Jump to content

Don't Miss a Beat

Join the UK's most passionate festival community. Keep up with the latest conversations, line-up rumours, and music news.

250,000+ Members

Connect with a massive network of fellow festival-goers.

Lively Discussions

Thousands of active topics on music, campsites, and tips.

Hot Rumours & News

Hear about secret sets and lineup drops before anyone else.

Create Free Account
OR
  • Sign Up!

    Join our friendly community of music lovers and be part of the fun 😎

When will this shit end?


Chrisp1986

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, BobWillis2 said:

I agree with what you say. I just feel like the next logical step from roughly a quarter full is maybe 50% and then 75% before going for full capacity. The Final is on the 15th May, the idea that 37 days after the 25% test we’ll be at full capacity seems highly unlikely. 
We can all argue about the speed of the roadmap until we’re blue in the face, but that’s not the point I’m trying to make here. 
The only way to find out how safe or unsafe it will be to have large non socially distanced events is to actually trial large non socially distanced events. Either we’re heading into 21st June blind and hoping for the best, or they’re overselling how much normality there will be on the 21st June. 

Good points. Maybe they'll trial a few more events in between the Cup Final (if successful) and June 21, increasing the capacity gradually each time? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, BobWillis2 said:

I agree with what you say. I just feel like the next logical step from roughly a quarter full is maybe 50% and then 75% before going for full capacity. The Final is on the 15th May, the idea that 37 days after the 25% test we’ll be at full capacity seems highly unlikely. 
We can all argue about the speed of the roadmap until we’re blue in the face, but that’s not the point I’m trying to make here. 
The only way to find out how safe or unsafe it will be to have large non socially distanced events is to actually trial large non socially distanced events. Either we’re heading into 21st June blind and hoping for the best, or they’re overselling how much normality there will be on the 21st June. 

Honestly I think 21st June will start to sound very different to what we've been led to believe when we get past the local elections.

I have a feeling the events industry has been sold up the river for political gain once again 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Supernintendo Chalmers said:

Good points. Maybe they'll trial a few more events in between the Cup Final (if successful) and June 21, increasing the capacity gradually each time? 

Possibly. I think it would have made sense to have 1/3 capacity for the league cup final in April,  2/3’s for the FA cup final in May  and then full capacity in June. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, BobWillis2 said:

I agree with what you say. I just feel like the next logical step from roughly a quarter full is maybe 50% and then 75% before going for full capacity. The Final is on the 15th May, the idea that 37 days after the 25% test we’ll be at full capacity seems highly unlikely. 
We can all argue about the speed of the roadmap until we’re blue in the face, but that’s not the point I’m trying to make here. 
The only way to find out how safe or unsafe it will be to have large non socially distanced events is to actually trial large non socially distanced events. Either we’re heading into 21st June blind and hoping for the best, or they’re overselling how much normality there will be on the 21st June. 

And we're also back into the argument of, if we're worried about cases even after people have been vaccinated at least once when do we stop worrying about them? Do we ever? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Supernintendo Chalmers said:

I see the kids going back as the real acid test. As I say, if we can keep the numbers stable over the next few weeks, I really think the roadmap is realistic. Fingers crossed.

Remember that the roadmap assumes cases will rise, but not enough to increase hospitalisations.

I'm hopeful that cases will stay stable or drop with the schools back, given how much vaccination appears to cut transmission.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On guardian live feed...

  • Three health workers in Norway who recently received the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine against Covid-19 are being treated in hospital for blood clots. According to Steinar Madsen, medical director at the Norwegian medicines agency, their symptoms included “bleeding, blood clots and a low count of blood platelets.” He told the broadcaster NRK: “They are quite sick ... We take this very seriously.”
  • The Democratic Republic of the Congo has become the latest country to suspend use of the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine, postponing its vaccination programme until results of investigations into suspected links to blood clots are available. DRC was due to begin distribution of the vaccine on 15 March, after receiving 1.7m doses of the vaccine. A new start date has not been announced.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Ozanne said:

It’s not the commute for me, as I have a 20 minute walk to work. I don’t like the office environment with bickering over temperature, climate control systems that circulate bugs round the floor and seeing people that I don’t really want to see for 8 hours a day. WFH or more importantly the option to still do it gives me that freedom to flexibly. 

Does not sound great! Has work told you yet what they will be doing over the coming months? Will you get the choice?

