Scrutable

Matatouille wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 21, 2020 5:44 pm

Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 21, 2020 3:59 pm

I don't see working from home working out very well for people in shared housing (mostly younger people). Very difficult to keep things organised and yourself motivated if you have to work, rest and play in the same one room, which might not even have enough space for a desk.

Nevertheless, I absolutely can see companies making the change to remote working as a default, with the costs of securing co-working spaces and equipment falling to employees (as it already does for workers in the gig economy).

Unless there is strong resistance by unions etc., that is.

Quite. For it to work out for society generally, rather than just employers specifically. Any reductions in overheads enjoyed by employers should be passed on to the employees who making that possible. If the increased remuneration and soft benefits of home working aren't enough to make it a practical and overall positive change for the employee, it shouldn't be done, and certainly shouldn't be required of them. Making that analysis robust and mandatory will be the hard bit.

If you are working remotely a large fraction of the time, you can live in cheaper areas of the country. For those house sharing to work for e.g. London companies, you can get at least a 1 bed apartment somewhere else for the same money.

The general fall out from more remote working would be that towns with cheap housing and not much in the way of employment opportunities become more attractive.

dyqik wrote: ↑

Mon Mar 23, 2020 12:52 am

sideshowjim wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 21, 2020 8:32 pm

US election in November cancelled.

You really think the Republican Party will hand the presidency to Nancy Pelosi*? Because that's what happens if there isn't a president elect by Jan 20th. Trump doesn't stay on automatically.

*Assuming she remains speaker of the house after states nominate Congressional representatives without elections.

Do you think Trump knows that?

bmforre wrote: ↑

Mon Mar 23, 2020 1:07 am

dyqik wrote: ↑

Mon Mar 23, 2020 12:52 am

sideshowjim wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 21, 2020 8:32 pm

US election in November cancelled.

You really think the Republican Party will hand the presidency to Nancy Pelosi*? Because that's what happens if there isn't a president elect by Jan 20th. Trump doesn't stay on automatically.

*Assuming she remains speaker of the house after states nominate Congressional representatives without elections.

Do you think Trump knows that?

What if Trump just says 'lol no' and carries on as if he is the President? The Republicans will spin it as the Democrats trying to use an international crisis to usurp power, and the Democrats will fluff their response and find a way to be politically outmaneuvered. I'm sure Liberal Twitter will be savage though.

Pucksoppet wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 22, 2020 10:28 pm

Boustrophedon wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 22, 2020 8:55 pm

After?

I don't think we are quite at Threads level yet. Even if the true mortality rate is 10%, and the entire population are infected, the 90% left will inherit working infrastructure, if not a working society. The economic dislocation would be enormous, which in itself might engender a breakdown of civil society and deaths as a result of that, rather than infection. But yes, there will be an after for a majority of people, even if I don't get to survive.

While the outlook is bleak, it's not nuclear war bleak, or supervolcano bleak, or local gamma ray burst/supernova bleak, or extinction event incoming asteroid bleak.

I certainly hope so. But it simply not ending doesn’t necessarily imply apocalypse and I guess that is not what don meant or not what I thought he meant anyway. Is it actually guaranteed that within 1-2 years we will develop a vaccine and/or develop herd immunity? I feel like I have read warnings when each of those is discussed that mutations could prevent that solving the crisis. Is it possible we are stuck with a highly infectious disease that floats around, mutates every time we get a vaccine but somehow always into at least one variant that kills a lot more people than the flu does? And have to make decisions about how much risk vs greater long term social distancing we live with, along with a great deal of investment in treatment and care to handle it.

I also hope this is far fetched unlikely, but wasn’t sure how why it can be ruled out. can we definitively rule it out?

dyqik wrote: ↑

Mon Mar 23, 2020 12:52 am

sideshowjim wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 21, 2020 8:32 pm

US election in November cancelled.

You really think the Republican Party will hand the presidency to Nancy Pelosi*? Because that's what happens if there isn't a president elect by Jan 20th. Trump doesn't stay on automatically.

*Assuming she remains speaker of the house after states nominate Congressional representatives without elections.

Trump, Biden and Pelosi are all in their 70s. Pence is in his 60s. Hopefully Biden will pick a youngish VP candidate so that someone in line for the presidency is not in a high-risk category.

AMS wrote: ↑

Mon Mar 23, 2020 2:40 pm

dyqik wrote: ↑

Mon Mar 23, 2020 12:52 am

sideshowjim wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 21, 2020 8:32 pm

US election in November cancelled.

