SARS CoV-2 coronavirus / Covid-19 (No tin foil hat silliness please)

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

The Insanity of UK citizens, that never fought in a war, gathering around ‘Celebrating’ a dark global Anniversary, as the ‘Loser/Baddie’ of that same event keeps their distance from each other...

Well it’s insane.

Who won? Why did winning matter? What the hell did people fight for and do people think They gave their lives for this?...

I don’t understand this country.

 

[JMack1234]

The Insanity of UK citizens, that never fought in a war, gathering around ‘Celebrating’ a dark global Anniversary, as the ‘Loser/Baddie’ of that same event keeps their distance from each other...

Well it’s insane.

Who won? Why did winning matter? What the hell did people fight for and do people think They gave their lives for this?...

I don’t understand this country.

Why don't ask any of your Jewish friends why winning mattered?

 

[Wibble]

You’re doing it again, noods. Pretending that letting the virus run riot wouldn’t also cause economic impacts and non virus-related deaths. As per my previous post, the cost (to the economy and in terms of people dying) of not flattening the curve of an outbreak would go far beyond the numbers of people killed by the virus. You can’t keep claiming that the lockdown alone is what’s causing the economic hardship we’ll endure in the next year or two. It’s actually way more complicated than that and the economy would likely be scuppered whatever we do.

Not to mention that the inevitable second wave will (or should) result in further lockdowns. A yoyoing of lockdowns is likley to be the most harmful thing for the economy. Even though we have things fairly well under control ere we still have businesses wanting caution as closing cost many of them a fortune, opening up and restocking etc won't be cheap and then to have to close down again would be a disaster especially in the bar and restaurant trades where much of the inventory is perishable.

The UK had fecked their whole response up and the solution isn't to say lets go back to a "feck it, lets go for herd immunity" approach that would quickly destroy the health system, massively escalate the death rate, extend the need for lock downs and utterly feck the economy.

 

[Wibble]

I'm not sure a 500 person study of one specific job type (working in a noisy call centre vs being in a quiet home environment), lasting only 9 months with an obvious and direct incentive to the people involved to be productive (that a large increase in productivity would likely lead to being able to work from home full time, which would save the employee in commuting costs as well as hundreds of hours of their annual time) and in an industry with very little investment cost to trial this and with a company in a country whose population are notoriously compliant is great evidence. Neither of course is my much more limited and anectodal evidence.

However if an employer could effectively pay their staff 221 hours a year less in salary (the average annual commute) whilst also paying them £795 a year less as that would be the average saving per employee; whilst they were being 13% more efficient (therefore they could employ far less staff for the same output) and at the same time with far smaller office rental, heating and general running costs ... Either every employer would already be doing this and saving a large % of their fixed costs with zero downside; or the companies not doing this would have been driven to bankruptcy by the ones embracing this being able to offer the same services or products at considerably more competitive prices.

Motivating my staff isn't a problem in the office, however it is whilst they're working from home. That's the point.

Either way we'll have a conclusive answer in a few years as almost every firm is having their own enforced trial at the moment. If the majority of companies have great experiences with incredibly productive staff they will no doubt be giving this option to staff going forward.

I have enjoyed a massive productivity boost but obvioulsy working from home works better for some jobs and personal circumstances than ithers.

If your staff need to be watched to be motivated then my first thought is that there is something wrong either with the culture of your place of work or the people you employ. Unless it isn't really motivation that is the issue but it is that their actual home working conditions, which in the current circumstances can be less than ideal for many, especially if they have kids under their feet due to school closures.

For my organisation I'd say letting out more floors of our central Sydney office building would be the saving. Salaries wouldn't be cut and they would need to start paying a working at home allowance to cover internet and electricity costs etc.

 

[Withnail]

Is it an affluent and like minded area?

 

[finneh]

Depends on the type of work and family situation of each employee.

I don't miss the commute or the random weekly travels to meet with clients when those things can be just as easily accomplished virtually.

If you know what you're doing and you've some latitude in your tasks, WFH is a boon. If you crave social interactions and/or need directions every 15 minutes WFH is impossible.

I think I should be a prime candidate in terms of WFH. Early 30's, no kids, self motivated, enjoy work and very much career / finance focused. However I'm unequivocally less productive; even when my 110 minute daily commute is factored in.

