politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » California moves into lockdown whilst in the UK TV ratings soa
Comments
-
Allegations of bullying have not been proven. Its easy to whinge about bullying if a firm hand tells you you're not doing good enough.Mexicanpete said:
Civil servants act at the behest of the elected Government. If there is a failure it is the responsibility the Masters not the Servants.Socky said:
But is not the "their" here really the civil service?Jonathan said:
Whilst I am sure they’re doing their best, their best isn’t very good.
Many on PB were criticising Ms Patel recently for giving her civil servants a well deserved arse kicking. In hindsight maybe other ministers should have followed her lead.
(coming out of lurk mode as stuck at home)
Ms. Patel bullying staff should not be a blueprint for other failing Ministers.
The Home Office has been institutionally inept and the report earlier this week into the Home Office was utterly damning. Unless something gets proven any Home Office staff whingeing about "bullying" get as much sympathy from me as those arseholes showed the Windrush Generation.2 -
Here are a couple of anomalies.
My 6 months dental check is scheduled to go ahead
The local pool and gym is still open and packed.
I find this a bit odd.0 -
I'm not saying it's 'to blame' but I am saying I think it could be a cause of this virus being spread - as it as with many other viruses. Switch it off, and the air gets warmer, and more humid, and you don't have your friendly-neighbourhood disease delivery service operating. Seems like a sensible precaution to me.DecrepiterJohnL said:
If aircon is to blame then football crowds would have been safe. No doubt boffins both sides of the Irish Sea will be keeping an eye out for reports of the dreaded lurgy infecting returners from the 4-day Cheltenham (horseracing) Festival last week. No aircon out of doors in the Cotswolds.Luckyguy1983 said:
I am sure that this is at least partly due to air conditioning. Heat cannot stop the virus if it is being spread and preserved in air conditioning ducts.Nigelb said:
The theory is actually that a combination of heat AND humidity will significantly inhibit it.williamglenn said:Bad news for the theory that heat will stop it.
https://twitter.com/BNODesk/status/12408394322841313280 -
Yes. It means the CFR is tiny.IshmaelZ said:
OK. So if iceberg theory is true is that an unqualified good thing?Lennon said:
It matters from a perspective of herd immunity and recurrence (ie from second waves etc) as it reduces the transmission speed by half if half the population have already had it and are thus immune.IshmaelZ said:
OK here is a point I am embarrassed to say I don't understand:CD13 said:I've never been sure what the cry for more 'testing' has been about? For diagnostic purposes I can understand, but it doesn't tell you much about the incidence in the general population because it's not random. And very little about the fatality rate at this point in proceedings.
Testing for antibodies rather than the viral RNA is more useful on the assumption they will confer a degree of immunity for some time. I know it's a new virus, but it is a virus.
Why does the iceberg theory (that infection is hugely more widespread than we know) matter? Because it seems to me that "OMG 100 000s of thousands of extra people have got it" and "phew, but so mildly they don't even know about it" cancel each other out. What matters is absolute numbers of seriously ill and dead, not percentages.0 -
Boris' 12 week reckoning didn't make it to the end of the news conference.DavidL said:My laptop is constantly being logged out of PB this morning. It’s frustrating.
Anyway the key, as I and many others have been saying on here is to keep the income flowing and as many jobs as possible intact until the virus is over. Boris reckons we are 12 weeks from that. It should be possible for the government to pay everyone’s wages for that long. They are already paying the 40% in the public sector. They need to keep the tax base for the recovery.
At the moment even those who are still paid are not spending. Restaurants, hotels, holidays, cars, cinema, home improvements, nothing is going to happen until we can move about freely and without fear. But we will need all of those things in due course. More than ever in many cases.
Boris has sensibly left the heavy lifting to the experts, perhaps he should engage an expert communicator to run the press conferences.0 -
Thanks for everyone's kind words this morning.
Cheered me up.0 -
I'm in a similar situation to your wife, my father having died in Ireland a few weeks ago (but of course a few weeks makes a big difference). I think you just have to weigh up the risks of virus versus the risk to mental health of not being able to grieve properly. For me, right now, that would mean that nobody but immediate family travels, but your wife may be very different. For her, the physical contact might be absolutely essential. You and her can judge that better than anyone here.SouthamObserver said:Genuine plea for advice ...
My wife’s mother died last week. Of course, my wife is heartbroken. We’ve already been told there can be no church service and that there can only be a small family ceremony at the graveside. That will have around 20-25 in attendance. People will be coming from all over the country. My wife will want to hug and kiss, as will others I am sure, and have people back to ours for a drink, bite to eat afterwards. It is the greatest cruelty for these things not to happen, but I don’t know how they can. But how do you even begin to have that conversation with someone who is grieving and who nursed their mother night and day for 15 months?0 -
It would certainly fit with my feeling that all those ‘returning from Italy’ travellers got infected on the plane.Luckyguy1983 said:
I'm not saying it's 'to blame' but I am saying I think it could be a cause of this virus being spread - as it as with many other viruses. Switch it off, and the air gets warmer, and more humid, and you don't have your friendly-neighbourhood disease delivery service operating. Seems like a sensible precaution to me.DecrepiterJohnL said:
If aircon is to blame then football crowds would have been safe. No doubt boffins both sides of the Irish Sea will be keeping an eye out for reports of the dreaded lurgy infecting returners from the 4-day Cheltenham (horseracing) Festival last week. No aircon out of doors in the Cotswolds.Luckyguy1983 said:
I am sure that this is at least partly due to air conditioning. Heat cannot stop the virus if it is being spread and preserved in air conditioning ducts.Nigelb said:
The theory is actually that a combination of heat AND humidity will significantly inhibit it.williamglenn said:Bad news for the theory that heat will stop it.
https://twitter.com/BNODesk/status/12408394322841313280 -
Dental work is health isn't it?Jonathan said:Here are a couple of anomalies.
My 6 months dental check is scheduled to go ahead
The local pool and gym is still open and packed.
I find this a bit odd.
I recall hearing once that dental issues underpin a lot of health issues and an estimated 1/6th or miscarriages from memory so why should dentists close?2 -
Dentist need cash flow, so do opticians, so won’t want to close. And people will honour appointments unless cancelled. So what do you suggest?Jonathan said:Here are a couple of anomalies.
My 6 months dental check is scheduled to go ahead
The local pool and gym is still open and packed.
I find this a bit odd.1 -
Step 1 - Give ambiguous or non-binding guidanceTheScreamingEagles said:
Step 2 - If businesses comply with it, they are screwed
Step 3 - What the hell did they expect?1 -
As an employer trying to work out how to stretch cash reserves out with no income for the foreseeable future, asking staff to take time they arent working as unpaid leave is one of the least damaging things you can do. There are a lot more steps that would be more painful.Jonathan said:
How will your employer know you are doing childcare? Do they have cameras in your home? Seems like an unfair, unreasonable policy designed to cut costs indirectly rather than benefit support staff of the business. Something to take with a pinch of salt.Casino_Royale said:
I quote agree, particularly the last bullet.Cyclefree said:Ooh, first!
Anyway, this was sent to me by in response to my recent article. 58 with a successful business established for 25 years advising companies in the food sector, with offices here and in Europe.
“My business earns 95% of its revenue from outside the UK, and because
the panic and demand suppression is the same everywhere, our business
has dropped off a cliff. Our customers in Paris, under lockdown, have
disappeared. A big American customer cut their service in half
overnight. Every customer project has been put on hold 'for the duration'.
In early April I will have to inject my own money into the business to
keep paying the staff wages (I already cut my own salary to zero).
If it goes on into June then it's two people made redundant (both with
mortgages to pay) and a 20% pay-cut for the survivors.
Continue to August and its curtains for us.
I re-mortgaged my house in the last financial crisis, as many business
owners did, and used the money to keep staff on and pay their wages.
My business and life are debt-free and at my age I don't want to be
taking on a load of bank debt with - as you correctly point out - no
idea how/whether I will be able to repay it. The chancellor's bank
guarantee is useless to me and most small businesses.
Mr Johnson's Titanic is steaming towards a huge iceberg. It's all calm
on the surface, but there's an economic disaster unfolding under the
surface which could sink him. Just today I have learned of four separate
people I know whose businesses are folding in a month or two. That will
be about 100 people losing their jobs.
Your grants suggestion is an excellent one. The PAYE system means that
grants to cover staff salaries can easily be policed.
Quite where the chancellor thinks his VAT, PAYE and corporation tax
revenue (which pays for the NHS) is going to come from if the economy
craters I don't know.
I also happen to be one of the immuno-suppressed 'vulnerable' people
that government policy is aiming to protect. I'd rather everyone went to
work and we 'vulnerable' were locked up in Center Parcs than that we
crater the economy and the lives of tens of millions.”
I can't sleep. My company just told me yesterday that any time I have to take off for essential childcare (we now have no choice) will be classed as unpaid leave. So my income is going to drop by 50%. Meanwhile, our nursery are insisting we pay full fees as normal so they can stay solvent and continue to pay their staff.
We are trapped in a pincer movement with no way out.0 -
Why does Johnson keep making himself a hostage to fortune by quoting a time limit of 12 weeks on the crisis? It’s silly it raises expectations and can really only be finger in the air guess work.0
-
Yes. And many people with oral cancer find themselves being referred to hospital in the first instance after routine dental checks (dentists are much better at spotting and diagnosing suspicious lesions in the mouth than GP's for example)Philip_Thompson said:
Dental work is health isn't it?Jonathan said:Here are a couple of anomalies.
My 6 months dental check is scheduled to go ahead
The local pool and gym is still open and packed.
I find this a bit odd.
I recall hearing once that dental issues underpin a lot of health issues and an estimated 1/6th or miscarriages from memory so why should dentists close?0 -
It’s true 12 weeks isn’t long enough if peak is late May early June. It might be smart salami tactics though than honestly saying 6 months at the lectern. Bottom line is to be listened to and get compliance, not level with people.Mexicanpete said:
Boris' 12 week reckoning didn't make it to the end of the news conference.DavidL said:My laptop is constantly being logged out of PB this morning. It’s frustrating.
Anyway the key, as I and many others have been saying on here is to keep the income flowing and as many jobs as possible intact until the virus is over. Boris reckons we are 12 weeks from that. It should be possible for the government to pay everyone’s wages for that long. They are already paying the 40% in the public sector. They need to keep the tax base for the recovery.
At the moment even those who are still paid are not spending. Restaurants, hotels, holidays, cars, cinema, home improvements, nothing is going to happen until we can move about freely and without fear. But we will need all of those things in due course. More than ever in many cases.
Boris has sensibly left the heavy lifting to the experts, perhaps he should engage an expert communicator to run the press conferences.0 -
I've been having the same logging in problem for days.DavidL said:My laptop is constantly being logged out of PB this morning. It’s frustrating.
Anyway the key, as I and many others have been saying on here is to keep the income flowing and as many jobs as possible intact until the virus is over. Boris reckons we are 12 weeks from that. It should be possible for the government to pay everyone’s wages for that long. They are already paying the 40% in the public sector. They need to keep the tax base for the recovery.
At the moment even those who are still paid are not spending. Restaurants, hotels, holidays, cars, cinema, home improvements, nothing is going to happen until we can move about freely and without fear. But we will need all of those things in due course. More than ever in many cases.
There are about 27 million people employed in the private sector.
If the government gives each of them £1000 a month for the next three months that will be a cost of about £80bn.
