Coronavirus Super Thread ( merged )

[Jambo-Jimbo]

1 hour ago, Enzo Chiefo said:

But WFH is costing the jobs of those in city centres who rely on  office workers;  retail workers, taxi drivers, pubs, restaurants, dry cleaners etc. WFH is not an entitlement so Boris should set the ball rolling and order all civil servants back to work by mid September. Those who choose not to,  unless they have a doctor's line,  can expect a P45

 

And at the same time has benefited local shops in the commuter villages and towns, people WFH are spending their money locally, often in small family run shops instead of the big chains which occupy the city centres.

 

There are always winners and losers when there is a drastic shift in work patterns, normally it's the wee local shops who lose out to the big chains, this time however it seems the opposite is happening.

[Enzo Chiefo]

Just now, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

And at the same time has benefited local shops in the commuter villages and towns, people WFH are spending their money locally, often in small family run shops instead of the big chains which occupy the city centres.

 

There are always winners and losers when there is a drastic shift in work patterns, normally it's the wee local shops who lose out to the big chains, this time however it seems the opposite is happening.

Yes, that's a very good point.  I agree, if a local coffee shop, for example,  is benefiting from the business lost by city centre chains then, yes, that's definitely a positive. 

[Francis Albert]

28 minutes ago, westbow said:

I suppose no office christmas parties this year means divorce rates will plummet. Anybody thought about the poor lawyers?

If people are spending all day every day at home with their spouses divorce lawyers won't have to worry about loss of business.

Longer term of course in the absence of probably the most common forum for meeting a partner, they may have a problem. Along with those who make a living out of providing for weddings, honeymoons, baby stuff and so on. 

[GBJambo]

43 minutes ago, Shanks said:

Imagine the state of the average office worker if they don’t even need to leave their homes for work.

 

The two minute walk to the bus stop is the only exercise some of them get.

 

I agree I go out running every lunch time. More for my mental health than physical though 

[The Internet]

31 minutes ago, Nucky Thompson said:

The both of you are working from home? You'll be wanting to kill each other before the year is out 

 

Never been happier tbh 

 

[Enzo Chiefo]

6 minutes ago, Lord BJ said:

Showing your age there. 
 

Singletons of today meet via apps/internet etc. Chatting up drunken females at Christmas Party, as we probably used to, would have you up in front of HR nowadays or at least frowned upon🤷🏻‍♂️

I say this as someone whose marriage, is a result of the Christmas Party😂

Yes, I wonder how the young team would view the office parties of the 80s and 90s. The entire office closed for the afternoon , team lunches, beers and then a party at the Tartan Club or Leith Assembly Rooms.  No mobiles in sight, nor swiping left, right , across or whatever .... Our HR dept had 1 full timer and a lassie that worked part time.

[Governor Tarkin]

11 minutes ago, Enzo Chiefo said:

Yes, I wonder how the young team would view the office parties of the 80s and 90s. The entire office closed for the afternoon , team lunches, beers and then a party at the Tartan Club or Leith Assembly Rooms.  No mobiles in sight, nor swiping left, right , across or whatever .... Our HR dept had 1 full timer and a lassie that worked part time.

 

But she worked full time at the office Christmas party, amirite?  

[Francis Albert]

31 minutes ago, Lord BJ said:

Showing your age there. 
 

Singletons of today meet via apps/internet etc. Chatting up drunken females at Christmas Party, as we probably used to, would have you up in front of HR nowadays or at least frowned upon🤷🏻‍♂️

I say this as someone whose marriage, is a result of the Christmas Party😂

Snap. 

[Francis Albert]

15 minutes ago, Enzo Chiefo said:

Yes, I wonder how the young team would view the office parties of the 80s and 90s. The entire office closed for the afternoon , team lunches, beers and then a party at the Tartan Club or Leith Assembly Rooms.  No mobiles in sight, nor swiping left, right , across or whatever .... Our HR dept had 1 full timer and a lassie that worked part time.

Those were the days!

Personnel in my day. But same.

