I wonder would those people think differently if there was a hint that this virus would keep coming back year on year taking all their parents early?
SARS CoV-2 coronavirus / Covid-19 (No tin foil hat silliness please)
- Thread starter Don't Kill Bill
- Start date
That's a sobering thought.
A lot of the landlords who've been using airbnb for the past few years will be desperate to sell as well.
There'll be a severe drop in the housing market either way.
Literally every household could hermetically isolate for 21 days with a perfect supply for magically delivered essentials and you still wouldn’t snuff out the virus. What do you think is happening in care homes and multi-person households? The virus spreads between carriers over that time and there would still be asymptomatic carriers after 21 days who would then spread it out into the public again.
Even your science fiction approach doesn’t beat this.
I don’t think it should be chuffed at but I don’t think it’s conducive to good mental health for people to be unduly worried about their risk of dying. Admittedly it’s nigh on impossible to achieve any balance and for people to act rationally.
I’m sceptical that there will be that much of a drop, in the UK at least. Labour famously accused the Tories of causing 120000 excess deaths over 10 years of austerity but the house prices continued to rise pretty much everywhere apart from the South East which was a bubble. In the UK the majority of rental properties are inherited second homes too so many of the properties may not enter the sales market anyway.
I was very against the scaremongering for those who have little change of dying from this in the beginning, but have now changed a little. The scarier you average 28 year old think this is the less are the chances you see stupid things like block parties and stuff.
People need to understand that lockdowns and other things we do are not to protect just you. Its to protect those who really should not be getting this and also to hinder the spread to quickly swift over society. People need to stop taking the virus personally, its about humanity and the society as a whole, not about you or me. At least thats how i see it.
People need to understand that lockdowns and other things we do are not to protect just you. Its to protect those who really should not be getting this and also to hinder the spread to quickly swift over society. People need to stop taking the virus personally, its about humanity and the society as a whole, not about you or me. At least thats how i see it.
Working for more than half of the hours of the day is not 'thriving', that is disgusting, and if that is the metric you used to judge people that work for you, I seriously pity your staff.
The economy is a concept, people aren't.
He actually hasn't been on since the 17th March......
I wouldn't expect a Housing apocalypse
We have been told for years of a mass housing shortage so the supply demand equation won't change significantly
If people have buy to let's with a mortgage they won't sell in negative equity in a market that still has housing needs
If people own the rental outright they have no need to sell
I can see transactions slowing down and mortgage companies wanting more deposit etc ...a lot of chains falling apart due to job losses and reduced hours
Probably a small blip in pricing say 10 to 15 percent but mostly recovering over the next year would be my gut feel... Basically a great time to be a cash buyer for renovating and flipping a project
Yea absolute madness. I think ive read posts of this guys before thinking he would be terrible to work for
People are so fecking stupid.
Probably some reflection is due on just these two snippets alone. Never taking a break isn’t anything to admire; it’s utter indiscipline and stupidity. Why would you not want to keep yourself mentally refreshed and fuelled? Why are you working through time, or expecting others to, that is unpaid for a reason?
Anyone working 5:30 to 20:00 in my organisation would be given a serious intervention and support to understand why. Either the organisation has screwed up in creating a job role that is far too demanding for one ably skilled and qualified person, or that individual is creating serious inefficiencies that will be detracting from the quality of the most important parts of their role, and this may well be either be because of, or contributing to, serious mental health issues. I’ve had to manage a staff member through this and it took a massive amount of my time to do so. Ignoring it was never an option however.
Possibly there’s a more innocent explanation and that is that the individual is just working some funky flexible hours to suit their lifestyle, but that’s not working 5:30 to 20:00.
To have one cause of death almost double your risk of dying at a certain age is very significant.
Really? surely it will be barely a ripple, and only in certain areas anyway.
