UKC

I work in a sector which is actively drumming up business during the lockdown, even though doing business involves high risk, close contact activity. They're "flexing the rules" as Matt Hancock would say, interpreting guidelines in a way which is contrary to the spirit of the rules and basically encourages customers to break the law. I find it ethically unacceptable.

Does anyone have similar stories in other sectors where, for commercial reasons, the lockdown is being undermined? Where businesses will fold because there is no support from government, this is understandable, but it doesn't explain the issue away. It's still wrong to encourage unnecessary contacts when the government order is to stay at home - the answer is to fight for support, not to undermine the lockdown. This is, admittedly, easy for me to say as my livelihood is not on the line (unless of course I get sacked for speaking up, not impossible).

The more we, as a society, "flex the rules", the worse things will get and the longer we'll be in this terrible mess. No matter who's inviting you out for a commercial transaction in their favour, please stay at home!

In reply to Jon Stewart:

British Gas are running radio ad campaigns telling people that now is a great time to replace their (fully functional) boiler with a newer/better/more efficient one. Strikes me that now isn't really a great time to promote something that requires a couple of people to come round to your house for a few hours but what do I know?

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Case 1 - Critical Worker status and Higher Education

The situation across higher education is quite mixed.  There was a rapid but partial backpedal on granting blanket, sector wide "critical worker" status.  It sounds like some institutions are restricting who they give it to, others are using it as a reason to pressurise people in to putting children in to school and/or to attend face to face teaching.

Hypothetically speaking I could see myself offering advice to someone who ends up on the wrong side of this.  In such a hypothetical case I'd need to be mindful anything I say here doesn't compromise their chances of the best possible resolution.

Hypothetically speaking I'm quite disgusted and angry at the moment.  

https://www.ucu.org.uk/media/11295/Critical-worker-status-in-HE-in-England-...

Case 2 - The University of Oxford and Covid propaganda

The University of Oxford continues to be the source of two of the most consistently wrong, politically motivated ​​​​​​​scientists putting out propaganda with their Oxford positions invariably attached.  

Case 3 - Vision Express

Today is my once a week trip in to the laboratories for maintenance.  I heard a Vision Express advert on the radio with some bullshit in it about how now was a good time to get my eyes tested and my safety was paramount and assured because they use PPE.  

In reply to climbingpixie:

Surely it isn't beyond the cognitive abilities of most people to work out how to allow  safe access to work on their home?

In reply to timjones:

Surely it isn't beyond the cognitive abilities of most people to understand that if people don't travel, and people don't meet, the virus doesn't spread.

Edit:  PPE doesn't stop transmission, it reduces the risk.  With hospital occupancy increasing and about 1/3rd of all acute beds in the whole of England, it strikes me that trying to sell people unnecessary boilers is a pretty inexcusable level of corporate avarice.  

 I wonder if British Gas have updated the severity of consequences on their risk assessments for the engineers doing the work, to take in to account that they will have reduced access to ambulances and healthcare if they have an accident on site or on the journey, and that once they do go to hospital they'll be at much heightened risk of catching covid?

In reply to wintertree:

Surely you must realise that it is possile to put in place safe working practices. It's easy to claim that everyone whould hide away but life has to go on.

We had to have our boiler repaired last week, it was very simple to let the repairman in, retreat to another room and ventilate the room that he had been woorking in after he finished.

In reply to timjones:

Sure, but as am employer I would not trust the safety of my employees to the ability of home owners - not bound by any H&S law - to safeguard my employees against Covid.

There is a massive difference between repairing a boiler and replacing a boiler - let alone one that doesn't need replacing. I assume you actually read climbingpixie's post.

Do you really think people will properly ventilate their houses for the 4+ hours required to do a boiler replacement in the middle of one of the coldest winter spells in several years?

In reply to wintertree:

I'm sure they are just trying to make sure no one drives to test their eyesight after having covid

In reply to timjones:

You're not addressing the point. The law is not "put in place working practices to mitigate the risks of transmission". This is what we do when we're not in lockdown. In lockdown, we are required to stay at home unless necessary and minimise the number of contacts.

Repairing a boiler is necessary, upgrading a boiler is not, it is undermining the lockdown.

Do you not understand what is required by the lockdown?

In reply to MG:

That's roughly as strong as the arguments provided by the regulator and professional bodies to continue routine eye tests for asymptomatic patients.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

We all need to mitigate the risks, that does not ecessarily equate to sitting on our arses at home doing feck all.

Sensible proportionate rules are more likely to be respected than clumsy rules that impose unecessary restrictions.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

I saw a government web page shared on social media yesterday where you can report businesses acting unscrupulously during the pandemic. Everything from profiteering to opening against the rules etc. I can’t seem to find it now but I’m sure if you really wanted to you could do so with a few spare minutes!

In reply to wintertree:

It's farily obvious that you are exceedingly risk averse, does eberybody have to follow your line?

Yes and if a boiler can be replaced safely I can see no reason that it shouldn't be done in order to appease those who lack the ability to trust other people.

If they are dumb enough to believe that they hhave to ventilate the entire house for the entire duration of the work then they may well do so. However, is it really necessary to ventilate any more than the hallway and room that is being worked in?

In reply to timjones:

Wot, like rules the allow necessary work.  For example, it could be considered that...

• Repairing a boiler is necessary
• Up-selling someone to upgrade a perfectly functioning boiler (during a nationwide lockdown where everyone is being asked to avoid unnecessary contact because a virus is ripping through the population, has literally filled the nations hospitals with patients and is making it impossible to acurartlty identify and eliminate variations that could evade the vaccines now being ramped up, meaning 2021 would be like a worse version of 2020) is unnecessary.

> We all need to mitigate the risks, that does not ecessarily equate to sitting on our arses at home doing feck all.

Nobody has said we should sit on our arses at home doing feck all.  You're making up an opposing view point that doesn't exist, and arguing against it.

Earlier you said "life goes on" - not for perhaps another 15,000 people it doesn't, people who would otherwise live for years more but are going to catch the virus and die in the next 2 months.  The bigger problem is the 150,000 people who might catch it and need hospital care to stop them from becoming dead or to limit the damage to their bodies for the rest of their lives.

I know you commonly like to argue against the orthodoxy on Covid and have resorted to rather petty personal insults in the past, but I think the difference between repairing a boiler (essential) and performing a replacement of a perfectly good boiler (not essential) is pretty clear.