You really think the Republican Party will hand the presidency to Nancy Pelosi*? Because that's what happens if there isn't a president elect by Jan 20th. Trump doesn't stay on automatically.

*Assuming she remains speaker of the house after states nominate Congressional representatives without elections.

Trump, Biden and Pelosi are all in their 70s. Pence is in his 60s. Hopefully Biden will pick a youngish VP candidate so that someone in line for the presidency is not in a high-risk category.

This is not the thread for that discussion, and it has nothing to do with the topic here.

Bewildered wrote: ↑

Mon Mar 23, 2020 8:44 am

I certainly hope so. But it simply not ending doesn’t necessarily imply apocalypse and I guess that is not what don meant or not what I thought he meant anyway. Is it actually guaranteed that within 1-2 years we will develop a vaccine and/or develop herd immunity? I feel like I have read warnings when each of those is discussed that mutations could prevent that solving the crisis. Is it possible we are stuck with a highly infectious disease that floats around, mutates every time we get a vaccine but somehow always into at least one variant that kills a lot more people than the flu does? And have to make decisions about how much risk vs greater long term social distancing we live with, along with a great deal of investment in treatment and care to handle it.

I also hope this is far fetched unlikely, but wasn’t sure how why it can be ruled out. can we definitively rule it out?

Apparently COVID-19 mutates at about half the rate of regular flu - and as we can create a shot for regular flu that implies we can create a shot for this too.

https://www.iflscience.com/health-and-m ... ust-a-flu/

TopBadger wrote: ↑

Mon Mar 23, 2020 4:52 pm

Bewildered wrote: ↑

Mon Mar 23, 2020 8:44 am

I certainly hope so. But it simply not ending doesn’t necessarily imply apocalypse and I guess that is not what don meant or not what I thought he meant anyway. Is it actually guaranteed that within 1-2 years we will develop a vaccine and/or develop herd immunity? I feel like I have read warnings when each of those is discussed that mutations could prevent that solving the crisis. Is it possible we are stuck with a highly infectious disease that floats around, mutates every time we get a vaccine but somehow always into at least one variant that kills a lot more people than the flu does? And have to make decisions about how much risk vs greater long term social distancing we live with, along with a great deal of investment in treatment and care to handle it.

I also hope this is far fetched unlikely, but wasn’t sure how why it can be ruled out. can we definitively rule it out?

Apparently COVID-19 mutates at about half the rate of regular flu - and as we can create a shot for regular flu that implies we can create a shot for this too.

https://www.iflscience.com/health-and-m ... ust-a-flu/

Thanks Bewildered and TopBadger.

I must admit, I thought the 'don was implying there would be no after, in the apocalyptic sense, and not the idea of having to deal with a new chronic infection. On that point, I'm sure a lot of researchers are trying to find out the relevant parameter to see if a useful vaccine can be developed, and I can't even guess if they will be able to do so or not. I hope SARS-CoV-2 doesn't end up like the 'common' cold where finding a viable vaccine has been difficult.

If nothing else, if the history of using myxomatosis to control rabbit populations is any guide, we can expect evolution to do its stuff and for resistant strains of humans to evolve, and possibly for the virus to become less virulent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myxomatosis

The virus was at first highly lethal, with an estimated case fatality rate of close to 99.8%. Within a few years, however, this strain was replaced by less virulent ones, which permitted longer survival of infected rabbits and enhanced disease transmission.

While initial viral strains were highly virulent, attenuated strains were soon recovered from the field. These attenuated strains, which allowed rabbits to survive longer, came to dominate because they were more readily transmitted.

Sorry maybe I should have been more verbose: I meant to imply that covid is here to stay no matter what, so in some sense we will never quite return to before.

As for the poor rabbits, myxomatosis was transmitted by mite, mosquito, fleas and lice. On the other hand Rabbit hemorrhagic disease would seem to be airborne, my two never stood a chance. I feel for the rabbits, there are virtually none around here in the Lincolnshire Wolds now.

Boustrophedon wrote: ↑

Mon Mar 23, 2020 10:12 pm

Sorry maybe I should have been more verbose: I meant to imply that covid is here to stay no matter what, so in some sense we will never quite return to before.

As for the poor rabbits, myxomatosis was transmitted by mite, mosquito, fleas and lice. On the other hand Rabbit hemorrhagic disease would seem to be airborne, my two never stood a chance. I feel for the rabbits, there are virtually none around here in the Lincolnshire Wolds now.

Apologies for bringing back bad memories, 'don.

Joe Wicks for BBC sports personality of the year?

