P&O Cruisers - What are things like where YOU are?

[ann141]

1 hour ago, Eddie99 said:

Really interesting article by Tim Hartford of BBC More or Less etc which goes a long way towards explaining the current risk.  He ends by warning against believing it’s all over.

Good read though

 

https://www.ft.com/content/176b9bbe-56cf-4428-a0cd-070db2d8e6ff?segmentid=acee4131-99c2-09d3-a635-873e61754ec6

Thank you.Interesting when put in context with other 'dangers' Two of our friends are part of the ONS representative sample and they are tested weekly. They have had negative tests despite their son (who lives in Leicester) staying with them for a week!

[grapau27]

1 minute ago, ann141 said:

Thank you.Interesting when put in context with other 'dangers' Two of our friends are part of the ONS representative sample and they are tested weekly. They have had negative tests despite their son (who lives in Leicester) staying with them for a week!

🤞Good luck to your friends.

[wowzz]

Yes, an excellent article. Perhaps it should be made compulsory reading for those civil servants that are refusing to go back to work in their offices because it is "too dangerous"!

Of course we need to carry on taking necessary precautions, but, in essence the article is saying we should stop living in a state of fear and paranoia, and accept that CV19 is just another risk that we all face as we journey through life. 

[Harry Peterson]

18 minutes ago, wowzz said:

Yes, an excellent article. Perhaps it should be made compulsory reading for those civil servants that are refusing to go back to work in their offices because it is "too dangerous"!

Of course we need to carry on taking necessary precautions, but, in essence the article is saying we should stop living in a state of fear and paranoia, and accept that CV19 is just another risk that we all face as we journey through life. 

Not sure that the stories about civil servants 'refusing' to go back to work aren't apocryphal, though.  The Press love civil service bashing, and always have done.  If they're able to work as effectively at home as they can from the office, what's the problem?  And as someone once moved from a cellular individual office into open plan I know from personal experience how much time is wasted in an open office environment - I'd estimate at least 30%.  The latest research suggests that people working from home, by and large, are much more efficient from an employer's point of view - and of course there's the saving in office accommodation costs.

 

Two aspects to the Covid risk equation of course.  One is the risk of contracting it - very low.  But the other is the potential impact on any particular individual.  Again, very low for most people, particularly the young, but potentially extremely high for some others, particularly older people with certain pre-existing conditions and on certain medications.

[Adawn47]

2 hours ago, Eddie99 said:

Really interesting article by Tim Hartford of BBC More or Less etc which goes a long way towards explaining the current risk.  He ends by warning against believing it’s all over.

Good read though

 

https://www.ft.com/content/176b9bbe-56cf-4428-a0cd-070db2d8e6ff?segmentid=acee4131-99c2-09d3-a635-873e61754ec6

Thanks for posting Eddie, I wouldn't have seen it otherwise. It's helped me understand  things a lot better. Plain and simple explanation and advice that even I understood. 

Avril

 

Edited August 29, 2020 by Adawn47

[wowzz]

8 minutes ago, Harry Peterson said:

Not sure that the stories about civil servants 'refusing' to go back to work aren't apocryphal, though.  The Press love civil service bashing, and always have done.  If they're able to work as effectively at home as they can from the office, what's the problem?  And as someone once moved from a cellular individual office into open plan I know from personal experience how much time is wasted in an open office environment - I'd estimate at least 30%.  The latest research suggests that people working from home, by and large, are much more efficient from an employer's point of view - and of course there's the saving in office accommodation costs.

 

Two aspects to the Covid risk equation of course.  One is the risk of contracting it - very low.  But the other is the potential impact on any particular individual.  Again, very low for most people, particularly the young, but potentially extremely high for some others, particularly older people with certain pre-existing conditions and on certain medications.

Part of the problem of course is that so many people are now working from home that city centres are dying on their feet, with a consequent increase in unemployment [2,500 redundancies at Pret, for example]

Having worked at home for the latter part of my career, I would agree that it can be as productive, if not more so than working in an office, although I did miss the social aspect of office working, if not the daily 3 hour commute.