I don't know.  They were dumb enough to believe now is a good time to replace their boiler, and the epidemiology of the new variant is not settled.

I don't think that I am that risk averse.  I think that I have a very good understanding of the risk that you are clearly lacking, and that I am making the best possible choices with the information that I have.

You are arguing for less restrictions at a time when 30,000 people are in acute hospital best in England, hospitalisations are rising, healthcare for everything but Covid is being cancelled by trust after trust - live saving healthcare - deaths are headed for 1,000 a day.  I don't want to live in the kind of world where we put our healthcare staff through this hell, or where we other people can't access their cancer therapy or wait 4 hours for an ambulance after a heart attack.

In reply to timjones:

Are you talking about what you think the policy should be? I'm talking about what the policy is. Regardless of whether you think we have the right policy, the posts above show clear examples of businesses undermining the policy.

The evidence shows that when restrictions are weaker, cases go up. And then when there's a lockdown, they go down. We are now at maximum case numbers in many regions, we cannot let them rise.

Are you saying that we would see cases fall if restrictions were relaxed, and they would rise if they were tightened? You are simply wrong - just look at the evidence.

https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHBF_en-GBGB899GB899&sxsrf=ALeKk02...

In reply to mrphilipoldham:

https://www.coronavirus-business-complaint.service.gov.uk/

In reply to wintertree:

Oh come on, where is your evidence that boiler installation ahs caused a single case of Covid?

OK then, if bobody is saying that you must surely accept that there will be things that can be done safely and things that can't?

We all die, sadly we cannot cure all ills.

Is there an "orthodoxy on Covid"?

The science is evolving, as the consensus on the risk of spread via surfaces changes we can surely look more rationally at the risk of allowing someone to work alone in a well ventilated room in our home?

As for personal insults I would suggest that you look at your own attitude to people that don't follow your own interpretation of the numbers!

In reply to timjones:

No. We're in a lockdown. We haven't been given the freedom to make our own judgments according to our perception of risk. 

The reason is because we have been ordered by the government to obey the lockdown rules (in letter and spirit) and reduce contacts. The rules are not: "carry on according to your own assessment of what is safe", even if you think it should be. The rule is "stay at home unless necessary". Has that passed you by?

In reply to timjones:

You're arguing about what you think policy should be. That's not what this thread is about. Start your own "anti-lockdown" thread if you want to discuss that. 

We are in a lockdown whether you like it or not. I'm asking for examples of businesses undermining the lockdown for commercial reasons.

In reply to timjones:

Do you really want to argue yourself down this preposterous route?  How many people have done an epidemiological study of boiler replacement at the most critical time in a pandemic?

Not really - "safe" is always a relative concept, and things are more or less safe.  We know the new variant evades Tier 4 level risk control measures.  Replacing a boiler is pretty risky by Tier 4 standards.  Follow the precautionary principle.  

Did you just ignore the part where I mentioned the total overload of hospitals, the mass cancellation of lots of other healthcare?  

"We all die" is one of the most unbelievably stupid arguments to bring to the table on controlling risk in a pandemic.   It's a textbook example of a facile argument.

Beyond a doubt there are clear examples of what works.

Nobody said otherwise.  But allowing two people to work for 4 hours to carry out unnecessary work is very efferent to allowing one person to change a gubbin inside a broken boiler. 

I save the insults for the clear agitators posting from pop-up accounts and deliberately posting misleading content - self confessed troll in one case.  These people are beneath my contempt and I have no problem sharing my view openly and plainly.  

In reply to wintertree:

OK what science can you quote that suggests that you cannot do such work safely?

Does the virus evade the control measures or do people evade the measures?

Does imposing greater controls on the sensible do anything to discourage those who quite frankly don't care?

NO that is the obvious end result and is why we need sensible proportionate controls. It does ot justify excessive controls. Why do you struggle to accept any deabte about what is proportionate and effective?

What is stupid about the inevitable?

Isn't it possible that some of those examples quite simply involve restrictions that are not necessary?

Why do you think it needs 2 people, our boiler engineer is a one man band for both installation and repair. Working alone is just one of the potential mitigation measures.  

Personally I have not had a haircut since February, I shop late in the evening when the supermarket is virtually empty, I have managed a number of essential businees and personal transactions whilst wearing a mask, maintaining distance in well ventilated areas and handwashing BUT apparently I'm not to be trusted to excercise anywhere other than my own doorstep or to safely manage tradesmen in my own home.  My greatest sin is thinking that overly onerous rules are a bit shit and would suggest that you focus your ire on people who blatantly flout the rules rather than someone who merely wishes that the rules were a bit less restrictive where they could safely be relaxed.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Maybe you should accept that conversations evolve?

In reply to Jon Stewart:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jan/16/bosses-accused-putting-wor...

In reply to Jon Stewart: 

 

Have you read the rules regarding tradespeople working in homes?

In reply to timjones:

Maybe you should take your anti-lockdown arguments somewhere else, because we've all heard them and "everyone dies anyway" is completely moronic and has no value.

In reply to timjones:

Yes, it's just the same as in my sector: British Gas aren't doing anything illegal, they're flexing the rules and undermining the lockdown.

In reply to timjones:

A whole bunch of epidemiological inferences that the old variant was spreading in settings where people are working in close proximity and wearing masks, such as meat packing plants.  Further strong evidence that the new variant is > 60% more transmissive, including a report from NERVTAG, a pre-print from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and my own research presented on here and elsewhere. 

The new variant increased transmissions significantly.  So unless you're proposing that it mind controls people to be less cautious, clearly the virus evades control measures.

I don't struggle to accept it, but I don't think you're having that debate.  See my above points.

Nothing.  Continuing to ignore the healthcare situation I keep mentioning and pretending that all that matters is that "we all die" is stupid and facile.  It recognises none of the complexities of our current situation.

That depends on the boiler and on if the one tradesman is a certified gas worker, plumber and electrician...  I've yet to have a boiler done where a different person didn't need to do some electrics.  Our current boiler couldn't be carried by one person, and the plumbing took two.  

You are making things up.  Nobody on this thread has suggested you shouldn't have had your boiler repaired.  You are arguing against things that have not been said.  

Do you know what I think is a bit shit?  That you haven't once acknowledged the severity of the worsening healthcare situation that I point out.   I think that's really shit.  In good conscious I couldn't go around without any actual evidence behind me - and in the face of whole classes of evidence - arguing for fewer restrictions on unnecessary business involving the meeting of people the next few weeks.