Same question to other posters on this thread, what seems to be the consensus among employers and offices?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mr.Tease said:

Does not sound great! Has work told you yet what they will be doing over the coming months? Will you get the choice?

Same question to other posters on this thread, what seems to be the consensus among employers and offices?

They are getting rid of a fairly decent amount of their office buildings and they have said what will happen over the next few months which means for the majority we'll stay WFH till at least 21st June. They have said that after the pandemic is over that we won't go back to working Mon - Fri in the offices but that's about it. Personally I would like them to come out and say that staff have the choice if they want to stay remote working or not. 

 

I suspect it'll go down to individual departments and what they are happy with as some will want more direct control over where their staff work than others. My department to be fair to them are pretty laid back with it and we said in the summer we'll move to a predominantly remote working team going into the office for monthly team meetings etc. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mr.Tease said:

Does not sound great! Has work told you yet what they will be doing over the coming months? Will you get the choice?

Same question to other posters on this thread, what seems to be the consensus among employers and offices?

I don't know...I was in a weird situation last year. Pre pandemic I was probably working home a third to half the time. My office is about 7 miles away and I cycle if I can be arsed, drive if I can't, so commute isn't really that bad. In office there are only about 10 of us, but I'd rather be at home unless I've fallen out with the family which is quite often! But...last summer our ceo (I work for a silicon valley tech company) ordered all workers back into the office, first of all at 25% capacity, then at 50%. Then in late August our office in UK got nearly shut down as he saw us on a spreadsheet and said he wasn't paying for a half capacity shitty little office in some shithold called Manchester, UK...but he got persuaded not to close us because we're so wonderful or something, but we all had to go full time. So, last autumn, despite govt guidance otherwise, I had to go into the office or we'd be closed down. After new year though this all changed, and all UK offices were closed (actually a couple of people still going in to ours). Not sure when we'll be told to go back, I'm guessing mid April, but I just want to go back to how it was pre-pandemic, but I might be told I have to be in office full time, have to see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Zoo Music Girl said:

Yeah I'm not looking forward to the commute. I used to do two days in, two days out at my main employer, with the fifth day being a mix depending who I was working for. While that is the right fit for me in terms of office time, the tube journey used to fill me with dread. It's a pretty short journey but I hate being packed in like sardines. Already used to give me anxiety some mornings, no idea what it will be like now. Will likely start back in with just one day a week and see how it goes.

Also not looking forward to getting up a whole hour earlier again on those days! 

In my case, though, if I wanted to work from home forever I could (I'm freelance so can set my own terms to a degree) but I do miss the office chat and social side now. I'm torn between anxiety at going back to the way things were and wanting to get the fuck out of the house!

I used to hate getting the Tube when I lived in London, my heart went out to people who still had to get it when the virus was kicking off and they were still squashed like sardines while knowing they were at high risk of catching it.

In Manchester they had these big cafe things where you pay per hour for infinite cake/coffee but the idea is you can use it as a work space and socialise at the same time. I feel such a yokel saying this in case it's well known in cities these days! What are these places called?! Think these will see a possible big expansion going forward with so many more people working from home, but wanting some human connections once or twice a week with others (though not an option for telesales or confidential data), unless maybe they had spill out private rooms you could use.

Your talk of the prospect of having to get up earlier has made me realise I've had to get up and start work earlier while working at home than I used to before the pandemic as nearly all my clients have wanted moving appointments during the pandemic! I've ended up working more hours, starting earlier and finishing later than ever before, and I haven't taken any holiday days off, so it's been quite a knackering pandemic for me, definitely need a break (and a hernia operation!) before returning properly to the outside world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

They are getting rid of a fairly decent amount of their office buildings and they have said what will happen over the next few months which means for the majority we'll stay WFH till at least 21st June. They have said that after the pandemic is over that we won't go back to working Mon - Fri in the offices but that's about it. Personally I would like them to come out and say that staff have the choice if they want to stay remote working or not. 

 

I suspect it'll go down to individual departments and what they are happy with as some will want more direct control over where their staff work than others. My department to be fair to them are pretty laid back with it and we said in the summer we'll move to a predominantly remote working team going into the office for monthly team meetings etc. 

