When will this shit end?

[squirrelarmy]

1 hour ago, onthebeach said:

Oh well - I’ll just continue defacing the kitchen wall

Not the only one

[Ozanne]

Just now, steviewevie said:

I'm sure businesses will be happy to do the work from home thing...will save shitloads of rent money...and people can then work day and night.

This is a very valid point. I work for a multi-national bank who are always looking to save on costs, a reduction in corporate real estate would be a big saving.

[parsonjack]

2 minutes ago, Deaf Nobby Burton said:

At some point the virus is going to fade into the background, but that could still be a way off. I think what will happen is that things will gradually drift back to normal, but the ability to work from home will have rocketed up peoples list of priorities when it comes to a job and an employer. Employees will offer people the ability to work from home maybe once or twice per week, or a week or month or whatever it might be. It will become a given and a standard benefit, and a basic expectation for employees.

Exactly.  Where they can physical businesses with costly premises will become the exception, and will give way to virtual businesses with homeworkers.  Pay-by-hour, unattended office spaces with online booking, secure entry, high speed Internet connectivity and a portfolio of office facility add-ons for physical meet ups will boom.  

[steviewevie]

To be honest...I say all this...but before the pandemic I often worked from home anyway...and when I do go into the office it is 30mins on a bike, or 20mins in a car...so really I should shut up. Getting shitty trains like Northern Rail every day would drive me potty.

[Deaf Nobby Burton]

15 minutes ago, parsonjack said:

Exactly.  Where they can physical businesses with costly premises will become the exception, and will give way to virtual businesses with homeworkers.  Pay-by-hour, unattended office spaces with online booking, secure entry, high speed Internet connectivity and a portfolio of office facility add-ons for physical meet ups will boom.  

It may we’ll become a bit like the high street vs online, where the shops struggle because they’ve got expensive rents to cover. Businesses with large offices may start to struggle against ones with mostly home and remote working. 

[Zoo Music Girl]

17 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

To be honest...I say all this...but before the pandemic I often worked from home anyway...and when I do go into the office it is 30mins on a bike, or 20mins in a car...so really I should shut up. Getting shitty trains like Northern Rail every day would drive me potty.

Yeah it really is the commute that I dislike rather than the office itself. If I could teleport in I'd be fine and quite glad to see people and the change of scenery. 

I won't stop going into central London just because I work from home though. There's still plenty of reasons to leave our bubble, not least that none of our friends live in our borough so we always travel to see them anyway. Plus gigs, shows etc, if they survive.

[FestivalJamie]

I don’t know if anyone’s seen but spain has been seeing a progressive increases in cases over the last few days, reaching a daily increase of +1361 today. Just a heads up if anyone is planing a holiday there, although I believe most cases are from the Catalonia region (Lleida, Barcelona). Belgium, Austria and Switzerland have also seen jumps after relaxing measures.

Cases throughout France, Italy, germany and the Netherlands remain low. 

Edited July 16, 2020 by FestivalJamie

[onthebeach]

58 minutes ago, squirrelarmy said:

Not the only one

Are you a Leicester leper too?

[Lizzim]

1 hour ago, parsonjack said:

Exactly.  Where they can physical businesses with costly premises will become the exception, and will give way to virtual businesses with homeworkers.  Pay-by-hour, unattended office spacesunti with online booking, secure entry, high speed Internet connectivity and a portfolio of office facility add-ons for physical meet ups will boom.  

Thats how i see it going too.  My employer have been moving towards this for some time -  expensive city centre buildings have been shut down and working from home has been encouraged.    This situation has just proven that it is technically do-able,  but the human side is the main blocker.    

I live in what i consider ideal area -  it is technically in the city (definitely not suburbia),  with mixed commercial and residential use and the planning policy is to keep it like that.   Plenty of small family run cafes and more than a few exeptional restaurants and bars.

 I work for a large global employer but where i live there are a many small businesses such as architects and design offices - smaller companies  and one very large government office.    When i have been working from home before lockdown i noticed how vibrant it was during the day.    I work with people on a daily basis in London, Manchester, Kent and India  -  so why do i need to commute for an hour each way to a large corporate office?     During lockdown i have got closer to my geographically dispersed colleagues with insights into their family life that i would never have had before -  now i can see what it is like real time in New Dehli !  

I also know there is a large number of colleagues living in the same area as i do - we would nod to each other on the bus or tram commute  - but with a local office we could meet and have the social interaction we are all craving.  Plus learn a bit more about what we do.  