Much of which would be recouped in taxes when the money is spent.
And by giving everyone the same amount it will help the low paid the most.1 -
Mr. Jonathan, you can call and cancel your appointment. I did for mine.0
-
I emailed HR about it last week and got this clip of whatever official advice they'd been given:IanB2 said:
It would certainly fit with my feeling that all those ‘returning from Italy’ travellers got infected on the plane.Luckyguy1983 said:
I'm not saying it's 'to blame' but I am saying I think it could be a cause of this virus being spread - as it as with many other viruses. Switch it off, and the air gets warmer, and more humid, and you don't have your friendly-neighbourhood disease delivery service operating. Seems like a sensible precaution to me.DecrepiterJohnL said:
If aircon is to blame then football crowds would have been safe. No doubt boffins both sides of the Irish Sea will be keeping an eye out for reports of the dreaded lurgy infecting returners from the 4-day Cheltenham (horseracing) Festival last week. No aircon out of doors in the Cotswolds.Luckyguy1983 said:
I am sure that this is at least partly due to air conditioning. Heat cannot stop the virus if it is being spread and preserved in air conditioning ducts.Nigelb said:
The theory is actually that a combination of heat AND humidity will significantly inhibit it.williamglenn said:Bad news for the theory that heat will stop it.
https://twitter.com/BNODesk/status/1240839432284131328
Not exactly a ringing endorsement of aircon is it? There is no drawback to just switching it off as far as I can see, unless the aircon is the only thing making a venue fit for human habitation.
0 -
Boris' dad will be there.Andy_Cooke said:
Step 1 - Give ambiguous or non-binding guidanceTheScreamingEagles said:
Step 2 - If businesses comply with it, they are screwed
Step 3 - What the hell did they expect?0 -
They’re doing that because they are desperate for income. They would not be doing that if the government replaced the income they are taking away with their advice. If you close the pubs or other businesses then you have to provide them with the income they need to survive.Mexicanpete said:
Surely that is proof enough, if proof were needed that Boris must take decisive action, as a nation we are not disciplined enough to do this for ourselves. For Boris, to misquote Richard Millhouse Nixon, 'the time has come to **** or get off the pot'!TheScreamingEagles said:
They’re not doing it so people and businesses are doing what they need to to survive.
Honestly, how hard is it for the government to understand this?3 -
The pubs in Northallerton were packed last night, I’m told.0
-
Suggest your wife, and yourself to support her, to attend the burial and delay the service until people can easily attend. I suggest doing exactly what you would do anyway but just a few months later. We through this with my brother who died suddenly in complicated circumstances. It's for the best.SouthamObserver said:Genuine plea for advice ...
My wife’s mother died last week. Of course, my wife is heartbroken. We’ve already been told there can be no church service and that there can only be a small family ceremony at the graveside. That will have around 20-25 in attendance. People will be coming from all over the country. My wife will want to hug and kiss, as will others I am sure, and have people back to ours for a drink, bite to eat afterwards. It is the greatest cruelty for these things not to happen, but I don’t know how they can. But how do you even begin to have that conversation with someone who is grieving and who nursed their mother night and day for 15 months?0 -
I agree with Barnesian completely. One small comfort might be that a lot of time and effort could be put into the memorial service, and I expect that in some months time people will be very keen to get together with family and friends to remember your wife's mother and see one another again.Barnesian said:
When my wife died suddenly on holiday in Ireland 18 months ago we had a funeral locally that my wife's Irish relations and neighbours attended. But two months later, in England, we had a "celebration of my wife's life" which over 200 people attended. Many gave a short speech about some aspect of my wife's life that had touched them. Lots of photos and videos and exchange of stories. It was a very moving occasion and in some ways better than the reception after a funeral.SouthamObserver said:Genuine plea for advice ...
My wife’s mother died last week. Of course, my wife is heartbroken. We’ve already been told there can be no church service and that there can only be a small family ceremony at the graveside. That will have around 20-25 in attendance. People will be coming from all over the country. My wife will want to hug and kiss, as will others I am sure, and have people back to ours for a drink, bite to eat afterwards. It is the greatest cruelty for these things not to happen, but I don’t know how they can. But how do you even begin to have that conversation with someone who is grieving and who nursed their mother night and day for 15 months?
So my advice is to have a low key funeral but a big "celebration of your mother-in-laws life" in a few months time.2 -
"12 weeks" could mean:Mexicanpete said:
Boris' 12 week reckoning didn't make it to the end of the news conference.DavidL said:My laptop is constantly being logged out of PB this morning. It’s frustrating.
Anyway the key, as I and many others have been saying on here is to keep the income flowing and as many jobs as possible intact until the virus is over. Boris reckons we are 12 weeks from that. It should be possible for the government to pay everyone’s wages for that long. They are already paying the 40% in the public sector. They need to keep the tax base for the recovery.
At the moment even those who are still paid are not spending. Restaurants, hotels, holidays, cars, cinema, home improvements, nothing is going to happen until we can move about freely and without fear. But we will need all of those things in due course. More than ever in many cases.
Boris has sensibly left the heavy lifting to the experts, perhaps he should engage an expert communicator to run the press conferences.
- 12 weeks to the peak (with however many extra weeks or months until its subsided enough to take down measures)
- 12 weeks to the first peak, with however many cycles of on-and-off again needed to keep the figures down until we get a vaccine (median expectation 18 months; have seen people talking about as little as six months which would be great)
-
- 12 weeks until it's all over, tea and medals for all.
Sadly, although I think it's the feeling he wanted to give, the latter could well be least likely.
Regardless, after three months of shutdown of the hospitality and airline sectors, they wouldn't be coming back unchanged. And those working in those sectors face a hellish time of uncertainty, regardless.
So, yes - he absolutely needs to do something for them.
0 -
If its 6 months or longer how feasible is an isolation plan in the first place? What state will society be in afterwards? 6 months would be stopping the restrictions in September just ahead of the flu season, so if we got that far, Id imagine it would be more likely closer to a year. Just not practical imo but never been tried before so who knows.egg said:
It’s true 12 weeks isn’t long enough if peak is late May early June. It might be smart salami tactics though than honestly saying 6 months at the lectern. Bottom line is to be listened to and get compliance, not level with people.Mexicanpete said:
Boris' 12 week reckoning didn't make it to the end of the news conference.DavidL said:My laptop is constantly being logged out of PB this morning. It’s frustrating.
Anyway the key, as I and many others have been saying on here is to keep the income flowing and as many jobs as possible intact until the virus is over. Boris reckons we are 12 weeks from that. It should be possible for the government to pay everyone’s wages for that long. They are already paying the 40% in the public sector. They need to keep the tax base for the recovery.
At the moment even those who are still paid are not spending. Restaurants, hotels, holidays, cars, cinema, home improvements, nothing is going to happen until we can move about freely and without fear. But we will need all of those things in due course. More than ever in many cases.
Boris has sensibly left the heavy lifting to the experts, perhaps he should engage an expert communicator to run the press conferences.0 -
If you wanted to give the £1000 to public sector workers as well then it would amount to £100bn over three months.another_richard said:
I've been having the same logging in problem for days.DavidL said:My laptop is constantly being logged out of PB this morning. It’s frustrating.
Anyway the key, as I and many others have been saying on here is to keep the income flowing and as many jobs as possible intact until the virus is over. Boris reckons we are 12 weeks from that. It should be possible for the government to pay everyone’s wages for that long. They are already paying the 40% in the public sector. They need to keep the tax base for the recovery.
At the moment even those who are still paid are not spending. Restaurants, hotels, holidays, cars, cinema, home improvements, nothing is going to happen until we can move about freely and without fear. But we will need all of those things in due course. More than ever in many cases.
There are about 27 million people employed in the private sector.
If the government gives each of them £1000 a month for the next three months that will be a cost of about £80bn.
Much of which would be recouped in taxes when the money is spent.
And by giving everyone the same amount it will help the low paid the most.0 -
i assume they are hoping it will only need to be 3 or 4 months but no doubt have plans for much longer. that will require horrendous enforcement methods imho.noneoftheabove said:
If its 6 months or longer how feasible is an isolation plan in the first place? What state will society be in afterwards? 6 months would be stopping the restrictions in September just ahead of the flu season, so if we got that far, Id imagine it would be more likely closer to a year. Just not practical imo but never been tried before so who knows.egg said:
It’s true 12 weeks isn’t long enough if peak is late May early June. It might be smart salami tactics though than honestly saying 6 months at the lectern. Bottom line is to be listened to and get compliance, not level with people.Mexicanpete said:
Boris' 12 week reckoning didn't make it to the end of the news conference.DavidL said:My laptop is constantly being logged out of PB this morning. It’s frustrating.
Anyway the key, as I and many others have been saying on here is to keep the income flowing and as many jobs as possible intact until the virus is over. Boris reckons we are 12 weeks from that. It should be possible for the government to pay everyone’s wages for that long. They are already paying the 40% in the public sector. They need to keep the tax base for the recovery.
At the moment even those who are still paid are not spending. Restaurants, hotels, holidays, cars, cinema, home improvements, nothing is going to happen until we can move about freely and without fear. But we will need all of those things in due course. More than ever in many cases.
Boris has sensibly left the heavy lifting to the experts, perhaps he should engage an expert communicator to run the press conferences.0 -
Not sure about that. It seems to me that it is the other way round. The elderly are being told to shut themselves away, so that they do not become infected. If they are attacked by the lurgy, the Government does not have the resources to do anything for them. The botched attempt to shut down schools is to help to limit the spread of the disease, not to protect the elderly. That is something that the elderly have to do for themselves.matt said:
Just recall that his future is being sacrificed for the elderly. Again.Jonathan said:Son off for his last day at school. Not good. Not good at all.
0 -
It's not just scumbags. Supply disruptions are the inevitable result of a sudden, widespread and unpredicted change in people's shopping habits. If everyone decides, at the same time, to buy a bit more than usual, then you get empty shelves. Then people see the empty shelves and think, "better get some more, supplies are obviously running tight". It's a classic positive feedback effect. Eventually it will be limited by people's storage capacities, but that could take weeks yet.malcolmg said:
Seemingly they are just putting stuff in car and then go back in for another lot, lots of scumbags about.FeersumEnjineeya said:
That won't work. People will just make repeated visits to the same or different supermarkets. If it is going to go on for much longer, we will need some form of proper rationing system.CarlottaVance said:
The supermarkets need to sort it out. Stop bulk buying. "Only two per item per customer" and enforce it.FeersumEnjineeya said:
You can't ban people from taking photos! Seriously, though, the government needs to sort this out. Empty shelves scare people, and the daily bog roll scrum isn't exactly helping social distancing. A lot of people are getting very distressed about the situation, and if it goes on for much longer there will be riots.rottenborough said:0 -
We rang the pub for a 'takeaway' ...... well, delivered......dinner last night, about 5.30pm. Sounded rammed. Recognised a couple of voices!Gallowgate said:The pubs in Northallerton were packed last night, I’m told.
0 -
If you havent needed treatment in the last 18 months, Id skip the dentist and go in six months time. If you are in the at risk group Id probably also skip it. Otherwise probably makes sense to go.Jonathan said:Here are a couple of anomalies.
My 6 months dental check is scheduled to go ahead
The local pool and gym is still open and packed.
I find this a bit odd.