 

4 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

I don't know...I was in a weird situation last year. Pre pandemic I was probably working home a third to half the time. My office is about 7 miles away and I cycle if I can be arsed, drive if I can't, so commute isn't really that bad. In office there are only about 10 of us, but I'd rather be at home unless I've fallen out with the family which is quite often! But...last summer our ceo (I work for a silicon valley tech company) ordered all workers back into the office, first of all at 25% capacity, then at 50%. Then in late August our office in UK got nearly shut down as he saw us on a spreadsheet and said he wasn't paying for a half capacity shitty little office in some shithold called Manchester, UK...but he got persuaded not to close us because we're so wonderful or something, but we all had to go full time. So, last autumn, despite govt guidance otherwise, I had to go into the office or we'd be closed down. After new year though this all changed, and all UK offices were closed (actually a couple of people still going in to ours). Not sure when we'll be told to go back, I'm guessing mid April, but I just want to go back to how it was pre-pandemic, but I might be told I have to be in office full time, have to see.

So seems like quite a bit of uncertainty? I suppose it depends also on what the government decides to incentivise/ deter- from the sounds of thing Johnson seemed to be indicating they'll be wanting to get people to return to office working rather than actually find out what people working there would prefer. Fingers crossed for both of you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Mr.Tease said:

Does not sound great! Has work told you yet what they will be doing over the coming months? Will you get the choice?

Same question to other posters on this thread, what seems to be the consensus among employers and offices?

My employers are basically saying it'll be hybrid: half in the office, half at home

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, zahidf said:

My employers are basically saying it'll be hybrid: half in the office, half at home

Certainly seems to be the sensible way forward, though, I presume that means they'll want to move premises to some smaller offices to save money? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People are confusing the FA cup trial is purely to show UEFA we can host the Euros properly at Wembley regardless of the virus, we can get a decent percentage in the ground safely which the rest of Europe can't. Lashing everyone in a full Wembley and it causing issues is counter productive to that.  Nothing to do with the roadmap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mr.Tease said:

Certainly seems to be the sensible way forward, though, I presume that means they'll want to move premises to some smaller offices to save money? 

Much of the moving / closing of offices will be dependent on leases etc.

Our firm will be flexible to WFH demands however not at the expense of work quality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Mr.Tease said:

Certainly seems to be the sensible way forward, though, I presume that means they'll want to move premises to some smaller offices to save money? 

I think most pragmatic businesses will realise that the move to remote working is here to stay and workers are much happier with the option of more flexible working. I feel the good bosses/businesses will recognise this and evolve to give staff this freedom. Whereas the ones that don't or are resistant to this will be left behind and will see skilled workers leave.

 

This is also where we see if businesses really care about staff well-being too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Barry Fish said:

We still have thousands of middle managers wanting to justify their existence.  You know the ones who only purpose in life is to watch bums on seats.

From what I am seeing it is mostly this type saying people need to come back.  

The companies wise enough to sack these middle managers and move forward on a trust relationship with their employees are the ones who will succeed.

I have a feeling for some of the people that want workers back in the office it's a status thing, those people before the pandemic could WFH whilst others couldn't, so now that everyone can they don't feel as special. It's these middle management types that still want to have privileges that their workforce don't have that in the summer seemed to be pushing for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

I have a feeling for some of the people that want workers back in the office it's a status thing, those people before the pandemic could WFH whilst others couldn't, so now that everyone can they don't feel as special. It's these middle management types that still want to have privileges that their workforce don't have that in the summer seemed to be pushing for it.

100% this. At my last job, I asked my manager - who worked from home at least one day a week - if I could work from home when I had proofreading to do (as there were too many distractions in the office) and they said no straight away. Now everyone has had a taste of wfh and they just can’t deal with their status being ‘undermined’ by the underlings.

I’m hoping offices are considerate towards people’s mental health when it does come to returning to workplaces. The return to commuting/making small talk and loss of free time etc is going to trigger so many anxieties.

I would also agree with the people saying about how the roadmap might change significantly after local elections (which, let’s be honest, the Tories are going to smash). That’s when Starmer needs to hold them to account - although I imagine he’ll he helped by the death-hungry backbenchers.

Edited by Ryan1984
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, crazyfool1 said:

I’m just waiting for my workplace to set up my work from home online grocery picking ... can’t think why it’s taking so bloody long 😀

It must be a right headfuck all these office workers moaning about having to to back into the office.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

It must be a right headfuck all these office workers moaning about having to to back into the office.