I suppose the issue is that the shift to wfh has been so sudden, that all the associated industries and support services have not had a chance to adapt, hence the enormous spike in unemployment.

I would have hoped that office workers could be enticed back to their offices, with the intention of phasing in wfh over,say, a three year period, to allow for a transitional period for support services to adapt.    

[Harry Peterson]

16 minutes ago, Adawn47 said:

Thanks for posting Eddie, I wouldn't have seen it otherwise. It's helped me understand  things a lot better. Plain and simple explanation and advice that even I understood. 

Avril

 

Don't undersell yourself, Avril!  Drop that 'even'!  🙂

 

Harry

[Harry Peterson]

10 minutes ago, wowzz said:

Part of the problem of course is that so many people are now working from home that city centres are dying on their feet, with a consequent increase in unemployment [2,500 redundancies at Pret, for example]

Having worked at home for the latter part of my career, I would agree that it can be as productive, if not more so than working in an office, although I did miss the social aspect of office working, if not the daily 3 hour commute.

I suppose the issue is that the shift to wfh has been so sudden, that all the associated industries and support services have not had a chance to adapt, hence the enormous spike in unemployment.

I would have hoped that office workers could be enticed back to their offices, with the intention of phasing in wfh over,say, a three year period, to allow for a transitional period for support services to adapt.    

Probably the answer lies in working partly at home and partly in the office - but with much more emphasis on the former than before.  Covid has proved conclusively that it's much more feasible than we previously thought, and can cut out a huge amount of wasted travelling time, particularly to meetings.

 

It's unfortunate for cities, but jobs lost there will be created elsewhere, and it's about time that places outside major cities had their fair share of the wealth.  Places such as London, Leeds, Birmingham, Manchester etc have had it too good - time for the rest of us to share.  Evening out house prices across the country would also help younger and lower paid people currently unable to find accommodation in the south-east, where most of the jobs are (were?) concentrated. 

[terrierjohn]

41 minutes ago, Harry Peterson said:

Not sure that the stories about civil servants 'refusing' to go back to work aren't apocryphal, though.  The Press love civil service bashing, and always have done.  If they're able to work as effectively at home as they can from the office, what's the problem?  And as someone once moved from a cellular individual office into open plan I know from personal experience how much time is wasted in an open office environment - I'd estimate at least 30%.  The latest research suggests that people working from home, by and large, are much more efficient from an employer's point of view - and of course there's the saving in office accommodation costs.

 

Two aspects to the Covid risk equation of course.  One is the risk of contracting it - very low.  But the other is the potential impact on any particular individual.  Again, very low for most people, particularly the young, but potentially extremely high for some others, particularly older people with certain pre-existing conditions and on certain medications.

I dont disagree with you Harry, but if office workers do continue to work from home the town centre service industries will be decimated. Leading to massive job losses at national chain shops, and thousands of private shops going out of business.

That will significantly impair our economic recovery.

[wowzz]

45 minutes ago, Harry Peterson said:

It's unfortunate for cities, but jobs lost there will be created elsewhere

Sorry Harry,  but I don't see how those people now wfh, are going to help create jobs for those 2500 Pret workers, or the dry cleaners,  or the city centre pub workers, or the office cleaners etc.

[Harry Peterson]

34 minutes ago, terrierjohn said:

I dont disagree with you Harry, but if office workers do continue to work from home the town centre service industries will be decimated. Leading to massive job losses at national chain shops, and thousands of private shops going out of business.

That will significantly impair our economic recovery.

 

5 minutes ago, wowzz said:

Sorry Harry,  but I don't see how those people now wfh, are going to help create jobs for those 2500 Pret workers, or the dry cleaners,  or the city centre pub workers, or the office cleaners etc.

I take those points, but jobs centre on people, and the people they’re centred on still exist, but in different locations.  The jobs in the cities may go, but I’m certain that they’ll be replaced elsewhere, where the people now are, but possibly by different types of jobs. That’s just how economies work - they adapt to the circumstances of the day. 
 

I remember a time, working in central London, when the only fast food places were tiny coffee places that sold sandwiches to take away!

