When will this shit end?

[Ozanne]

1 minute ago, efcfanwirral said:

Fully open means the music scene and other events are back, not dead. Summer 2022 if we're lucky is looking like the earliest for that, though I'm getting increasingly concerned even then it won't happen. 

Yeah fair play, maybe not fully open then. Open but with measures in place is probably a better way to put it. Which does mean gigs will have to be socially distanced too, maybe not to the extent we have seen but to some level. 

[MrBarry465]

2 minutes ago, efcfanwirral said:

Fully open means the music scene and other events are back, not dead. Summer 2022 if we're lucky is looking like the earliest for that, though I'm getting increasingly concerned even then it won't happen. 

I am pessimistic on this thing like yourself, but summer 2022 will be totally normal in my view. 

[st dan]

If cases are a driving factor, then it’s simply impossible for them to rule out further lockdowns isn’t it - something which Johnson is obviously keen to avoid.
Say we ever do get cases down to under 1000 a day (as the Telegraph have reported), it’s highly possible / likely that this could then be 5000 cases a day in just a few weeks, once things are back to ‘normal’ and restrictions have been lifted. What would be the plan to happen then, back in to lockdown? You would assume not - so therefore why wait for them to hit an arbitrary target in the first instance?

[hodgey123]

1 minute ago, MrBarry465 said:

Lots of companies are announcing they are fully remote anyway. On a broader level, having less of a 'london focus' is surely better for the economy at large.

My advice for the above scenario would be to ask your employer 'What specifically do I need to be in the office for, that is now clearly not being accomplished remote'. Or, if they really kick up a stink, tell them you've 'not had a vaccine yet and do not feel safe'. 

My bet is that very few HR teams will really want to tackle these. 

Yeah I agree. With regards to the second point, I should make clear at this stage that my employer has been great and I have been working fully remotely for a year, but I am just trying to second-guess how they will react when we really are back to normal. I have run through those arguments in my head many times!

[fraybentos1]

Just now, MrBarry465 said:

I am pessimistic on this thing like yourself, but summer 2022 will be totally normal in my view. 

Earlier you said risk of mutations means we can't open up fully. But by Summer 2022 things will be totally normal? What changes between now and then which means mutations wouldn't be an issue to us?

[eFestivals]

5 minutes ago, MrBarry465 said:

I'd put a wager on it that will not be the case.

it might not be the case, but would fully-fit with what you said. 😛 

[hodgey123]

4 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

What do you think your employer will say? I think a lot of people will be looking to do what you are doing. 

We have employees in our team that work for the company but in regional offices. So of course they could be working from home and no one in the team would possibly know. 

I think that they will let me do it, but will insist I take a pay cut from the London wage to the regional wage, which is obviously fair enough and I would still be better off not paying ridiculous London rent. However, it then gets into the realm of well I have been working from home for over a year on this current wage, why am I now being forced into a pay cut when my output remains the same (and presumably the overhead costs associated with office space etc. will be reduced in future).

[stuie]

12 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

so fully open up by mid July then.

I hope so.

Once all of the adult population have been offered a vaccine and it’s had time to become effective I don’t think there is an argument not to. 

[st dan]

3 minutes ago, MrBarry465 said:

My advice for the above scenario would be to ask your employer 'What specifically do I need to be in the office for, that is now clearly not being accomplished remote'. Or, if they really kick up a stink, tell them you've 'not had a vaccine yet and do not feel safe'. 

My bet is that very few HR teams will really want to tackle these. 

I was thinking about this, and dug out my employee contract. Clause 3 of mine states:

‘Your place of work will be at the Company’s premises at ‘xxxxxxxxxxx’. You may be required from time to time to work at one of the Company’s other locations or alternative offices within reasonable travelling distance from your existing workplace on either a temporary or permanent basis.’

For me, I’m guessing they could insist that I must come back to the office based on the above, particularly the first sentence. Although I’m certain they won’t demand it and it will be a flexible conversation between me and my manager, and will vary on employee and their wishes. 

[eFestivals]

4 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

Yeah fair play, maybe not fully open then. Open but with measures in place is probably a better way to put it. Which does mean gigs will have to be socially distanced too, maybe not to the extent we have seen but to some level. 

I remain hopeful that outdoor crowds will get trialled by July/August, and as long as that goes alright then indoor gigs will get trialled before the autumn.

Any other plan just doesn't make sense. There's fuck all point in saying "that can't happen" if we don't have a solid reason for why it can't happen.

[Copperface]

17 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

uh?

No one cares about flu infection rates, they only care about the load it puts on healthcare services.

It's *NEVER* been the out there that case and infection rates were equally as important as hospitalisation and death rates.

The fact that the two couldn't be separated until now is something else entirely.

They were, and still are, one of the Government/Sage/JCVI five tests.

[hodgey123]

Something else that I don’t think has been mentioned much is when gyms will reopen. Are they leisure? Non-essential?

I would hope the focus this week on bumping obese people up the vaccine queue may then trigger something else in the government that maybe gyms should be a priority to reopen, but I don’t think that will be the case. 

[Ozanne]

4 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I remain hopeful that outdoor crowds will get trialled by July/August, and as long as that goes alright then indoor gigs will get trialled before the autumn.

Any other plan just doesn't make sense. There's fuck all point in saying "that can't happen" if we don't have a solid reason for why it can't happen.

Yeah that seems like a sensible approach to me. 

[aj6658]

17 minutes ago, hodgey123 said:

I am in the same boat; I have left London and moved back home to Devon and looking at buying down here. I will not be moving back to London and need to broach the conversation with my employer when the rush back to the office inevitably happens, but this is welcome news as that delays that awkward conversation for a good few months yet. And if that conversation does not go well, it means I am still employed for a good few months yet as I will have to leave if it is not agreeable!