In saying all that I am looking forward to the "away day" in the office some time soon.

Lets revive the cities - more residential and business mix.

 

P.S i feel as i have just done one of these cryptic clues  - "where in the world am I"

[steviewevie]

 

[steviewevie]

vaccines etc

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jul/16/coronavirus-vaccine-covid-19-experts

[Ozanne]

3 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

 

Oof it's all coming out now.

Delayed lockdown by a week and now this, damning.

[DeanoL]

9 hours ago, Matt42 said:

I honestly feel like the new normal is being set up in a way which deliberately fucks over massive gigs. All the Tory things like Wimbledon, royal Albert hall and whatever can still go ahead... Cheltenham or whatever. But outdoor music concerts which the tories are not that fussed about are just being left to suffer.

You can see it. All the events where boris and his mates like to go can operate under new procedures but a mass gig like Glastonbury which has always been part of the fuck Boris campaign is put under operation procedures that mean it can’t go ahead.

I wonder if the new normal will be built in a way that just tries to kill these events off. The tories aren’t fussed about them. It’s clear as day.

I think it's more that those events are events that favour personal proximity, community and togetherness. Which unfortunately are the most problematic in terms of transmission.

9 hours ago, Superscally said:

They won't go under. Glasto makes profit, not loss and they're a successful family of farmers. 

Glastonbury loses a lot of money in fallow years - look at the accounts on Companies House for 2018.

[DeanoL]

5 hours ago, steviewevie said:

Well..yeah...ok. Then I guess that changes things. Those businesses who sell those over priced sandwiches are gone, as well as all other businesses such as pubs/restaurants/gyms. Hopefully they will be replaced by new jobs for people,  delivering stuff to home workers, or based in suburban locations...who knows.

And what does it mean for public transport? Bye bye to more bus services. Bye bye city trams. Bye bye certain train services. A lot of our economy is actually based around people commuting and going into work...if this goes that actually causes a lot of damage. Maybe it was inevitable anyway with the internet etc., but it will be a short sharp shock to various parts of the economy.

It'll be a huge change, but it's important that it's not seen as direct consequences of COVID, but more a course correction for how we work. Your points are valid but it's also worth considering that:

1) Our public transport infrastructure for commuters is basically running beyond capacity in many places so that was already going to be a problem. This might actually relieve pressure on those busy commuting hours. 

2) City centre cafes, gyms etc. built for office workers will suffer. But equally there will be more demand for those businesses in the suburbs. People will still want to go to a gym, they'll just want one near their house, not their workplace. We may actually start to see actual communities built up in commuter belt areas where previously they couldn't, because everyone that lived there engaged with the local economy of where they worked, rather that where they lived.

I do think the change will happen. I think upper management love it, they save so much money on office space rental and equipment provision. The worry was always that it would reduce productivity, and you could never really prove it wouldn't - because if you introduced something like "we're going to let you work at home all week, as a trial, and see what your productivity is like", then productivity is always high, as people want the trial to work. This has forced us into this, and most places are seeing productivity stay high with no incentive. Even more impressive they're seeing it stay high while parents are also having to juggle childcare. It removes that myth.

The middle-managers saying they can't manage a team remotely will be the ones that get cut as things get streamlined. That'll be a reason to remove that manager, not for a team not to home-work. After all, plenty of other managers in the workplace will have proved perfectly competent at managing teams remotely. If you're a middle-manager without that skill-set you may be in trouble.

And a lot of upper management in bigger companies are really appreciating the extra time at home and not having to travel to offices around the world, events, etc. The CEO types that actually work hard are seeing the benefit just as much as anyone else.

The big change in how people are managed is that we'll have to be judged on the work we do, not just being present in an office. That'll be the flip side - it'll be far easier to identify people under-performing and taking the piss, because the measure of doing your job now has to be "have you done your job?", not just "were you physically sat at a desk between 9 and 5?". 

 

Edited July 16, 2020 by DeanoL

[shoptildrop]

27 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

It'll be a huge change, but it's important that it's not seen as direct consequences of COVID, but more a course correction for how we work. Your points are valid but it's also worth considering that:

1) Our public transport infrastructure for commuters is basically running beyond capacity in many places so that was already going to be a problem. This might actually relieve pressure on those busy commuting hours. 

