Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

I don't like the "normal" of spending over 15 hours and £60 a week simply going to the office and home again, when I can do my job equally well in my pyjamas. Why would I want to go back to "normal" even if there wasn't a danger of getting infected?

There's certainly variation in what we consider "a return to normal." I think for most people when they say it mean a return to a period in time where we don't have to worry about social distancing; washing our hands every 5 minutes; worrying about breathing near people etc... Ergo where we can safely go to a rave or a party or just bustle around the shops. When we can spend an hour in a store and not feel concerned or stand in a vast stadium with thousands of others watching sports etc... Ergo when we have the choice to freely socialise


Of course there will be changes; a lot of businesses have or will go under. We might well see shifts in how international transport and holidays are conducted. At the same time as things get going we might well see new businesses open up into markets that were damaged - eg tourism could have a big boom year.
At the same time I agree this big stay at home policy has likely pushed working from home - paperless offices - computing and such forward in a massive way. It might even result in huge changes and improvements to road infrastructures if we can shift significant portions of the workforce into working from home more days than in the office.

not to mention work in teams often times leads to better results.

It also lends itself better to worker organisation, and relationship between upper and lower positions within a company, both beeing, atleast to me, massively important in order to avoid certain developments that happened in other industries, like 16 H workdays in the game industry, etc.

Basically the whole computing revolution that was "supposed" to happen and never quite did is likely going to start happening now for real. A big part might also be how the various work from home software companies treat this.

One big issue was always starting the ball rolling and the running costs. A lot of the software firms have made their software cheaper/free for the corona event. Now as things ease out if those firms stick to lower price brackets we might well see more firms keep with the adaption of the new approach; however if prices soar up high we might see many go "eh well it was nice, but I don't like this big cost and we've got the offices paid for anyway lets just go back".

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Yes, I agree with you. What I think will happen is that we will go back to working perhaps one or two days a week in the office, and working from home the rest of the time. Some businesses will go virtual. They will just hire office space for their weekly meetings.

But "return to normality" wants us all working in the office every day, burning petrol or bus fares to get there, and buying lots of coffee and sandwiches. That isn't going to happen.

City centre businesses are like the dinosaurs now. I don't wish it upon them, but it's the new world.

I agree wholeheartedly with this and think it's likely to pan out that way. I think all that has really happened has been a large acceleration of what was happening already in a number of industries, with others now also being pushed along that route.

Johnson can say what he likes about returning to the office and pretending like things are back to normal, but they're not and ultimately it's the businesses and their purse-strings that will make the decision. They are the ones that have to answer to employment tribunals if they're not able to guarantee a safe work space (which they can't do entirely, no matter what precautions are taken) and if staff are able to adequately carry out their role at a distance, then it's a pretty simple equation for senior management to work out.

I'm not entirely convinced that it's a good thing. I did read that we are no longer working from home, but living at work (definitely true for some people looking at the date and time stamps on work emails I receive). It takes some discipline to have a start and stop time, take a break for lunch, make sure you walk away at a decent time in the evening (I suspect that a lot of people actually working longer hours - and a marked increase in productivity - is no doubt going to be factored into any large-scale return to work conversations)

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I managed to find some made in UK masks. They are more expensive than the generic Chinese made masks, but I don't need a lot because I won't be going shopping and so on very much.

Things aren't going back to normal for a long time. Maybe not ever. I hope not.

I don't like the "normal" of spending over 15 hours and £60 a week simply going to the office and home again, when I can do my job equally well in my pyjamas. Why would I want to go back to "normal" even if there wasn't a danger of getting infected?

I don’t work in an office, and not everyone does.
While you might be able to sit at home in your PJs to do your job, some of us are still waiting to go back to work at all.
It might be nice for you that things never get back to normal.
But you know what? I’d like my income back, and the ability to earn again.
I’m sure if you were laid off indefinitely without an income, you’d be wanting to get back to normal after being on govt subsidies for four months.
Not everyone can work remotely, and in order to make any sort of living, we need to get back to normal.
I’m amazed a how one can be called out for being selfish because we simply can’t survive like this, and regardless of the danger, there is serious danger of some folks not being able to support themselves without reopening.
I think it’s a rather selfish attitude to have when you assume everyone can and does work in an office that they can work remotely.
What about those of us that can’t? It’s killing those people too, and I’d like to see some more balance. In that we’re putting lives at risk by NOT returning to some normality.

