Heading into autumn - what next?

[35B]

Well then perhaps members of SAGE should be remunerated, on condition that they do not speak to the media.

This would put them in the same position as civil servants, who are also required to be impartial, and are not allowed to be members of political parties. (eg. Susan Michie)

The current situation is unsatisfactory, as SAGE (and Fake SAGE) seem to be running a media campaign to cajole/bully the government into doing what they think is the right course of action. They are not the government, and it is about time they realised that.

Their modelling has been shown to be incorrect on several occasions in the past. Any modelling should be independently peer reviewed to see that the model is accurate, so that the government can rely on the quality of the advice.

I'd distinguish between the separate issues of members' status and the modelling. On the latter, I'm struggling to believe the models as they are - they're counter-intuitive to say the least.

On the question of members, my view of remuneration remains tied to the question of how members are recruited. For an ad-hoc body, the remuneration seems a side issue - the bigger question is for how long someone should be barred from commenting on that subject having attended a SAGE meeting.

 

[Bikeman78]

But for the very young and healthy, who have a tiny chance of being seriously ill with Covid, surely you can you see why they might (quite reasonably) think: “why bother?”.

The “another brick in the wall” argument doesn’t work when it’s becoming increasingly clear that the vaccines don’t stop transmission, and the “this will get us back to normal” argument doesn’t wash either when, despite extremely high vaccine coverage, we are still being threatened with restrictions.

Remember when it was "back to normal when the vulnerable age groups are vaccinated?" Now they're on about vaccinating children who have more chance of being killed by a car than Covid. The world has gone mad.

 

[Eyersey468]

Remember when it was "back to normal when the vulnerable age groups are vaccinated?" Now they're on about vaccinating children who have more chance of being killed by a car than Covid. The world has gone mad.

They are good at shifting the goalposts

 

[Cdd89]

A point that is arguably missed above is that it can both be individually rational for someone to decline the vaccine, and societally beneficial for everyone to accept it.

I certainly don’t begrudge people who have taken the decision they feel is best, for example if the risk from Covid is below their intervention risk threshold. I’m like that on lots of things, for example I don’t usually wear a helmet when cycling (even though statistically it would be significantly safer if I did), because I think the overall risk isn’t high enough to be worth an intervention.

But it’s equally true that unvaccinated people are disproportionally represented in healthcare, and Covid tends to concentrate cases into spikes with large numbers at the peak. In my cycling example I am not more likely to burden the healthcare system when it is already significantly overloaded than at any other time; but with Covid the opposite is true, high prevalence leads to more chance of being admitted (even if low/medium risk). The chance of admission is a function of the level of pressure and the best way to counteract that is to reduce the chances universally.

However I don’t think coercion or social shaming is the way to resolve that dichotomy, in the same way that we didn’t previously judge people partying on New Year’s Eve when healthcare is overloaded. I would personally reserve judgment on how else to approach the problem until I see incontrovertible evidence that numbers are high enough to reintroduce restrictions or lockdowns in the minds of most people. But acknowledging the personal vs societal risk dichotomy (and other honest messaging) would be helpful, as lying to 20/30 year olds about how they could easily be in a hospital bed turns people who recognise the lie against vaccination. The last 1.5 years in fact have incolved public health experts constantly telling “benign lies for the greater good”.

 

[DustyBin]

A point that is arguably missed above is that it can both be individually rational for someone to decline the vaccine, and societally beneficial for everyone to accept it.

I certainly don’t begrudge people who have taken the decision they feel is best, for example if the risk from Covid is below their intervention risk threshold. I’m like that on lots of things, for example I don’t usually wear a helmet when cycling (even though statistically it would be significantly safer if I did), because I think the overall risk isn’t high enough to be worth an intervention.

But it’s equally true that unvaccinated people are disproportionally represented in healthcare, and Covid tends to concentrate cases into spikes with large numbers at the peak. In my cycling example I am not more likely to burden the healthcare system when it is already significantly overloaded than at any other time; but with Covid the opposite is true, high prevalence leads to more chance of being admitted (even if low/medium risk). The chance of admission is a function of the level of pressure and the best way to counteract that is to reduce the chances universally.