My staff would all work from home four days a week if they could and truly I'd be a fool not to consider it (I have of course). I could genuinely offer them this in lieu of 3 years salary increase which would save me comfortably 5 figures annually. I'd save on fixed costs also and alleviate my biggest bugbear too... Parking!

In my experience annoyingly however it just doesn't work productively on the whole. For myself for example I've never (maybe once a year) taken a lunch in the office but from home find myself taking a lengthy lunch daily and procrastinating far more frequently.

I'm fully aware some people thrive at home; I have (a small minority of) staff that absolutely do. They log in to our server at 5:30am and log off at 8pm, using commuting time plus interest to work. However they are a small proportion. For every person I've seen who're 10% more productive there are 5 who're 30% less.

I'm sure though that the construction industry and it's supply chain aren't fully indicative of the entire country (we're two decades behind in everything else!). However what I am certain of is that any company that ignores something that could potentially save huge sums every year does so at their own peril... The people, country, app or business that masters it are bound to be hugely wealthy.

Therefore it isn't a question of businesses resisting, they'd be embracing it open armed if it produced results.

I have enjoyed a massive productivity boost but obvioulsy working from home works better for some jobs and personal circumstances than ithers.

If your staff need to be watched to be motivated then my first thought is that there is something wrong either with the culture of your place of work or the people you employ. Unless it isn't really motivation that is the issue but it is that their actual home working conditions, which in the current circumstances can be less than ideal for many, especially if they have kids under their feet due to school closures.

For my organisation I'd say letting out more floors of our central Sydney office building would be the saving. Salaries wouldn't be cut and they would need to start paying a working at home allowance to cover internet and electricity costs etc.

It isn't just about being watched. Outside of day to day productivity for example it's about staff hearing how other staff deal with issues every day and (hopefully) adapting and developing according to the skills of those around them. Some are detailed but passive, some assertive but sloppy, some inexperienced. Being in an office you hope people lose their negative attributes and encompass others' positives, becoming more rounded (I certainly have).

I regularly use scenarios I've heard with how staff have dealt with complex situations as an example to other staff who I've seen deal with things less competently. Hell most of the time I don't even bring it up as you'll see passive people becoming more assertive when the situation requires it merely by hearing how someone else has dealt with a situation more assertively. Likewise the reverse where assertive people have seen how calmer people have defused a situation. Over a period of time you see a group of staff dispel their own weaknesses and take on the strengths of their colleagues.

I can't reiterate enough that it would be such a no brainer to allow all staff who can to work from home to do so. As a business owner I'd be committing career suicide to not allow it. However with my current experience the reverse would be true.

 

[JMack1234]

Is it an affluent and like minded area?

What is it with redcafe users and the use of 'affluent'.

 

[horsechoker]

What is it with redcafe users and the use of 'affluent'.

We're like minded people

 

[Bullhitter]

I can't believe people are surprised at the actions, parties etc in the UK today.

I think it is becoming increasingly clear and will do even more so as time passes that one of the most relevant stats will be morons per million and that the UK and USA are streets ahead.

^^^^^^

And just wait, it is going to get 100x worse.

 

[Tarrou]

I'm not doing that at all. From our latest death figures you can assume aminimum of around 20-30% of the population already HAS had the virus. In all likelyhood it's going to be something well above that as we have no fully accurate way of knowing how many people get it without showing symptoms. We're still getting over 4,000 new cases a day just from people who are being tested. From the number of recorded deaths, the virus IS running riot. It is going through care homes. It has infecting "at risk" people faster than our government has been able to test them.

And as I keep saying, I'm not suggesting coming out of lockdown and carrying on as normal is the right thing to do. I'm saying that what the UK is doing, is the wrong thing to do, because we don't even have a plan, we are plundering along and no matter how obvious it becomes that we need a plan one way or the other we just continue to plunder along, making up what we'll do next from one day to the other. Affecting everyone's day to day life and causing avoidable hardship for millions of people without even having a clear idea why we are doing it. It's quite ridiculous.

Staying in lockdown makes sense if you have a strategy like Germany have. They have been fully on top of knowinhg the number of infections the whole time, so know who it affects more, where it affects more, and how to contain and control it. They are down to only hundreds of new cases a day. By the time they come out of lockdown (which incidentally, will likely be less time than we're in it for) they will have the pandemic fully under control. They may even eridacte it completely, and will be in a position to try to contain it completely when it comes back. This in turn will be a massive help to getting their economy back on its feet. An example of what the whole point of going into a lockdown is meant to be.