AMS wrote: ↑

Mon Mar 23, 2020 11:32 pm

Joe Wicks for BBC sports personality of the year?

Naw - Gary Neville

Lew Dolby wrote: ↑

Tue Mar 24, 2020 9:14 am

AMS wrote: ↑

Mon Mar 23, 2020 11:32 pm

Joe Wicks for BBC sports personality of the year?

Naw - Gary Neville

I never thought I'd see the words "Gary Neville" and "Personality of the Year" in the same post.

Well yes - but my nomination is for what he's doing with his hotels in Manc at the moment not for anything soccer.

Lew Dolby wrote: ↑

Tue Mar 24, 2020 11:32 am

Well yes - but my nomination is for what he's doing with his hotels in Manc at the moment not for anything soccer.

Oh, I get that. So "Gary-Neville-and-Ryan-Giggs" then. Credit where credit's due. Even if he did hop on his brother's wife.

If this goes on for a long time, bricks and mortar sit-down restaurants are going to take a [further] hit as a sector (beyond the obvious cashflow issues of having been shut for X months). A lot of people who have barely used home delivery (versus going to a restaurant) for "don't want to cook tonight" days will have become converts.

Mrs sTeamTraen and I are in this category; we go out to eat quite a lot and our only home delivery is a pizza about once every six months, but we are looking quite closely at the Just Eat site right now and may even be actually placing an order soon (!!!!).

Rich Scopie wrote: ↑

Tue Mar 24, 2020 2:46 pm

Oh, I get that. So "Gary-Neville-and-Ryan-Giggs" then. Credit where credit's due. Even if he did hop on his brother's wife.

"Ryan Giggs today admitted to suffering from homesickness, saying that even though he's happy in Manchester he does miss Wales occasionally" is one of the most finely constructed jokes ever to appear on Sickipedia [RIP].

sTeamTraen wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 25, 2020 8:17 pm

If this goes on for a long time, bricks and mortar sit-down restaurants are going to take a [further] hit as a sector (beyond the obvious cashflow issues of having been shut for X months). A lot of people who have barely used home delivery (versus going to a restaurant) for "don't want to cook tonight" days will have become converts.

Mrs sTeamTraen and I are in this category; we go out to eat quite a lot and our only home delivery is a pizza about once every six months, but we are looking quite closely at the Just Eat site right now and may even be actually placing an order soon (!!!!).

If that is what it takes to keep the restaurant open during the crisis, go for it. I'm getting more take-aways than I normally would, to try and keep some money flowing through theirs coffers. It doesn't help the waiters/waitresses, but does keep the kitchen semi-busy.

sTeamTraen wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 25, 2020 8:21 pm

Rich Scopie wrote: ↑

Tue Mar 24, 2020 2:46 pm

Oh, I get that. So "Gary-Neville-and-Ryan-Giggs" then. Credit where credit's due. Even if he did hop on his brother's wife.

"Ryan Giggs today admitted to suffering from homesickness, saying that even though he's happy in Manchester he does miss Wales occasionally" is one of the most finely constructed jokes ever to appear on Sickipedia [RIP].

Oh, that's exquisite.

The NHS will struggle.

There have already been deaths already and will more. There is also be staff with health complications.

Staff will leave due to feeling like canon fodder. PPE has been inadequate as has any response to this. Currently staff are carrying on because we in a crises and feel obliged but after the crises this feeling will go and they will leave.

An understanding of what is and isn't essential will be re-evaluated - This could be a good or bad thing.

What I hope will happen but probably won't - there will be investment so that the NHS is not always operating so close to capacity that they cannot deal with a crises. At the moment even winter pressures screws us over. Sustained weekly terrorist attacks would knock us out. The fire brigade build in capacity - I would like to see the NHS work the same way.

TheScientificHippy wrote: ↑

Mon Mar 30, 2020 5:12 pm

The fire brigade build in capacity - I would like to see the NHS work the same way.

Yes, the fire brigade have capacity; the police (to a lesser extent) have capacity (although even the Tories have made cuts in police numbers).

Call me a cynic, but maybe it's because the fire brigade and police are more difficult to try and privatise - running them into the ground would serve no purpose because private companies aren't donating to the political parties to lobby to take over (although, yes, partially for some aspects of police work). I doubt anyone wants to see the days of competing fire companies and only attending fires if they are protected by your company anymore as the political fall-out would be too great if anything like Grenfell happened again.

Even the great Capitalist USA doesn't go in for competing police and fire brigades - the closest they get is private security, but that's crime prevention (AFAIK); they don't compete with police when it comes to solving crime.