I have a lot more sympathy on the exercise front, but that was not and is not the discussion here

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Oh I don't know, it helps me understand about the mindset of the person I'm arguing with.  On that note - I shall not reply to their next post and I'm sorry for hijacking your thread Jon.  It's an important point you have raised and one that's all the more galling for the small businesses doing their best to limit the virus in this critical period.

In reply to wintertree:

So how does that apply to a tradesperson working alone in a room in a house with the wiindoows open?

It doesn't have to  mind control anybody, it merely has to spread more readily amongst those who are flouting or complacent about the rules that the rest of us are obeying.

You are quite simply wrong.

Of course it depends on the circumstances but where circumstances allow why shouldn't work go ahead?

If you need a plumber and an electrician it's not hard to arrange for them to visit at different times.

What exactlly do you think climbing pixie was suggesting in the post that I replied to?
 

I think it's a bit shit that you missed the bit where I pointed out that I had not missed the obvious end result of rising infections!

Maybe you should read more carefully before going off on a tirade?

> In good conscious I couldn't go around without any actual evidence behind me - and in the face of whole classes of evidence - arguing for fewer restrictions on unnecessary business involving the meeting of people the next few weeks.

I'm not arguning for fewer restrictions, I'm replying to the suggestion that we need greater restrictions.

Suey the sum total of all the restrictions are very much part of any discussion, we need sensible and proportionate rules in all areas.

 

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Your employer  is flexing or maybe even breaking the rules, British Gas are working within the rules.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

I'm not anti-lockdown, I do believe that lockdown rules should only be applied where they will deliver real benefits.  You won't find me heading out for an eyetest but I can see no reason why it is impossible to work safely in someones home.

In reply to timjones:

Says the person with no evidence, who is ignoring evidence I pointed to, and who is making confident assertions about the risk of transmission of a variant that has evaded Tier 4 level measures and on which a lot is still unknown.

People making un-evidenced proclamations about the risk of this virus and ignoring negative consequences other than death, in pursuit of fewer restrictions have so far contributed to three crises points, each prolonging the total duration of control measures to the determinant of all.  The second crisis led to the emergence and spread of a new variant - something I first cautioned about back in March as a likely result of trying to balance factors where no balance is to be found.   That new variant is why we have a lockdown now.  This is astoundingly clear from the evidence and the data.  

But you have.  You have made the utterly facile and stupid pretence it's only about death which is inevitable.  I recognised and responded to “the bit” you refer to.  Now you pretend I didn’t.  Childish.  There are obvious other end results that you continue to ignore.

It's about far more than that - it's about the people working in healthcare, and the quality of life for every person with cancer, who has a heart attack or stroke, who has one of a hundred others problems that will need medical care soon.  It's about the quality of life for all those who don't die from Covid - especially those who are not currently getting a normal level of care.  Many of them will have to live with the negative consequences of overwhelmed healthcare for the rest of their lives.  

In reply to wintertree:

Interesting that this thread should focus on boiler's, ours failed the week before Christmas, a guy came round and found it was the plc that had fried (rather obvious by the burn marks on the housing). 

Now the conundrum, its a 12 year old combo boiler, do I spend £400 plus vat on fixing it or £1600 plus vat on a new boiler. 

Normally at that age I would replace the boiler but as that involved 2 people in the house for an extended period of time opposed to 30 minutes to plug in and test the new plc I went for that option. 

In reply to Jon Stewart:

A timely thread. Personally I feel the H&S Executive is no longer fit for purpose. There is an Observer investigation into this published today:

"no enforcement notices have been served on companies by Health and Safety Executive (HSE) inspectors for Covid safety breaches since the country went into the latest lockdown, despite being contacted 2,945 times about workplace safety issues between 6 and 14 January. Overall, just 0.1% of the nearly 97,000 Covid safety cases dealt with by the agency during the pandemic appear to have resulted in an improvement or prohibition safety notice, with not a single company prosecuted for Covid-related breaches of safety laws."

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jan/16/bosses-accused-putting-wor...

It's bonkers that my trade union is being forced into threatening strike ballots for University staff being forced to return to face-to -face teaching in some institutions from mid Feb

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2021/jan/17/lecturers-warn-they-will-...

In reply to timjones:

Back on track now, much appreciated. Yes, I agree that the opticians' behaviour is egregious rule-bending (the professional body's behaviour has been shockingly disingenuous too, changing guidelines retrospectively to manufacture loopholes to exploit), but it's not so bad in the case of trades.

My view is that by actively drumming up business, British Gas are breaking the spirit of the rules, but not the letter. They have all these requirements to risk assess, avoid anyone over 70, blah blah, and I'd be surprised if it's really practicable to comply. The dodgy aspect is the advertising - do you trust that they're really going through all of those onerous processes and turning half or more of their clients down? Do you think the people on the booking line are incentivised by public health or sales targets? Do you think that's OK?

I think the decent thing for them to do would be to continue business, risk assess everyone who wants work done, turning them down as necessary. And not to actively drum up business because that's breaking the spirit, but not the letter, of the rules.

In reply to timjones:

An ex-colleague of mine attended an meeting on the Monday after Schools closed (not sure why it couldn't have been online, but thankfully it wasn't while the kids were still in school) 7 of the 11 others who attended that meeting tested positive (new variant, one is now in hospital, but looks like they are going to be OK)  along with 2 people they met for coffee afterwards and at least 4 in the cafe along with the rest of their family. As it was the end of term and we went into Tier 4 soon after they didn't meet anyone else inside. I think it would have been impossible for them to work in anyone's house safely when they were infectious.

There is advice from the College of Optometrist on what to do in this exact situation. 
 

https://www.college-optometrists.org/the-college/media-hub/news-listing/ans...

In reply to Eeep:

Yes, as you can imagine I am in dialogue with the College. They are basically doing everything they can to deflect responsibility, when ultimately, they published the guidance which says that routine tests can still go ahead. Their policy is driving the behaviour of the sector, and a change to their guidance could stop it in an instant. 

Employers are responsible when they breach the guidance; but the guidance is still wrong even if it's applied correctly, because it undermines the lockdown. It says "balls to lockdown, if you've got space, sell as many pairs of specs as you can".