Can you explain to me what we are doing? When we come out of lockdown, whether its next week, next month, whenever, we will be lucky if our testing is even keeping up with the number of new infections...we wont have anything under control. We wont have any kind of platform to keep the virus from continuing to cause damage. What we are doing only ever made sense from a short term perspective of protecting the NHS during it's busy period, by slowing the rate of infection and allowing our health service to cope. I presumed this must have been the idea because a) if we're trying to do anything beyond that then we are doing it VERY wrong, and b) this is what we were REPEATEDLY told the plan was at the start, before the narrative started to change every couple of hours.

Pogue I don't know what you are actually expecting to happen here. The numbers don't lie and what the numbers tell you is that our idea of lockdown doesn't actually work. You factor in the economic impacts, the fact the mortality of the virus mainly targets older, unwell people, the fact what we are doing doesn't actually include any effective way to control the virus or protect those people, and you're looking at a very ineffective plan that is causing major disruption to literally everything and everyone. It is creating situations where some people can't even get food to eat...and in a year's time you're going to be looking at a death toll that will be veyr similar to what would have been estimated had we done nothing at all.

The idea lockdown isn't a major effect on the economy is just obvious and complete bollocks. I mean come on now. The entire Swedish strategy was based around avoiding lockdown BECAUSE of the obvious long term effect it will have on the economy. People trying to at this point claim the opposite are living in a complete dream world...the reason I can't go to my office and work as normal has nothing to do with the virus. The reason my dad can't go out and buy himself food or get it delivered has nothing to do with the virus. The reason my brother's girlfriend no longer has a job has nothing to do with the virus. Lockdown is the reason for these things...you can argue it's necesary to combat the virus IF it actually combats the virus...but in order for that to be the case you kind of have to do the whole thing properly.

I agree the UK's strategy is a mess. But what other choice do the government have but to lockdown at this stage? Without that our health system will be quickly overwhelmed.

What are you suggesting they do?

 

[JMack1234]

We're like minded people

Okay I surrender my churlishness forthwith.

I genuinely want to know why you used affluent in that way.

I won't argue with you, pinky promise.

 

[Pagh Wraith]

Loads of people out in the streets tonight and gathering around the shops and bars. Police seemed fine with it. Really feels like normal life again.

 

[Organic Potatoes]

I'm not doing that at all. From our latest death figures you can assume aminimum of around 20-30% of the population already HAS had the virus. In all likelyhood it's going to be something well above that as we have no fully accurate way of knowing how many people get it without showing symptoms.

You’ll need to source that, because there is at least one expert that puts it at 10%.

 

[Pagh Wraith]

Okay I surrender my churlishness forthwith.

I genuinely want to know why you used affluent in that way.

I won't argue with you, pinky promise.

Someone in this thread spoke about having dinner with like-minded and affluent friends from their neighbourhood and downplayed the Corona threat. It's been used ever since.

 

[Ludens the Red]

What is it with redcafe users and the use of 'affluent'.

Some poster on here, can’t remember his name was giving it large about the area he lived in(early in the thread)and that was a direct quote from him.
I live in an area with ‘affluent like minded individuals ‘.. can’t remember the poster

 

[Hernandez - BFA]

Our hospital is prepping for the peak in June. Seems odd doing all this while life seemingly is normalising around me.

Our hospital “Covid Task Force” are making more and more radical changes ahead of June. Slightly worrying because it just seems that the numbers reflect something that I can’t see yet.

There will 100% be a second “UK peak” when lockdown eases. I’m glad they’ve not made much of a change yet. 600 or so people are still dying a day. Give it a week or so post lockdown and we’ll see numbers of ~800/900 a day again.

 

[Wibble]

Okay I surrender my churlishness forthwith.

I genuinely want to know why you used affluent in that way.

I won't argue with you, pinky promise.

It has turned in to a caf meme - I think the original context was a poster said they were carrying on going to the pub until BoJo said it was ok, as would other like-mined people in their affluent neighborhood - or something rather pompous like that.

 

[JMack1234]

It has turned in to a caf meme - I think the original context was a poster said they were carrying on going to the pub until BoJo said it was ok, as would other like-mined people in their affluent neighborhood - or something rather pompous like that.

Really?

Why, who'd say something like that?

 

[Wibble]

Really?

Why, who'd say something like that?