Nah it’s totally understandable... and those with massive commutes it must be even more of a nightmare , I’m fortunate in other ways 🙂 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Latest Activity

    • Is anything said we need to be aware of?
    • Just listened to the new Madonna album, it would be a catastrophe if that isn't played on the pyramid!
    • Restore getting more than Lib Dems is not good.
    • https://x.com/amirtibon/status/2083054470871535853   Some thoughts on the Gaza agreement announced overnight, which despite my reservations and concerns, I hope will be implemented. 1. Donald Trump is trying to collect "wins" and "achievements" ahead of the midterm elections. His party is entering that election at a disadvantage, but because Democrats may choose weak and unpopular candidates in specific states, much like Republicans did in 2022, there's a reason for Trump to at least try achieving a surprising result like the one Biden secured four years ago.   2. The will to provide Trump such a "win" was an important motivation for all sides involved in this agreement: Hamas, Netanyahu, Qatar, Egypt, UAE and Turkey. All of them hope, each for their own reasons, that the transactional president will remember their role in the agreement and the positive media coverage it has generated and will continue to generate. You can like it or not, but that's the nature of diplomacy, especially in the Middle East, under Trump.   3. Netanyahu and his band of liars in the Israeli media (and the last few suckers in the American media still buying his spin) are already trying to oversell the agreement and present it in terms that contradict the Board of Peace statements and briefings. Of course, the October 7 Prime Minister can't just say the truth on this one, which goes something like: "I'm trying to stay on good terms with Trump ahead of an election here in Israel that will determine my personal fate and whether or not I go to jail in 2027."   4. For Hamas, the agreement is a way to buy time and survive, which is basically the organization's overarching goal since October 7. They lost most of their leadership and thousands of their fighters; they will also, I believe, give up some of their weapons to the new Gaza-based Palestinian government, which is a good thing. But at the bottom of all their decisions is a simple calculation: being able to say, "we committed the most deadly and humiliating attack against Israel since the start of the conflict, and survived as a movement and an organization to tell about it."   5. Hamas was able to say that yesterday, before the agreement was signed, and it can also say that today, after the conclusion of the negotiations. So in that regard, the agreement is preferable to the murky post-war reality that preceded it, in which Hamas was recruiting again thousands of young fighters, holding on to all its weapons, and controlling 99% of Gaza's population, making money off people buying fuel and cigarettes. Changing even a part of that terrible reality, by collecting some of the weapons and allowing progress on reconstruction under a non-Hamas government, is better. It means coming to terms with the fact that Israel under this government failed to dismantle Hamas and allowed its survival even before this agreement was signed.   6. Do I think the agreement will be fully implemented over the next 300 days, as I understand the timeline? I'm highly skeptical. But I'm also asking: what are the alternatives? Netanyahu, in his quest for political survival at all costs, ignored David Ben-Gurion's national security strategy of seeking short and decisive wars, which was based on Israel's unique internal and external challenges that make it dangerous for this country to have long wars of attrition. The result is an Israel that is hated, isolated and denounced around the world like never before, and is totally reliant on the support of one man (TRUMP) to avoid crushing international sanctions. Going to war in Gaza once again based on the same promise of "finishing Hamas," which this government failed to achieve after three long years, would have been suicidal unless Trump promised his full backing. And Trump, for good reasons, can't give such a commitment after his bitter experience with Netanyahu in Iran and Lebanon.   7. For me and my family, these are all very personal, not only political, questions. My six-year-old daughter will start school on the Gaza border in exactly one month, as we rebuild our life in the same home where Hamas tried to murder us on October 7. We've learned over the years to be highly skeptical of premature victory announcements and diplomatic celebrations. When these things collapse under the cynical realities of the conflict, most of those announcing them are not around to face the consequences. Still, I don't see a better alternative to the 20-Point Plan that Trump presented last year, at least not with Israel's current position of isolation and exhaustion under this government. So I have some hope that the agreement will succeed, even partially, and deliver a period of quiet. For us on the border, that would be significant after three years of war and trauma. And maybe in the long run, with different Israeli and Palestinian leadership, this will become a first step in a broader positive change for the region.
    • Until they're through the first round of votes there's no point believing any reports about who'll win.
  • Featured Products

  • Hot Topics

  • Latest Tourdates

×
×
  • Create New...