Pools and gyms are in the same place as cafes and restaurants, close and lose income possibly the business, or keep income and get that bit closer to economic safety. The govt needs to support them properly today in exchange for them closing. Not with loans.0 -
Not good enough. Leaders need to lead. Advisors merely advise.Mexicanpete said:
Boris' 12 week reckoning didn't make it to the end of the news conference.DavidL said:My laptop is constantly being logged out of PB this morning. It’s frustrating.
Anyway the key, as I and many others have been saying on here is to keep the income flowing and as many jobs as possible intact until the virus is over. Boris reckons we are 12 weeks from that. It should be possible for the government to pay everyone’s wages for that long. They are already paying the 40% in the public sector. They need to keep the tax base for the recovery.
At the moment even those who are still paid are not spending. Restaurants, hotels, holidays, cars, cinema, home improvements, nothing is going to happen until we can move about freely and without fear. But we will need all of those things in due course. More than ever in many cases.
Boris has sensibly left the heavy lifting to the experts, perhaps he should engage an expert communicator to run the press conferences.0 -
We are going round and round on this, you and others just not listening. If he closes the pubs who is liable for their loss of revenue. The business themselves? Insurers who have been lobbying like maniacs? Government? Same with theatres, he said don’t go, putting onus on individual or theatre to voluntarily do right thing, he didn’t order closure.Mexicanpete said:
Surely that is proof enough, if proof were needed that Boris must take decisive action, as a nation we are not disciplined enough to do this for ourselves. For Boris, to misquote Richard Millhouse Nixon, 'the time has come to **** or get off the pot'!TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
True, but surely anyone on the front line would not have previously been working from homePhilip_Thompson said:
It depends upon the sector surely? For vast majority of companies it will be mental but for a small niche of key sectors its going to be different - like Foxy talking about some elements being cancelled in order to ensure people can be on the front line.malcolmg said:
Be desperate for many and for companies to be cancelling WFH is mental.RochdalePioneers said:
Mine are off from the end of today - we can make WFH work between us. My team member however having got her young son through the "school is finishing on Friday" now needs to tell him "not for you" as her husband's employer wants him back in having cancelled WFH.malcolmg said:
If working at home then there should be no need for son to go to schoolRochdalePioneers said:2 emails this morning. One from the boss posting the government advice and formally noting that we are all key workers. Another from one of my team wondering how to tell her son he has to go to school after all. Like me she is also WFH and TBH she isn't exactly busy at the moment as her area of the market (Foodservice) is slowing down fast.
I know, its small beer compared to Southam and Charles and Casino.0 -
Reading through the thread it's amusing and depressing at the same time. Everyone on here seems to be special. They all want different things. They all want someone to blame. Their particular solution is so obvious they cannot understand why it has not been adopted. They all want 'decisive' action. They don't want any limit on free speech or what thye personally do. Everywhere else in the world is doing it better and they all hate the Tories. I'll be back in a few hours from my own lockdown in Spain. I suspect nothing will have changed.1
-
It is an irrelevant number compared to the cost of maintaining status quo. I think they will need to spend closer to £100bn per month than over 3 months.another_richard said:
If you wanted to give the £1000 to public sector workers as well then it would amount to £100bn over three months.another_richard said:
I've been having the same logging in problem for days.DavidL said:My laptop is constantly being logged out of PB this morning. It’s frustrating.
Anyway the key, as I and many others have been saying on here is to keep the income flowing and as many jobs as possible intact until the virus is over. Boris reckons we are 12 weeks from that. It should be possible for the government to pay everyone’s wages for that long. They are already paying the 40% in the public sector. They need to keep the tax base for the recovery.
At the moment even those who are still paid are not spending. Restaurants, hotels, holidays, cars, cinema, home improvements, nothing is going to happen until we can move about freely and without fear. But we will need all of those things in due course. More than ever in many cases.
There are about 27 million people employed in the private sector.
If the government gives each of them £1000 a month for the next three months that will be a cost of about £80bn.
Much of which would be recouped in taxes when the money is spent.
And by giving everyone the same amount it will help the low paid the most.
Unthinkable a few weeks ago, but will be consensus in a few weeks time.0 -
Dentist rang me (well, his receptionist did) yesterday; did I want to postpone next Tuesday's appointment for three months. Well, I know it's income, but of course I said yes.noneoftheabove said:
If you havent needed treatment in the last 18 months, Id skip the dentist and go in six months time. If you are in the at risk group Id probably also skip it. Otherwise probably makes sense to go.Jonathan said:Here are a couple of anomalies.
My 6 months dental check is scheduled to go ahead
The local pool and gym is still open and packed.
I find this a bit odd.
Pools and gyms are in the same place as cafes and restaurants, close and lose income possibly the business, or keep income and get that bit closer to economic safety. The govt needs to support them properly today in exchange for them closing. Not with loans.
Incidentally, we have three local mens barbers. One has closed 'until the emergency is over', another is offering appointments on two days per week with time to clean the place after wards. the third hasn't made any changes, although that may be a yet.
0 -
All of which is one reason why I reckon we should do a pause on mortgages and rents.another_richard said:
If you wanted to give the £1000 to public sector workers as well then it would amount to £100bn over three months.another_richard said:
I've been having the same logging in problem for days.DavidL said:My laptop is constantly being logged out of PB this morning. It’s frustrating.
Anyway the key, as I and many others have been saying on here is to keep the income flowing and as many jobs as possible intact until the virus is over. Boris reckons we are 12 weeks from that. It should be possible for the government to pay everyone’s wages for that long. They are already paying the 40% in the public sector. They need to keep the tax base for the recovery.
At the moment even those who are still paid are not spending. Restaurants, hotels, holidays, cars, cinema, home improvements, nothing is going to happen until we can move about freely and without fear. But we will need all of those things in due course. More than ever in many cases.
There are about 27 million people employed in the private sector.
If the government gives each of them £1000 a month for the next three months that will be a cost of about £80bn.
Much of which would be recouped in taxes when the money is spent.
And by giving everyone the same amount it will help the low paid the most.
That way, you could survive of £600 per working-age adult.
With 43 million working aged adults, that's £25.8 bn per month.
With half of the private sector out of work (assume), that leaves 19 million still working and paying an average of £150 per month of it straight back.
With a £2bn per month Housing Benefit bill, that can also be held back.
Leaves it at just under £21bn per month actual spending.
The support of the finance companies and banks is pure liquid - goes in; goes out. It would be a screamingly large number which would self-cancel at the end of the crisis (whenever that is); no net monetary flood from that.
A 3 month crisis comes in at £63bn on direct financial support,
A year-long one at £250bn. A big number, but only 12% of GDP.0 -
In which case in a years time we will find hundreds or more dead people in their homes which no-one knew about who died months before, there will be far more mentally ill people, obesity crisis will have got far worse and there wont be an economy to go back to.rottenborough said:
i assume they are hoping it will only need to be 3 or 4 months but no doubt have plans for much longer. that will require horrendous enforcement methods imho.noneoftheabove said:
If its 6 months or longer how feasible is an isolation plan in the first place? What state will society be in afterwards? 6 months would be stopping the restrictions in September just ahead of the flu season, so if we got that far, Id imagine it would be more likely closer to a year. Just not practical imo but never been tried before so who knows.egg said:
It’s true 12 weeks isn’t long enough if peak is late May early June. It might be smart salami tactics though than honestly saying 6 months at the lectern. Bottom line is to be listened to and get compliance, not level with people.Mexicanpete said:
Boris' 12 week reckoning didn't make it to the end of the news conference.DavidL said:My laptop is constantly being logged out of PB this morning. It’s frustrating.
Anyway the key, as I and many others have been saying on here is to keep the income flowing and as many jobs as possible intact until the virus is over. Boris reckons we are 12 weeks from that. It should be possible for the government to pay everyone’s wages for that long. They are already paying the 40% in the public sector. They need to keep the tax base for the recovery.
At the moment even those who are still paid are not spending. Restaurants, hotels, holidays, cars, cinema, home improvements, nothing is going to happen until we can move about freely and without fear. But we will need all of those things in due course. More than ever in many cases.
Boris has sensibly left the heavy lifting to the experts, perhaps he should engage an expert communicator to run the press conferences.0 -
Yep.noneoftheabove said:
In which case in a years time we will find hundreds or more dead people in their homes which no-one knew about who died months before, there will be far more mentally ill people, obesity crisis will have got far worse and there wont be an economy to go back to.rottenborough said:
i assume they are hoping it will only need to be 3 or 4 months but no doubt have plans for much longer. that will require horrendous enforcement methods imho.noneoftheabove said:
If its 6 months or longer how feasible is an isolation plan in the first place? What state will society be in afterwards? 6 months would be stopping the restrictions in September just ahead of the flu season, so if we got that far, Id imagine it would be more likely closer to a year. Just not practical imo but never been tried before so who knows.egg said:
It’s true 12 weeks isn’t long enough if peak is late May early June. It might be smart salami tactics though than honestly saying 6 months at the lectern. Bottom line is to be listened to and get compliance, not level with people.Mexicanpete said:
Boris' 12 week reckoning didn't make it to the end of the news conference.DavidL said:My laptop is constantly being logged out of PB this morning. It’s frustrating.
Anyway the key, as I and many others have been saying on here is to keep the income flowing and as many jobs as possible intact until the virus is over. Boris reckons we are 12 weeks from that. It should be possible for the government to pay everyone’s wages for that long. They are already paying the 40% in the public sector. They need to keep the tax base for the recovery.
At the moment even those who are still paid are not spending. Restaurants, hotels, holidays, cars, cinema, home improvements, nothing is going to happen until we can move about freely and without fear. But we will need all of those things in due course. More than ever in many cases.
Boris has sensibly left the heavy lifting to the experts, perhaps he should engage an expert communicator to run the press conferences.0 -
Good thing you're the only person in this thread who doesn't think they're special....felix said:Reading through the thread it's amusing and depressing at the same time. Everyone on here seems to be special. They all want different things. They all want someone to blame. Their particular solution is so obvious they cannot understand why it has not been adopted. They all want 'decisive' action. They don't want any limit on free speech or what thye personally do. Everywhere else in the world is doing it better and they all hate the Tories. I'll be back in a few hours from my own lockdown in Spain. I suspect nothing will have changed.
Every online thread will have a few obnoxious comments and some people who are too obsessed with their own interests, but there hasn't been much of that today. This thread has been more thoughtful than most.0 -
I'm not too bothered about the pubs being open. Everyone has to make their own decisions, whether distancing, isolating, or complete lockdown. I appreciate that this means the disease will spread faster, but it is at different stages, and there are different levels of risk, all over the country. It's unlikely to be as risky in the village pub at Crinkly-Bottom-On-The-Wold as it is in a packed bar in London, where the health service is also more challenged. Just warning people rather than shutting people down allows these micro-decisions to be made, and allows differing levels of observance throughout the country. It's a pragmatic British fudge, it fully satisfies nobody but is hopefully survivable for most.2
-
One term and maybe a summer holiday is not a life sacrifice.ClippP said:
Not sure about that. It seems to me that it is the other way round. The elderly are being told to shut themselves away, so that they do not become infected. If they are attacked by the lurgy, the Government does not have the resources to do anything for them. The botched attempt to shut down schools is to help to limit the spread of the disease, not to protect the elderly. That is something that the elderly have to do for themselves.matt said:
Just recall that his future is being sacrificed for the elderly. Again.Jonathan said:Son off for his last day at school. Not good. Not good at all.