Yes and the Caf had been riffing of this ever since even though I think the original post was edited. Someone should remember who the original poster was and exactly what the quote was.

 

[TheGame]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[dumbo]

@Starkie_1 has done his best to scrub the 'affluent' post from the records but I managed to track down the original source:

Spoiler

 

[BootsyCollins]

Cant remember exactly, I'll try finding it. I look at allsorts during break at work, it was a piece about how virus' can naturally become weaker over time and how this from some testing was looking like it could be on a similar path.

Like I said though, I've seen articles stating the exact opposite too.

I'll post here if/when I find it.

Ive seen some doctors from Italy saying so. Describing its as a wave now, compared to the tsunami it was.

Their conclusion was either that the virus is weaker now, maybe because of the weather, or that it just seems like that because its not affecting as many in riskgroups anymore.

I dont speak Italian, but this is the article swedish and norwegian papers links to : https://www.corriere.it/salute/mala...jF3pU2-f20phkv9EYoWdXAqWRY1aQRI&refresh_ce-cp

 

[Lj82]

Conclusion 2: (a) we need to redesign our living/working spaces & rethink how to provide better, ventilated living/working environment for those who live in deprived & cramped areas; (b) avoid close, sustained contact indoors & in public transport, & maintain personal hygiene.

It's what I've been saying and wish there was more information to the public and care homes rather than cleaning phones and washing hands. We see how airborne droplets in confined areas disperse very quickly with some ventilation and how they hang around and build up if not. People in small homes or other similar spaces like work, taxis buses and corners of restaurants which I've posted show it can spread 2 metres or more to the next table or seat on a bus. People at home in their living room sat apart will still get it when chatting and eating day after day, having your close friends over for a chinwag and a glass of wine or a cuppa for a few hours. Care home communal areas will be really bad in March with poor ventilation, people coughing and talking. China and now NY have data showing most infections come from home, they bring it home from other close personal or confined contact, we had the China data long ago, something like 75% at home.

The choir in LA is a good example of how it can spread scaled up. They all got their hand sanitiser on at the entrance, kept spaced apart but they're in a closed environment and expelling and breathing in, it's a big re-circulation event happening unseen and many got infected.

I keep seeing many members of families get it, brothers and couples dying on the same day or days apart. Grandparents dying having caught it off their 40-50 year old daughter and now the grand kids have lost their grandmother and great grandparents. It's tough to do but had they kept apart they'd still be here. it's very easy to think it's out there with strangers and shut your windows, your close friends or relative are fine but it's the opposite. Moving out the way of some stranger outside won't help you when it's the close contact inside from your family or close friends or colleagues.

Going way back there was a Chinese women working in Europe, she only passed it on to the person she was working close with, no-one else in the office got infected.

BBC, every other day, are you cleaning your phone properly, here's how.

The data from China also showed most transmission happened at home among family members. Sort of corresponds to what you are saying

 

[Stactix]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52594023

Better late than never I guess, UK hasn't used their advantage as an island at all. Criminal that we've had the most deaths in Europe..

Follow the science was one of the many tories slogan bullshite. Cheltenham and Madrid vs Liv should never of happened unless behind closed doors, the latter Madrid fans couldn't even go to their own stadium and Madrid was becoming a hotspot but were allowed to fly over to the UK and go to a football match.

During the peak in Milan dozens of flights still came unchecked into the UK.
This should of been put into place months ago.

 

[Wibble]

Possibly. Lowest form of wit though.

Usually those who think sarcasm is the lowest form of wit aren't very good at it. Just saying.

 

[Sarni]

@Pogue Mahone

I think it's inevitable that if figures of authority are constantly and relentlessly saying there is a flesh eating monster on the loose that is indiscriminately killing everyone; it's unlikely that people are going to happily frolic around town spending their money and run their businesses. Irrespective of whether they're forced into "lockdown" or not.

I assume we'd both agree that if no-one knew about coronavirus (even if it were still having the same effect) the economy would be almost completely unaffected? If so then we're talking about messaging, communication and leadership; both in the UK but also across particularly the Western world. I guarantee a completely fabricated disease with the current narrative would also cause a crippling recession.

My view is with the correct messaging, the correct communication and strong leadership; along with a measured and common sense reaction there could have been far different economic results. If leaders were echoing that actually almost no-one is dying under 80 or without pre-existing conditions and that whilst we need to be cautious, for huge swathes of the population this is nothing that social distancing and avoiding the vunerable won't mitigate; we'd see a different picture.