[Montgomery Brewster]

1 minute ago, Francis Albert said:

Those were the days!

Personnel in my day. But same.

Staff Dept in my day . But oh yes 😁

[Don Dan]

53 minutes ago, Nucky Thompson said:

I'll need to change my utility provider to the same as you guys 

 

 

[Enzo Chiefo]

32 minutes ago, Governor Tarkin said:

 

But she worked full time at the office Christmas party, amirite?  

😂 overtime guv👍

[Enzo Chiefo]

30 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Those were the days!

Personnel in my day. But same.

Yes, in my day too. I'd forgotten the word but, yes,...the Personnel Dept. I remember one member of staff phoned him and asked "how many sick days have I got left this year"?? 😂

[Howdy Doody Jambo]

All these companies who's employees are now at home may well start making redundancies then renaming their job title's and re-employing on reduced terms as they are now working from home positions, this is just another way of cutting costs and resetting. 

Whether  it lasts or not in the short term its bad news for the whole economy in the long term 

[Dennis Reynolds]

2 minutes ago, Ma Roon said:

All these companies who's employees are now at home may well start making redundancies then renaming their job title's and re-employing on reduced terms as they are now working from home positions, this is just another way of cutting costs and resetting. 

Whether  it lasts or not in the short term its bad news for the whole economy in the long term 

 

I don't follow this logic at all. Why would a company make a position redundant to then have to go through the full process of rehiring and retraining someone new just because they're now working from home? Also, having to pay off staff just to save a few pounds going forward. 

[ri Alban]

8 hours ago, AlphonseCapone said:

 

I think that poster is as much a doctor as I am a prohibition mobster. 

[Howdy Doody Jambo]

5 minutes ago, LMc said:

 

I don't follow this logic at all. Why would a company make a position redundant to then have to go through the full process of rehiring and retraining someone new just because they're now working from home? Also, having to pay off staff just to save a few pounds going forward. 

That's what big companies do, they have done for years, because they can, they would save thousands long term cutting numbers, in, terms, pensions, etc 

Edited August 28, 2020 by Ma Roon

[TheOak88]

21 minutes ago, Ma Roon said:

All these companies who's employees are now at home may well start making redundancies then renaming their job title's and re-employing on reduced terms as they are now working from home positions, this is just another way of cutting costs and resetting. 

Whether  it lasts or not in the short term its bad news for the whole economy in the long term 

 

That really doesn’t make any sense. 

[The Internet]

Why would working from home mean reduced terms? 

[Back to 2005]

2 hours ago, doctor jambo said:

Is it our futures to all work alone, in our little home cages and never mingle anymore?

Humans are social animals.

We need company for our mental well being

Depressing thought isn't it but maybe suits the loners in society. 

Loved being back in the office the last 2 weeks. Unfortunately on a 2 week in 2 week out rota at the moment.

[Howdy Doody Jambo]

21 minutes ago, Mauricio Pinilla said:

Why would working from home mean reduced terms? 

Because employers can now re-title a position that has changed due to Covid-19 and is now located at home and create a substitute job from the previous office job 

RE-titling of job's has been going on for years 

[Back to 2005]

6 hours ago, Weakened Offender said:

 

Be a selfish manchild and not care about vulnerable people who could die, by the looks of things. 

You do not seem to care about the thousands that will die because of the measures the government has brought in. Sick of hearing this sort of crap.

[Sidelight]

13 minutes ago, Back to 2005 said:

You do not seem to care about the thousands that will die because of the measures the government has brought in. Sick of hearing this sort of crap.

Yes, we need some perspective.

C19 is the Eighth biggest killer in the UK at the moment.

Young people seem to be immune.

Less than 1.5% of UK deaths are attributed to this virus.

Even then the figure is no doubt over exaggerated.

The MSM have been hugely successful inducing fear and anxiety within the many.

[AlphonseCapone]

3 hours ago, TheOak88 said:

 

Why should they be ordering their staff back to the office?