In my day at school - 70s / 80s - it was fairly common for kids to miss a term and not especially suffer.
It is only the crazy obsession of the last few Governments that has turned Heads into a School Attendance gestapo.
Even for University entrance they could hold exams in Sept or Oct, swap next year's summer holiday with this year's autumn term and catch up full contact hours in one year.
Get a grip, Mr Matt.0 -
There are issues to the longer containment, but no need for your hyperbole. It takes long as it takes to do whatever it takes. The easing at the other end has got to be right as there won’t be a vaccination for all the most vulnerable people, though it’s right politicians lead us on believing magic immunity bullet coming soon at this stage, you would have to say the same in their position. Lead people on and not be straight with them.noneoftheabove said:
In which case in a years time we will find hundreds or more dead people in their homes which no-one knew about who died months before, there will be far more mentally ill people, obesity crisis will have got far worse and there wont be an economy to go back to.rottenborough said:
i assume they are hoping it will only need to be 3 or 4 months but no doubt have plans for much longer. that will require horrendous enforcement methods imho.noneoftheabove said:
If its 6 months or longer how feasible is an isolation plan in the first place? What state will society be in afterwards? 6 months would be stopping the restrictions in September just ahead of the flu season, so if we got that far, Id imagine it would be more likely closer to a year. Just not practical imo but never been tried before so who knows.egg said:
It’s true 12 weeks isn’t long enough if peak is late May early June. It might be smart salami tactics though than honestly saying 6 months at the lectern. Bottom line is to be listened to and get compliance, not level with people.Mexicanpete said:
Boris' 12 week reckoning didn't make it to the end of the news conference.DavidL said:My laptop is constantly being logged out of PB this morning. It’s frustrating.
Anyway the key, as I and many others have been saying on here is to keep the income flowing and as many jobs as possible intact until the virus is over. Boris reckons we are 12 weeks from that. It should be possible for the government to pay everyone’s wages for that long. They are already paying the 40% in the public sector. They need to keep the tax base for the recovery.
At the moment even those who are still paid are not spending. Restaurants, hotels, holidays, cars, cinema, home improvements, nothing is going to happen until we can move about freely and without fear. But we will need all of those things in due course. More than ever in many cases.
Boris has sensibly left the heavy lifting to the experts, perhaps he should engage an expert communicator to run the press conferences.0 -
The Scottish Courts, and no doubt the English ones too, have cancelled any forthcoming hearings with witnesses for the duration. That has cost me 4 proof diets to date. This would have been worth more than £25K to me along with the consultations etc that would have come with them.another_richard said:
I've been having the same logging in problem for days.DavidL said:My laptop is constantly being logged out of PB this morning. It’s frustrating.
Anyway the key, as I and many others have been saying on here is to keep the income flowing and as many jobs as possible intact until the virus is over. Boris reckons we are 12 weeks from that. It should be possible for the government to pay everyone’s wages for that long. They are already paying the 40% in the public sector. They need to keep the tax base for the recovery.
At the moment even those who are still paid are not spending. Restaurants, hotels, holidays, cars, cinema, home improvements, nothing is going to happen until we can move about freely and without fear. But we will need all of those things in due course. More than ever in many cases.
There are about 27 million people employed in the private sector.
If the government gives each of them £1000 a month for the next three months that will be a cost of about £80bn.
Much of which would be recouped in taxes when the money is spent.
And by giving everyone the same amount it will help the low paid the most.
In theory I will recoup some of this in due course when these diets are reset but there is going to be huge pressure on court diaries which means that I may have to pass some of this work on. It also means I will not be available for future work.
I only have 1 direct employee, namely my wife, but indirectly I have a team of clerks, librarians and support staff whose wages are all paid by advocates like me.
I am not expecting any sympathy for a usually quite well paid lawyer but it is an illustration of the knock on consequences of necessary policies and actions on the part of the government.2 -
There’s a more interesting yardstick, from the scientist not the politician.nichomar said:Why does Johnson keep making himself a hostage to fortune by quoting a time limit of 12 weeks on the crisis? It’s silly it raises expectations and can really only be finger in the air guess work.
The Chief Boffin answering Hunt at Committee gave an explicit death figure. He said less deaths than 20 thousand we have done a good job. Would he have put that yardstick out if he believed it would be 40. If anything with a yardstick you want to be seen as over achieving, so when he said that he must have believed it would be somewhat less than 20.
0 -
Things much calmer in ASDA today - no toilet rolls - but only just out as wife saw someone putting some in their car
Shelves nowhere near stripped bare - keep calm and carry on people (whilst keeping your distance obv)1 -
Glad to see that Blackpool Pleasure Beach remains open this weekend. The email advises that "social distancing" will mean "maintaining space between guests". Obviously. On roller coasters...
Their problem is that the theme park isn't in the best of financial health. They *have* to open. Or go bust. Unless the government want to do something?0 -
No hyperbole in my post. A year of complete isolation for people on their own, or a year of being cooped up together with family for others will be a mental disaster. Domestic violence will soar, relationships that would have been formed will never happen, people will get very damaged by a year. 2/3 months is just about do-able, but its not societally sustainable beyond that proportionate to the medical need.egg said:
There are issues to the longer containment, but no need for your hyperbole. It takes long as it takes to do whatever it takes. The easing at the other end has got to be right as there won’t be a vaccination for all the most vulnerable people, though it’s right politicians lead us on believing magic immunity bullet coming soon at this stage, you would have to say the same in their position. Lead people on and not be straight with them.noneoftheabove said:
In which case in a years time we will find hundreds or more dead people in their homes which no-one knew about who died months before, there will be far more mentally ill people, obesity crisis will have got far worse and there wont be an economy to go back to.rottenborough said:
i assume they are hoping it will only need to be 3 or 4 months but no doubt have plans for much longer. that will require horrendous enforcement methods imho.noneoftheabove said:
If its 6 months or longer how feasible is an isolation plan in the first place? What state will society be in afterwards? 6 months would be stopping the restrictions in September just ahead of the flu season, so if we got that far, Id imagine it would be more likely closer to a year. Just not practical imo but never been tried before so who knows.egg said:
It’s true 12 weeks isn’t long enough if peak is late May early June. It might be smart salami tactics though than honestly saying 6 months at the lectern. Bottom line is to be listened to and get compliance, not level with people.Mexicanpete said:
Boris' 12 week reckoning didn't make it to the end of the news conference.DavidL said:My laptop is constantly being logged out of PB this morning. It’s frustrating.
Anyway the key, as I and many others have been saying on here is to keep the income flowing and as many jobs as possible intact until the virus is over. Boris reckons we are 12 weeks from that. It should be possible for the government to pay everyone’s wages for that long. They are already paying the 40% in the public sector. They need to keep the tax base for the recovery.
At the moment even those who are still paid are not spending. Restaurants, hotels, holidays, cars, cinema, home improvements, nothing is going to happen until we can move about freely and without fear. But we will need all of those things in due course. More than ever in many cases.
Boris has sensibly left the heavy lifting to the experts, perhaps he should engage an expert communicator to run the press conferences.0 -
Definitely less than that will be my prediction, which makes it a bad flu season deaths. Of course if we didn't flatten the curve it would have been more, but at the end of this deaths will be few.egg said:
There’s a more interesting yardstick, from the scientist not the politician.nichomar said:Why does Johnson keep making himself a hostage to fortune by quoting a time limit of 12 weeks on the crisis? It’s silly it raises expectations and can really only be finger in the air guess work.
The Chief Boffin answering Hunt at Committee gave an explicit death figure. He said less deaths than 20 thousand we have done a good job. Would he have put that yardstick out if he believed it would be 40. If anything with a yardstick you want to be seen as over achieving, so when he said that he must have believed it would be somewhat less than 20.0 -
It is on the irresponsible landlord, as the CMO and PM have made clear if people do not follow advice to act sensibly then yes lockdown will have to be enforcedTheScreamingEagles said:0 -
Can you enlighten me with the non-legal meaning?DavidL said:
That has cost me 4 proof diets to date.another_richard said:
I've been having the same logging in problem for days.DavidL said:My laptop is constantly being logged out of PB this morning. It’s frustrating.
Anyway the key, as I and many others have been saying on here is to keep the income flowing and as many jobs as possible intact until the virus is over. Boris reckons we are 12 weeks from that. It should be possible for the government to pay everyone’s wages for that long. They are already paying the 40% in the public sector. They need to keep the tax base for the recovery.
At the moment even those who are still paid are not spending. Restaurants, hotels, holidays, cars, cinema, home improvements, nothing is going to happen until we can move about freely and without fear. But we will need all of those things in due course. More than ever in many cases.
There are about 27 million people employed in the private sector.
If the government gives each of them £1000 a month for the next three months that will be a cost of about £80bn.
Much of which would be recouped in taxes when the money is spent.
And by giving everyone the same amount it will help the low paid the most.
I have a picture of someone in a legal wig sustained on Glenlivet.
2 -
She doesn't need to be in a hospital but it would make sense for her to be cared for in a care home (and yes I know that she really wouldn't want to move into a home but it's the best out of a bad set of options).NickPalmer said:
I think that's fair - it's clearly extremely difficult to make decisions on the run, but we can all see gaps that haven't been fully considered. What I primarily want at the top is good administrators empowered to make fast decisions. On the specific point of carers, the guidance is pretty clear - the elderly and sick shouldhave carer visits but nobody else. But I know someone in her 90s who has 5 carers dealing with different issues - if they're not dealt with, she'll probably die; if they are, she's at obvious risk of infection; if she goes to hospital, she'll take up a bed without needing any new treatment. There is no easy solution.Jonathan said:
Whilst I am sure they’re doing their best, their best isn’t very good.Cyclefree said:
If someone has to away from all social contact, how do they get deliveries of food if delivery slots are booked up 3 weeks in advance? How do those needing washing and lifting in and out of bed etc avoid all social contact?rottenborough said:
I wish the government would think through some of the practicalities and engage brain before opening mouth.
In our council (Waverley) all parties have agreed to suspend all face-to-face meetings and empoower officers to make decisions to put combating the virus first ahead of all kinds of routine things (planning applications, for example). Disagreements between parties have simply been put on hold - it seems completely out of place to be arguing about local stuff.0 -
If they are going tell 1.5m people to self isolate from Monday, they had better be bloody ready with a nationwide food delivery scheme.0
-
Its not going to take a year IMO. Especially once there's an antibody test and you know you're immune that will be a game changer.noneoftheabove said:
No hyperbole in my post. A year of complete isolation for people on their own, or a year of being cooped up together with family for others will be a mental disaster. Domestic violence will soar, relationships that would have been formed will never happen, people will get very damaged by a year. 2/3 months is just about do-able, but its not societally sustainable beyond that proportionate to the medical need.egg said:
There are issues to the longer containment, but no need for your hyperbole. It takes long as it takes to do whatever it takes. The easing at the other end has got to be right as there won’t be a vaccination for all the most vulnerable people, though it’s right politicians lead us on believing magic immunity bullet coming soon at this stage, you would have to say the same in their position. Lead people on and not be straight with them.noneoftheabove said:
In which case in a years time we will find hundreds or more dead people in their homes which no-one knew about who died months before, there will be far more mentally ill people, obesity crisis will have got far worse and there wont be an economy to go back to.rottenborough said:
i assume they are hoping it will only need to be 3 or 4 months but no doubt have plans for much longer. that will require horrendous enforcement methods imho.noneoftheabove said:
If its 6 months or longer how feasible is an isolation plan in the first place? What state will society be in afterwards? 6 months would be stopping the restrictions in September just ahead of the flu season, so if we got that far, Id imagine it would be more likely closer to a year. Just not practical imo but never been tried before so who knows.egg said:
It’s true 12 weeks isn’t long enough if peak is late May early June. It might be smart salami tactics though than honestly saying 6 months at the lectern. Bottom line is to be listened to and get compliance, not level with people.Mexicanpete said:
Boris' 12 week reckoning didn't make it to the end of the news conference.DavidL said:My laptop is constantly being logged out of PB this morning. It’s frustrating.
