This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
Rudi Hedman Caterham 22 May 20 12.05pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by SW19 CPFC
Perhaps. But the general point stands, and the irony of that is inescapable. If it's not a caravan it will be a dorm. Can't see it making much difference to the average British workers motivation I would also be interested to know the fallout in terms of prices and more importantly viability of enterprise but the rose tinted simplicity of some on here of 'just get british workers to do it and it will all be fine' is ridiculous Why should anyone have to take accommodation with a job? It is the supermarkets that take virtually all of the profit and set the price artificially low competing against each other. It’s unnecessary. As the farmers take such a small cut you could’ve looking at a 2 pence price increase.
COYP |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Rudi Hedman Caterham 22 May 20 12.07pm | |
---|---|
The whole thing is becoming so corrupt from different parties and angles we need to get back to normal life apart from the vulnerable.
COYP |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
BlueJay UK 22 May 20 12.47pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
There's a difference here between environments that contain confined spaces....as in care homes and a ship comprised of young men working together, also in confined spaces, than the general population. When the results come back from testing done in states and regions I don't think I've seen an infection rate above New York's that was in the twenties I think. Primarily I'm trying to convey that, since Levitt used the fact that only 20% of the most vulnerable people tested positive on a cruise ship as central to his thesis, there being a ship where 50% of fit and healthy younger people tested positive does not support that view. An argument about how and how many people are asymptomatic might be better, or what is different about the immune response in younger compared to older, because it appears very likely that the majority of people are at least able to contract covid-19. A rate of 20% in New York is already high really. Not everyone will have come into contact with the virus yet plus social distancing measures have kept the number down. It seems unlikely that the rest of the population is immune.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
BlueJay UK 22 May 20 12.54pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Midlands Eagle
Can you really see that happening as you only have to look at the photographs of people crowding on to the beaches yesterday to see that far too many couldn't care less I must admit I was taken aback by those beach scene in Southend. But then again at many other beaches and parks people were far more sensible. Broadly I would wager that people act in line with perceived risk. That's good in one way, but there is of course a big lag from infection to hospital admission to death, and so people won't really be able to appropriately judge risk levels anyway. Anything we see is always about 15-20 days behind the reality. If I was 70 plus I'd definitely keep a low profile in the coming months.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
BlueJay UK 22 May 20 12.58pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by cryrst
This test with a 20 minute result if it works will be very useful. If it's a goer then it really will depend on our ability to take one for the team if results on ourselves come back positive. Maybe a certain legality on either isolation and/ or reporting a positive test needs adding. Yes this would be a real game changer. Tragically too late to unwind what has happened in almost 50% of care homes, but likely a god send for the rest of them, and for hospitals and other at risk environments. Then hopefully available for the rest of us. A really positive development. We're in a needs must situation so I'm hopeful that we'll see other advances like improved treatments over the coming months. Too late for many unfortunately and for part of the economic hit, but welcome all the same.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Rudi Hedman Caterham 22 May 20 1.59pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by BlueJay
I must admit I was taken aback by those beach scene in Southend. But then again at many other beaches and parks people were far more sensible. Broadly I would wager that people act in line with perceived risk. That's good in one way, but there is of course a big lag from infection to hospital admission to death, and so people won't really be able to appropriately judge risk levels anyway. Anything we see is always about 15-20 days behind the reality. If I was 70 plus I'd definitely keep a low profile in the coming months. So would I keep a low profile, for a while. More was made of those beach photos in Southend and Bournemouth. Taken at a higher angle they weren’t close to each other. And for a week the reported new cases have been extremely low. There is of course the argument that more people will then come, but those beaches are very long and I doubt anyone has seen a crowded English beach resort where you can’t avoid people for decades. Unfortunately the vulnerable can’t enjoy any of this if they want to minimise their risk but that’s how it is. Some will argue that people should stay in so it’ll be safe for the vulnerable sooner. But that has flaws. It’ll mean no immunity built up in the community and it isn’t just about lefties pointing the finger at people sunbathing unnecessarily. There’s businesses that rely on seasonal trade, if they can adapt to no seating or sitting indoors.
COYP |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
croydon proud Any european country i fancy! 22 May 20 2.03pm | |
---|---|
Unfortunately the answer is no, nothing suprises me with the CONS, but i heard this a few weeks ago, so suprised anyone believed the numbers since!
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
BlueJay UK 22 May 20 2.43pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Rudi Hedman
So would I keep a low profile, for a while. More was made of those beach photos in Southend and Bournemouth. Taken at a higher angle they weren’t close to each other. And for a week the reported new cases have been extremely low. There is of course the argument that more people will then come, but those beaches are very long and I doubt anyone has seen a crowded English beach resort where you can’t avoid people for decades. Unfortunately the vulnerable can’t enjoy any of this if they want to minimise their risk but that’s how it is. Some will argue that people should stay in so it’ll be safe for the vulnerable sooner. But that has flaws. It’ll mean no immunity built up in the community and it isn’t just about lefties pointing the finger at people sunbathing unnecessarily. There’s businesses that rely on seasonal trade, if they can adapt to no seating or sitting indoors. Yes, to an extent it is what it is. For the sake of both health and the economy, it's a good thing that those in the most vulnerable groups are most often not economically active. That at least provides an option to many of the most vulnerable that most others do not have. I appreciate the sentiment behind the government's we're all in this together message, but it obscures the reality that people should make decisions for themselves that are relative to their risk. Not doing so creates as many, if not more, problems than it solves.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
BlueJay UK 22 May 20 7.14pm | |
---|---|
Stanford study says 42% of US job losses will result in permanent job loss. Only some of roughly 36 million jobs lost since the beginning of the lockdowns designed to protect hospitals from surging cases of COVID-19 patients are not coming back in a V-shaped or a U-shaped recover. The University of Chicago estimates that 42% of the recent layoffs will result in permanent job losses. “We find three new hires for every 10 layoffs caused by the shock and estimate that 42% of recent layoffs will result in permanent job loss,” writes Jose Maria Barrero, Nick Bloom and Steven Davis from the Becker Friedman Institute at the University of Chicago in a working paper titled “COVID-19 As A Reallocation Shock” published on May 5 [Link]
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Rudi Hedman Caterham 22 May 20 7.56pm | |
---|---|
It’ll be worse in America, just like the ‘credit crunch’ and people living in caravans. The U.K. will be like the early ‘80s again, only the music will be shyte and the emptying football grounds will be all seated. Quite sobering that things can get so sh1t unexpectedly. Be grateful your own life is good and it hasn’t been ruined by the fvckers unwilling to step out out of this earlier because it’ll look like they’ve made an error or two. The error I’m thinking of is the extended furlough to end of October with some tapering in July and August.
COYP |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Teddy Eagle 23 May 20 12.29am | |
---|---|
Dominic Cummings in trouble.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
DanH SW2 23 May 20 12.48am | |
---|---|
Should have to resign. Especially after Neil Ferguson. But he won’t. And people won’t really care. Nothing sticks to this lot somehow, it’s like people take them being despicable w*nkers as part of the parcel.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Registration is now on our new message board
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.