I have taken up the concerns about my employer's behaviour with my employer; but it is the College guidance which has given the green light to the sector to behave unethically. I don't want to get too nitty gritty, but it's very difficult to implement the College guidance effectively, even if you wanted to. Then when we, the profession, say "change your guidance, look what's happening" they say "not us gov, go moan to your employer".

The people I pay my membership fee to have put me in a situation I find ethically unacceptable, and I am not particularly pleased about it.

In reply to timjones:

It's beyond my cognitive abilities to work out how an infected person with a highly transmissible disease could spend a couple of working days in my flat without potentially infecting me.

So why not explain how it could be done?

In reply to wintertree:

Read what I wrote in context and then climb down off that high horse.

You tried to tell me what I am thinking and in that respect and in that respect you are wrong.

Oh grow up, earlier on you accused me of being rude and now you are calling me moronic and childish due to your inability to consider the context of my replies.

That is why I believe that protecting the NHS makes sense, but in view of my own thoughts on life  and death an obsessive with saving lives makes less sense to me.  You're welcome to hold a different view but spare me the insults.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

If your flat is too small to make it work you would be quite right to deny them access.

Does that mean that those with larger homes must do the same?

In reply to Jon Stewart:

The spirit of rules will always be open to debate.  I just get a bit fed up when people resort to bandying insults in an attempt to stifle that debate.

In reply to timjones:

Well, I have given you every opportunity to recognise the wider healthcare context of the situation than just "everyone dies" and until now you have continued to ignore it totally.  If that isn't childish, what is it?  I have not called you moronic nor used that worth at all on this thread, but as it happens I agree with another poster that simply reducing this to "everyone dies" is moronic.

I was saying that to continue to ignore any aspect of healthcare other than direct, immediate death is a stupid and facile argument. 

This reply of yours is the first one to acknowledge anything about healthcare at all.

The obsession with saving lives is in your head alone.  It always has been.

I don't think you've ever really listened to the point I and others are making - and believe me I have listened to yours, and I think it's short sighted and is the kind of thinking that has made the consequences - with which you are so unhappy - that much worse.

It's about far more than saving lives by controlling cases.  It's about preserving access to healthcare for everyone else who needs it apart from Covid, to preserve their quality of life and only in a minority of cases to preserve their life.  Likewise, with Covid, for the majority of people it's about preserving the quality of their life, not an obsession with saving lives.

Your argument continues to be facile - it is shallow and ignores the complex realities which can not simply be boiled down to an "obsession with saving lives", and are not even primarily about saving lives.

Edit: I shouldn't' have called you childish, just your argument.  Sorry that wasn't clear.  I'm obviously resorting to barbs a bit more easily after your rather negative ad-hom reply to me on the "28 days" issue last week...

No.  You claim to be having a debate about what is safe in terms of the current crisis, a new much more transmissible variant that escapes some previously good-enough control measures, and a crisis situation with hospitals.  You're then making up your stance on what is, or is not, a safe working practice to suit your view.  This isn't debate.  You were asking if it's control measures or people's behaviour that fail allowing transmission - for example - and I pointed out that the new variant clearly shows it's not just people's behaviour.  You just ignore this and go back to the beginning.  You say the conversation has moved on - it has; the risks are worse than ever before with the new variant, other worse variants apparently emerging, and a healthcare system close to the brink of functional collapse.  Great time to be making up what you think will be safe and advocating for it.  

In reply to timjones:

Maybe, I think it's bleedin' obvious that everyone should stay at home and minimise contacts unless what they're doing is necessary. As for what's necessary, is there really much to debate about whether getting a nice new pair of gigs or replacing a boiler that's working fine is "necessary"? I think anyone claiming it's necessary is clearly bending the rules.

There will be some borderline cases about what's necessary, which we could debate. These are not borderline cases.

In reply to timjones:

It's not a case of me 'denying them access'.   It is an optional purchase which I wouldn't make.   But there are plenty of others that would especially if there are incentives.   If people take up this offer they are undermining the lockdown by providing opportunity for virus transmission and that affects everyone.

I think you are underestimating how easily transmitted this is.

There's a difference between essential work to fix boilers so people can have heating and telling people it is a good time to buy a new boiler so you can keep your staff busy.  

In reply to timjones:

Do you think people should be replacing (perfectly working) boilers in the middle of the pandemic?

In reply to Jon Stewart:

I got a letter from the local branch of your employer inviting me to book in. I thought no thanks, it’s not that urgent, I’ll wait another 6 months or so! Putting off the dental check up as well.

Been WFH throughout here and not intending to get back to the office until everyone who wants the vaccine has had it. Most of the office population is in their 20s and 30s so will be last in the line. I imagine if the government starts to encourage people back to their offices after Easter, my lot will encourage people to do that as well in an SD, one day a week way. They’ve been fairly cautious so far on the whole. They did try to get the one day a week thing going back in September (which I thought was silly as it’s pointless and cases were already on the rise again). That lasted about a week before BoJo said people should WFH again. It’s just such an obvious and easy way to reduce social contact...

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Part of my job involves being on construction sites of all sizes. Last week I was on a fairly large site run by a well known Scottish contractor. Covid measures were in place, including signage, routing, gel dispensers, extra offices/changing rooms/toilets and emphasis on behaviour and protocols during the induction. It was also part of site rules that the foreman of each section was responsible for taking everyone's temperature every morning. 

However, horses and water.

I witnessed 4 to 6 blokes changing clothes or preparing kit in small poorly ventilated inside spaces, all talking and none wearing masks, most days. The foreman didn't get around to  taking my temperature until Wednesday, which was going to involve me entering a cabin in which two guys were already inside, one talking about his tickly throat, 'but it'll just be a cold.' No masks, so I refused and said we could do it later. I'm lucky being 'officer class' which makes this sort of thing a lot easier but I imagine many younger and less senior visitors would just keep quiet whether or not they were comfortable with it.

I live in Edinburgh. There were people from Glasgow, Stirling, Perth, Fife and all over the central belt there, commuting from home every day. I don't need to draw you a picture.

Most construction sites are very professionally run places, relatively few these days are akin to kicking out time in Benidorm. This one was of the more civilised ilk, so I hate to think what the more old-school ones are like.

Preventing people like me driving to the highlands to go into the mountains is like pouring water into a leaky bucket compared to this. I don't have any answers, but there seems little point in closing cafes etc when this goes on.