Anyway the key, as I and many others have been saying on here is to keep the income flowing and as many jobs as possible intact until the virus is over. Boris reckons we are 12 weeks from that. It should be possible for the government to pay everyone’s wages for that long. They are already paying the 40% in the public sector. They need to keep the tax base for the recovery.
At the moment even those who are still paid are not spending. Restaurants, hotels, holidays, cars, cinema, home improvements, nothing is going to happen until we can move about freely and without fear. But we will need all of those things in due course. More than ever in many cases.
Boris has sensibly left the heavy lifting to the experts, perhaps he should engage an expert communicator to run the press conferences.0 -
Just booking in a future Morrisons order.
Around here slots are currently available from April 2nd all day, and evening on April 1st, late night March 31st, which is not quite as bad as it sounds in some places.
IMO this is very regional, and the some media are being tosspots. London is a very local place.0 -
Wasn't that always the game plan?HYUFD said:
It is on the irresponsible landlord, as the CMO and PM have made clear if people do not follow advice to act sensibly then yes lockdown will have to be enforcedTheScreamingEagles said:0 -
I keep making this point but it is not really a question of anyone judging their own risks. The pub goer may be relatively young and healthy and at very low risk to the virus. The same does not apply to everyone the pub goer meets. To put it in stark terms, as Boris did yesterday, the more people brave the risks of the virus (which may indeed be low for them) the more vulnerable people are going to die. It really is that simple. People have to stop being selfish about this and acknowledge the knock on consequences of their actions.Luckyguy1983 said:I'm not too bothered about the pubs being open. Everyone has to make their own decisions, whether distancing, isolating, or complete lockdown. I appreciate that this means the disease will spread faster, but it is at different stages, and there are different levels of risk, all over the country. It's unlikely to be as risky in the village pub at Crinkly-Bottom-On-The-Wold as it is in a packed bar in London, where the health service is also more challenged. Just warning people rather than shutting people down allows these micro-decisions to be made, and allows differing levels of observance throughout the country. It's a pragmatic British fudge, it fully satisfies nobody but is hopefully survivable for most.
3 -
Faced with the alternative explanation, that at a time when there were only a handful of cases across a whole region (even multiplying up for unidentified ones), a remarkable number of travellers happened both to come into contact with one and then caught the virus (which for a single contact we're told may be only a 5% chance).Luckyguy1983 said:
I emailed HR about it last week and got this clip of whatever official advice they'd been given:IanB2 said:
It would certainly fit with my feeling that all those ‘returning from Italy’ travellers got infected on the plane.Luckyguy1983 said:
I'm not saying it's 'to blame' but I am saying I think it could be a cause of this virus being spread - as it as with many other viruses. Switch it off, and the air gets warmer, and more humid, and you don't have your friendly-neighbourhood disease delivery service operating. Seems like a sensible precaution to me.DecrepiterJohnL said:
If aircon is to blame then football crowds would have been safe. No doubt boffins both slds.Luckyguy1983 said:
I am sureioning ducts.Nigelb said:
The theory humidity will significantly inhibit it.williamglenn said:Bad news for the theory that heat will stop it.
https://twitter.com/BNODesk/status/1240839432284131328
Not exactly a ringing endorsement of aircon is it? There is no drawback to just switching it off as far as I can see, unless the aircon is the only thing making a venue fit for human habitation.
Far more likely that the virus was on the surfaces of the plane, protected by the air conditioning and the speedy turnrounds which means it is almost always on, and/or amongst the aircrew, and circulated among the passengers. If the science that the virus can survive on hard surfaces in such an environment for days, people might have been infected even when there wasn't a virus carrier on their flight.
0 -
The UK’s chief Brexit negotiator, David Frost, is self-isolating after showing symptoms of coronavirus.
The news, which was reported by various sources today and attributed to the UK government comes after Frost’s EU counterpart, Michel Barnier said he had tested positive for the disease on Thursday0 -
Wasn't there some relaxation to the data protection legislation in the emergency bill? If they can now hand over the names and addresses of these people to the supermarkets, then the supermarkets should be able to prioritise deliveries to them.rottenborough said:If they are going tell 1.5m people to self isolate from Monday, they had better be bloody ready with a nationwide food delivery scheme.
0 -
eBay deliveries seem to have ground to a halt. I now have 10 overdue packages.
HR Manager: Fucking hell. Not this guy again.Luckyguy1983 said:
I emailed HR about it last week and got this clip of whatever official advice they'd been given:IanB2 said:
It would certainly fit with my feeling that all those ‘returning from Italy’ travellers got infected on the plane.Luckyguy1983 said:
I'm not saying it's 'to blame' but I am saying I think it could be a cause of this virus being spread - as it as with many other viruses. Switch it off, and the air gets warmer, and more humid, and you don't have your friendly-neighbourhood disease delivery service operating. Seems like a sensible precaution to me.DecrepiterJohnL said:
If aircon is to blame then football crowds would have been safe. No doubt boffins both sides of the Irish Sea will be keeping an eye out for reports of the dreaded lurgy infecting returners from the 4-day Cheltenham (horseracing) Festival last week. No aircon out of doors in the Cotswolds.Luckyguy1983 said:
I am sure that this is at least partly due to air conditioning. Heat cannot stop the virus if it is being spread and preserved in air conditioning ducts.Nigelb said:
The theory is actually that a combination of heat AND humidity will significantly inhibit it.williamglenn said:Bad news for the theory that heat will stop it.
https://twitter.com/BNODesk/status/1240839432284131328
Not exactly a ringing endorsement of aircon is it? There is no drawback to just switching it off as far as I can see, unless the aircon is the only thing making a venue fit for human habitation.0 -
In Epping we already have a volunteer network ready for deliveries, we don't all sit around waiting for the state to do absolutely everything. The army also on standby if needed.Cyclefree said:
If someone has to away from all social contact, how do they get deliveries of food if delivery slots are booked up 3 weeks in advance? How do those needing washing and lifting in and out of bed etc avoid all social contact?rottenborough said:
I wish the government would think through some of the practicalities and engage brain before opening mouth.
Carers of course remain key workers who will not be required to isolate0 -
Well said David and luckily for you the old laptop wasn't working on here late last night. The forum was full of absolute morons advocating laissez faire policies in a time of unprecedented crisis. Have a good day sir.DavidL said:My laptop is constantly being logged out of PB this morning. It’s frustrating.
Anyway the key, as I and many others have been saying on here is to keep the income flowing and as many jobs as possible intact until the virus is over. Boris reckons we are 12 weeks from that. It should be possible for the government to pay everyone’s wages for that long. They are already paying the 40% in the public sector. They need to keep the tax base for the recovery.
At the moment even those who are still paid are not spending. Restaurants, hotels, holidays, cars, cinema, home improvements, nothing is going to happen until we can move about freely and without fear. But we will need all of those things in due course. More than ever in many cases.0 -
As said below, you cant blame businesses for wanting to hang onto some custom.DavidL said:
I keep making this point but it is not really a question of anyone judging their own risks. The pub goer may be relatively young and healthy and at very low risk to the virus. The same does not apply to everyone the pub goer meets. To put it in stark terms, as Boris did yesterday, the more people brave the risks of the virus (which may indeed be low for them) the more vulnerable people are going to die. It really is that simple. People have to stop being selfish about this and acknowledge the knock on consequences of their actions.Luckyguy1983 said:I'm not too bothered about the pubs being open. Everyone has to make their own decisions, whether distancing, isolating, or complete lockdown. I appreciate that this means the disease will spread faster, but it is at different stages, and there are different levels of risk, all over the country. It's unlikely to be as risky in the village pub at Crinkly-Bottom-On-The-Wold as it is in a packed bar in London, where the health service is also more challenged. Just warning people rather than shutting people down allows these micro-decisions to be made, and allows differing levels of observance throughout the country. It's a pragmatic British fudge, it fully satisfies nobody but is hopefully survivable for most.
The risks will depend on how busy the pub is, their hygiene, and separation arrangements. I doubt the risks of popping in for a pint at the corner table are significantly different from those BigG will face when he goes down the chemist.0 -
Oh I agree, Im expecting societal lock down to last closer to 2 months than the 3/4 generally, my description of life in lock down longer than that was in response to the suggestion that the PM was saying 12 weeks simply to get people to comply and that it would last longer.Philip_Thompson said:
Its not going to take a year IMO. Especially once there's an antibody test and you know you're immune that will be a game changer.noneoftheabove said:
No hyperbole in my post. A year of complete isolation for people on their own, or a year of being cooped up together with family for others will be a mental disaster. Domestic violence will soar, relationships that would have been formed will never happen, people will get very damaged by a year. 2/3 months is just about do-able, but its not societally sustainable beyond that proportionate to the medical need.egg said:
There are issues to the longer containment, but no need for your hyperbole. It takes long as it takes to do whatever it takes. The easing at the other end has got to be right as there won’t be a vaccination for all the most vulnerable people, though it’s right politicians lead us on believing magic immunity bullet coming soon at this stage, you would have to say the same in their position. Lead people on and not be straight with them.noneoftheabove said:
In which case in a years time we will find hundreds or more dead people in their homes which no-one knew about who died months before, there will be far more mentally ill people, obesity crisis will have got far worse and there wont be an economy to go back to.rottenborough said:
i assume they are hoping it will only need to be 3 or 4 months but no doubt have plans for much longer. that will require horrendous enforcement methods imho.noneoftheabove said:
If its 6 months or longer how feasible is an isolation plan in the first place? What state will society be in afterwards? 6 months would be stopping the restrictions in September just ahead of the flu season, so if we got that far, Id imagine it would be more likely closer to a year. Just not practical imo but never been tried before so who knows.egg said:
It’s true 12 weeks isn’t long enough if peak is late May early June. It might be smart salami tactics though than honestly saying 6 months at the lectern. Bottom line is to be listened to and get compliance, not level with people.Mexicanpete said:
Boris' 12 week reckoning didn't make it to the end of the news conference.DavidL said:My laptop is constantly being logged out of PB this morning. It’s frustrating.
Anyway the key, as I and many others have been saying on here is to keep the income flowing and as many jobs as possible intact until the virus is over. Boris reckons we are 12 weeks from that. It should be possible for the government to pay everyone’s wages for that long. They are already paying the 40% in the public sector. They need to keep the tax base for the recovery.
At the moment even those who are still paid are not spending. Restaurants, hotels, holidays, cars, cinema, home improvements, nothing is going to happen until we can move about freely and without fear. But we will need all of those things in due course. More than ever in many cases.
Boris has sensibly left the heavy lifting to the experts, perhaps he should engage an expert communicator to run the press conferences.