 

If the work is getting done and the company is continuing to hit profit targets, why would they care whether their employees are sitting in an office or a spare bedroom in their house?. Employers want to keep their employees happy and get the most out of them, so why not just leave it up the individual employee what their preference is as to where they work. 

 

The idea we should continue with this outdated system of forcing millions of people across the UK to all converge on city centres every morning, to sit in a massive glass box for 8 hours just so we can keep wee John’s independent sandwich shop in business is laughable. 

 

As they say in business “adapt or die”. Like all businesses you have to adapt to the needs and requirements of your customers.

 

If your customers are now spending part of their week WFH, then adapt your business. Set up your sandwich shop on a local high street near a massive housing estate and set up a delivery system, for example. Just because people are WFH does not mean they will never buy a sandwich for lunch ever again. 

 

Absolutely spot on. You can guarantee the guys demanding folk go back to the office are all in their 40's or older, and hark back to the days were folk would down pints in the office and do lines of coke in front of their managers before banging Deborah on the photocopier because the world was better back then. You have to be able to look another man in the eye and all that. Check his handshake is firm enough before you know whether you can do business. The same folk that probably get sad about the "high streets being gone". 

 

The world changes, and generations change. Technology improves. There are many benefits to people working at home more often. I wouldn't say it should happen 5 days a week but see no issues with 3 or 4 days. 

 

2 hours ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

And at the same time has benefited local shops in the commuter villages and towns, people WFH are spending their money locally, often in small family run shops instead of the big chains which occupy the city centres.

 

There are always winners and losers when there is a drastic shift in work patterns, normally it's the wee local shops who lose out to the big chains, this time however it seems the opposite is happening.

 

Exactly. We live in a capitalist system. Part of that means survival of the fittest business wise and freedom of choice for the consumer. Forcing folk into an office so city centre, predominantly big chains as they can afford the rates, business get the money is all a bit nanny state is it not. Lots of cracking cafés around this way that'll be booming now. 

[Unknown user]

7 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

I know what I said. For six months we followed the science (from WHO. Sage et al) which said general wearing of  masks by the public may do more harm than good e.g.  if it makes people relax on the  more important measures like hand washing and social distancing or if the masks are not used properly. Note the word may. 

I have not seen that science repealed.

 

There wasn't almost unanimous scientific advice for 6 months that wearing masks may do more harm than good, I mean from end of February to now? Almost unanimous scientific advice? I think you need to pay more attention!

[Francis Albert]

1 minute ago, Smithee said:

 

There wasn't almost unanimous scientific advice for 6 months that wearing masks may do more harm than good, I mean from end of February to now? Almost unanimous scientific advice? I think you need to pay more attention!

MAY do more harm IF it introduces complacency about more important defences. It is still almost unanimous scientific opinion. MAY means may. Or might. Or possibly could. Not will.

 

 

[Weakened Offender]

25 minutes ago, Back to 2005 said:

You do not seem to care about the thousands that will die because of the measures the government has brought in. Sick of hearing this sort of crap.

 

I really do hope you're not one of them. 😊

[Unknown user]

5 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

MAY do more harm IF it introduces complacency about more important defences. It is still almost unanimous scientific opinion. MAY means may. Or might. Or possibly could. Not will.

 

 

I understand vague qualifiers, but you keep avoiding the "almost unanimous scientific advice for 6 months" bit.

Don't blame you TBH.

Edited August 28, 2020 by Smithee

[Bull's-eye]

[JudyJudyJudy]

8 hours ago, doctor jambo said:

We are dealing with extremes though.

It is the people at the extreme that are at risk from this.

People with severe asthma

severely overweight

 severe COPD

Towards the end of their life span due to underlying conditions or just extreme old age and frailty

You know- the shielding groups.

I'm arguiing for a targeted response based on solid evidence of risk.

at present and for some time it has been obvious that we are cack handedly protecting a very small number of people by locking down society and causing untold damage for, lets face it, an indefinate period .

This virus is not going away, there is no cure, and no vaccine, and may never be.