In reply to Andy Hardy:

If it can be done safely I can see no reason why they shouldn't. If I thought it was impossible to owrk safely on a boiler I would have put another jumper on rather than having ours fixed when it broke down last week.

We are all racking up on hell of a bill comabtting Covid and everything that can be kept moving will help to pay for it.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

As I explained elsewhere if I thought work on boilers was a major risk I would have thrown on an extra jumper rather than having ours fixed last week and everybody else ought to adopt the same approach.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Do you think that we will all think the borders lie in the same place?

In reply to wintertree:

Bollocks go back and read the thread again!

In reply to timjones:

Before your 15:54 post (to which I was replying in the message you quote above) you never mentioned healthcare.  You persisted in presenting it as life/death with no shades of grey (quality of life, access to healthcare) and an "obsessive with saving lives" [sic].

.... and drive more spread of the virus where things didn't need to be moving for the next 3 weeks.  

Edit: You can keep insisting its about saving lives sats all cost (it isn't) and conflating essential repair with unnecessary replacement, and making judgments that fly in the face of evidence and the precautionary principle about what is safe working right now.  I'm bored of going round in circles and am making this thread worse, not better.  There's some really good replies form others that are on topic. So feel free to reply - you can have the last word.  Perhaps move your conversation on a little with it by acknowledging some of the stuff that's been raised...

Edit: In reply to your 16:20 post - by that point it wasn't at all clear what you were actually saying.  If that's what it means, fair enough...  You did ignore me raising the issue 3 or 4 times first...

In reply to timjones:

Boiler repair is essential if it has broken down. Anything which can wait is not essential. You mitigated the risk but it was not zero. That’s fine for an essential repair but why have any risk if it’s not essential?

In reply to wintertree:

At 12:50 I answered your question "

"Did you just ignore the part where I mentioned the total overload of hospitals, the mass cancellation of lots of other healthcare? "
 
By saying:

"NO that is the obvious end result and is why we need sensible proportionate controls."

If that does not acknowledge the need to protect the NHS I honestly don't know what will satisfy you!

In reply to Misha:

In  order to diagnose and repair the problem he had to enter our living quarters, if he was just replacing the boiler the entire job could be done by entering the cellar through an external door.

If that isn't as close on zero  risk as you can ever hope to get I don't know what will ever be safe.
 

Everybodies circumstances will be different, but when it's pet grooming is apparently essential on welfare gorunds it seems absurd that you cannot have a tradesman working in your cellar.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

I think B and M bargains is seriously taking the piss, 10% food, 10% Diy and 80% shite that nobody needs, not been in lately but last time I went in they had a 4foot tall Jedi with a Light sabre, why would anyone want a 4foot tall Jedi with a Light sabre, and not only that but the owners have trousered a load of dosh in business rates relief, about 30 million I think, but cannot be bothered to google it.

In reply to timjones:

Not. But we agree that we're debating what's necessary, right? 

My view in optics is that a routine test on an asymptomatic patient is unnecessary. It's also high risk, which is why I've been vaccinated (the sector/regulator are saying "shut up, you've got PPE"), and why it matters. I think that anyone who says they think it's necessary (the optical sector, backed up by the College et al) is lying: they know it's unnecessary, it's totally obvious.

Here we have a case of a reasonable case against an unreasonable one. Easy.

Replacing a boiler. Sure, you could make an argument that it's necessary if you want, but I don't agree. More debatable for sure, given it doesn't matter as much since it's lower risk. 

This is a good point. The problem is, look what happens when we try to keep things going: the NHS falls over. We are stood right on the brink. A policy response is needed - your approach of "try to keep everything going so long as it's not obviously high risk" would prove catastrophic. We're in a lockdown now because we tried that approach and it failed.

The government is saying:

"It's a lockdown, everyone stay at home". Then it's muttering under its breath "but Dishy Rishi spaffed all the cash last year so there's no funding to allow you to stay at home. Go to work, don't go to work. Stay at home unless it's necessary, but by all means stretch the definition of "necessary" beyond breaking point, because we can't afford for you to actually do what we say". 

They have made a monumental pig's arsehole of it, again.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

I'd suggest that we are in lockdown again because we stretched essential beyond the essentials of heat, food and water to include obviously non-essentials such as haircuts, beauty treatments gyms and indoor climbing walls etc.

Having done all of that it seems absurd that we are now disagreeing about a lone tradesman working alone in your homes.

Did the government make it any more of a pigs arsehole than it was inevitably going to be?

It seems harsh to blame anyone for trying to find compromises when so many were screaming for the re-opening nail bars and gyms.

I passed on the opportunity to get a haircut when the option was available, it would have been the riskiest thing that I had done in the last 10 months. I may be starting to regret that caution very soon

In reply to timjones:

Anecdotal but read somewhere (or possibly heard from my brother who has close links with the main hospital in Birmingham) about a vulnerable person who had been shielding, then had to get a plumber in, caught it off the plumber and ended up dying.

Your home is your citadel, now more than ever. The last thing I want is random (or any) people coming in unless it’s essential. Proper ventilation would take many hours unless you can get a breeze going. Some places can’t be ventilated particularly well at the best of times, especially flats. 

In reply to Misha:

Sorry that does make me smile. Our draughty old farmhouse has a constant fast flow ventilation system through the rattly windows and doors, we barely ned to open them to achieve the desired effect

In reply to timjones:

Tim,

I'm bound to say that my experience of wintertree is that often you are better off trying to have a conversation with your favourite tree.  Some days he is better.  This is not one of those days I fear.

My favourite wintertree special from this thread was this:

"I know you commonly like to argue against the orthodoxy on Covid and have resorted to rather petty personal insults in the past....."

Oh well.  

In reply to timjones:

Who knows. We don't have acccurate data on where transmission is occurring, my suspicion is it's probably got less to do with what's open and more to do with who's going round to each other's houses, but there you go.

That's mischaracterising the debate. What I objected to was actively drumming up business where there's social contacts.

Yes. Yes, yes, yes. A million times yes. From a decent position in the summer, they failed to put in place mitigation of the second wave. Every time a decision was needed, Johnson stalled (because half of his party are brain-dead libertarian nutjobs hellbent on the destruction of our whole society) until there was no decision left to make.