(FWIW) I think he said it not out of either science or Machiavellian tactics, but because he is an optimist who things have always worked out for regardless of how badly he f***s up.0 -
Exactly. Anyone going out to a pub or restaurant now is being either incredibly stupid or incredibly selfish. Arseholes.DavidL said:
I keep making this point but it is not really a question of anyone judging their own risks. The pub goer may be relatively young and healthy and at very low risk to the virus. The same does not apply to everyone the pub goer meets. To put it in stark terms, as Boris did yesterday, the more people brave the risks of the virus (which may indeed be low for them) the more vulnerable people are going to die. It really is that simple. People have to stop being selfish about this and acknowledge the knock on consequences of their actions.Luckyguy1983 said:I'm not too bothered about the pubs being open. Everyone has to make their own decisions, whether distancing, isolating, or complete lockdown. I appreciate that this means the disease will spread faster, but it is at different stages, and there are different levels of risk, all over the country. It's unlikely to be as risky in the village pub at Crinkly-Bottom-On-The-Wold as it is in a packed bar in London, where the health service is also more challenged. Just warning people rather than shutting people down allows these micro-decisions to be made, and allows differing levels of observance throughout the country. It's a pragmatic British fudge, it fully satisfies nobody but is hopefully survivable for most.
0 -
Well said.felix said:Reading through the thread it's amusing and depressing at the same time. Everyone on here seems to be special. They all want different things. They all want someone to blame. Their particular solution is so obvious they cannot understand why it has not been adopted. They all want 'decisive' action. They don't want any limit on free speech or what thye personally do. Everywhere else in the world is doing it better and they all hate the Tories. I'll be back in a few hours from my own lockdown in Spain. I suspect nothing will have changed.
(Goes back to lurking, there’s not much to be gained from spending time on a forum where everyone is angry for different reasons. Parents are safely isolated and (self-employed) work has disappeared for the foreseeable future, but I’m relatively safe where I am).
One anecdote, there was a massive queue (much worse than Christmas) to get into the car park at one of the few alcohol shops in the sandpit last night. If we’re all going off-grid for a month, we’ll be having a good time doing it!0 -
That's pretty good. Waitrose here are booked through to late April already.MattW said:Just booking in a future Morrisons order.
Around here slots are currently available from April 2nd all day, and evening on April 1st, late night March 31st, which is not quite as bad as it sounds in some places.
IMO this is very regional, and the some media are being tosspots. London is a very local place.0 -
I went to the dentists yesterday and had a temporary filling put in. For some reason that seemed safer than having a proper one!Philip_Thompson said:
Dental work is health isn't it?Jonathan said:Here are a couple of anomalies.
My 6 months dental check is scheduled to go ahead
The local pool and gym is still open and packed.
I find this a bit odd.
I recall hearing once that dental issues underpin a lot of health issues and an estimated 1/6th or miscarriages from memory so why should dentists close?0 -
That's a bit harsh. There was only one donkey on here yesterday evening pushing for the laissez-faire approach as I recall. Still, if the avatar fits...Anabobazina said:
Well said David and luckily for you the old laptop wasn't working on here late last night. The forum was full of absolute morons advocating laissez faire policies in a time of unprecedented crisis. Have a good day sir.DavidL said:My laptop is constantly being logged out of PB this morning. It’s frustrating.
Anyway the key, as I and many others have been saying on here is to keep the income flowing and as many jobs as possible intact until the virus is over. Boris reckons we are 12 weeks from that. It should be possible for the government to pay everyone’s wages for that long. They are already paying the 40% in the public sector. They need to keep the tax base for the recovery.
At the moment even those who are still paid are not spending. Restaurants, hotels, holidays, cars, cinema, home improvements, nothing is going to happen until we can move about freely and without fear. But we will need all of those things in due course. More than ever in many cases.1 -
China reporting no new local infections, second day running.
Biut
For once I agree with you. Giant question mark over why anyone would need aircon on in the middle of March anyway (in most northern countries at least)Luckyguy1983 said:
I emailed HR about it last week and got this clip of whatever official advice they'd been given:IanB2 said:
It would certainly fit with my feeling that all those ‘returning from Italy’ travellers got infected on the plane.Luckyguy1983 said:
I'm not saying it's 'to blame' but I am saying I think it could be a cause of this virus being spread - as it as with many other viruses. Switch it off, and the air gets warmer, and more humid, and you don't have your friendly-neighbourhood disease delivery service operating. Seems like a sensible precaution to me.DecrepiterJohnL said:
If aircon is to blame then football crowds would have been safe. No doubt boffins both sides of the Irish Sea will be keeping an eye out for reports of the dreaded lurgy infecting returners from the 4-day Cheltenham (horseracing) Festival last week. No aircon out of doors in the Cotswolds.Luckyguy1983 said:
I am sure that this is at least partly due to air conditioning. Heat cannot stop the virus if it is being spread and preserved in air conditioning ducts.Nigelb said:
The theory is actually that a combination of heat AND humidity will significantly inhibit it.williamglenn said:Bad news for the theory that heat will stop it.
https://twitter.com/BNODesk/status/1240839432284131328
Not exactly a ringing endorsement of aircon is it? There is no drawback to just switching it off as far as I can see, unless the aircon is the only thing making a venue fit for human habitation.0 -
The right thing for me to do is turn it around onto you, like when you learn from making a case for capital punishment despite not believing in it. We agree there are issue to this, even less than 3 months let alone 3 or more on top, so how would you mitigate them/ Think of 5 actions to take to mitigate issues you describe from 6 month lockdown and what are the top 3?noneoftheabove said:
No hyperbole in my post. A year of complete isolation for people on their own, or a year of being cooped up together with family for others will be a mental disaster. Domestic violence will soar, relationships that would have been formed will never happen, people will get very damaged by a year. 2/3 months is just about do-able, but its not societally sustainable beyond that proportionate to the medical need.egg said:
There are issues to the longer containment, but no need for your hyperbole. It takes long as it takes to do whatever it takes. The easing at the other end has got to be right as there won’t be a vaccination for all the most vulnerable people, though it’s right politicians lead us on believing magic immunity bullet coming soon at this stage, you would have to say the same in their position. Lead people on and not be straight with them.noneoftheabove said:
In which case in a years time we will find hundreds or more dead people in their homes which no-one knew about who died months before, there will be far more mentally ill people, obesity crisis will have got far worse and there wont be an economy to go back to.rottenborough said:
i assume they are hoping it will only need to be 3 or 4 months but no doubt have plans for much longer. that will require horrendous enforcement methods imho.noneoftheabove said:
If its 6 months or longer how feasible is an isolation plan in the first place? What state will society be in afterwards? 6 months would be stopping the restrictions in September just ahead of the flu season, so if we got that far, Id imagine it would be more likely closer to a year. Just not practical imo but never been tried before so who knows.egg said:
It’s true 12 weeks isn’t long enough if peak is late May early June. It might be smart salami tactics though than honestly saying 6 months at the lectern. Bottom line is to be listened to and get compliance, not level with people.Mexicanpete said:
Boris' 12 week reckoning didn't make it to the end of the news conference.DavidL said:My laptop is constantly being logged out of PB this morning. It’s frustrating.
Anyway the key, as I and many others have been saying on here is to keep the income flowing and as many jobs as possible intact until the virus is over. Boris reckons we are 12 weeks from that. It should be possible for the government to pay everyone’s wages for that long. They are already paying the 40% in the public sector. They need to keep the tax base for the recovery.
At the moment even those who are still paid are not spending. Restaurants, hotels, holidays, cars, cinema, home improvements, nothing is going to happen until we can move about freely and without fear. But we will need all of those things in due course. More than ever in many cases.
Boris has sensibly left the heavy lifting to the experts, perhaps he should engage an expert communicator to run the press conferences.0 -
Meanwhile, in terrorism failure news:
https://twitter.com/GeoffNorcott/status/12409366082176737280 -
Thanks to all for the responses and the kind words - especially from those who have been through similar. I can only say what I think and leave it to my wife to decide, but for me it's clear that we have to have a very small, low-key, graveside ceremony now and then a big celebration when this is all done. As a few of you say, my wife would never, ever forgive herself if her Mum's funeral led to other members of the family getting seriously ill or even dying. It will be a difficult conversaiton but it's one that has to be had. This virus is an absolute bastard.7
-
It is possible that the proliferation of moronic posts from a single individual made it seem like a cast of thousands.Benpointer said:
That's a bit harsh. There was only one donkey on here yesterday evening pushing for the laissez-faire approach as I recall. Still, if the avatar fits...Anabobazina said:
Well said David and luckily for you the old laptop wasn't working on here late last night. The forum was full of absolute morons advocating laissez faire policies in a time of unprecedented crisis. Have a good day sir.DavidL said:My laptop is constantly being logged out of PB this morning. It’s frustrating.
Anyway the key, as I and many others have been saying on here is to keep the income flowing and as many jobs as possible intact until the virus is over. Boris reckons we are 12 weeks from that. It should be possible for the government to pay everyone’s wages for that long. They are already paying the 40% in the public sector. They need to keep the tax base for the recovery.
At the moment even those who are still paid are not spending. Restaurants, hotels, holidays, cars, cinema, home improvements, nothing is going to happen until we can move about freely and without fear. But we will need all of those things in due course. More than ever in many cases.1 -
N
No you've pretty much got it.MattW said:
Can you enlighten me with the non-legal meaning?DavidL said:
That has cost me 4 proof diets to date.another_richard said:
I've been having the same logging in problem for days.DavidL said:My laptop is constantly being logged out of PB this morning. It’s frustrating.
Anyway the key, as I and many others have been saying on here is to keep the income flowing and as many jobs as possible intact until the virus is over. Boris reckons we are 12 weeks from that. It should be possible for the government to pay everyone’s wages for that long. They are already paying the 40% in the public sector. They need to keep the tax base for the recovery.
At the moment even those who are still paid are not spending. Restaurants, hotels, holidays, cars, cinema, home improvements, nothing is going to happen until we can move about freely and without fear. But we will need all of those things in due course. More than ever in many cases.
There are about 27 million people employed in the private sector.
If the government gives each of them £1000 a month for the next three months that will be a cost of about £80bn.
Much of which would be recouped in taxes when the money is spent.
And by giving everyone the same amount it will help the low paid the most.
I have a picture of someone in a legal wig sustained on Glenlivet.
A proof diet is the civil equivalent of a trial in criminal matters where witnesses come and tell the court their version of events and the court works out who is right and who is, well, not. My job is to get witnesses to give their evidence clearly, to make the opposing evidence seem inherently unlikely and then explain to the judge how my version better fits with the law.0 -
Yes, if pubs are open with only 10 people in them is that really a problem? There’s no way it makes sense for villages that are pretty isolated already to impose the same restrictions as are needed in inner LondonLuckyguy1983 said:I'm not too bothered about the pubs being open. Everyone has to make their own decisions, whether distancing, isolating, or complete lockdown. I appreciate that this means the disease will spread faster, but it is at different stages, and there are different levels of risk, all over the country. It's unlikely to be as risky in the village pub at Crinkly-Bottom-On-The-Wold as it is in a packed bar in London, where the health service is also more challenged. Just warning people rather than shutting people down allows these micro-decisions to be made, and allows differing levels of observance throughout the country. It's a pragmatic British fudge, it fully satisfies nobody but is hopefully survivable for most.
1 -
OK the school advice for children of key workers seems clearer now. Only one parent needs to be a key worker but the advice is to keep children home if you have an alternative option. So we've just formally informed the school that yes my wife is a key worker but we will not be sending our children to school.