However I don’t think coercion or social shaming is the way to resolve that dichotomy, in the same way that we didn’t previously judge people partying on New Year’s Eve when healthcare is overloaded. I would personally reserve judgment on how else to approach the problem until I see incontrovertible evidence that numbers are high enough to reintroduce restrictions or lockdowns in the minds of most people. But acknowledging the personal vs societal risk dichotomy (and other honest messaging) would be helpful, as lying to 20/30 year olds about how they could easily be in a hospital bed turns people who recognise the lie against vaccination. The last 1.5 years in fact have incolved public health experts constantly telling “benign lies for the greater good”.

I think this is a very good post. Intervention risk threshold is an interesting concept; I don’t consider myself particularly risk averse if I’m honest and I regularly do things many would consider a little crazy (for want of a better word!). There’s a genuine risk attached to these activities which I could avoid by simply not doing them, however my own risk-benefit analysis favours carrying on.

You make a good point regarding societal benefit and being admitted to hospital when the health service is under pressure. I absolutely agree with your logic in this regard, I think however the afore mentioned intervention risk threshold inevitably feeds into this. Or in other words, if somebody feels the risk to themselves in negligible, so is the risk they pose to the health service.

The government’s messaging and approach to this in general has been appalling in my opinion. From exaggerating the risk covid poses to young people (having previously stated it was extremely low), to the threat of vaccine passports, to the undermining of the AstraZeneca vaccine, to refusing to talk about natural immunity, to effectively denying vaccine efficacy (the list goes on!), they’ve done little to persuade me to get vaccinated for the right reasons, and I suspect millions of people who decided they would get vaccinated did so for the wrong reasons if I’m honest.

 

[Eyersey468]

I have had both jabs and to be honest the reason was to allow travel abroad especially as my stepdaughter and I have a trip planned next year. I don't consider I am a particularly high risk from Covid and agree the government has told a lot of lies over the last 18 months.

 

[island]

Remember when it was "back to normal when the vulnerable age groups are vaccinated?" Now they're on about vaccinating children who have more chance of being killed by a car than Covid. The world has gone mad.

I’m not sure that statistic holds for unvaccinated people, but for the vaccinated it certainly does – 256 people who were 14 days or more since second vaccination died with COVID in half 1 of this year. In a typical half year there are about 750 road deaths. (Sources: Department for Health and Department for Transport statistics.)

 

[DustyBin]

I’m not sure that statistic holds for unvaccinated people, but for the vaccinated it certainly does – 256 people who were 14 days or more since second vaccination died with COVID in half 1 of this year. In a typical half year there are about 750 road deaths. (Sources: Department for Health and Department for Transport statistics.)

I think @Bikeman78 was talking specifically about children though? We know they are extremely low risk, whether vaccinated or not.

 

[43066]

A point that is arguably missed above is that it can both be individually rational for someone to decline the vaccine, and societally beneficial for everyone to accept it.

Excellent point. Of course the individually rational choice to decline the vaccine is most compelling for the young and healthy. The societal benefit argument is weakened when they can see how the initial promises of a rapid return to normality simply haven’t been kept.

But acknowledging the personal vs societal risk dichotomy (and other honest messaging) would be helpful, as lying to 20/30 year olds about how they could easily be in a hospital bed turns people who recognise the lie against vaccination. The last 1.5 years in fact have incolved public health experts constantly telling “benign lies for the greater good”.

Absolutely. The messaging over the last few months has been gaslighting, pure and simple.

The government has swung both ways when it suited it from “Covid can affect all ages” alarmism when scaring everyone into complying with lockdowns, to emphasising how “Covid poses an incredibly low risk to the young” when justifying the vaccine roll-out by age group, to “Vaccines will get us back to normal”. Now we are 80% vaccinated and yet we get more threats of lockdowns and restrictions this winter. “Following the science” has been exposed as an utter sham by the obsession with masks and now the purely political decision to vaccinate children *against* scientific advice.