I think there's an obvious implication in the post of 'back to normal for me'.

I can't imagine for a minute that Kilkrazy is meaning 'screw everyone who can't work remotely'.

I have similar hopes. I think most office-based businesses have had a major wake-up call through this and have discovered that yes, a lot of office staff can actually work productively from home. I very much hope we don't come out the other side of this and just say 'well, that was fun. back to the daily commute then.'

Perhaps the time of the Results Only Work Environment is here again! However, i am skeptical. There is a reason the Results Only Work Environment has not stuck, and it was not because of reduced productivity.

However, I have worked with a lot of management and executive staff and the #1 thing they desire is Control Over Results. They do not perceive to have the same control over results in a WFH environment. Therefore, it will go back to "in the office" again.

There is a reason the WFH revolution has NOT happened all ready. That reason is because management and corporate leaders do not want it to happen for psychological reasons.

 Easy E wrote:
There is a reason the WFH revolution has NOT happened all ready. That reason is because management and corporate leaders do not want it to happen for psychological reasons.

Is that where the managers want to be seen managing, and can't do that when not looming over their staff's shoulders?
There are lots of other reasons, but some want to be seen to have the power they do.

WFH was a privilege at my place, and us lowly plebs were not allowed to do that regularly. Now it's the norm.

 RiTides wrote:
Stratigo, you clearly view it as binary “Open, Yes/No?”. If I did, too, the answer would be “No.” But there are about a thousand options between those binary poles, and I’m much more interested in talking to people who can at least acknowledge that (and consider the cost to kids across the range of options).

 CptJake wrote:
I live in a pretty rural area (Aiken county, SC), and broadband internet is not available everywhere. Add in some families with multiple school aged kids do not have multiple computers and 'online' or 'distant learning' just doesn't work well. In the suburban/urban parts of the county it may work better, but definitely not in all areas. Surrounding counties are more rural. The 'distant learning' just isn't a one size fits all solution.

Exactly...

Each school has to decide based on their student population, facilities, viral caseload, etc and be ready to adapt quickly if their first attempt results in either increased viral transmission, lack of educational progress, or both.

The options between are just more hypotheticals, which I still don't care about. If you want to talk options in between, provide concrete examples of schools planning to use those options. It shouldn't even be that hard, colleges throughout the country are looking into it and detailing such plans.

But, guess what, Florida and texas are full on insisting full reopening of schools and classes. This is the reality. At a time where the US has less a control over the virus than we have ever had. Public school systems don't have a lot of power to set their own plans in this time, they are beholden, supine if you will, to the wishes of the state government. And, it just so happens that certain state governments with a lot of Rs involved, are bulldozing through every plan or idea of how to educate children safely in favor of trying to return to the old normal, for their political and, this is a big one, financial benefit.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 RiTides wrote:
To repeat, schools do NOT provide "nebulous gain" for students, and unless you can acknowledge that, we're not even having the same discussion.

For as long as I can remember, public school being useless has been the hip viewpoint for people to express if they want to seem smart. I think it is an implied statement about how one is 'smarter' than the system, but phrasing it that way reveals how nonsensical the statement is. The nature of the public school system and its varying factors is of such complexity that reducing it down to "nebulous gain" is essentially a non-statement. It would be like saying "cardboard packaging offers nebulous gain" or "starting work at 9 am offers nebulous gain" the statement technically works but in a realistic sense does not. All of this is to say; sometimes it is better to ignore and move on.

A number of public schools ARE effectively useless. By design. Because they are attended by minorities, and schools in this country are still heavily segregated. The programs receive minimal funding, the teachers are ground down with stress, the halls are filled with police officers looking for reasons to oppress.

There are plenty of wonderful public schools that provide well funded education and preparation for adulthood. In areas where the neighborhoods are mostly white and affluent.

This isn't a trick or mistake, not an example of governmental incompetence not knowing how to run education. This is by design.

