Forum Replies Created

Viewing 4 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #5975
      jeff
      Participant

      Any decision worth its name has to be made before all the required information is to hand.

      That’s when you look at your options based on their probability and consequences. In this case, the probability of a widespread outbreak in the UK may (or may not) have been low but, given what was known from China and Italy, it was far from negligible. The consequences were clearly very bad.

      Having assessed options that way and decided not to go into lockdown, I’d expect someone in the room to ask “what if we’re wrong?” Given how uncertain everything was I’d have thought that this question would have made everyone worried.

      All of this is basic “how to make a decision when you don’t know as much as you’d like” stuff. It doesn’t work brilliantly when faced with very low probability, very high consequence events. But, while the current UK outbreak might have had a vanishingly low probability six months ago, the chances had risen markedly by late February 2020.

      I assume all this happened numerous times but I can’t see that it was taken seriously by the person at the top – he was still shaking hands *and telling us that it was ok* when Italy was already locking down large numbers of people. By the time the “decision” to lock the UK down was made it was actually no longer a decision – it was forced on them by events. That’s not leadership, in my judgement.

    • #5923
      jeff
      Participant

      I was wondering if lifting some restrictions, but keeping in place some movement restrictions would work to some extent.

      Ok to travel for work but not for holidays/socialising. Along with a ban on gatherings and compulsory face masks in confined environments such as shops, some workplaces.

      I also like lifting based on age, hadn’t thought it heard of that before. If some fit 70 year olds want to take their chances, that is up to them. The age restrictions could just be strongly advisor, unless the NHS was becoming overwhelmed, when it might have to be compulsory.

    • #5881
      jeff
      Participant

      China is lifting its lockdown, and Covid cases are starting to rise again with visitors to the country along with asymptomatic Covid carriers. Its like a global game of whack-a-mole.

    • #5866
      jeff
      Participant

      In a perfect world, costs should be met.

      But I, along with thousands of other people in this country are working from home, completely changing the way we work, for companies and charities that may not see the end of this.

      Yes I could have kicked up a fuss with my employer and demanded a computer, reasonable webcam and desk to work from home (not sure what response I would have got). My partner, a teacher could have done the same.

      However, seeing this approaching we planned in advance and at the end of Feb, beginning of March we made some preparations such as buying a better webcam, and at no point did I even consider asking my employer to contribute, again my partner has worked from home in the evenings and weekends since she started teaching, always using her own equipment, her employer recently stopped remote access due to security concerns and staff were issued with an encrypted flash drive, working at home on their own equipment is the expected approach.

      As I said, in perfect world, yes, employers should cover the costs, but we don’t live in a perfect world, especially at the moment. Not necessarily the most helpful to see MPs being given that perfect world examples when others are struggling so much.

      Yes MPs have offices to run and very important work to undertake, and most are committed to the communities they represent and need the resources to work effectively.

      But nothing about this current situation is fair (nobody’s fault, just the way it is) and it wouldn’t hurt for MPs to recognise that and instead of going on the defensive when it is brought up, they maybe should acknowledge this disparity and pledge to do something about it after all this has finished.

      At the moment everyone is doing more than asked of them from MPs handing out food to nurses to people working from home buying their own equipment to protect their employers from increased costs.

    • #5785
      jeff
      Participant

      Please don’t bite my head off folks, and I’m obviously not an expert ha-ha-ha, but I’m just wondering why – if the lockdown in the UK is off and everyone goes back to work – why would zillions of people die in the UK? I’m wondering because:

      *Didn’t happen in South Korea so far. People are out and about and mostly back at work. Rates continue to fall; most new cases are imported by travellers arriving at Seoul airport now

      *Didn’t happen in Hong Kong so far. People are back at work. New case numbers are very low now; the few new cases are imported by arrivals from outside HK now

      *Didn’t happen in Wuhan / China (if they’re to be believed, I have no idea about that) so far

      I’m very aware that SK, HK, the UK, and China are very different places, and that CV-19 rates are different to some extent. I’m still puzzled though

      Thanks and stay safe everyone

    • #5922
      jeff
      Participant

      Healthy people still die. Their immune systems still weaken. Their organs still weaken until they fail.

      The line is complicated but age is still a factor.

    • #5878
      jeff
      Participant

      There’s an important distinction to make between notice rights and redundancy rights.

      My instinct is that any payment during your notice period or in lieu of notice would depend on whether the furlough was still in place. But the furlough is a temporary emergency arrangement made with the consent of both parties at the conclusion of which your normal terms resume even if that coincides with their termination. So any redundancy payment (as distinct from notice payment) should be based on the original terms.

      However these are uncharted waters so I can’t be certain.

    • #5871
      jeff
      Participant

      There is no obligation for the employer to pay the 20%

      Costs are just accrued leave and length of service (which could potentially affect a later redundancy payment), I think.

      I suspect the op’s employer has just realised how tight their cash flow is and that they need to cut the wage bill, and is reacting to that now rather than thinking of the employee’s situation in particular. And maybe they really do need to, I don’t know.

    • #5808
      jeff
      Participant

      My take on the exosome story is that someone half read and failed to understand the mechanism of HIV budding, which indeed coopts the cellular machinery used normally to produce exosomes.

Viewing 4 reply threads