I will also need to negotiate/accept the pay cut to the regional levels and getting rid of the London uplift but that is a different debate entirely.

That brings up all sorts of interesting economic questions.

Will demand for London decrease and therefore see a slowing of house prices? 

Will salary now be flat across the country? Would an employer now distinguish where the person lives rather the city the office is in.

 

Personally I hate WFH - for my job its far harder and im quite a social person.

[efcfanwirral]

13 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

Yeah fair play, maybe not fully open then. Open but with measures in place is probably a better way to put it. Which does mean gigs will have to be socially distanced too, maybe not to the extent we have seen but to some level. 

 

11 minutes ago, st dan said:

If cases are a driving factor, then it’s simply impossible for them to rule out further lockdowns isn’t it - something which Johnson is obviously keen to avoid.
Say we ever do get cases down to under 1000 a day (as the Telegraph have reported), it’s highly possible / likely that this could then be 5000 cases a day in just a few weeks, once things are back to ‘normal’ and restrictions have been lifted. What would be the plan to happen then, back in to lockdown? You would assume not - so therefore why wait for them to hit an arbitrary target in the first instance?

I was thinking this yesterday- you get to 900, but the consequence of relaxing at that point is clearly that 2 weeks later its 1,000+. I hope that's one of the more outlandish leaks that they aren't considering because there isn't really a way out at that point 

[Fuzzy Afro]

3 minutes ago, hodgey123 said:

Something else that I don’t think has been mentioned much is when gyms will reopen. Are they leisure? Non-essential?

I would hope the focus this week on bumping obese people up the vaccine queue may then trigger something else in the government that maybe gyms should be a priority to reopen, but I don’t think that will be the case. 

I would bet good money that the death toll would be lower than it is if gyms had remained open the entire time. Closing the place people go to stave off obesity during a public health crisis is idiotic. 

[Radiochicken]

 

 

[Fuzzy Afro]

Just now, efcfanwirral said:

 

I was thinking this yesterday- you get to 900, but the consequence of relaxing at that point is clearly that 2 weeks later its 1,000+. I hope that's one of the more outlandish leaks that they aren't considering because there isn't really a way out at that point 

Government sources are rubbishing this leak, FWIW

[eFestivals]

Just now, Copperface said:

They were, and still are, one of the Government/Sage/JCVI five tests.

only because hospitalisations and deaths have been (pre-vaccine) directly related to cases.

The message all the way thru has been "protect the NHS" and not "don't get the virus".

In fact at points the govt has encouraged activities which have made more cases more likely; they haven't acted swiftly when cases have started to rise sharply; they only became concerned (again) with cases when it was clear that the NHS was heading for overload.

It's *clearly* the case that they've not been bothered with the number of cases, apart from (up to this point) as an indictor of forthcoming hospital load.

[Leyrulion]

1 hour ago, zahidf said:

But the issue is that the  goalposts are being moved. We were sold this lockdown as a way to protect the NHS from collapse and to get our most vulnerable vaccinated. Now we're being told it's a way to get cases down and that all of the population need to be vaccinated. How long until that becomes getting cases to zero before we're allowed out of it, even with everyone vaccinated? 

I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. 

Getting cases down to a lower level, say 1,000 a day, will take about as long as it will take the NHS to get back to more normal patient numbers.

[efcfanwirral]

8 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I remain hopeful that outdoor crowds will get trialled by July/August, and as long as that goes alright then indoor gigs will get trialled before the autumn.

Any other plan just doesn't make sense. There's fuck all point in saying "that can't happen" if we don't have a solid reason for why it can't happen.

That would be the sensible approach. Do the trials in late May/early June and hopefully some real events for the last month or so of summer 

[MrBarry465]

7 minutes ago, hodgey123 said:

Something else that I don’t think has been mentioned much is when gyms will reopen. Are they leisure? Non-essential?

I would hope the focus this week on bumping obese people up the vaccine queue may then trigger something else in the government that maybe gyms should be a priority to reopen, but I don’t think that will be the case. 

Yeah I am pretty desperate for gyms to be open as well, in my view they should absolutely come before pubs. 

[MrBarry465]

4 minutes ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

I would bet good money that the death toll would be lower than it is if gyms had remained open the entire time. Closing the place people go to stave off obesity during a public health crisis is idiotic. 

I really doubt it personally, I think the people already at risk were fucked gyms open or not.

The mental health aspect is the one that's biggest with gym closures.

[Copperface]

4 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

only because hospitalisations and deaths have been (pre-vaccine) directly related to cases.

The message all the way thru has been "protect the NHS" and not "don't get the virus".

In fact at points the govt has encouraged activities which have made more cases more likely; they haven't acted swiftly when cases have started to rise sharply; they only became concerned (again) with cases when it was clear that the NHS was heading for overload.

It's *clearly* the case that they've not been bothered with the number of cases, apart from (up to this point) as an indictor of forthcoming hospital load.

Two parts to that which they've always recognised and made clear.

1. Infection rates have always had a direct correlation to hospital admission/capacity/deaths and 

2. Prevalence of the virus in circulation leads to increased chance of mutations and variants. 

They were saying both from early last year.

Edited February 17, 2021 by Copperface

[MrBarry465]

5 minutes ago, aj6658 said:

That brings up all sorts of interesting economic questions.

Will demand for London decrease and therefore see a slowing of house prices? 

Will salary now be flat across the country? Would an employer now distinguish where the person lives rather the city the office is in.

 

Personally I hate WFH - for my job its far harder and im quite a social person.

Working from home is actually a way of unlocking the economy more.

We've been saying for decades everything is too 'London centric' well nows the chance to make the change...