2) City centre cafes, gyms etc. built for office workers will suffer. But equally there will be more demand for those businesses in the suburbs. People will still want to go to a gym, they'll just want one near their house, not their workplace. We may actually start to see actual communities built up in commuter belt areas where previously they couldn't, because everyone that lived there engaged with the local economy of where they worked, rather that where they lived.

I do think the change will happen. I think upper management love it, they save so much money on office space rental and equipment provision. The worry was always that it would reduce productivity, and you could never really prove it wouldn't - because if you introduced something like "we're going to let you work at home all week, as a trial, and see what your productivity is like", then productivity is always high, as people want the trial to work. This has forced us into this, and most places are seeing productivity stay high with no incentive. Even more impressive they're seeing it stay high while parents are also having to juggle childcare. It removes that myth.

The middle-managers saying they can't manage a team remotely will be the ones that get cut as things get streamlined. That'll be a reason to remove that manager, not for a team not to home-work. After all, plenty of other managers in the workplace will have proved perfectly competent at managing teams remotely. If you're a middle-manager without that skill-set you may be in trouble.

And a lot of upper management in bigger companies are really appreciating the extra time at home and not having to travel to offices around the world, events, etc. The CEO types that actually work hard are seeing the benefit just as much as anyone else.

The big change in how people are managed is that we'll have to be judged on the work we do, not just being present in an office. That'll be the flip side - it'll be far easier to identify people under-performing and taking the piss, because the measure of doing your job now has to be "have you done your job?", not just "were you physically sat at a desk between 9 and 5?". 

 

Completely agree, I'm currently in a lower position to what I have been in the previous 7 years as had to do that to move forward in a slightly different direction.

I managed a team of 6 who were based at the other side of the world (China & NZ) with language barriers whilst being managed remotely by my manager based in NZ for 4-5 years

Yet my current manager doesn't believe you can do this, even to the point of not doing a PDR (personal development review) via Skype as they prefer face to face and it's very much a bums on seat office..

It's hugely frustrating as I'm meant to be taking over the manager role at some point soonish (1-2 year maybe) as manager is at retirement age, but they are dead against the my way of working or different ideas - now with covid I just have to keep my head down so keep job, it's really depressing tbh

[FestivalJamie]

Are people finding proportions of people wearing masks are increasing, or not?

So I went down to Portsmouth and Hayling island for a trip to the seaside today.

First experience: Saw an absolutely rammed bus full of people getting off to transfer across to the ferry to the Isle of Wight. 100% of people were wearing masks, didn’t see one without one.

Second experience: Walked past a co-op and most entering or inside the store weren’t wearing a mask. I assume people won’t start getting with the program until they are actually compulsory? I’d expect uptake to shoot up in a weeks time but I don’t get why people aren’t wearing them now.

Third experience: A bus went past in Hayling island and I counted the number of mask-wearers. 75% compliance, not bad (3 out of the 4 on it).

Fourth experience: Stopped at a service station on the way home and I was the ONLY one wearing a mask. I realised this is where the policy is SO unclear:

In the service station there were 2 shops, one being m&s, a Burger King and toilets. I was going to the m&s to get a drink on the way home, so according to new guidelines (rules as of 24th) I “should” be wearing a mask to enter m&s. There was another man in m&s with me not wearing one, I stayed well clear. All of the people lining up for Burger King weren’t wearing masks, but they are getting takeaway food, so according to the new policy they don’t have to wear one. Similarly people were using the toilets without wearing masks. But this brings me onto my point.

In the service station we are ALL in the same enclosed space, breathing the same air, and any virus droplets can easily travel from one part of the service station to another, as shops don’t have individual doors and it’s all one large space. If the virus is airborne this means a carrier could pass the virus from the queue of Burger King and it could linger in the air for example for someone in m&s to pick up? Correct me if this isn’t how it works, but my point is, we are all in the same bloody enclosed room in a service station, so why do only the people in particular areas of the service station have to wear masks and not others. Actually in the majority of areas of the service station masks weren’t needed according to the new policy, so then they might as well say you don’t even need a mask in a service station anymore.

Sorry, I don’t know if any of that made any sense, but I’ve just been more infuriated today about how little sense these new policies make and how you can be standing in the same indoor building and in one place not have to wear a mask but in the next you have to wear one.

In Portsmouth, there was also an aquarium which had a gift shop. Masks weren’t compulsory in the aquarium. So do you not have to wear a mask around the enclosed aquarium and you’re going to pass the germs onto the same people around the aquarium as you are likely browsing the gift shop with if you walk round at similar pace, but all of a sudden when you get to the gift shop you just whip the mask on for a couple of minutes?