[wowzz]

1 minute ago, Harry Peterson said:

 

I take those points, but jobs centre on people, and the people they’re centred on still exist, but in different locations.  The jobs in the cities may go, but I’m certain that they’ll be replaced elsewhere, where the people now are, but possibly by different types of jobs. That’s just how economies work - they adapt to the circumstances of the day. 
 

I remember a time, working in central London, when the only fast food places were tiny coffee places that sold sandwiches to take away!

You may well be right,  but it could well be years before those jobs can be replaced.

In the interim we are going to have 5 million unemployed,  with consequent economic consequences. 

[terrierjohn]

Just now, Harry Peterson said:

 

I take those points, but jobs centre on people, and the people they’re centred on still exist, but in different locations.  The jobs in the cities may go, but I’m certain that they’ll be replaced elsewhere, where the people now are, but possibly by different types of jobs. That’s just how economies work - they adapt to the circumstances of the day. 
 

I remember a time, working in central London, when the only fast food places were tiny coffee places that sold sandwiches to take away!

I doubt that those working from home are going to pop out to the local Gregg's or Pret for their lunchtime sandwich, and WFH is going to eliminate the need to have their work clothes dry cleaned. So a heck of a lot of jobs and businesses are going to disappear for ever.

[wowzz]

4 minutes ago, terrierjohn said:

I doubt that those working from home are going to pop out to the local Gregg's or Pret for their lunchtime sandwich, and WFH is going to eliminate the need to have their work clothes dry cleaned. So a heck of a lot of jobs and businesses are going to disappear for ever.

Plus of course no need for bus, train or tube drivers, as there will be fewer and fewer commuters. Seevices will be cut to the bone, but fixed overhead costs will remain the same, so fares will have to dramatically increase for all those that still need to travel, be it for business or pleasure.

Perhaps Harry can tell us what jobs all these unemployed drivers will find.

[terrierjohn]

2 minutes ago, wowzz said:

Plus of course no need for bus, train or tube drivers, as there will be fewer and fewer commuters. Seevices will be cut to the bone, but fixed overhead costs will remain the same, so fares will have to dramatically increase for all those that still need to travel, be it for business or pleasure.

Perhaps Harry can tell us what jobs all these unemployed drivers will find.

There are a number of worrying occupations that are likely to face dramatic redundancies as a result of these WFH changes, that do now appear likely to become permanent, maybe not quite as extensive as the height of covid,, but certainly very significant.

[Harry Peterson]

4 minutes ago, wowzz said:

Plus of course no need for bus, train or tube drivers, as there will be fewer and fewer commuters. Seevices will be cut to the bone, but fixed overhead costs will remain the same, so fares will have to dramatically increase for all those that still need to travel, be it for business or pleasure.

Perhaps Harry can tell us what jobs all these unemployed drivers will find.

Again, I understand the point, particularly in the short term. But economies and jobs respond to changed situations, and all those people saving money by working at home will be spending it in their local economies.

 

One small example would be the building boom that’s currently happening - extensions, garden works, etc. Quite a few additional jobs there, and that’s just one area. 

[grapau27]

2 hours ago, wowzz said:

Yes, an excellent article. Perhaps it should be made compulsory reading for those civil servants that are refusing to go back to work in their offices because it is "too dangerous"!

Of course we need to carry on taking necessary precautions, but, in essence the article is saying we should stop living in a state of fear and paranoia, and accept that CV19 is just another risk that we all face as we journey through life. 

Civil servants are Key Workers but any with pre-existing health problems and BMI over 40 were Sent Home in March to shield but still are working from home.

Other staff are still working in the office.

Only essential shops were allowed to open until recently which has affected footfall on the high street.

Lots of people were told to shield, Lockdown etc,etc I could go on so please don't single out civil servants or any office workers.

Graham.

[grapau27]

11 minutes ago, wowzz said:

Plus of course no need for bus, train or tube drivers, as there will be fewer and fewer commuters. Seevices will be cut to the bone, but fixed overhead costs will remain the same, so fares will have to dramatically increase for all those that still need to travel, be it for business or pleasure.