It’s fairly bloody obvious that the population has been browbeaten into accepting vaccines under a false pretext of getting back to normal, when certain factions clearly want anything but! Lo and behold a lot of people are simply turned off the whole thing and frankly I can’t blame them.

 

[Bantamzen]

The government’s messaging and approach to this in general has been appalling in my opinion. From exaggerating the risk covid poses to young people (having previously stated it was extremely low), to the threat of vaccine passports, to the undermining of the AstraZeneca vaccine, to refusing to talk about natural immunity, to effectively denying vaccine efficacy (the list goes on!), they’ve done little to persuade me to get vaccinated for the right reasons, and I suspect millions of people who decided they would get vaccinated did so for the wrong reasons if I’m honest.

Indeed, the government's messaging. driven by the likes of SAGE, has been nothing short of appalling.

I have had both jabs and to be honest the reason was to allow travel abroad especially as my stepdaughter and I have a trip planned next year. I don't consider I am a particularly high risk from Covid and agree the government has told a lot of lies over the last 18 months.

Same here. I even was able to get someone having a go at me on social media for only having the vaccine to allow travel twisted up in knots. The conversation went something like this:

Me: "I've decided to go for the vaccine mainly because I want to be able to travel, and most countries are now requiring vaccinations as part of the entry requirements"
Them: "That's just selfish!"
Me: "Why?"
Them: "Because you shouldn't be getting the vaccine for travel"
Me: "I'm getting the vaccine, isn't that what you want everyone to do"
Them: "Well yes, but you shouldn't be getting it for travel"
Me: "Travel is the primary reason yes. So what reason should I get it for"
Them: "To save the NHS"
Me: "So if I get the vaccine for travel, am I not also helping the NHS?"
Them: "........"

 

[DustyBin]

Same here. I even was able to get someone having a go at me on social media for only having the vaccine to allow travel twisted up in knots. The conversation went something like this:

Me: "I've decided to go for the vaccine mainly because I want to be able to travel, and most countries are now requiring vaccinations as part of the entry requirements"
Them: "That's just selfish!"
Me: "Why?"
Them: "Because you shouldn't be getting the vaccine for travel"
Me: "I'm getting the vaccine, isn't that what you want everyone to do"
Them: "Well yes, but you shouldn't be getting it for travel"
Me: "Travel is the primary reason yes. So what reason should I get it for"
Them: "To save the NHS"
Me: "So if I get the vaccine for travel, am I not also helping the NHS?"
Them: "........"

Now I could be wrong, but I suspect that person may have been a virtue signaller!

 

[Bantamzen]

Now I could be wrong, but I suspect that person may have been a virtue signaller!

Funnily enough, they had the "Save the NHS" banner around their profile picture, so you may be right....

 

[Bikeman78]

I’m not sure that statistic holds for unvaccinated people, but for the vaccinated it certainly does – 256 people who were 14 days or more since second vaccination died with COVID in half 1 of this year. In a typical half year there are about 750 road deaths. (Sources: Department for Health and Department for Transport statistics.)

Thanks for the statistics, interesting to know. I was specifically referring to children. See news item below published in July this year. 25 deaths in under 18s over 12 months and 251 admissions to intensive care. Vaccinating children will have almost zero impact on the NHS and thus no bearing on whether future restrictions are required or not.

Covid: Children's extremely low risk confirmed by study

The overall risk of death is around two in a million children, scientists looking at England's data estimate.

www.bbc.co.uk

The overall risk of children becoming severely ill or dying from Covid is extremely low, a new analysis of Covid infection data confirms.
Data from the first 12 months of the pandemic in England shows 25 under-18s died from Covid.
Those living with multiple chronic illnesses and neuro-disabilities were most at risk, though the overall risk remained low.

 

[BackOnTheTrain]

Shielding has now been officially ended.

Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/shielding-programme-ends-for-most-vulnerable

Snuck out with no fanfare. Unless there’s a last minute press conference today, which I doubt given the reshuffle in progress. They could have used it as an opportunity to show how things are getting closer to normal once again.