I'm asking out of personal interest as I am right at the end game of buying a house, (deal done pre virus), all set to exchange as soon as is practically possible, I will admit I am extremely nervous about buying something that will very quickly be shown to worth alot less than I will have paid, but then again am constantly told prices will soon bounce back even if that happens.
Precisely.
The UK (and US) are burying hundreds of their dead every day as a downstream consequence of young people who didn’t take this seriously. All those crowded bars, spring break parties, concerts and sporting events after the virus has started to spread has been the difference between the countries worst and least affected. With most of those crowds consisting of young people who were convinced “it’s just a bad flu”.
Isn't that the major issue though? What does "some" look like?
It's a very uncomfortable truth that (at least as far as I understand it) the vast majority of people who die with (and possibly directly from) Covid are not just older, but have other serious health issues which would likely have resulted in death in a relatively short time frame thereafter from some cause linked to existing conditions. We are, therefore trading off damage to the economy to give those people "more" life and the question is, at what point the measures we have in place regarding lockdown, and to a lesser extent social distancing tip the balance the other way.
It seems the lockdown will cause loss of life from other issues such as mental health, or un-diagnosed cancers etc due to lack of screening. A recession also causes reduced lifespan, mostly at the bottom end of society and has far reaching effects decades down the line.
It's obviously difficult to balance this up. In some online forums you can't raise this argument without people suggesting you're a "sociopath" (as I was called on here last week) or suggesting that you think it's fine for old people to die so that I can go to the pub. Clearly that is not what I'm saying. Any death caused by the virus is tragic and I'm sure most of us will have it affect us directly. We need to minimise deaths and try and keep a balance which allows the economy to function so that thousands of others don't suffer now and in the future from the after effects.
I saw an article online the other day, the content of which I didn't agree with particularly but it raised a point I though was relevant. Humans don't like to think about death, accept that it is inevitable or think about the fact that the best we can hope for is to grow old and die peacefully from whatever illness (or illnesses) eventually take us. A bit profound but there you go. It makes having the discussion above, which the Governments around the world must be doing more difficult to accept.
I brought this up earlier. I bet someone in the government is tasked with doing that calculation. How much they are saving in pension to offset what they are spending in furlough
What exactly is a relatively short time frame? Almost none of the pre-existing conditions are terminal.
It's not, left to your own devices. Even more so, many arrived with no notice to self qurrantine. Almost as if the pandemic wasn't happening.
If a government for the people, run by the people (well voted in and supported by the people) don't care about a section of that people (over 65s) then why do you think they (the selfish people and government) will care about any other section or age group of the people?
The dystopia we're headed towards is a lot worse than people are imagining.
I didn't say they never took a break. Likewise I didn't say they were working solidly for nearly 15 hours, they did take numerous breaks (I of course checked). I also didn't say they weren't keeping mentally refreshed or fueled. They worked longer hours than they would at work (unlike most in my experience), but did it more flexibly.
This is also ignoring the fact that sometimes working a 60-70 hour week is not the end of the world, particularly in seasonal businesses where more flexibility is granted in less busy times. There isn't always a systemic problem if for a month every year you have to work a few heavy weeks back-to-back.
The overriding point was that in my experience only a small minority of staff are more productive when working from home.
Yup, that was a great response by @UnrelatedPsuedo. I did not want to quote his post directly because I didn’t want others to confuse him with that poster.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Pretty shocking if true. Incompetent tory cnuts.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
It is important to ascertain what you think is a normal and acceptable productive working day when validating your opinion on the efficiency of working from home.
The question is why are they working longer hours than they would at work and why is there a need for them to be logged in for 14.5hrs in a 24hr period?
You say they took breaks but did they take a break of oh say 6hrs during this period or are you paying them over-time?
This wasn't presented as a once-off busy week either. It seems to be the norm.
If some of your staff are apparently flogging themselves working most of their waking hours and others are only 10% productive, effectively doing nothing, and you're the manager then I'd suggest you're not a very good one and don't have the best interests or well-being of your staff in mind at all.