No it doesn't. You're bringing in a totally irrelevant point about other people apparently screaming something about nail bars. It might be harsh to blame a lone tradesman who'll go bust if they're not working, but it is not harsh to say that British Gas should not be advertising to all and sundry "now is a great time to replace your boiler" - it isn't. It's a shit time. Your perfectly well functioning boiler can wait.

In reply to gallam1:

Thankfully for me I don't really give a hoot about the opinion of someone who keeps writing of the UK's massive repurposing trials on drugs for Covid as "pathetic" and who recently called a serving paramedic a coward rather than respond to their informed points.

I'm sure timjones will appreciate your support however.

In reply to J1234:

Agreed. Boyes too.

In reply to timjones:

I suspect very few people have boilers in their cellars. Very few people have cellars, for a start. And very very few people live in draughty farmhouses. You are the exception that proves the rule. Besides, no one has argued that your boiler didn’t need repairing. You are the one arguing that non-essential replacement is ok. Which it may be in your particular case but that’s your particular case. 

In reply to Misha:

I also suspect very few boiler engineers could replace a boiler whist only going in to the cellar, given that they may need to turn the water supply on/off and will need to bleed the radiators down in every room in the house.  I’m sure this poster can do that, but how many people can?  How many installers would sign off a warranty on a boiler and installation where they didn’t do this?

In reply to timjones:

So because your boiler is in the cellar (extremely unusual) it's fine for British Gas to drum up unnecessary business during a pandemic.  

A new boiler will require the installer to enter your house in any case.  

For the vast majority of people who live in an ordinary house where the boiler is in the hall or the kitchen, having a new boiler, even with precautions will be probably 10 times riskier than a repair.  

In reply to Jon Stewart:

I think your employer is being unethical and I'm sorry you are in this position.  

I went to the opticians in the summer, when cases were low, and only because I had extremely bad headaches. I wouldn't have otherwise, and with cases as they are I'd be reluctant now.  

I have had to go to the dentist, but again I was phone triaged and it was necessary.  They managed to reduce the appointment by a single visit when normally it would have been 2 by using the phone call and pictures to prescribe.   They are only seeing essential cases.  

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Back on topic, coffee shops being allowed to stay open is an interesting one. People are in and out in a matter of minutes and wear masks but there can be a bit of queuing sometimes (generally not from what I’ve seen). I’m guilty as charged of getting a coffee sometimes as part of my lunchtime walk on week days (never used to do that before Covid). So I’m kind of in two minds about it. 

In reply to timjones:

In case you hadn't noticed, we have clamped down on all those services you mention: haircuts, beauty treatments, climbing walls, pubs, restaurants, non-essential shops, are closed. Schools are running at reduced capacity.

We're in this mess because, having unlocked, we did not respond to the rising cases that caused  and instead allowed the cases to grow. We are in such a terrible state that we have to take all measures possible to reduce transmission. That includes stopping non-essential work. Replacing a working boiler is non-essential.

I'm not keen on replacing things that are working adequately; it seems poor from an environmental point of view.

In reply to timjones:

But it is clear that having more people mixing in more homes is not without risk. If your boiler is working why take that risk, however small you think it is?

And the more mixing we do, the longer it will go on for and the bigger the bill will be.

In reply to Misha:

Its tricky, because (I'd argue) that coffee outlets and food for transport drivers was pretty essential whereas a town centre Starbucks probably isn't.  But how do you legislate between the two cases ?

In reply to Jon Stewart:

The big optician chains appear to be using the pandemic to further eat in to hearing aid business as well. A service that is well provided for free on the NHS, but with the obvious risk around similar close quarters work and also the need to redeploy staff to rolls supporting testing, vaccination and other Covid specific needs, only (locally at least) an emergency service and postal repairs or replacement battery service is being provided.

In reply to GrahamD:

You could legislate easily enough I suspect - leave the ones qualifying as service areas (by definition next to a motorway or A road) open. There may be some grey areas eg A roads next to / through cities but it would rule out urban locations. 

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Next week I'm going to have to go into London and work on construction sites. I've explained that I am not happy about this and my employer has been very understanding - we've insisted to the client that no one else is allowed in the room where I'm working. But I know in standard construction site fashion there are going to be loads of people there whose only concern is getting their job done, and so it's going to be a very stressful time avoiding them.

It's all so unnecessary. We're not providing a vital service. All the sites I'm working on should be closed during lockdown, but because they are allowed to stay open then a load of people are going to be working there. In close proximity. With face masks under their chin.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

I can't reply to this publicly because even the most limited details give away too much identifiable info but, yes, I'm currently working in the situation you describe.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

I think plenty of retail is doing this.  For example Ikea is offering click and collect, but I fail to see why anything they sell is in any way essential, and therefore while they are legally open I don't see how a journey there to collect anything could even vaguely pass the "essential test".

In reply to Neil Williams:

There's an analogy to the gas boiler there maybe.  If you've got one and it's working fine then sure, replacing it is not 'essential'.  If it's conked out that's a different story.

Ikea sell lots of stuff that's essential if you need it, and yes, ok, it isn't if you don't.

In reply to Neil Williams:

To be fair, click and collect is fairly  socially distanced. Of course the staff are still working but in a huge store like IKEA they can SD fairly easily. So not the worse example but I see your point. 

In reply to Hooo:

I’m in a similar situation, im a carpenter and the constructions sites I’m on are TV sets . Don’t really understand why TV drama production has been deemed essential but hey ho that’s how I make a living.

Its a bit of a kick in the balls working between locations in maybe 5 different council areas? Including argyle and Bute and Stirling. All indoors all in close proximity with other guys onsite .But it’s against the law to leave my area to go a hill walk or climbing on my days off . Shite!

In reply to marsbar:

Thanks, I'm glad that people outside the profession see it that way too.

During the summer when the NHS wasn't collapsing, I was perfectly relaxed about the job, happy to do all the work we'd put off during the first lockdown. In the second lockdown, restrictions were lighter all round and I didn't have much problem with it. This is total bollocks though, the country is in crisis and we should all be doing what we can to help. As a healthcare professional, I am ashamed to be part of the problem, rather than just providing an essential service which can preserve sight, keep people out of the hospitals, and allow people to carry on working/doing the stuff they need by sorting out their eye sight problems.

I just had a look for what the situation with routine dental check-ups was. Didn't find any clear guidance for dentists like that published by the College of Optometry.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

It should be very similar.  

People who want an eye test could phone and tell you why they need one.  If they've just broken their glasses you could make them and they collect at the door. If it's not urgent they should wait.  