Unfortunately we're in an age of cowardice and risk aversion where our leaders change strategy with the blowing of a negative media narrative, with the spineless Johnson being the poster boy. I dread to think of how the miner's strike or worse WW2 would be dealt with in an age of social media and populism; appeasement I imagine.

How would society not knowing coronavirus existed cause less of an issue? That would basically mean an unknown disease would be killing people at a rate 2-3 times higher than normal mortality, people would notice that in no time but due to lack of information they would have no idea how to tackle that. That’d arguably destroy economy even worse.

‘No one below 80/without preexisting conditions dying’ is also such a misconception. Many people in the 55-70 age bracket die too, and preexisting conditions could mean diabetes and hypertension - that’s more than half people in that age group who have it already. Most 50-60 year olds would be able to live another 15-20 years without issue with diabetes and hypertension. Being 30-35 you may think it doesn’t matter whether you die aged 57 or live until you’re 80 but it sort of does. Also, even if younger group the virus left untreated would increase mortality very materially.

The only thing that is probably being blown out of proportion is how easily virus spreads. I don’t think it’s as infectious as people have been led to believe (while still being highly contagious).

 

[Penna]

There have been strong words from the Mayor of Milan about people gathering in large groups by the side of the canal. Pictures show lots of young people in groups, many without masks - not helped by the fact that there are mobile refreshment carts for them to frequent. The Mayor says he'll close the area if things don't change. Lombardia is still having a high number of deaths, whereas numerous regions had none at all yesterday.

It made me think of the difference between living somewhere where there are a lot of attractions and things to do, and living somewhere like our village. Everyone's still behaving themselves here partly because we have nothing to do - there are 2 bars, they are locked and shuttered and there's nothing else. It must be tempting to get out and enjoy yourself in a big city. And of course, the weather is now consistently good.

 

[finneh]

How would society not knowing coronavirus existed cause less of an issue and panic? That would basically mean an unknown disease would be killing people at a rate 2-3 times higher than normal mortality, people would notice that in no time but due to lack of information they would have no idea how to tackle that. That’d arguably destroy economy even worse.

Sorry I was slightly unclear. I meant if people weren't aware that a disease existed that was killing the vulnerable. The point was it isn't the elderly dying causing a recession; it's the reaction to the elderly dying.

 

[iKnowNothing]

Okay I surrender my churlishness forthwith.

I genuinely want to know why you used affluent in that way.

I won't argue with you, pinky promise.

The original post has been edited but you can still view the message in one of the posts that quoted the original post:

Spoiler

https://www.redcafe.net/threads/sar...or-memes-please.452816/page-253#post-25409354

 

[Abizzz]

How does this myth that "almost no-one under the age of 80 or without pre-existing condition" is dying persists? Is it just wishful thinking or are there actually more reliable numbers out there indicating it to be the case? It is a lot more deadly to older patients but it's still very deadly for younger people too.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics/

 

[africanspur]

Sorry I was slightly unclear. I meant if people weren't aware that a disease existed that was killing the vulnerable. The point was it isn't the elderly dying causing a recession; it's the reaction to the elderly dying.

But this is a hypothetical that holds no water. In my trust, one of the biggest in London, we've cancelled essentially all elective work, including elective surgeries. We've cancelled all but the most pressing of cancer treatment. We had to triple our intensive care capacity and still almost reached that, despite the lack of incoming from surgeries and people not coming in themselves.

So...in what world does this stay hidden from the public? Especially one in which we've decided to undertake no measures whatsoever and leave them completely blind to what's happening?

I'm sure people won't panic when their dad's cancer treatment is cancelled, when their aunt's hip replacement is cancelled, when their brother is being cared for in theatres after his bike accident because there's no more space in intensive care and when 1/3 of their grandma's care home suddenly dies with no good explanation.

As others have pointed out too, it doesn't only affect old, 'economically unviable' (for want of a better term) people. Its killing a lot of people in their 50s and 60s too, even 40s, who still have a good bit of economic activity left to give. If that is the prism through which you choose to view this.

 

[Sarni]

Sorry I was slightly unclear. I meant if people weren't aware that a disease existed that was killing the vulnerable. The point was it isn't the elderly dying causing a recession; it's the reaction to the elderly dying.

