Coronavirus (COVID-19)

[Todd_is_God]

39 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

Do you mean the elderly who think they might have only a year or so to live, if they survive Covid? That would be quite a niche sample group, but the results would be interesting to hear.

I agree.

I'm not in my 80's so I'm guessing here, but I would imagine most people in their mid 80s and above would live in the here and now, not knowing with any real certainty if all of their social group will still be around and healthy 6 months or so down the line. No one seems to want to ask this group if they want to be "protected" to the extent we are stopping everything to do so, though.

[Todd_is_God]

13 minutes ago, effeffsee_the2nd said:

Baws to that, i'm already worse off by more than that! i don't live far enough from work to save very much in fuel but my gas and lecky are through the roof now!

If you've been asked to, rather than chosen to, work from home, you can claim the increase in utilities back in tax relief btw. Either at £6 a week without receipts, or the full amount if you can prove how much it has increased.

[Todd_is_God]

59 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

I have.  The answer was yes.

They just want to avoid having to socialise with you tbf

[welshbairn]

38 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

I agree.

I'm not in my 80's so I'm guessing here, but I would imagine most people in their mid 80s and above would live in the here and now, not knowing with any real certainty if all of their social group will still be around and healthy 6 months or so down the line. No one seems to want to ask this group if they want to be "protected" to the extent we are stopping everything to do so, though.

We don't have any certainty that you'll be around in 6 months time, I wouldn't make policy on that basis though. My folks were still going on walking holidays in their 80's, they certainly had no plans to book a trip to Dignitas, and one of them is still alive and active. I don't think you have a clue how old people think. "All right guvnor, I've had my 3 score and ten cor blimey, turn the lights out please and let that young Todd go to the pub."

[Todd_is_God]

5 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

We don't have any certainty that you'll be around in 6 months time, I wouldn't make policy on that basis though. My folks were still going on walking holidays in their 80's, they certainly had no plans to book a trip to Dignitas, and one of them is still alive and active. I don't think you have a clue how old people think. "All right guvnor, I've had my 3 score and ten cor blimey, turn the lights out please and let that young Todd go to the pub."

What a mess of a post. Wtf has allowing elderly people the freedom to socialise and do the things they enjoy in life got to do with them planning trips to assisted dying clinics in Switzerland, or me going to the pub?

You are a strange individual.

[Distant Doonhamer]

1 hour ago, Todd_is_God said:

I agree.

I'm not in my 80's so I'm guessing here, but I would imagine most people in their mid 80s and above would live in the here and now, not knowing with any real certainty if all of their social group will still be around and healthy 6 months or so down the line. No one seems to want to ask this group if they want to be "protected" to the extent we are stopping everything to do so, though.

It's a hugely complex situation. My in laws are both mid 80s.  Father in law,  very healthy, pre-pandemic very active, regularly playing golf and cycling every day to go and buy a newspaper. He hasn't enjoyed lockdown but fully agrees that it has been what he calls a necessary evil (we can debate all night if that's true but that's his view).  Mother-in-law has very poor chronic health. Given a choice her initial view would have been just to live her life. A view she quickly changed when a younger and much loved relative died of Covid early in the pandemic. 

My own dad is 92. Significant dementia and in a care home. It's been a comfort to us that thus far no cases in his home and that he has been kept safe. Fully appreciate that's the polar opposite of the experience of many.

So in summary my father in law wants to be protected. My mother in law strongly didn't wish to be until events in the pandemic quickly changed that view. My father doesn't have a clue about any pandemic and seems happy enough with his lot as much as we can tell. I suspect if he was still competent to make a decision he'd have wanted to be "protected" but I can't be certain about that.

So, even looking at this very small group of people i don't see any easy answer to this aspect. Fully appreciate that many people including the elderly might have very different views. Glad I'm not making the big decisions.

 

 

 

[Sherrif John Bunnell]

2 hours ago, Le Tout P'ti FC said:

Deutsche Bank suggesting that people who WFH post-pandemic should pay a 5% tax to subsidise the income of lower paid workers. Somebody earning £35k would pay £7 per day to WFH. They calculate that the average worker would be no worse off as the tax would offset other savings.

Interesting concept, will never ever happen.
 

 

Or we could maybe up taxes on bank profits by 5% instead.

I'm sure the likes of Amazon and Donald Trump could chip in with an extra 5% as well.

[bennett]

 

 

 

A new testing technique?

 

[Rob1885]

Deutsche Bank suggesting that people who WFH post-pandemic should pay a 5% tax to subsidise the income of lower paid workers. Somebody earning £35k would pay £7 per day to WFH. They calculate that the average worker would be no worse off as the tax would offset other savings.

Interesting concept, will never ever happen.

The cut of their jib isn't all that bad. You could probably imagine this government coming out with it

"Hands, face, space. Work from home wherever possible(it'll cost you £35 a week in doing so), stay at home, protect the NHS, save lives"

[Michael W]

Paying money to work in your own home. 

Charge it back to the businesses saving millions by canning their office space. 

Edited November 11, 2020 by Michael W

[tamthebam]

So students are going to be tested before they go home at Christmas to prevent possible spread.

