Coronavirus - Overall
-
@Kid-Chocolate said in Coronavirus - Overall:
You should copy & paste and send to The Telegraph. Fight the Fake News.
The Telegraph has been against lock-downs and had a bias in its reporting since Day One (as, TBF, have the pre-lockdown papers).
The smoke is starting to clear and some countries thought to have been useless (e.g.the UK) turn out to be better than most while others like Germany haven't been as good as thought previously. But don't forget the WHO stats also show lockdown countries had negative excess death rates.
As Chris Whitty has consistently said, we won't know the true picture for 5 or so years.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@Kid-Chocolate said in Coronavirus - Overall:
You should copy & paste and send to The Telegraph. Fight the Fake News.
The Telegraph has been against lock-downs and had a bias in its reporting since Day One (as, TBF, have the pre-lockdown papers).
The smoke is starting to clear and some countries thought to have been useless (e.g.the UK) turn out to be better than most while others like Germany haven't been as good as thought previously. But don't forget the WHO stats also show lockdown countries had negative excess death rates.
As Chris Whitty has consistently said, we won't know the true picture for 5 or so years.
Looking back from where we've come, I think it is safe to say successful management of the pandemic is a highly complicated subject, and will differ greatly if people can't agree on universal metrics for success. IMHO, I can see the merit in the Swedish philosophy as a balance to our own strategy
-
Absolutely. There are so many variables in approach, reporting, healthcare systems etc that it is virtually impossible to say who has got it rightest or wrongest. As Vic alluded to, we’re unlikely to know one way or another for many years, if ever.
FWIW I think that the Swedish approach was a viable alternative for some countries but for others much less so. In the UK for instance, with a high population density and a creaking health service, maybe not such a good idea.
-
@Catogrande said in Coronavirus - Overall:
Absolutely. There are so many variables in approach, reporting, healthcare systems etc that it is virtually impossible to say who has got it rightest or wrongest. As Vic alluded to, we’re unlikely to know one way or another for many years, if ever.
FWIW I think that the Swedish approach was a viable alternative for some countries but for others much less so. In the UK for instance, with a high population density and a creaking health service, maybe not such a good idea.
It does highlight the fact that it is important to consider the negative consequences of lockdowns, not just measuring success by the number of covid cases and deaths
-
@canefan said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@Catogrande said in Coronavirus - Overall:
Absolutely. There are so many variables in approach, reporting, healthcare systems etc that it is virtually impossible to say who has got it rightest or wrongest. As Vic alluded to, we’re unlikely to know one way or another for many years, if ever.
FWIW I think that the Swedish approach was a viable alternative for some countries but for others much less so. In the UK for instance, with a high population density and a creaking health service, maybe not such a good idea.
It does highlight the fact that it is important to consider the negative consequences of lockdowns, not just measuring success by the number of covid cases and deaths
Agreed but sadly many of those issues are difficult to measure so will probably not make it into the rationalisation until decades later. GDP can be measured easily but not necessarily the longer term effect or the causality - ie we can see how GDP was affected during the pandemic - and the bounce back but we cannot measure what might have been had we not had the pandemic. Also in looking at the drop in GDP, how much was caused by local lockdowns, how much by reduced consumption due to fear, how much was due to external issues impacting? These are all very difficult to quantify. Then of course there is the mental health aspect, which I expect to be significant just based on talking to people and how how it has impacted upon me, my family and close friends.
What we can say though I feel is that the ramifications of this pandemic will be felt long after the virus itself has been negated.
-
@canefan said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@Kid-Chocolate said in Coronavirus - Overall:
You should copy & paste and send to The Telegraph. Fight the Fake News.
The Telegraph has been against lock-downs and had a bias in its reporting since Day One (as, TBF, have the pre-lockdown papers).
The smoke is starting to clear and some countries thought to have been useless (e.g.the UK) turn out to be better than most while others like Germany haven't been as good as thought previously. But don't forget the WHO stats also show lockdown countries had negative excess death rates.
As Chris Whitty has consistently said, we won't know the true picture for 5 or so years.
Looking back from where we've come, I think it is safe to say successful management of the pandemic is a highly complicated subject, and will differ greatly if people can't agree on universal metrics for success. IMHO, I can see the merit in the Swedish philosophy as a balance to our own strategy
It all comes down to each country making choices based on their own circumstances and data I guess. I read somewhere that unemployment is a really big cause of excess deaths in following decades and some countries have done better than most at that.
I think, in all fairness, you have to sympathise with politicians who have to make these choices.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Coronavirus - Overall:
As Chris Whitty has consistently said, we won't know the true picture for 5 or so years.
Watch the kids. In 15 or 20 years I suspect we’ll be able to plot on a graph exactly when a generational spike in depression, sub-mental IQs, suicides, and irreversible psychological damage will correlate to wearing masks, lockdowns, irrational fears, panic, institutional hysteria and paranoia. I hope I’m wrong.
-
I think you’ve probably got the time scale about right and sadly probably the outcome too.
-
@Kid-Chocolate said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Coronavirus - Overall:
As Chris Whitty has consistently said, we won't know the true picture for 5 or so years.
Watch the kids. In 15 or 20 years I suspect we’ll be able to plot on a graph exactly when a generational spike in depression, sub-mental IQs, suicides, and irreversible psychological damage will correlate to wearing masks, lockdowns, irrational fears, panic, institutional hysteria and paranoia. I hope I’m wrong.
We'll probably be able to plot lots of things - some good as well. WFH has made a huge positive difference to a lot of people and I'm pretty sure that's set to continue with reduced stress from commuting 5 day a week.