Guess I'm going to be a stay at home dad for the next few months.0 -
Care Homes have a somewhat mixed reputation, and, as someone who used to visit them professionally, I can understand why. However, I'd have no problem about going into one, or suggesting the idea to a 'near and dear', assuming the home had adequate staff and decent management. And yes, they do exist.eek said:
She doesn't need to be in a hospital but it would make sense for her to be cared for in a care home (and yes I know that she really wouldn't want to move into a home but it's the best out of a bad set of options).NickPalmer said:
I think that's fair - it's clearly extremely difficult to make decisions on the run, but we can all see gaps that haven't been fully considered. What I primarily want at the top is good administrators empowered to make fast decisions. On the specific point of carers, the guidance is pretty clear - the elderly and sick shouldhave carer visits but nobody else. But I know someone in her 90s who has 5 carers dealing with different issues - if they're not dealt with, she'll probably die; if they are, she's at obvious risk of infection; if she goes to hospital, she'll take up a bed without needing any new treatment. There is no easy solution.Jonathan said:
Whilst I am sure they’re doing their best, their best isn’t very good.Cyclefree said:
If someone has to away from all social contact, how do they get deliveries of food if delivery slots are booked up 3 weeks in advance? How do those needing washing and lifting in and out of bed etc avoid all social contact?rottenborough said:
I wish the government would think through some of the practicalities and engage brain before opening mouth.
In our council (Waverley) all parties have agreed to suspend all face-to-face meetings and empoower officers to make decisions to put combating the virus first ahead of all kinds of routine things (planning applications, for example). Disagreements between parties have simply been put on hold - it seems completely out of place to be arguing about local stuff.0 -
I disagree, all other nations have been quoting numbers but things like "15 days" that they then expand etcJM1 said:
Agreed. I think a 6-8 week lockdown is likely, followed by a slow ramp up subsequently. Together with the AB test (which looks, according to Hancock, that it might be here by the end of next week) and better therapeutics we can get out of this. But I wish Johnson hadn't stated numbers - it's very foolish since there is such a huge range of uncertainty.noneoftheabove said:
Oh I agree, Im expecting societal lock down to last closer to 2 months than the 3/4 generally, my description of life in lock down longer than that was in response to the suggestion that the PM was saying 12 weeks simply to get people to comply and that it would last longer.Philip_Thompson said:
Its not going to take a year IMO. Especially once there's an antibody test and you know you're immune that will be a game changer.noneoftheabove said:
No hyperbole in my post. A year of complete isolation for people on their own, or a year of being cooped up together with family for others will be a mental disaster. Domestic violence will soar, relationships that would have been formed will never happen, people will get very damaged by a year. 2/3 months is just about do-able, but its not societally sustainable beyond that proportionate to the medical need.egg said:
There are issues to the longer containment, but no need for your hyperbole. It takes long as it takes to do whatever it takes. The easing at the other end has got to be right as there won’t be a vaccination for all the most vulnerable people, though it’s right politicians lead us on believing magic immunity bullet coming soon at this stage, you would have to say the same in their position. Lead people on and not be straight with them.noneoftheabove said:
In which case in a years time we will find hundreds or more dead people in their homes which no-one knew about who died months before, there will be far more mentally ill people, obesity crisis will have got far worse and there wont be an economy to go back to.rottenborough said:
i assume they are hoping it will only need to be 3 or 4 months but no doubt have plans for much longer. that will require horrendous enforcement methods imho.noneoftheabove said:
If its 6 months or longer how feasible is an isolation plan in the first place? What state will society be in afterwards? 6 months would be stopping the restrictions in September just ahead of the flu season, so if we got that far, Id imagine it would be more likely closer to a year. Just not practical imo but never been tried before so who knows.egg said:
It’s true 12 weeks isn’t long enough if peak is late May early June. It might be smart salami tactics though than honestly saying 6 months at the lectern. Bottom line is to be listened to and get compliance, not level with people.Mexicanpete said:
Boris' 12 week reckoning didn't make it to the end of the news conference.DavidL said:My laptop is constantly being logged out of PB this morning. It’s frustrating.
Anyway the key, as I and many others have been saying on here is to keep the income flowing and as many jobs as possible intact until the virus is over. Boris reckons we are 12 weeks from that. It should be possible for the government to pay everyone’s wages for that long. They are already paying the 40% in the public sector. They need to keep the tax base for the recovery.
At the moment even those who are still paid are not spending. Restaurants, hotels, holidays, cars, cinema, home improvements, nothing is going to happen until we can move about freely and without fear. But we will need all of those things in due course. More than ever in many cases.
Boris has sensibly left the heavy lifting to the experts, perhaps he should engage an expert communicator to run the press conferences.
(FWIW) I think he said it not out of either science or Machiavellian tactics, but because he is an optimist who things have always worked out for regardless of how badly he f***s up.
Our government in saying "hopefully 12 weeks" is being infinitely more honest.2 -
For 6 months Id be encouraging rather than stopping people going for a walk, just make it clear not to touch anything, dont go if coughing or sneezing, and stay in groups of four or less. People should do that everyday, preferably in the morning, as good for sleep rhythms.egg said:
The right thing for me to do is turn it around onto you, like when you learn from making a case for capital punishment despite not believing in it. We agree there are issue to this, even less than 3 months let alone 3 or more on top, so how would you mitigate them/ Think of 5 actions to take to mitigate issues you describe from 6 month lockdown and what are the top 3?noneoftheabove said:
No hyperbole in my post. A year of complete isolation for people on their own, or a year of being cooped up together with family for others will be a mental disaster. Domestic violence will soar, relationships that would have been formed will never happen, people will get very damaged by a year. 2/3 months is just about do-able, but its not societally sustainable beyond that proportionate to the medical need.egg said:
There are issues to the longer containment, but no need for your hyperbole. It takes long as it takes to do whatever it takes. The easing at the other end has got to be right as there won’t be a vaccination for all the most vulnerable people, though it’s right politicians lead us on believing magic immunity bullet coming soon at this stage, you would have to say the same in their position. Lead people on and not be straight with them.noneoftheabove said:
In which case in a years time we will find hundreds or more dead people in their homes which no-one knew about who died months before, there will be far more mentally ill people, obesity crisis will have got far worse and there wont be an economy to go back to.rottenborough said:
i assume they are hoping it will only need to be 3 or 4 months but no doubt have plans for much longer. that will require horrendous enforcement methods imho.noneoftheabove said:
If its 6 months or longer how feasible is an isolation plan in the first place? What state will society be in afterwards? 6 months would be stopping the restrictions in September just ahead of the flu season, so if we got that far, Id imagine it would be more likely closer to a year. Just not practical imo but never been tried before so who knows.egg said:
It’s true 12 weeks isn’t long enough if peak is late May early June. It might be smart salami tactics though than honestly saying 6 months at the lectern. Bottom line is to be listened to and get compliance, not level with people.Mexicanpete said:
Boris' 12 week reckoning didn't make it to the end of the news conference.DavidL said:My laptop is constantly being logged out of PB this morning. It’s frustrating.
Anyway the key, as I and many others have been saying on here is to keep the income flowing and as many jobs as possible intact until the virus is over. Boris reckons we are 12 weeks from that. It should be possible for the government to pay everyone’s wages for that long. They are already paying the 40% in the public sector. They need to keep the tax base for the recovery.
At the moment even those who are still paid are not spending. Restaurants, hotels, holidays, cars, cinema, home improvements, nothing is going to happen until we can move about freely and without fear. But we will need all of those things in due course. More than ever in many cases.
Boris has sensibly left the heavy lifting to the experts, perhaps he should engage an expert communicator to run the press conferences.
Setup safe social places, think gardens or parks with chairs spaced 2 metres apart and wipes used before and after.
Helicopter money equivalent to at least full time NMW to take away financial stress.
Thats top of my head top 3. Basically massively reduced social contact, not self isolation.
2 -
Philip
Agreed. The pressure on govt to put a timetable on this thing would have become irresistible within days. 12-weeks seems doable and is broadly congruent with the East Asian timetable1 -
...0
-
He didn't say that! He said 12 weeks was when we'd start to turn the corner (i forget his exact words)nichomar said:Why does Johnson keep making himself a hostage to fortune by quoting a time limit of 12 weeks on the crisis? It’s silly it raises expectations and can really only be finger in the air guess work.
But he shouldn't have put any definite number on it, i agree. And the communication in general has been absolutely dreadful.0 -
Chaotic is a kind description.ydoethur said:
Yes, that is current policy. So your children qualify. Whether that means they HAVE to be in school has not been clarified.Philip_Thompson said:I'm seeing reports that if one parent is a key worker then children are eligible to go to school, they don't both have to be. Is that confirmed?
I'm not a key worker but my wife is.
I am very unusually posting from school using data. This situation is chaotic. Clearly there has been no planning and no thought given to what to do. They are sound bites that have not been analysed. It is going to get worse. 50/50 Williamson and indeed his Scottish, Welsh and NIrish counterparts are forced to resign within the week.
Edit - I don’t mean my school has not planned. We have several, for different scenarios. But because the government is so incoherent right now we don’t know which one to use.
What this shows is they never even thought about closing schools and planned to brazen it out by claiming that it was safe (it isn't, not for students or staff or, as a result, parents).
The government's sudden horrific realisation that their belief that they could tame the spread of a virus was a crock has led us to this. I suppose, at least we can be thankful that they haven't continued with what would have been the modern equivalent of The Charge of the Light Brigade.
0 -
The pub has 2 options:HYUFD said:
It is on the irresponsible landlord, as the CMO and PM have made clear if people do not follow advice to act sensibly then yes lockdown will have to be enforcedTheScreamingEagles said:
1. Listen to the "CMO and PM [who] have made clear" that they should close their doors. With their zero income and continuing outgoings they can then apply for the government loan and be denied as a business who has zero income and continuing outgoings is not viable. Business closes. Everyone out of work.
2. Stay open as they have every right to do. Sell happy juice to people who have every right to want to drink happy juice. Stay trading. Keep employing people.
Clearly they should listen to HYUFD, go bankrupt and contribute to the growing mountain of unemployed.
Is HYUFD a sock-puppet for Iain Duncan Smith? Cooeee Iain!0 -
So, my wife is a teaching assistant at a large private school. She's only just started back after her illness, and is on reduced hours. They've just been told that it is business as usual for all staff. They expect to have large numbers of children in school, so staff are to come to work as normal, even during Easter as the school runs holiday clubs as all the rich parents use the school as expensive child care. I thought the idea was to limit the number of people mixing together......0
-
I suppose if primary and early secondary school children find themselves close to a computer screen for lessons for a while it might put them off using them for leisure!Philip_Thompson said:OK the school advice for children of key workers seems clearer now. Only one parent needs to be a key worker but the advice is to keep children home if you have an alternative option. So we've just formally informed the school that yes my wife is a key worker but we will not be sending our children to school.