(I was made to wait outside the dentist to collect my prescription, far more sensible than having me in reception)  

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Two of my teeth are disintegrating day by day, but (I'm 60), I'm waiting until a few weeks after dose 2 before I book an appointment.  Dose 1 could be March/April at the earliest.

Could really do with an eye test too.  It's a pointless risk for sake of a couple of months or so, I'm not going to die by waiting a while.

In reply to Aquinn:

With everyone stuck at home, TV drama is essential! We need good stuff on the TV, otherwise people will get bored and go and meet their friends. 

I'm joking, but I have heard this argument and they do have a point. The places I'm working in will not be useable until the pandemic is over, so there is absolutely no rush to get them finished.

In reply to wintertree:

Wow are you an expert on boilers and central heating too

In reply to Hooo:

Don't forget that football is also essential to alleviate boredom

In reply to Jon Stewart:

I think given the current state of the economy any business that’s carrying on and trading should be congratulated.

The businesses that are struggling to trade at the moment are the lifeblood of the economy - throttle them and you throttle our futures.

I appreciate that all the business bashing is coming from a good place, but if you want jobs in the future for yourself and your children you just have to accept it.

In reply to timjones:

I don’t think it takes an expert to understand that by hook or by crook, fitting a new boiler will introduce air in to the system that needs bleeding...

I don’t claim expertise in anything, but I do have 7 bits of paper proclaiming various qualifications in science, and science lets me know air will rise to the highest points in the system, and whilst I’m not a architect I’ll wager that’s in a different room to over 90% of domestic boilers.  

In reply to mattmurphy:

Your comment is worthless drivel. You have completely failed to understand the issue on any level. 

If you can't reach a more sophisticated understanding than "money is good, f*ck everything else" then you're not worth talking to.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

What don’t I understand?

Jobs, homes, security = good?

Poverty, homelessness, suicide = bad?

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Seconded.

There is a tipping point where the cost of the rise in cases, hospitalisations and deaths caused by a business outweighs its contribution to the treasury.  If that business contributed to the need to lock down to maintain a core part of our society (universal healthcare), that line gets a lot closer.

There’s lots of fair debate about where that line lines.  To pretend that line doesn’t exist is facile.

In reply to mattmurphy:

Nuance.

In reply to wintertree:

I’m not saying the line doesn’t exist, but cases are coming down at the moment.

The government sets rules about what businesses can and can’t do. The directors wouldn’t be doing their fiduciary duty if they didn’t try to trade under the current restrictions. 
Your arguments can’t ignore the fact we all need jobs in the future.

In reply to mattmurphy:

I’m a company director.  Multiple companies; past and present. I understand that.  I also understand the current rules, and as a director - with shareholders - I have no interest in playing fast and lose with the rules.  

They don’t.  They are based on the clearly and endlessly evidenced fact that controlling cases through, hard and early action is the best way to preserve jobs.

You can pretend otherwise all you want, but the history books and contemporary examples and counter examples are abundantly clear.

I feel like about 20 posters have pointed this out a dozen times each over the last year.  Cases are coming down from a level that would collapse healthcare across the whole country because of the restrictions.  

In reply to mattmurphy:

The issue of the thread. That there is a law in the country at the moment of a national lockdown, which is needed because the NHS is at breaking point. The NHS is needed to keep society running. You can't just bin the NHS and expect everything to be fine. If you run a company, someone has to provide healthcare for the workers, otherwise when they get sick, they don't get treated, and they can't work any more.

Do you see? It's more complicated than "business makes money so we can live". Business is dependent on state infrastructure such as the NHS, so if business shafts the NHS by undermining the lockdown so it is irreparably broken, we will all lose.

So to save the NHS, which is crucial to society (that is the economy and our private lives), we currently have a lockdown.

If you think that undermining the lockdown is going to lead to jobs, homes and security, but sticking to the rules to deal with covid will lead to poverty, homelessness and suicide, then you've completely failed to understand anything useful about the world. 

Your childish, binary thinking isn't a worthwhile contribution. 

In reply to mattmurphy:

It's not a simple binary choice of "should trade" or "shouldn't trade". In my sector, it's about businesses that should still be trading, but they're taking the piss with the guidance (and the regulators backing them up instead of protecting the public and workforce).

You don't "congratulate" anyone for dishonesty that puts people's lives at risk. That's a shit society you want to live in, a society full of shit people who exploit the misery and death of others. It makes me feel ill.

My argument in my sector is that we can and should continue operating, and that it's viable but there'll be a hit to profits. I think for small businesses, some targeted support may be needed because it's important they don't fold; but for the big companies they can easily absorb the hit from reduced productivity as a result of operating in lockdown for 3 months.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Perhaps they’re being a little myopic

In reply to mattmurphy:

From "oh my god, what?" levels, to merely horrendous.  Call me back when they're down to the levels we had in summer

(NB wintertree puts it more nicely than I do but it's much the same point)

In reply to Dave the Rave:

They should’ve gone to Barnard Castle!

In reply to wintertree:

My brother in-law has business contacts in China (well he did have, business now in administration, consequence of Arcadia group collapse, which was greatly "helped" by Covid).

These Chinese contacts cannot understand how we have totally f**ked up in the UK. Apparently, all we had to do was lockdown really hard for 2 months, get border controls and t&t sorted and then pretty much carry on as normal with overall much less economic disruption.

Shame nobody suggested that strategy for the UK way back last year.

Oh, hold on a minute...

In reply to Jon Stewart:

I agree with what you're saying and I'm sorry you're in the position you're in but aren't able to tell your employer to f**k off.

My own employer's Covid attitude hasn't been ideal but at least we can WFH (if we want to!) during lockdowns. Outside lockdown, even though WFH would be suitable for 90%+ of what we do, the situation has been what I'll charitably call less good and more "flexible" with respect to WFH.

You have at least managed to get first vaccination which doesn't affect your argument but  might help protect you personally.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

I would suggest that in our society they are interdependent, Ying and Yang, sadly the NHS/Public and Private sector seem to be in conflict with each other, and denying the others worth.

If you do not have a Doctor you will die, but if you cannot pay the Doctor, you will still die*.

* Doctors are not free, just free at the point of use.

In reply to GrahamD:

Have you never heard of sandwiches and a flask ??

I do not see any NECESSITY for anyone to NEED to drop into anywhere for a takeaway when we're supposed to be in a lockdown.