That's nice.

Perhaps they should have thought of testing them before they went to University?

 

[Steven W]

Both Inverness and Elgin matches this n the league cup this week were behind closed doors, despite having been in tier 1 for over a week now. Since the move to the tiered system that's only one of the four matches that have government permission to have fans (restricted) actually have any there (And even that had the same amount as a pilot event a couple of months previous)

Elgin have an u20 friendly v Strathspey on Sunday - behind closed doors (couldn't think of a better match to have a test event at if you wanted to go down that route).

Look forward to the Glasgow clubs getting the same treatment when (if?) they ever reach tier 1....

[Cosmic Joe]

20 minutes ago, Steven W said:

Both Inverness and Elgin matches this n the league cup this week were behind closed doors, despite having been in tier 1 for over a week now. Since the move to the tiered system that's only one of the four matches that have government permission to have fans (restricted) actually have any there (And even that had the same amount as a pilot event a couple of months previous)

Elgin have an u20 friendly v Strathspey on Sunday - behind closed doors (couldn't think of a better match to have a test event at if you wanted to go down that route).

Look forward to the Glasgow clubs getting the same treatment when (if?) they ever reach tier 1....

Inverness were away to the Linos

[Bairnardo]

See for the WFH contingent on here, this has been touched on before and opinion is somewhat split but I think the majority who can would like to continue WFH...

Is anyone worried now, with some light at the end of the tunnel in terms of regaining normality, that the attitudes of employers will change? Not only some who will enforce office return, but for those who allow WFH, as a choice rather than an enforced, do the best we can scenario during a pandemic. Does anyone think a return to higher productivity will result in higher demands, less slack etc for them personally?

[Steven W]

8 minutes ago, Angusfifer said:

Inverness were away to the Linos

My mistake. Indeed they were away.

So one from three. See what happens with ICT on Sat at home v East Fife. Presume a few highland league friendlies will now filter through as well now.

[101]

36 minutes ago, Steven W said:

Both Inverness and Elgin matches this n the league cup this week were behind closed doors, despite having been in tier 1 for over a week now. Since the move to the tiered system that's only one of the four matches that have government permission to have fans (restricted) actually have any there (And even that had the same amount as a pilot event a couple of months previous)

Elgin have an u20 friendly v Strathspey on Sunday - behind closed doors (couldn't think of a better match to have a test event at if you wanted to go down that route).

Look forward to the Glasgow clubs getting the same treatment when (if?) they ever reach tier 1....

Has anyone clarified what the delay is? I would assume there are quite a few hoops for clubs to jump through in terms of getting the stadium ready so it could be that. As for calling them 'test' events is utterly ridiculous. The rest of the easements in 1 aren't tests they are allowed on the balance of public health. I think the SPFL have been utterly useless during the pandemic putting pressure on the right people when cinemas opened and it looks like they suggested 300 people which makes no sense as it's 300 people regardless on how many entrances, toilets, stands, seats your stadium had. If it had been say 25 people per entrance to avoid queues that would make much more sense.

[Paco]

ICT themselves have always targeted the home match against Raith on November 21st. I presume there’s a bit of box ticking to get through and they were caught a bit off guard. Elgin have the added complication of being the first team to work with terracing rules.

Ross County on the other hand had already done the work for the Celtic game in September, and so had fans in last Friday.

Or alternatively, it’s all some sort of SFA and wee Nippy conspiracy for unknown reasons that we should be completely outraged about.

[hk blues]

32 minutes ago, Bairnardo said:

Is anyone worried now, with some light at the end of the tunnel in terms of regaining normality, that the attitudes of employers will change? Not only some who will enforce office return, but for those who allow WFH, as a choice rather than an enforced, do the best we can scenario during a pandemic. Does anyone think a return to higher productivity will result in higher demands, less slack etc for them personally?

I guess most employers view WFH as better than nothing but when things return to "normality" I doubt they'd accept less efficiency from WFH employees than those in the office - why would they?  

[Dons_1988]

44 minutes ago, Bairnardo said:

See for the WFH contingent on here, this has been touched on before and opinion is somewhat split but I think the majority who can would like to continue WFH...

Is anyone worried now, with some light at the end of the tunnel in terms of regaining normality, that the attitudes of employers will change? Not only some who will enforce office return, but for those who allow WFH, as a choice rather than an enforced, do the best we can scenario during a pandemic. Does anyone think a return to higher productivity will result in higher demands, less slack etc for them personally?

Are many employers accepting less productivity? I suppose if that's the case then enforced return to work is more likely.

I think the reason it's likely here to stay is that productivity hasn't really suffered in certain sectors. Certainly my work has been fine.

[Todd_is_God]

9 minutes ago, Dons_1988 said:

Are many employers accepting less productivity? I suppose if that's the case then enforced return to work is more likely.

I think the reason it's likely here to stay is that productivity hasn't really suffered in certain sectors. Certainly my work has been fine.

I think I read in the Metro yesterday that around 70% of employers had seen no increase in productivity.

Granted that doesn't mean a decrease, but it does cast doubt on the "WFH leads to increased productivity" line, with the obvious caveat that it may not be a fair test due to circumstances.