(Anecdotally. Mrs M's son has seen way less sickness overall from his team in the last 2 years as Covid has changed their work locations drastically)
-
Now. I’m just as concerned about the longer term effects of WFH. We’re naturally social animals and many, most even, need something that supplies a connection with other people. Something that isn’t contrived and provides shared experiences. Where would we all be without the people we met at school, work or through shared interests?
-
@Catogrande said in Coronavirus - Overall:
Now. I’m just as concerned about the longer term effects of WFH. We’re naturally social animals and many, most even, need something that supplies a connection with other people. Something that isn’t contrived and provides shared experiences. Where would we all be without the people we met at school, work or through shared interests?
I don't think WFH all the time is viable for business and interaction reasons but having the option to WFH a few days a week seems to be a good thing.
And there's the possibility of more time for increased connection with people locally, don't you think?
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@Catogrande said in Coronavirus - Overall:
Now. I’m just as concerned about the longer term effects of WFH. We’re naturally social animals and many, most even, need something that supplies a connection with other people. Something that isn’t contrived and provides shared experiences. Where would we all be without the people we met at school, work or through shared interests?
I don't think WFH all the time is viable for business and interaction reasons but having the option to WFH a few days a week seems to be a good thing.
And there's the possibility of more time for increased connection with people locally, don't you think?
We've found that WFH seems great, but actually after a while a lot of people want to connect wtih the teams physically. I don't think we'll see 5 days in the office, but I also don't think we'll see 5 days a week at home. We do see more project errors and mistakes with remote work; there are a lot of non-verbal communication elements that you miss right now.
IT's a change though, and opens up opportunities for where you live and work being quite remote. Taking on a moderate commute for 2-3 days of the week (or staying overnight) becomes very very viable.
-
@nzzp said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@Catogrande said in Coronavirus - Overall:
Now. I’m just as concerned about the longer term effects of WFH. We’re naturally social animals and many, most even, need something that supplies a connection with other people. Something that isn’t contrived and provides shared experiences. Where would we all be without the people we met at school, work or through shared interests?
I don't think WFH all the time is viable for business and interaction reasons but having the option to WFH a few days a week seems to be a good thing.
And there's the possibility of more time for increased connection with people locally, don't you think?
We've found that WFH seems great, but actually after a while a lot of people want to connect wtih the teams physically. I don't think we'll see 5 days in the office, but I also don't think we'll see 5 days a week at home. We do see more project errors and mistakes with remote work; there are a lot of non-verbal communication elements that you miss right now.
IT's a change though, and opens up opportunities for where you live and work being quite remote. Taking on a moderate commute for 2-3 days of the week (or staying overnight) becomes very very viable.
There's another element as well: Managers are having to manage their staff more closely and more individually - some might be more productive in the office, other at home - and that's both a challenge and an opportunity
-
@Catogrande said in Coronavirus - Overall:
Now. I’m just as concerned about the longer term effects of WFH. We’re naturally social animals and many, most even, need something that supplies a connection with other people. Something that isn’t contrived and provides shared experiences. Where would we all be without the people we met at school, work or through shared interests?
I feel sorry for people I know who are at uni but almost never stepped foot on campus. The social aspect is an integral part of the university experience
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@Catogrande said in Coronavirus - Overall:
Now. I’m just as concerned about the longer term effects of WFH. We’re naturally social animals and many, most even, need something that supplies a connection with other people. Something that isn’t contrived and provides shared experiences. Where would we all be without the people we met at school, work or through shared interests?
I don't think WFH all the time is viable for business and interaction reasons but having the option to WFH a few days a week seems to be a good thing.
And there's the possibility of more time for increased connection with people locally, don't you think?
Your last point has made me think and on reflection I think you’re right but I also think that will be dependent on demographic. Fine for old farts like us, but less so for the younger element. I’ve had quite a few chats with Ms Cato no1 who has suffered from a lack of social interaction due in the main to having a self employed career where she rarely sees the same people from one month to the next. It’s been bloody hard for her making new friends. I’ve really pushed her to get into sport/keep fit, more as a way of meeting people than anything else. Five years away at Uni (4 yr degree course and 1 year foundation) left her adrift from many of her school mates. A “normal” work environment might have helped her.
-
@canefan said in Coronavirus - Overall:
I feel sorry for people I know who are at uni but almost never stepped foot on campus. The social aspect is an integral part of the university experience
And the learning process. I did my hobby degree with the OU and the weekly tutorials/drinks with the other students were absolutely key to the course
-
@Catogrande said in Coronavirus - Overall:
Your last point has made me think and on reflection I think you’re right but I also think that will be dependent on demographic.
There's also the element of not understanding the environment and the principle of getting back what you put into a community.
People working from home might enrol their kids in the local Girl Guides and pop off to the gym while the girls are Guiding. They are asked if they'd like to help out with the Guides, which of course they don't have time for. People running Guides have problems with staffing and the older people running it can't cope with the extra demands - so it goes downhill.
Happening to friends of ours in Wiltshire.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@canefan said in Coronavirus - Overall:
I feel sorry for people I know who are at uni but almost never stepped foot on campus. The social aspect is an integral part of the university experience
And the learning process. I did my hobby degree with the OU and the weekly tutorials/drinks with the other students were absolutely key to the course
There is a big truancy problem here too. Lots of kids, many in low decile/S-E areas who haven't gone back to school. This will do untold damage to a generation in a group which is already in a poverty cycle
-
Chinese work colleague (form Wuhan originally) was musing today that in China almost 3 years ago (e.g. late 2019 etc) if you said covid was dangerous then you could be put into jail. Now, (with omicron) if you say covid is not dangerous you can be put in jail.
-
@Kid-Chocolate I think you vastly underestimate the resilience of kids.
The generation that lived through WW2 with the potential loss of their homes loved ones etc came through without a tsunami of negative side effects.
Kids adapt better to change than adults. I am far more optimistic than you are.