Perhaps Harry can tell us what jobs all these unemployed drivers will find.

Covid19 has affected all of us in many ways, No Cruising, Quarantine, Lockdown, Shielding,job losses and sadly loss of life so we all have to adapt to our changing circumstances.

[wowzz]

8 minutes ago, Harry Peterson said:

One small example would be the building boom that’s currently happening - extensions, garden works, etc. Quite a few additional jobs there, and that’s just one area. 

I agree about building work, but there is still a major disconnect between those people that used to live and work in inner cities, versus job opportunities in ex-commuter towns 40 miles away. Not sure how a 50 year old ex bus driver living in Leyton is going to benefit from a boom in gardening work in Ipswich.

[grapau27]

11 minutes ago, terrierjohn said:

There are a number of worrying occupations that are likely to face dramatic redundancies as a result of these WFH changes, that do now appear likely to become permanent, maybe not quite as extensive as the height of covid,, but certainly very significant.

We saw the loss of coal mines and ship building in the North East and replaced with Call Centres, business parks and Nissan.

Covid19 has affected a lot of business and accelerated job losses in certain industries which were already looking to cut costs.

It is a worrying time for most of us.

[grapau27]

10 minutes ago, wowzz said:

I agree about building work, but there is still a major disconnect between those people that used to live and work in inner cities, versus job opportunities in ex-commuter towns 40 miles away. Not sure how a 50 year old ex bus driver living in Leyton is going to benefit from a boom in gardening work in Ipswich.

At 50 they have lots of time to retrain for other work.

[Harry Peterson]

14 minutes ago, wowzz said:

I agree about building work, but there is still a major disconnect between those people that used to live and work in inner cities, versus job opportunities in ex-commuter towns 40 miles away. Not sure how a 50 year old ex bus driver living in Leyton is going to benefit from a boom in gardening work in Ipswich.

He won't - but someone in Ipswich will.  Life's changing - we all have to adapt to it.  You'll know Lincoln, I imagine.  It had a thriving engineering industry - thousands of jobs. Most of them went.  The land vacated became a very successful university - thousands of students spending money in the area, creating jobs, and hundreds of jobs in the university itself.

 

Cities will adapt, as will other areas.  Not good news for anyone who's recently bought into a city business or apartment though.

[wowzz]

4 minutes ago, grapau27 said:

At 50 they have lots of time to retrain for other work.

Sorry Graham, you've lost me. What sort of work do you suggest they retrain for, and whilst training , how do you suggest they pay their mortgage, feed the kids, etc? Given there will be hundreds of  thousands of people in the same position, where exactly are all these training courses going to appear. 

[wowzz]

2 minutes ago, Harry Peterson said:

He won't - but someone in Ipswich will.  Life's changing - we all have to adapt to it.  You'll know Lincoln, I imagine.  It had a thriving engineering industry - thousands of jobs. Most of them went.  The land vacated became a very successful university - thousands of students spending money in the area, creating jobs, and hundreds of jobs in the university itself.

 

Cities will adapt, as will other areas.  Not good news for anyone who's recently bought into a city business or apartment though.

And unemployment in Lincoln is shooting up due to lack of overseas students.  

I'm not disputing that economies and employment opportunities will evolve, but the current situation is not one of evolution,  but one of melt down, and the worst part is, that it is totally avoidable. 

 

 

[Harry Peterson]

7 minutes ago, wowzz said:

Sorry Graham, you've lost me. What sort of work do you suggest they retrain for, and whilst training , how do you suggest they pay their mortgage, feed the kids, etc? Given there will be hundreds of  thousands of people in the same position, where exactly are all these training courses going to appear. 

It may be necessary to support people, as is currently happening.  But I'm not sure it makes sense (I say not sure because there are no correct or incorrect answers to very much at the moment) to support dying industries when the money could be used to support growing industries.  Those new industries (and I use that term loosely) may not be where the present ones are, and the regions would very much welcome the new prospects and the new growth.

 

The north has lost out to the south for far too long.