Martin_B wrote: ↑

Tue Mar 31, 2020 1:03 am

TheScientificHippy wrote: ↑

Mon Mar 30, 2020 5:12 pm

The fire brigade build in capacity - I would like to see the NHS work the same way.

Yes, the fire brigade have capacity; the police (to a lesser extent) have capacity (although even the Tories have made cuts in police numbers).

Call me a cynic, but maybe it's because the fire brigade and police are more difficult to try and privatise - running them into the ground would serve no purpose because private companies aren't donating to the political parties to lobby to take over (although, yes, partially for some aspects of police work). I doubt anyone wants to see the days of competing fire companies and only attending fires if they are protected by your company anymore as the political fall-out would be too great if anything like Grenfell happened again.

Even the great Capitalist USA doesn't go in for competing police and fire brigades - the closest they get is private security, but that's crime prevention (AFAIK); they don't compete with police when it comes to solving crime.

They have a similar thing to private security when it comes to fire too.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.thegua ... the-public

monkey wrote: ↑

Tue Mar 31, 2020 4:24 am

Martin_B wrote: ↑

Tue Mar 31, 2020 1:03 am

TheScientificHippy wrote: ↑

Mon Mar 30, 2020 5:12 pm

The fire brigade build in capacity - I would like to see the NHS work the same way.

Yes, the fire brigade have capacity; the police (to a lesser extent) have capacity (although even the Tories have made cuts in police numbers).

Call me a cynic, but maybe it's because the fire brigade and police are more difficult to try and privatise - running them into the ground would serve no purpose because private companies aren't donating to the political parties to lobby to take over (although, yes, partially for some aspects of police work). I doubt anyone wants to see the days of competing fire companies and only attending fires if they are protected by your company anymore as the political fall-out would be too great if anything like Grenfell happened again.

Even the great Capitalist USA doesn't go in for competing police and fire brigades - the closest they get is private security, but that's crime prevention (AFAIK); they don't compete with police when it comes to solving crime.

They have a similar thing to private security when it comes to fire too.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.thegua ... the-public

Wow. I had no idea that anyone would come up with anything so stupid as a private fire brigade again. I apologise to all the American Scrutablers, but your country is f.cked up.

The fire brigade should be reinvented. The lack of smoking and open fireplaces, plus sofas that don't burst into flame, makes it basically a road traffic accident service with a bit of fire as a sideline. It's not clear how it can be sustained in a world of safer (or even self-driving) cars, zero smoking, zero fireplaces, zero gas. I'd guess it will become part of the police service before too long, a specialist division but with more general responsibilities.

TheScientificHippy wrote: ↑

Mon Mar 30, 2020 5:12 pm

The NHS will struggle.

There have already been deaths already and will more. There is also be staff with health complications.

Staff will leave due to feeling like canon fodder. PPE has been inadequate as has any response to this. Currently staff are carrying on because we in a crises and feel obliged but after the crises this feeling will go and they will leave.

An understanding of what is and isn't essential will be re-evaluated - This could be a good or bad thing.

What I hope will happen but probably won't - there will be investment so that the NHS is not always operating so close to capacity that they cannot deal with a crises. At the moment even winter pressures screws us over. Sustained weekly terrorist attacks would knock us out. The fire brigade build in capacity - I would like to see the NHS work the same way.

The NHS needs to be reinvented. It's not fit for purpose.

Ventilators were being maxed out locally each winter's flu season, needing shuffling between hospitals. In a bad flu season there was hidden breakdown, with people dying while waiting for a bed. It's easy to say the Conservative Party is to blame due to constantly underfunding - but the British people elect the Conservatives half the time. It's inevitable that governments from time to time will squeeze the NHS of resources because it's so damn costly. Over the past 40 years, it's been badly under resourced for at least 25 years and partially under resourced for the rest. This is a permanent feature of the NHS, not an exception, and we are deluding ourselves if we think the answer is to keep nagging Conservatives to fund a bit more and occasionally elect Labour to bump resources up temporarily.

We have already split out opticians into a private service, with some backup government provision. Likewise dentists - mostly private with employers offering insurance packages, some poorer quality government provision. Split out the rest.

Use insurance to fund specific areas - e.g. mental health. Or separate out diabetes - insurance cover, where insurance is cheaper for people who meet criteria. And have a hypothecated tax - a payroll tax, plus revenues from tobacco/alcohol/marijuana taxes, plus petrol/diesel taxes.

As a society, we don't allocate enough resources to the NHS. We over-allocate our moaning about its failings, instead of actually coming up with answers fit for a 21st C service.