There is a distinct lack of pragmatism at play, and a dissociation from reality.

6 children have died of COVID in the uk and all had “ severe “ underlying health conditions . https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/28/vanishingly-small-risk-of-death-or-severe-illness-for-children-from-covid?CMP=fb_gu&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1598594627

[Francis Albert]

48 minutes ago, Ma Roon said:

Because employers can now re-title a position that has changed due to Covid-19 and is now located at home and create a substitute job from the previous office job 

RE-titling of job's has been going on for years 

Not only that but they can of course employ people from anywhere in the country and beyond at far lower wages than they pay for an employee in central London or Edinburgh for example.

 

And anyone who has tried to contact a business in the last few months to get something done about their account or service knows the impact on customer service of people working from home. 

Edited August 28, 2020 by Francis Albert

[jake]

The other day I had a hat on and I put on my mask to go into the shop.

Caught my reflection and thought I looked quite cool.

😁

Cowboyesque .

Just a wee covid related story .

[Francis Albert]

21 minutes ago, Smithee said:

I understand vague qualifiers, but you keep avoiding the "almost unanimous scientific advice for 6 months" bit.

Don't blame you TBH.

Not vague qualifiers. Just the meaning of the words I used. And I have directly addressed,not avoided, the words you quote. 

[JudyJudyJudy]

WFH has its positives and negatives. Im working from home and its fine but I do miss the contact with colleagues...( some ) . However I wouldn't want it to be long term but dont mind doing it for a few days and then a few days in the office.  Edinburgh city council are certainly reviewing this and are forging ahead with a blending of WFH and office based.  Ofcourse they will save a fortune with rentals of office spaces as they will probably sell a few buildings as they wont be used. Also productivity at home is higher as workers won't be sitting about chatting to each other and faffing about instead of working . So its a win /win for them really.  However the social aspect is the big concern and also just getting out each day for fresh air and some exercise .  

[AlphonseCapone]

26 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

MAY do more harm IF it introduces complacency about more important defences. It is still almost unanimous scientific opinion. MAY means may. Or might. Or possibly could. Not will.

 

 

 

The same logic applies to almost anything so not sure why it needs stated. I mean, condoms are pretty protective but not if you wear it over your head. Sure I didn't need to tell you that. 

[Francis Albert]

1 minute ago, jake said:

The other day I had a hat on and I put on my mask to go into the shop.

Caught my reflection and thought I looked quite cool.

😁

Cowboyesque .

Just a wee covid related story .

Or outlaw-esque?

[AlphonseCapone]

28 minutes ago, Lord BJ said:

Forgot how good those days were. Happier times tbh. 
 

Though few pints😂. Pfft Champaign and Charlie and then the fun started. 
 

It was a career requirement to be able to handle the boozing and all that came with it,
 

 

 

 

 

Don't get me wrong, if that was what offices were still like then I'd maybe not be as inclined to work from home.....

[Howdy Doody Jambo]

17 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Not only that but they can of course employ people from anywhere in the country and beyond at far lower wages than they pay for an employee in central London or Edinburgh for example.

 

And anyone who has tried to contact a business in the last few months to get something done about their account or service knows the impact on customer service of people working from home. 

Exactly and before you know it these job's become at home call center job's and through time companies end up using workers in other cheaper labour countries 

Edited August 28, 2020 by Ma Roon

[Back to 2005]

37 minutes ago, Weakened Offender said:

 

I really do hope you're not one of them. 😊

You're a right nasty **** on here. 

[Governor Tarkin]

28 minutes ago, Lord BJ said:

Forgot how good those days were. Happier times tbh. 
 

Though few pints😂. Pfft Champaign and Charlie and then the fun started. 
 

It was a career requirement to be able to handle the boozing and all that came with it,
 

 

Nippers don't even know they're born, LBJ.

 

29 minutes ago, Weakened Offender said:

 

I really do hope you're not one of them. 😊

 

The sooner that everyone who's posted on this thread is dead of the Chinese Bad AIDS the better imo.

