 to 3 years to be the correct time to stay in a job therefore before moving on for more money and a higher position. If you are only going to be there for 2 or 3 years it is hardly worth getting to know co workers that well