 

[Freightmaster]

Shielding has now been officially ended.

Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/shielding-programme-ends-for-most-vulnerable

Snuck out with no fanfare. Unless there’s a last minute press conference today, which I doubt given the reshuffle in progress. They could have used it as an opportunity to show how things are getting closer to normal once again.

On that subject, is furlough still on track to end two weeks from today with no extension or exceptions?




MARK

 

[35B]

On that subject, is furlough still on track to end two weeks from today with no extension or exceptions?




MARK

I've heard no serious suggestion that it's not - and quite a lot about the very high number of job vacancies in the labour market.

 

[bramling]

On that subject, is furlough still on track to end two weeks from today with no extension or exceptions?




MARK

We won’t properly know the answer to that until 23:59:59 the previous night, based on past form.

But let’s hope so. Being rid of that at least represents a significant difference from last year, when it was never able to be shaken off. Lack of a furlough scheme will make business closures and restrictions much less palatable to many, though of course there’s still the work from homes lining up for more.

 

[35B]

We won’t properly know the answer to that until 23:59:59 the previous night, based on past form.

But let’s hope so. Being rid of that at least represents a significant difference from last year, when it was never able to be shaken off. Lack of a furlough scheme will make business closures and restrictions much less palatable to many, though of course there’s still the work from homes lining up for more.

I disagree - strongly - with this prejudice against those working from home. But where furlough is concerned, I think the question will come up if the government do start to invoke "plan B" and that prevents businesses from trading effectively. At that point, I would expect furlough, or something similar, to be reintroduced at some level to avoid the alternative of mass redundancies.

 

[bramling]

I disagree - strongly - with this prejudice against those working from home. But where furlough is concerned, I think the question will come up if the government do start to invoke "plan B" and that prevents businesses from trading effectively. At that point, I would expect furlough, or something similar, to be reintroduced at some level to avoid the alternative of mass redundancies.

I’m not sure any reintroduction of furlough will be quite so welcome, given people have already had a taste of the consequences in the form of tax rises, meanwhile inflation continues to be a major issue, and currently isn’t showing that much sign of abating.

As for work from home, surely you’re not intimating that it’s legitimate for people to be willing on Covid restrictions for the nefarious reason that it allows them to have extra leisure time?

 

[nedchester]

I’m not sure any reintroduction of furlough will be quite so welcome, given people have already had a taste of the consequences in the form of tax rises, meanwhile inflation continues to be a major issue, and currently isn’t showing that much sign of abating.

As for work from home, surely you’re not intimating that it’s legitimate for people to be willing on Covid restrictions for the nefarious reason that it allows them to have extra leisure time?

And now there are murmurings in the press of Lockdowns again this winter.

Regardless of Covid WFH is going to be a “thing” going forward. It can and does work for both employee and employer. I would imagine there will be a lot of hybrid working in the future.

This type of working was going to happen anyhow and Covid has just accelerated it forward.

I have worked from home for 6 years and have found it works for me. That said there is much value in face to face interaction to help move ideas forward and also see face to face reactions. But if people think everyone is going back to the office any time soon they are very naive.

 

[bramling]

Regardless of Covid WFH is going to be a “thing” going forward. It can and does work for both employee and employer. I would imagine there will be a lot of hybrid working in the future.

This type of working was going to happen anyhow and Covid has just accelerated it forward.

I have worked from home for 6 years and have found it works for me. That said there is much value in face to face interaction to help move ideas forward and also see face to face reactions. But if people think everyone is going back to the office any time soon they are very naive.

It has nothing to do with whether it's likely to be a "thing" going forward. If employers make the decision it's in their best business interest, then it's a matter between employer and employee -- so long as we don't see the continuation of Covid being used as an excuse for poor service, and there's a whole thread on here containing numerous examples of that.

Where is becomes a wider issue is when people know they may well be returning to the office, or perhaps have already done so (as many seem to have done in the last couple of weeks), but are hoping for Covid restrictions to kick off again so that their employer is pressured into following government guidance and allowing a return to WFH, when they might otherwise have not done so. There's certainly plenty of people in that category, just out and about today I've heard people willing on the return of restrictions so that they can get back to "not having to go to work".