So, kindly, actually read the statements I am making.

 Ouze wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
I think schools could open just like many work places have. The schools could implement COVID mitigation strategies just like I have to at work. Basically stopping education for a huge chunk of the population isn't a good thing.

You argued earlier that it was too complex for most children to study from packets, but you're also thinking those same children can be trusted the way adults can with using hand sanitizer, keeping social distance, wearing masks, and all the other things that adults have done in their workplaces. To reiterate, a great many workplaces are not open, also - lets not gloss over that, a huge chunk are still working remotely when possible. I don't think same kids that can't keep their fingers out of their noses can be trusted to efficiently scrub down x times per day.

I agree stopping education for a huge chunk of the population is undesirable. So is needlessly killing a lot of vulnerable people. Kids can catch up on their classes - and this is a distinct minority of children with no broadband, no ability to work from packets, etc. A subset of the learning population. Once those people are dead, they are dead.

Covid is not going to last forever; there is going to be a vaccine. It might be 6 months, it might be a year, it might be 2 years. AstraZeneca is already starting phase 3 of their vaccine. If we could come together as a country, and really start aggressively getting on the same page - social distancing, harsh lockdowns, very high mask compliance, effective track and trace - we could flatten the hell out of the curve in 2 months and resume a semblance of normal life, just dealing with flareups. We know this is possible because other countries have done this.

I don't agree we just need to accept the vulnerable are gonna die anyway so lets get on with it. It is a deeply, deeply immoral stance.

If you can't trust elementary schools to effectively prevent the spread of lice or chickenpox, why do you realistically think they would be even more effective at covid?

feth, if we were in europe we could have an actual conversation about the utility of opening schools with new cases regularly shrinking, But this is America.

 Easy E wrote:
In my local, rural area the testing kits at the only drive-thru testing center ran out a few days ago.

Since then our new cases have flat lined! Success!

Edit: Also got a notice from the school district. The plan to keep kids from getting COVID this year is for all parents to sign waivers so the school can not be sued if they get COVID. That will protect someone but I am not sure it is the kids.

It's actually becoming clear that this is kinda what the federal government plans to do, just stop testing, or suppressing data of the tests that do come through. And I imagine republican aligned state governments will play along with it.

 Skinnereal wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
There is a reason the WFH revolution has NOT happened all ready. That reason is because management and corporate leaders do not want it to happen for psychological reasons.

Is that where the managers want to be seen managing, and can't do that when not looming over their staff's shoulders?
There are lots of other reasons, but some want to be seen to have the power they do.

WFH was a privilege at my place, and us lowly plebs were not allowed to do that regularly. Now it's the norm.

I wish it were that obvious. No, it is actually a deeper seated psychological need than that.

Most of the leaders and executives I have worked with are "driver/Blue/Controller" personality types. When you strip all the other thinking style stuff away, their core need is to Control. That is what has made them successful, controlling the inputs to get the desired outputs. WFH strips away that control, they can not just "see" what is actually happening and therefore can no longer "control" the inputs. This makes them deeply uneasy. So uneasy that they will do a lot of mental gymnastics to justify why WFH will not and is not working.

I have seen it up close many, many times. I just ran into it today!

I was thrilled to hear the progress made towards a vaccine over the past few days. Yes it’s still too early to tell if they’ll ultimately be successful but it feels like a definite step in the right direction. Fingers crossed.

I wasn't saying "screw you everyone who isn't an office worker." My equation was more like this.

City centre businesses such as coffee bars have a 10% profit margin. They've lost 75% of their trade because all the offices have closed. If 80% of office workers go back to normal working, those coffee bars are still going to fold. There will also be effects on the bus companies and the car parks.

There's a plus side to this. The roads will be emptier for delivery drivers. There's increased demand for coffee shops in small town centres.

Those don't seem like massive advantages, to be fair. My position is that we've screwed the pooch. We'll never recover.

I don't think most sectors won't recover, although it's very possible demand could shift - i.e. Blockbuster giving way to Netflix. Sucks for a lot of folks caught in the middle of any transition like that employment-wise, obviously

I think coffee shops and the like will be fine for the long term, though. Things like that are in large part popular due to the social aspect, and outside of the pandemic that won't have changed. And folks who work from home also like to head to coffee shops (although obviously different ones since they're no longer in town, as you point out).