But it’s not just elderly dying. People from all groups are dying. Also, people would notice - you cannot hide something like this from public because too many will be affected.

 

[Sarni]

How does this myth that "almost no-one under the age of 80 or without pre-existing condition" is dying persists? Is it just wishful thinking or are there actually more reliable numbers out there indicating it to be the case? It is a lot more deadly to older patients but it's still very deadly for younger people too.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics/

Yeah more than half of deaths come in age group below 75 and over a quarter below 65 looking at this. That’s a ton of people if you extrapolate to a wider population.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

@Pogue Mahone

I think it's inevitable that if figures of authority are constantly and relentlessly saying there is a flesh eating monster on the loose that is indiscriminately killing everyone; it's unlikely that people are going to happily frolic around town spending their money and run their businesses. Irrespective of whether they're forced into "lockdown" or not.

I assume we'd both agree that if no-one knew about coronavirus (even if it were still having the same effect) the economy would be almost completely unaffected? If so then we're talking about messaging, communication and leadership; both in the UK but also across particularly the Western world. I guarantee a completely fabricated disease with the current narrative would also cause a crippling recession.

My view is with the correct messaging, the correct communication and strong leadership; along with a measured and common sense reaction there could have been far different economic results. If leaders were echoing that actually almost no-one is dying under 80 or without pre-existing conditions and that whilst we need to be cautious, for huge swathes of the population this is nothing that social distancing and avoiding the vunerable won't mitigate; we'd see a different picture.

Unfortunately we're in an age of cowardice and risk aversion where our leaders change strategy with the blowing of a negative media narrative, with the spineless Johnson being the poster boy. I dread to think of how the miner's strike or worse WW2 would be dealt with in an age of social media and populism; appeasement I imagine.

So leaders should be lying to us?

 

[King Eric 7]

How does this myth that "almost no-one under the age of 80 or without pre-existing condition" is dying persists? Is it just wishful thinking or are there actually more reliable numbers out there indicating it to be the case? It is a lot more deadly to older patients but it's still very deadly for younger people too.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics/

I thought I saw figures on the BBC quite recently that suggested that 90% of the deaths in the UK have been in the 60+ age bracket.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

How does this myth that "almost no-one under the age of 80 or without pre-existing condition" is dying persists? Is it just wishful thinking or are there actually more reliable numbers out there indicating it to be the case? It is a lot more deadly to older patients but it's still very deadly for younger people too.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics/

Yeah more than half of deaths come in age group below 75 and over a quarter below 65 looking at this. That’s a ton of people if you extrapolate to a wider population.

The other thing the “only kills the young” nutters are (deliberately?) ignoring is that the death toll among the young has been relatively low BECAUSE of the measures taken. Everyone who needed a ventilator got one, hospitals didn’t run out of ITU drugs, or oxygen (all three of which would certainly happen when they get overwhelmed). If you throw tens or even hundreds of thousands more cases in the mix then the mortality will skyrocket across the board.

Someone coined a phrase for this paradox. Can’t remember what it is. You take measures to avoid a catastrophe. The measures work. We avoid a catastrophe. People say “why did we take these measure? there wasn’t any catastrophe “

 

[antsmithmk]

Give it a week or so post lockdown and we’ll see numbers of ~800/900 a day again.

That isn't going to happen though is it? It takes far, far longer than a week to catch, develop and be killed by the virus. Never mind end up in the death stats that seem to lag by at least another week at a minimum.

 

[antsmithmk]

I think I should be a prime candidate in terms of WFH. Early 30's, no kids, self motivated, enjoy work and very much career / finance focused. However I'm unequivocally less productive; even when my 110 minute daily commute is factored in.

My staff would all work from home four days a week if they could and truly I'd be a fool not to consider it (I have of course). I could genuinely offer them this in lieu of 3 years salary increase which would save me comfortably 5 figures annually. I'd save on fixed costs also and alleviate my biggest bugbear too... Parking!

In my experience annoyingly however it just doesn't work productively on the whole. For myself for example I've never (maybe once a year) taken a lunch in the office but from home find myself taking a lengthy lunch daily and procrastinating far more frequently.

I'm fully aware some people thrive at home; I have (a small minority of) staff that absolutely do. They log in to our server at 5:30am and log off at 8pm, using commuting time plus interest to work. However they are a small proportion. For every person I've seen who're 10% more productive there are 5 who're 30% less.