Regardless of whether there's likely to be an increase in home working, there's clearly a mismatch between the amount of WFH being demanded, and that which is viable without adaptations to working practices and output which employers have had to bear over the last 18 months.

As an aside, I'd certainly be rather uncomfortable in a job with a high proportion of WFH time located in somewhere like London, the home counties, or south-east, where the job could easily be moved to parts of the country where market wages are lower. Why employ someone from St Albans when someone from Darlington would be prepared to do it on a lower wage, to account for the difference in living costs?

 

[Ianno87]

.

As for work from home, surely you’re not intimating that it’s legitimate for people to be willing on Covid restrictions for the nefarious reason that it allows them to have extra leisure time?

You seem to be obsessed about this vanishingly small number of people.

Plenty of people are enjoying WFH and that's their way of life now. But hardly any of them are actually pushing for restrictions on others.

Repeating it over and over (in your usual style) does not make it true.

 

[35B]

It has nothing to do with whether it's likely to be a "thing" going forward. If employers make the decision it's in their best business interest, then it's a matter between employer and employee -- so long as we don't see the continuation of Covid being used as an excuse for poor service, and there's a whole thread on here containing numerous examples of that.

Where is becomes a wider issue is when people know they may well be returning to the office, or perhaps have already done so (as many seem to have done in the last couple of weeks), but are hoping for Covid restrictions to kick off again so that their employer is pressured into following government guidance and allowing a return to WFH, when they might otherwise have not done so. There's certainly plenty of people in that category, just out and about today I've heard people willing on the return of restrictions so that they can get back to "not having to go to work".

They want restrictions, or they want something to give their employer a kick up the backside that will allow them to keep part of their working pattern that's been of real benefit to them?

It's not a rest cure; my workload's been as high as it's ever been these last 18 months, and it does intrude on family life. That's for me, and I've been able to get the garage converted - I've plenty of colleagues working on dining tables, in bedrooms, etc. because they've not got the options.

Judging by what's been in the news, different corporate employers have chosen very different stances - technology firms are having to offer (often highly creative) people work from home to retain talent while the banks (especially) are trying to force return to the office. My experience, at work and talking to friends, is that people want a balance.

Given that, I don't find it a stretch to imagine that these people hoping restrictions will force the issue have found their work has been effective while at home, and are hoping for something that will stop them being forced to revert to a previous status quo that doesn't suit them.

As for extra leisure time - I've no problem with people wanting that. Living here in Grantham, I know more than a few people who'd be delighted to save the thick end of £10k a year and get 3 hours or more per day back to do what they want to do rather than have the dead time of commuting. But then I don't assume that everyone else is a slacker, trying to avoid work and just out for all they can get.

 

[duncanp]

As an aside, I'd certainly be rather uncomfortable in a job with a high proportion of WFH time located in somewhere like London, the home counties, or south-east, where the job could easily be moved to parts of the country where market wages are lower. Why employ someone from St Albans when someone from Darlington would be prepared to do it on a lower wage, to account for the difference in living costs?

And if someone from St Albans wanted to carry on "..not going into work.." on a long term basis, what would they say if their employer reduced their salary by the cost of an annual season ticket on the railway, as an alternative to redundancy?

I think this is one motivation why some people want to carry on working from home.

They have saved a considerable amount of money in doing so, and they would be involved in a lot of extra expense having to go back to the office 5 days a week.

 

[Ianno87]

They want restrictions, or they want something to give their employer a kick up the backside that will allow them to keep part of their working pattern that's been of real benefit to them?

It's not a rest cure; my workload's been as high as it's ever been these last 18 months, and it does intrude on family life. That's for me, and I've been able to get the garage converted - I've plenty of colleagues working on dining tables, in bedrooms, etc. because they've not got the options.

Judging by what's been in the news, different corporate employers have chosen very different stances - technology firms are having to offer (often highly creative) people work from home to retain talent while the banks (especially) are trying to force return to the office. My experience, at work and talking to friends, is that people want a balance.