Its absurd. It needs to be all enclosed spaces(perhaps excluding table service places like restaurants) or none, otherwise the rule just won’t work.

 

 

[mcshed]

6 hours ago, FestivalJamie said:

Are people finding proportions of people wearing masks are increasing, or not?

So I went down to Portsmouth and Hayling island for a trip to the seaside today.

First experience: Saw an absolutely rammed bus full of people getting off to transfer across to the ferry to the Isle of Wight. 100% of people were wearing masks, didn’t see one without one.

Second experience: Walked past a co-op and most entering or inside the store weren’t wearing a mask. I assume people won’t start getting with the program until they are actually compulsory? I’d expect uptake to shoot up in a weeks time but I don’t get why people aren’t wearing them now.

Third experience: A bus went past in Hayling island and I counted the number of mask-wearers. 75% compliance, not bad (3 out of the 4 on it).

Fourth experience: Stopped at a service station on the way home and I was the ONLY one wearing a mask. I realised this is where the policy is SO unclear:

In the service station there were 2 shops, one being m&s, a Burger King and toilets. I was going to the m&s to get a drink on the way home, so according to new guidelines (rules as of 24th) I “should” be wearing a mask to enter m&s. There was another man in m&s with me not wearing one, I stayed well clear. All of the people lining up for Burger King weren’t wearing masks, but they are getting takeaway food, so according to the new policy they don’t have to wear one. Similarly people were using the toilets without wearing masks. But this brings me onto my point.

In the service station we are ALL in the same enclosed space, breathing the same air, and any virus droplets can easily travel from one part of the service station to another, as shops don’t have individual doors and it’s all one large space. If the virus is airborne this means a carrier could pass the virus from the queue of Burger King and it could linger in the air for example for someone in m&s to pick up? Correct me if this isn’t how it works, but my point is, we are all in the same bloody enclosed room in a service station, so why do only the people in particular areas of the service station have to wear masks and not others. Actually in the majority of areas of the service station masks weren’t needed according to the new policy, so then they might as well say you don’t even need a mask in a service station anymore.

Sorry, I don’t know if any of that made any sense, but I’ve just been more infuriated today about how little sense these new policies make and how you can be standing in the same indoor building and in one place not have to wear a mask but in the next you have to wear one.

In Portsmouth, there was also an aquarium which had a gift shop. Masks weren’t compulsory in the aquarium. So do you not have to wear a mask around the enclosed aquarium and you’re going to pass the germs onto the same people around the aquarium as you are likely browsing the gift shop with if you walk round at similar pace, but all of a sudden when you get to the gift shop you just whip the mask on for a couple of minutes?

Its absurd. It needs to be all enclosed spaces(perhaps excluding table service places like restaurants) or none, otherwise the rule just won’t work.

 

 

So I did my first shift in a shop since ending furlough yesterday. Shopping centre shops where only allowed to open this week up here in mask mandatory Scotland.

When I got on the bus in the morning there were 3 others already on board when I got on. None of them were wearing masks. Everyone else who got on for the rest of the journey did have a mask on.

For a full day's work in a tiny bookshop we only had 3 customers(excluding children) the whole day who weren't in masks. Looking at the passing trade in the centre most people were definitely masked up probably about 90%.

Bus journey home, bus busier than in the morning mask wearing over half but only around 60%.

I really haven't been on public transport before so I've no idea if mask wearing is slipping there or wether it's always been so so but mask wearing in shops is as good as I think it'll ever be.

[Ozanne]

So today Boris Johnson is to announce £3bn of extra funding for the NHS in England as he tries to reassure the public that the government is prepared in the event of a winter second wave of Covid-19 cases. I think it’s going to take more than throwing money at the NHS to convince the public, you know like actual leadership and compassion. 

[steviewevie]

I've only been to supermarket once since the announcement was made about masks and definitely more customers were wearing then, I'd say about 60-70%, previously I would guess at about 20%. Most people working there weren't wearing masks.

[steviewevie]

3 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

So today Boris Johnson is to announce £3bn of extra funding for the NHS in England as he tries to reassure the public that the government is prepared in the event of a winter second wave of Covid-19 cases. I think it’s going to take more than throwing money at the NHS to convince the public, you know like actual leadership and compassion. 

I'm sure there will be lots of optimistic stuff about the oxford vaccine coming out too...