What will be interesting if that as certain industries and companies struggle, others will start to benefit and you'll probably get new ones emerging.

This goes beyond the obvious need for more delivery drivers and companies (I would say they are at least 50% of traffic now on roads near me), but I wonder if this will also speed up automated delivery services (drone deliveries etc.)
You can imagine mobile coffee-shops moving from town centres to densely populated residential areas etc.

I'd also read about drive-in cinemas making a come back, it will be interesting to see how the market will start to adapt to the new environment.

 RiTides wrote:
I don't think most sectors won't recover, although it's very possible demand could shift - i.e. Blockbuster giving way to Netflix. Sucks for a lot of folks caught in the middle of any transition like that employment-wise, obviously

I dont wanna sound rude or dismissive....but this is always happens.
Old gives way to new and people are always cought up when it. When farm life gave way to factory. And some adapt and some dont.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 RiTides wrote:
I don't think most sectors won't recover, although it's very possible demand could shift - i.e. Blockbuster giving way to Netflix. Sucks for a lot of folks caught in the middle of any transition like that employment-wise, obviously

I dont wanna sound rude or dismissive....but this is always happens.
Old gives way to new and people are always cought up when it. When farm life gave way to factory. And some adapt and some dont.

Farm life is still the reality for roughly a third of the planet.
Even here the number of farms in operation is not small- around 2 million, down from the peak of 7 million in 1935.

I guess what i mean is that, before for quite a few people, farminng was the only job thqaat there was, which gave way to factory, whiich then gave way to office, while there still there, it was not a way ofr life for many many people like it once was.
Im not disparaging farming.

Voss wrote:

 gorgon wrote:

 RiTides wrote:

 reds8n wrote:
"UK secures deal for 90 million COVID-19 vaccine doses

The UK has become the first country to sign a deal with a number of pharmaceutical companies for early access to COVID-19 vaccines. The first is with BioNTech and Pfizer, for 30 million doses. The second deal, for 60 million doses, is with French firm Valneva. These are in addition to the 100 million doses of the Oxford University vaccine being developed by AstraZeneca"

It makes sense - they have to start manufacturing them so that once approved they can be distributed immediately. By buying some of each they're increasing the chances that they will have at least one effective vaccine.

There have also been some really good developments on drugs to help reduce symptoms and either keep people off of ventilators, or help them recover more quickly once they are on them (freeing them up for other patients).

People grossly underestimate the manufacturing and distribution challenges we're going to have after one or more of these vax candidates are approved.

Yep. Especially in the US. Most of 'our' pharmaceutical manufacturing is actually overseas- I'm personally envious of Germany and Switzerland on this score.

Of course, once it starts rolling, there's going to be prioritization and availability issues. It also doesn't help that politicians and journalists have been hopelessly optimistic on the arrival of a viable candidate, and don't seem to grasp that manufacturing meaningful quantities, let alone shifting those quantities to distribution centers and then to local areas are all going to take time.

The vaccine candidates are different, also. They're testing a number of different approaches. Some will be easier to mass produce than others. Some will be easier to transport than others. Etcetera.

The way 2020 is going, the key ingredient of any vaccine will turn out to be the life essence of a close relative.

 gorgon wrote:


The vaccine candidates are different, also. They're testing a number of different approaches. Some will be easier to mass produce than others. Some will be easier to transport than others. Etcetera.

Yeah. Today made that weird, as well.
A deal was signed with Pfizer, they get $2 billion, the US gets 100 million units of... well, basically whichever of their four vaccine candidates gets approval by the FDA. At some point. Assuming one does. To be distributed at no additional charge (in theory, unless providers want to charge for administering the vaccine, ie the actual injection).
How we get the other 250+ million units (assuming a single dose vaccine) for the rest of the population and what that will cost gets a blank stare and a shrug at this point. Other than that the gov't 'could' acquire up to 500 million more.

https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/07/22/894184607/u-s-to-get-100-million-doses-of-pfizer-coronavirus-vaccine-in-1-95-billion-deal

part of Operation Warp Speed, the Trump administration's push to have a coronavirus vaccine widely available by January.