 

10 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Not only that but they can of course employ people from anywhere in the country and beyond at far lower wages than they pay for an employee in central London or Edinburgh for example.

 

The young'uns seem mad keen to take us on a race to the bottom, FA. It's a pity we'll probably all be dead before you get a chance to tell them not to say you didn't warn them.

 

[Francis Albert]

3 minutes ago, AlphonseCapone said:

 

The same logic applies to almost anything so not sure why it needs stated. I mean, condoms are pretty protective but not if you wear it over your head. Sure I didn't need to tell you that. 

It isn't a question of logic but of the meaning of words.

But if we have to labour the point if I use a condom repeatedly with numerous partners it MAY do more harm than good. Especially if I damaged it by not wearing it properly.

Or if I thought wearing it made other precautions against sexually transmitted disease less necessary it MAY do more harm than good.

 

[Gards]

1 hour ago, Ma Roon said:

Because employers can now re-title a position that has changed due to Covid-19 and is now located at home and create a substitute job from the previous office job 

RE-titling of job's has been going on for years 

Nonsense.  The location of the role has no bearing on the responsibilities of the role.

[jack D and coke]

2 hours ago, Ma Roon said:

All these companies who's employees are now at home may well start making redundancies then renaming their job title's and re-employing on reduced terms as they are now working from home positions, this is just another way of cutting costs and resetting. 

Whether  it lasts or not in the short term its bad news for the whole economy in the long term 

Well as you can see from their responses about other businesses going down the swanny due to things changing they can’t expect any sympathy.
Personally I hope they all stay working at home the roads have been superb for me getting around lately. 

[Howdy Doody Jambo]

24 minutes ago, Gards said:

Nonsense.  The location of the role has no bearing on the responsibilities of the role.

Correct

[Enzo Chiefo]

1 hour ago, AlphonseCapone said:

 

Absolutely spot on. You can guarantee the guys demanding folk go back to the office are all in their 40's or older, and hark back to the days were folk would down pints in the office and do lines of coke in front of their managers before banging Deborah on the photocopier because the world was better back then. You have to be able to look another man in the eye and all that. Check his handshake is firm enough before you know whether you can do business. The same folk that probably get sad about the "high streets being gone". 

 

The world changes, and generations change. Technology improves. There are many benefits to people working at home more often. I wouldn't say it should happen 5 days a week but see no issues with 3 or 4 days. 

 

 

Exactly. We live in a capitalist system. Part of that means survival of the fittest business wise and freedom of choice for the consumer. Forcing folk into an office so city centre, predominantly big chains as they can afford the rates, business get the money is all a bit nanny state is it not. Lots of cracking cafés around this way that'll be booming now. 

Not always in that order though Alphonse👍

[Francis Albert]

51 minutes ago, Gards said:

Nonsense.  The location of the role has no bearing on the responsibilities of the role.

But it has a significant bearing on salary for the role.

[Francis Albert]

35 minutes ago, jack D and coke said:

Well as you can see from their responses about other businesses going down the swanny due to things changing they can’t expect any sympathy.
Personally I hope they all stay working at home the roads have been superb for me getting around lately. 

In my part of London commuter belt the roads have been more congested than ever ... presumably people "working from.home".

[Robbofan99]

Sturgeon with absolutely no sense of irony today requesting employers don't hassle people back to work with threats of redundancy , whereas jobs losses due to the lockdown are growing every day. Wait till the furlough scheme arrives and the shit will really hit the fan. 

[Francis Albert]

4 minutes ago, Robbofan99 said:

Sturgeon with absolutely no sense of irony today requesting employers don't hassle people back to work with threats of redundancy , whereas jobs losses due to the lockdown are growing every day. Wait till the furlough scheme arrives and the shit will really hit the fan. 

Crazy. Employers expecting people to turn up for work are "hassling" them. In Germany and France two thirds of office workers are back in their offices. In  the UK one third are. 

[The Internet]

Not being in the office doesn't mean they aren't working.