Guess I'm going to be a stay at home dad for the next few months.0 -
I went over our local last night and bought a takeaway curry for a tenner. The pub usually has 40-50 eating in the evenings and perhaps 20 drinkers, but there must've been 10 people there in total. The landlords are crestfallen, but they willl continue to do nice grub and those of us who live on the nearby estate are going to make the effort to buy takeaways.isam said:
Yes, if pubs are open with only 10 people in them is that really a problem? There’s no way it makes sense for villages that are pretty isolated already to impose the same restrictions as are needed in inner LondonLuckyguy1983 said:I'm not too bothered about the pubs being open. Everyone has to make their own decisions, whether distancing, isolating, or complete lockdown. I appreciate that this means the disease will spread faster, but it is at different stages, and there are different levels of risk, all over the country. It's unlikely to be as risky in the village pub at Crinkly-Bottom-On-The-Wold as it is in a packed bar in London, where the health service is also more challenged. Just warning people rather than shutting people down allows these micro-decisions to be made, and allows differing levels of observance throughout the country. It's a pragmatic British fudge, it fully satisfies nobody but is hopefully survivable for most.
If the pub went out of business it'd be heartbreaking.0 -
Insane.twistedfirestopper3 said:So, my wife is a teaching assistant at a large private school. She's only just started back after her illness, and is on reduced hours. They've just been told that it is business as usual for all staff. They expect to have large numbers of children in school, so staff are to come to work as normal, even during Easter as the school runs holiday clubs as all the rich parents use the school as expensive child care. I thought the idea was to limit the number of people mixing together......
0 -
Meanwhile I am trying to forecast sales for next week and the week after so that our factory can try and plan with its unknown level of available labour. Sales growth is exponential with both our usual consumers buying more stuff more often and people who never buy our category coming in to buy whatever they can buy. The advice from the supermarkets is MAKE MORE but at the same time GSCOP has just been suspended, ranges are being reduced and retailers can suspend listings on any product as they see fit.
So if I push the button on making the wrong product not only do I end up stuck with it and no home fir it, I also tie up precious cash ingredients and factory time making stuff that isn't wanted. Can't ask the buyers they are all being drowned in a bucket trying to keep up with this madness.0 -
It is essential there is Action This Day on the pubs, cafes etc. Government must bail them out for the shut down.Fenster said:
I went over our local last night and bought a takeaway curry for a tenner. The pub usually has 40-50 eating in the evenings and perhaps 20 drinkers, but there must've been 10 people there in total. The landlords are crestfallen, but they willl continue to do nice grub and those of us who live on the nearby estate are going to make the effort to buy takeaways.isam said:
Yes, if pubs are open with only 10 people in them is that really a problem? There’s no way it makes sense for villages that are pretty isolated already to impose the same restrictions as are needed in inner LondonLuckyguy1983 said:I'm not too bothered about the pubs being open. Everyone has to make their own decisions, whether distancing, isolating, or complete lockdown. I appreciate that this means the disease will spread faster, but it is at different stages, and there are different levels of risk, all over the country. It's unlikely to be as risky in the village pub at Crinkly-Bottom-On-The-Wold as it is in a packed bar in London, where the health service is also more challenged. Just warning people rather than shutting people down allows these micro-decisions to be made, and allows differing levels of observance throughout the country. It's a pragmatic British fudge, it fully satisfies nobody but is hopefully survivable for most.
If the pub went out of business it'd be heartbreaking.0 -
Actually I will not be going to the chemist as my children will pick up our medication and leave it in our porchIanB2 said:
As said below, you cant blame businesses for wanting to hang onto some custom.DavidL said:
I keep making this point but it is not really a question of anyone judging their own risks. The pub goer may be relatively young and healthy and at very low risk to the virus. The same does not apply to everyone the pub goer meets. To put it in stark terms, as Boris did yesterday, the more people brave the risks of the virus (which may indeed be low for them) the more vulnerable people are going to die. It really is that simple. People have to stop being selfish about this and acknowledge the knock on consequences of their actions.Luckyguy1983 said:I'm not too bothered about the pubs being open. Everyone has to make their own decisions, whether distancing, isolating, or complete lockdown. I appreciate that this means the disease will spread faster, but it is at different stages, and there are different levels of risk, all over the country. It's unlikely to be as risky in the village pub at Crinkly-Bottom-On-The-Wold as it is in a packed bar in London, where the health service is also more challenged. Just warning people rather than shutting people down allows these micro-decisions to be made, and allows differing levels of observance throughout the country. It's a pragmatic British fudge, it fully satisfies nobody but is hopefully survivable for most.
The risks will depend on how busy the pub is, their hygiene, and separation arrangements. I doubt the risks of popping in for a pint at the corner table are significantly different from those BigG will face when he goes down the chemist.
However, I have an ongoing infection and am in touch with my surgery by e mail and it is working very well. I have been given an appointment at the surgery later this morning and as I am in the highest risk category the surgery have asked me to stay in my car and I will be called directly into the consultation from my car0 -
Yes. Should really have been the advice from the beginning imo - could still help the Middle East and maybe even countries like Spain.IanB2 said:
Faced with the alternative explanation, that at a time when there were only a handful of cases across a whole region (even multiplying up for unidentified ones), a remarkable number of travellers happened both to come into contact with one and then caught the virus (which for a single contact we're told may be only a 5% chance).Luckyguy1983 said:
I emailed HR about it last week and got this clip of whatever official advice they'd been given:IanB2 said:
It would certainly fit with my feeling that all those ‘returning from Italy’ travellers got infected on the plane.Luckyguy1983 said:
I'm not saying it's 'to blame' but I am saying I think it could be a cause of this virus being spread - as it as with many other viruses. Switch it off, and the air gets warmer, and more humid, and you don't have your friendly-neighbourhood disease delivery service operating. Seems like a sensible precaution to me.DecrepiterJohnL said:
If aircon is to blame then football crowds would have been safe. No doubt boffins both slds.Luckyguy1983 said:
I am sureioning ducts.Nigelb said:
The theory humidity will significantly inhibit it.williamglenn said:Bad news for the theory that heat will stop it.
https://twitter.com/BNODesk/status/1240839432284131328
Not exactly a ringing endorsement of aircon is it? There is no drawback to just switching it off as far as I can see, unless the aircon is the only thing making a venue fit for human habitation.
Far more likely that the virus was on the surfaces of the plane, protected by the air conditioning and the speedy turnrounds which means it is almost always on, and/or amongst the aircrew, and circulated among the passengers. If the science that the virus can survive on hard surfaces in such an environment for days, people might have been infected even when there wasn't a virus carrier on their flight.0 -
That takes us back to what the strategic objective is.Philip_Thompson said:
I disagree, all other nations have been quoting numbers but things like "15 days" that they then expand etcJM1 said:
Agreed. I think a 6-8 week lockdown is likely, followed by a slow ramp up subsequently. Together with the AB test (which looks, according to Hancock, that it might be here by the end of next week) and better therapeutics we can get out of this. But I wish Johnson hadn't stated numbers - it's very foolish since there is such a huge range of uncertainty.noneoftheabove said:
Oh I agree, Im expecting societal lock down to last closer to 2 months than the 3/4 generally, my description of life in lock down longer than that was in response to the suggestion that the PM was saying 12 weeks simply to get people to comply and that it would last longer.Philip_Thompson said:
Its not going to take a year IMO. Especially once there's an antibody test and you know you're immune that will be a game changer.noneoftheabove said:
No hyperbole in my post. A year of complete isolation for people on their own, or a year of being cooped up together with family for others will be a mental disaster. Domestic violence will soar, relationships that would have been formed will never happen, people will get very damaged by a year. 2/3 months is just about do-able, but its not societally sustainable beyond that proportionate to the medical need.egg said:
There are issues to the longer containment, but no need for your hyperbole. It takes long as it takes to do whatever it takes. The easing at the other end has got to be right as there won’t be a vaccination for all the most vulnerable people, though it’s right politicians lead us on believing magic immunity bullet coming soon at this stage, you would have to say the same in their position. Lead people on and not be straight with them.noneoftheabove said:
In which cack to.rottenborough said:
i assume they are hoping it will only need to be 3 or 4 months but no doubt have plans for much longer. that will require horrendous enforcement methods imho.noneoftheabove said:
If its 6 months or longer how feasible is an isolation plan in the first place? What stat.egg said:
It’s true get compliance, not level with people.Mexicanpete said:
Boris' 12 week reckoning didn't make it to the end of the news conference.DavidL said:My laptop is constantly being logged out of PB this morning. It’s frustrating.
Anyway the key, as I and many others have been saying on here is to keep the income flowing and as many jobs as possible intact until the virus is over. Boris reckons we are 12 weeks from that. It should be possible for the government to pay everyone’s wages for that long. They are already paying the 40% in the public sector. They need to keep the tax base for the recovery.
At the moment even those who are still paid are not spending. Restaurants, hotels, holidays, cars, cinema, home improvements, nothing is going to happen until we can move about freely and without fear. But we will need all of those things in due course. More than ever in many cases.
Boris has sensibly left the heavy lifting to the experts, perhaps he should engage an expert communicator to run the press conferences.
(FWIW) I think he said it not out of either science or Machiavellian tactics, but because he is an optimist who things have always worked out for regardless of how badly he f***s up.
Our government in saying "hopefully 12 weeks" is being infinitely more honest.
A lockdown to wait for the cavalry (vaccine or cure) could be very long indeed.
A lockdown to try and drive the virus back to near extinction, so that 'identify and trace' plus restrictions/checks on international travel keep it at bay, could be mid range. If new clusters emerge then it may need to be repeated.
A lockdown to see how the NHS copes with the first wave, aiming in the longer term for a herd immunity approach, would be shorter, but would certainly need to be repeated, multiple times, over a long period. And with longer confinement for the vulnerable.0 -
Very sorry to hear your news.SouthamObserver said:Thanks to all for the responses and the kind words - especially from those who have been through similar. I can only say what I think and leave it to my wife to decide, but for me it's clear that we have to have a very small, low-key, graveside ceremony now and then a big celebration when this is all done. As a few of you say, my wife would never, ever forgive herself if her Mum's funeral led to other members of the family getting seriously ill or even dying. It will be a difficult conversaiton but it's one that has to be had. This virus is an absolute bastard.
Thoughts are with you and your wife.0 -
As far as I recall, I've never emailed the HR Manager before.Dura_Ace said:eBay deliveries seem to have ground to a halt. I now have 10 overdue packages.
HR Manager: Fucking hell. Not this guy again.Luckyguy1983 said:
I emailed HR about it last week and got this clip of whatever official advice they'd been given:IanB2 said:
It would certainly fit with my feeling that all those ‘returning from Italy’ travellers got infected on the plane.Luckyguy1983 said:
I'm not saying it's 'to blame' but I am saying I think it could be a cause of this virus being spread - as it as with many other viruses. Switch it off, and the air gets warmer, and more humid, and you don't have your friendly-neighbourhood disease delivery service operating. Seems like a sensible precaution to me.DecrepiterJohnL said:
If aircon is to blame then football crowds would have been safe. No doubt boffins both sides of the Irish Sea will be keeping an eye out for reports of the dreaded lurgy infecting returners from the 4-day Cheltenham (horseracing) Festival last week. No aircon out of doors in the Cotswolds.Luckyguy1983 said:
I am sure that this is at least partly due to air conditioning. Heat cannot stop the virus if it is being spread and preserved in air conditioning ducts.Nigelb said:
The theory is actually that a combination of heat AND humidity will significantly inhibit it.williamglenn said:Bad news for the theory that heat will stop it.
https://twitter.com/BNODesk/status/1240839432284131328
Not exactly a ringing endorsement of aircon is it? There is no drawback to just switching it off as far as I can see, unless the aircon is the only thing making a venue fit for human habitation.0