Given that, I don't find it a stretch to imagine that these people hoping restrictions will force the issue have found their work has been effective while at home, and are hoping for something that will stop them being forced to revert to a previous status quo that doesn't suit them.

As for extra leisure time - I've no problem with people wanting that. Living here in Grantham, I know more than a few people who'd be delighted to save the thick end of £10k a year and get 3 hours or more per day back to do what they want to do rather than have the dead time of commuting. But then I don't assume that everyone else is a slacker, trying to avoid work and just out for all they can get.

Very well put.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Sep 2021 ==

.

They have saved a considerable amount of money in doing so, and they would be involved in a lot of extra expense having to go back to the office 5 days a week.

Strangley enough, people won't be keen on forking out £5k plus on an Annual Season ticket when daily office attendance is simply not necessary to do one's job effectively.

Some office attendance is good, and healthy, of course.

Not to mention the greater leisure time. Which kind of strange person wouldn't want to have that if they could, without impacting their ability to do their job?

 

[bramling]

They want restrictions, or they want something to give their employer a kick up the backside that will allow them to keep part of their working pattern that's been of real benefit to them?

I'm sorry but that's utterly unacceptable, as is even attempting to justify it. No one should be using Covid as a way of giving their employer a kick up the backside for their own selfish reasons. If they weren't happy, they shouldn't have taken the job in the first place.

Given that, I don't find it a stretch to imagine that these people hoping restrictions will force the issue have found their work has been effective while at home, and are hoping for something that will stop them being forced to revert to a previous status quo that doesn't suit them.

As above, if the previous status quo didn't suit them, why did they sign up?

 

[Ianno87]

As above, if the previous status quo didn't suit them, why did they sign up?

Because they didn't have a choice. Too embedded in previous culture. It was that, or no job at all. London has lots of jobs, and hitherto presenteeism culture (effectively a historic hangover) dictated daily commuting.

Now they do have a choice. Times have, quite literally, changed. Covid has merely accelerated a trend that was in its infancy anyway.

 

[nedchester]

Because they didn't have a choice. Too embedded in previous culture. It was that, or no job at all. London has lots of jobs, and hitherto presenteeism culture (effectively a historic hangover) dictated daily commuting.

Now they do have a choice. Times have, quite literally, changed. Covid has merely accelerated a trend that was in its infancy anyway.

Exactly. Covid caused an acceleration of a situation that was coming anyhow. Employers have in many cases found that productivity has risen by WFH.

As for London based employees moving north then so what. The North has suffered from low employment rates for many years so maybe time for a bit of “levelling up”.

If people are doing their jobs effectively from Darlington instead of London then a win win especially if the employers doesn’t need to spend money on expensive office space in London.

I agree that no employer should be using Covid as an excuse for poor service now though.

 

[35B]

I'm sorry but that's utterly unacceptable, as is even attempting to justify it. No one should be using Covid as a way of giving their employer a kick up the backside for their own selfish reasons. If they weren't happy, they shouldn't have taken the job in the first place.

And if it’s been the trigger for a change that, however dreadful the reasons why it happened initially, is of real long term value to them? I’d have mixed emotions in those circumstances.

The world’s changed since 2019; as others have said, working from home is really making a difference to many people without hurting the businesses. If employees are making those comments, then I’d also be asking questions about the employer and how they’re engaging with their people before leaping to the assumption that they’re wishing others ill. .

 

[LondonExile]

At least with my employer - mostly working from home is the new normal and will be for the foreseeable. There is no opportunity being offered to return to life as it was in 2019 without resigning and finding alternative work.

We *did* have a project to acquire more office spaces - that's been cancelled, more staff have been hired during the last 18 months and my department have been told the 150 or so of us can share 20 "hot desks" in a different building for the rare occasions we're tolerated in the office, with our former offices being turned over to a directly revenue-generating department as opposed to the support department I work in.

Some staff are upset, some staff are delighted. Whether the upset staff vote with their feet and look elsewhere is yet to be seen.