That name doesn't strike me as ominous and corner-cutting _at all_

Hopefully, optimistically, they'll have one that actually works and is safe to use, but no mention of that. Other than they haven't vetted or published their results yet, and safety and efficacy studies haven't even begun, but they're aiming for approval by October. >.>

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/06/12/875465099/questions-about-how-crash-program-is-picking-coronavirus-vaccines-to-back
Pfizer and their candidates weren't originally on 'Warp Speed's' short list.
Some others are, and there are already existing contracts for AstraZeneca, Johnson and Johnson, Moderna, and Novavax candidates, apparently. The first two have committed to no profit or not-for-profit prices during the Pandemic. Everyone else looked shifty, which is unsurprising from pharma companies.


Worried about this. An ineffective or unsafe vaccine will set things here even more on fire. Production ready is good, rushing is not.

So after Operation Warp Speed they're going to have Operation Indentured Servitude as they force to you to pay off the no doubt ludicrous cost of the vaccine.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
The way 2020 is going, the key ingredient of any vaccine will turn out to be the life essence of a close relative.

or harvested from children, possibly by someone dressed like the bad guy in that old movie warlock

No!

It will look exactly like this:



This week will hopefully mark the turning point for the USA - in a good way.

Time will tell!

I mean, we have been shown willing to sacrifice children for the pandemic.....

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I guess what i mean is that, before for quite a few people, farminng was the only job thqaat there was, which gave way to factory, whiich then gave way to office, while there still there, it was not a way ofr life for many many people like it once was.
Im not disparaging farming.

In the same way, there's not a blacksmith in every village any more. And back when there *was* a blacksmith in every village, no-one made any money as a social media influencer... Work changes.

 Alpharius wrote:
No!

It will look exactly like this:

Spoiler:

This week will hopefully mark the turning point for the USA - in a good way.

Time will tell!

Nice one (although you do remember where that guy 'worked' in the films!)

Said very facetiously, I assume one business sector that has done very well out of this and other disasters and wars of our time.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-canada-usa/social-distancing-canadians-eye-new-sight-at-niagara-falls-crowds-of-americans-idUSKCN24M346

Sums up well why situation is worse in us compared to canada

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 RiTides wrote:
I don't think most sectors won't recover, although it's very possible demand could shift - i.e. Blockbuster giving way to Netflix. Sucks for a lot of folks caught in the middle of any transition like that employment-wise, obviously

I dont wanna sound rude or dismissive....but this is always happens.
Old gives way to new and people are always cought up when it. When farm life gave way to factory. And some adapt and some dont.

And while this was happening, the government eventually stepped in and started spending vast amounts of money to alleviate the pain of farmers suffering from the switch and the disasters of the time. I mean, this was a core part of the New Deal.

That's the issue. You don't just go "Well it sucks to be them, guess they should starve to death in the streets". You help them adapt, and catch those that simply can't.

This has actually happened a number of times. Also, there's always a racial dynamic to who gets saved and the people left behind to suffer the most.

tneva82 wrote:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-canada-usa/social-distancing-canadians-eye-new-sight-at-niagara-falls-crowds-of-americans-idUSKCN24M346

Sums up well why situation is worse in us compared to canada

The boat is limited to 50% capacity - not great but they're doing something. Except almost everyone on that boat is on the top deck, using 50% of the boat. Can someone do the maths for me on how the social distancing compares with a boat at 100% capacity using 100% of the boat.

 Henry wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-canada-usa/social-distancing-canadians-eye-new-sight-at-niagara-falls-crowds-of-americans-idUSKCN24M346

Sums up well why situation is worse in us compared to canada

The boat is limited to 50% capacity - not great but they're doing something. Except almost everyone on that boat is on the top deck, using 50% of the boat. Can someone do the maths for me on how the social distancing compares with a boat at 100% capacity using 100% of the boat.

I've run the numbers, and it seems that the current situation is directly equivalent to being at 100% capacity, Henry. Additional hardware is being brought online to compute other factors, but initial readouts are all pointing to a strong 'laughingstock of the first world' output.