I'm sure though that the construction industry and it's supply chain aren't fully indicative of the entire country (we're two decades behind in everything else!). However what I am certain of is that any company that ignores something that could potentially save huge sums every year does so at their own peril... The people, country, app or business that masters it are bound to be hugely wealthy.

Therefore it isn't a question of businesses resisting, they'd be embracing it open armed if it produced results.


It isn't just about being watched. Outside of day to day productivity for example it's about staff hearing how other staff deal with issues every day and (hopefully) adapting and developing according to the skills of those around them. Some are detailed but passive, some assertive but sloppy, some inexperienced. Being in an office you hope people lose their negative attributes and encompass others' positives, becoming more rounded (I certainly have).

I regularly use scenarios I've heard with how staff have dealt with complex situations as an example to other staff who I've seen deal with things less competently. Hell most of the time I don't even bring it up as you'll see passive people becoming more assertive when the situation requires it merely by hearing how someone else has dealt with a situation more assertively. Likewise the reverse where assertive people have seen how calmer people have defused a situation. Over a period of time you see a group of staff dispel their own weaknesses and take on the strengths of their colleagues.

I can't reiterate enough that it would be such a no brainer to allow all staff who can to work from home to do so. As a business owner I'd be committing career suicide to not allow it. However with my current experience the reverse would be true.

"I'm fully aware some people thrive at home; I have (a small minority of) staff that absolutely do. They log in to our server at 5:30am and log off at 8pm"

I would suggest you re-evaluate your idea of what the word 'thrive' means. Because being logged on to 'work' from 5.30am to 8pm is not it.

 

[Volumiza]

The original post has been edited but you can still view the message in one of the posts that quoted the original post:

Spoiler

https://www.redcafe.net/threads/sar...or-memes-please.452816/page-253#post-25409354

Crikey, this seems like ages ago now.

It was also a great reply from @UnrelatedPsuedo

 

[Dan_F]

I think I should be a prime candidate in terms of WFH. Early 30's, no kids, self motivated, enjoy work and very much career / finance focused. However I'm unequivocally less productive; even when my 110 minute daily commute is factored in.

My staff would all work from home four days a week if they could and truly I'd be a fool not to consider it (I have of course). I could genuinely offer them this in lieu of 3 years salary increase which would save me comfortably 5 figures annually. I'd save on fixed costs also and alleviate my biggest bugbear too... Parking!

In my experience annoyingly however it just doesn't work productively on the whole. For myself for example I've never (maybe once a year) taken a lunch in the office but from home find myself taking a lengthy lunch daily and procrastinating far more frequently.

I'm fully aware some people thrive at home; I have (a small minority of) staff that absolutely do. They log in to our server at 5:30am and log off at 8pm, using commuting time plus interest to work. However they are a small proportion. For every person I've seen who're 10% more productive there are 5 who're 30% less.

I'm sure though that the construction industry and it's supply chain aren't fully indicative of the entire country (we're two decades behind in everything else!). However what I am certain of is that any company that ignores something that could potentially save huge sums every year does so at their own peril... The people, country, app or business that masters it are bound to be hugely wealthy.

Therefore it isn't a question of businesses resisting, they'd be embracing it open armed if it produced results.


It isn't just about being watched. Outside of day to day productivity for example it's about staff hearing how other staff deal with issues every day and (hopefully) adapting and developing according to the skills of those around them. Some are detailed but passive, some assertive but sloppy, some inexperienced. Being in an office you hope people lose their negative attributes and encompass others' positives, becoming more rounded (I certainly have).

I regularly use scenarios I've heard with how staff have dealt with complex situations as an example to other staff who I've seen deal with things less competently. Hell most of the time I don't even bring it up as you'll see passive people becoming more assertive when the situation requires it merely by hearing how someone else has dealt with a situation more assertively. Likewise the reverse where assertive people have seen how calmer people have defused a situation. Over a period of time you see a group of staff dispel their own weaknesses and take on the strengths of their colleagues.

I can't reiterate enough that it would be such a no brainer to allow all staff who can to work from home to do so. As a business owner I'd be committing career suicide to not allow it. However with my current experience the reverse would be true.

I’m not surprised people aren’t as productive if your example is some people working 5.30am-8pm. What kind of a day is that. Do people get paid for their commute normally?

Surely any savings in rent mean that you hire more staff. Not to mention all the benefits of staff being healthier, less pollution etc.

@antsmithmk beat me to it