[Ozanne]

2 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

I'm sure there will be lots of optimistic stuff about the oxford vaccine coming out too...

Hopefully, Monday is due a report in The Lancet. 

[Superscally]

8 hours ago, DeanoL said:

I think it's more that those events are events that favour personal proximity, community and togetherness. Which unfortunately are the most problematic in terms of transmission.

Glastonbury loses a lot of money in fallow years - look at the accounts on Companies House for 2018.

They do, but it's mitigated for in years preceding, not following. They and their accountants aren't daft and they have over 6 mill in the bank. They'd need three more fallow years in a row with the same outgoings (which wouldn't be anywhere near the same on a second fallow year as they won't have suppliers to pay) to even be close to going under. The old adage that you never see a poor farmer is no longer true due to the scandalous treatment they get from the supermarkets, but trust me, you will never see a poor farmer holding a massive world renowned festival.

[Sasperella]

8 hours ago, DeanoL said:

It'll be a huge change, but it's important that it's not seen as direct consequences of COVID, but more a course correction for how we work. Your points are valid but it's also worth considering that:

1) Our public transport infrastructure for commuters is basically running beyond capacity in many places so that was already going to be a problem. This might actually relieve pressure on those busy commuting hours. 

2) City centre cafes, gyms etc. built for office workers will suffer. But equally there will be more demand for those businesses in the suburbs. People will still want to go to a gym, they'll just want one near their house, not their workplace. We may actually start to see actual communities built up in commuter belt areas where previously they couldn't, because everyone that lived there engaged with the local economy of where they worked, rather that where they lived.

I do think the change will happen. I think upper management love it, they save so much money on office space rental and equipment provision. The worry was always that it would reduce productivity, and you could never really prove it wouldn't - because if you introduced something like "we're going to let you work at home all week, as a trial, and see what your productivity is like", then productivity is always high, as people want the trial to work. This has forced us into this, and most places are seeing productivity stay high with no incentive. Even more impressive they're seeing it stay high while parents are also having to juggle childcare. It removes that myth.

The middle-managers saying they can't manage a team remotely will be the ones that get cut as things get streamlined. That'll be a reason to remove that manager, not for a team not to home-work. After all, plenty of other managers in the workplace will have proved perfectly competent at managing teams remotely. If you're a middle-manager without that skill-set you may be in trouble.

And a lot of upper management in bigger companies are really appreciating the extra time at home and not having to travel to offices around the world, events, etc. The CEO types that actually work hard are seeing the benefit just as much as anyone else.

The big change in how people are managed is that we'll have to be judged on the work we do, not just being present in an office. That'll be the flip side - it'll be far easier to identify people under-performing and taking the piss, because the measure of doing your job now has to be "have you done your job?", not just "were you physically sat at a desk between 9 and 5?". 

 

I think you're completely right. 

I don't think our offices expect us back before the end of the year, despite what Boris says. Some people can go back if they want, sure, but not everyone. There's no room for us at the best of times, let alone with social distancing!

One of my bosses lived in Inverness and frequently travels between Glasgow and London (most days she is in one of the other). For her (and her kids!) Working at home all the time is great! 

Interestingly, I also recently applied for a job in the London office. I wouldnt have done that a few months ago, as the expectation would have been that I'd move to London. But I spoke to the vacancy manager about it beforehand, and she said it would now be perfectly fine to continue being based from Glasgow. Mental (but great, obviously)

[mattiloy]

An article in a swedish newspaper today reckoned immunity could be as high as 40% amongst Stockholmers - 20% with antibodies of those tested so far and studies showing that those without antibodies but with a t cell response being the same so another 20%. Quotes one maths prof who reckon herd immunity can be reached as low as 45% so we’re nearly there and this is evidenced by lower new cases.

I’m skeptical, i reckon the less new cases is probs a seasonal effect, but nice to read a more positive take.

https://www.dn.se/nyheter/sverige/fhm-stockholm-kan-ha-40-procents-immunitet/

Edited July 17, 2020 by mattiloy

[Ozanne]

1 hour ago, Sasperella said:

Interestingly, I also recently applied for a job in the London office. I wouldnt have done that a few months ago, as the expectation would have been that I'd move to London. But I spoke to the vacancy manager about it beforehand, and she said it would now be perfectly fine to continue being based from Glasgow. Mental (but great, obviously)

This is going to be a huge benefit to many, it’s great people will be able to do this.