This is my reading of the way the information was presented so happy to be wrong but this looks really bad at the moment.
I’ll say what everyone else seems to be dancing around.
You seem to be devoid of any valuable business acumen, and sound like an absolute cnut to work for.
If anyone working for you is putting down those kind of hours, YOU are the problem, and it’s a big one. Start doing better.
You really come across as the sort of person I would hate to know in real life.
Just to add to the mortality in the young discussion, not dying from an infection doesn’t mean you will shake it off and live happily ever after.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Anyone working 5:30 to 20:00;
Not sustainable on the energy or mental health
Quality of work will dip as your brain tires
It’s insane. Unless it’s a pattern like 4 on, 4 off.
To do that every day of the week? Inefficient, not sustainable and bad man management to allow it to continue
But but it’s just the flu and if you’re young you don’t need to think about it
It's not exactly an Ed-209!
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Really useful visual showing all the factors associated with dying in the UK. The further to the right and the narrower the “wings” the stronger the association. I didn’t realise being male was quite as dramatic a risk factor as this.
Smoking data also very interesting. Better to be currently smoking than an ex-smoker.
What do you think is the cause of the smoking dynamic, perhaps that ex smokers have some lung damage and don’t the suspected protection from actively inhaling nicotine and smoke?
Excuse DM link. Eamonn Holmes will be trailing against the mainstream media shutting down ideas again.
Sol Campbell spreads crazy conspiracy theory that coronavirus may have been man-made and 'deliberately targets certain blood types'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...deliberately-targets-certain-blood-types.html
Sol Campbell spreads crazy conspiracy theory that coronavirus may have been man-made and 'deliberately targets certain blood types'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...deliberately-targets-certain-blood-types.html
That's up for debate I suppose and it takes us into the realms of statistics - i.e. how many years the average person lives. I read something online which I won't pretend I understand to any great degree but it talked about how much time on average was lost by older patients passing away from (or with) Covid. The older they were the less time was lost and in the older age bracket (80 plus) it was months, not years.
What is "terminal"? Life is terminal, since the older you are, the more likely you are to die. When you're 90, you will have numerous health conditions and the older you get the more likely it is one (or actually a number) of those conditions will kill you. The only certainty is that in the end, something will.
For me the question is the extent to which it is reasonable to extend the lives of some via lock down, whilst reducing the lifespan of others. To put it bluntly and clumsily - is it right to save 10,000 people from the virus if it costs 5000 lives from un-diagnosed cancer (as an example)? Where is the line drawn? That is the frankly unpleasant discussion that needs to be had for the good of society as a whole.
In some senses, we seem to have lost sight of the whole point of flattening the curve. It is not to eradicate the virus but to buy time to ensure the NHS can cope and in the hope that we can find a treatment or vaccination, which is not certain by any means. Measures need to stay in place to do just that but also acknowledge that economically and socially we have to exist with the virus for some time, and possibly forever.
I don’t think anyone knows for certain. The most plausible explanation I’ve heard is that inhaled nicotine downregulates the ACE2 receptors in your lungs that the spikes on the coronavirus binds to. Ex smokers won’t have that upside but will have residual smoking related damage to their lungs and heart.
Mind you, I think the data on vaping is less clearcut.
The worst part is there's a minority doing this while the others twiddle their thumbs.
By his own admission he can't motivate the rest of them to do more than a couple of hours work.
That must be the supposed nicotine effect? If you're an ex-smoker, you have no nicotine and potential lung damage on top. Wonder how vapers fare in that regard.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52594023
UK 'to bring in 14-day quarantine' for air passengers
Some of the decision making is just weird. No quarantine when our own infections were low, and we were probably importing the infection into the country en-masse.
UK 'to bring in 14-day quarantine' for air passengers
Some of the decision making is just weird. No quarantine when our own infections were low, and we were probably importing the infection into the country en-masse.