WANTS are a different thing - but should people be doing anything right now just because they WANT to ?

In reply to Bacon Butty:

Similar with me - I'm 65. I have a "problem" with one tooth (at least), but have kept away from the dentist from the very start of all this - actually had a check-up cancelled in the very first week of the very first first lockdown. If it means an extraction at the end that's surely better than risking hospital, long-Covid, or worse - death (whether that be for myself or anyone I could possibly infect).

In reply to timjones:

Did you see Liverpool versus Manchester United ?

In reply to Jon Stewart:

I've ignored two (so far) emails from Specsavers telling me to make an appointment for a contact lens check. I think that, apart from Mrs Wilko's, the nose and mouth I get closest to is that of the optician. Not a risk I need to take just now; after I've had two vaccinations I'll reconsider. 

In reply to Michael Hood:

Yes, just imagine if it had been clear way back when that we could have had more restrictions up front but a large net reduction in restrictions, less economic damage and much less health damage and death.

Last year this evidence came only from the history books.   

This year, we now have multiple successful examples of this sort of strategy working including in liberal democracies.  If we don't learn this lesson this summer and an immune evading variant come in and gets loose, the whole cycle will repeat once again.  Yet, here we are at the worst peak of the crisis to date and we have people from the grass roots up to the CRG rallying for more to be open now as healthcare teeters on the brink.  I don't know if this is some churlish inability to back down on what seemed to many like a reasonable line to take back in March but is now clearly flawed, or if it's just sheer stupidity - cutting toes off to spite a face springs to mind...  Then taking a chainsaw to whole limbs.  

In reply to fred99:

One of my teeth has been giving off warning signs for the last month.  Timing couldn't have been worse.  I'm hoping if it flares up I can get a phone appointment to proscribe antibiotics, and if that doesn't work I'm torn between home dentistry with a door handle and some string, and an in-person visit.  I can at least quarantine myself before going in, but I doubt the dentist can.  I assume I'm the higher risk as it's my gob that's generating all the spray as they drill away.  

In reply to wintertree:

Seriously?  I hope that's just a bit of creative licence there but just in case - your risk assessment is more than a little bit wonky if you think an in-person visit to the dentist is remotely as dodgy as an attempt at diy dentistry imo.

Meanwhile, have you been hitting the chlorhexidine mouthwash?  (Corsodyl or similar.)  It's rank, but it works.  That and tepe brushes or whatever works to get right in around the gum.  The long-handled right-angled ones are particularly good for rear teeth, not always easy to find in the shops but readily available in many different sizes online.  No substitute for antibiotics or the dentist obvs, but well worth the effort if you're not already on it and there's any chance that what you've got going on is some sort of bacterial gum disease.

E2A:
Hardly need to say it, but I have no medical knowledge whatsoever.  Merely suggesting what I have found works for me, with apologies if I'm stating the bleedin' obvious.

In reply to deepsoup:

Its a molar so the only real option is a trip to the dentist if needs be. Strike 2 for this tooth...  thanks for the detailed list of suggestions, a couple to add to my list.   

 

In reply to wintertree:

I seem to remember several on UKC (I'd presumed you were one) saying, look what's happening in Italy, we need to tightly control the borders, sort out testing and lockdown strongly to keep on top of it.

Obviously, with hindsight the correctness of doing this has become more apparent.

In reply to Michael Hood:

Yes, 2020 has really taken away any happiness in being proved right.

Others were pushing the case on borders back in Feb/March.  I was mainly just explaining why I thought it was going to get bad here when a lot of people didn’t think it would.  

It’s never too late to change, and with immune evading variants not far off, I think we’re going to struggle to avoid repeating the cycle again if we don’t have proper hard isolation (MIQ) on inbound travellers as well as a negative test, and if we don’t hammer prevalence down to the point where rapid, responsive testing and local contact tracing - assisted by immediate sequencing of all infections - can trace up and down to mop up outbreaks as soon as they occur, likely combined with immediate local control measures until its contained.

If we don’t do all this, the risk is that a new, immune evading variant emerges or is imported, and becomes widespread before we notice and past the point we could contain it.  Then it’s back to exponential growth, endless control measures and lockdowns, lots more economic harm and healthcare damage etc.

Unlike March 2020, there are several successful places to point to and say “We could be like them”.  

In reply to timjones:

The problem is that a significant percentage of the population believe Covid doesn't happen to them/their family, or that it's a hoax, or that the trademan's rules can be bent a little.  Unfortunately this is blatantly not the case, therefore uneccessary fitting of new boilers IS going to cause covid infections and subsequent deaths or illness.  It's not just in people's houses that boiler fitting is going to cause infections, it's in the garage/cornershop on the way to the job when they stop off to buy their lunch, it's in the wholesaler/store/workshop/office doing all the other things associated with the work too.

In reply to Ice_Emi:

Brand new account, a barely coherent post here - https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/off_belay/gene_editing_could_be_the_next_... - and then encouraging  companies to break laws that are here to protect the healthcare upon which everything depends.

Privet, tovarishch.

In reply to wintertree:

If it's any comfort, when I had a filling last summer, there were multiple extra control measures in place. My surgery - a private practice - used a gown, covering the arms, FFP3 mask and full visor. The room was left empty for minimum of an hour after fillings, so these happened at end of day or before lunch. They also somehow fixed a piece of rubber onto my mouth, known as a rubber dam (see below), to minimise aerosols released from drilling. The dental assistant standing by at all times with the suction tube.

My dentist (who co-owns and runs the practice) said that it had definitely needed drilling out and refilling and that I should not have waited any longer for it to deteriorate.

In reply to Queenie:

I had my NHS dentist checkup cancelled in September (no surprise there) but was told that they were still open for urgent treatments so to call if I had any issues. Optician is also open and whilst I wouldn't go for a routine checkup it is good to know that if I have issues I can get seen. 

I'd take the same attitude with tradespeople. If the job needs doing now (eg repairing a broken boiler) its a risk I have to take, but upgrading can wait till safer times.

In reply to Jenny C:

Same here. Currently minus a crown and two fillings but not in pain so will wait until better times to get things fixed (considering implants now to sort the molars out).

In reply to Queenie:

Thanks; good to know that if I can't calm the tooth down the dentists should be as safe as can be.  Teeth are a liability.  If there was one thing I could talk to my childhood self about it would be teeth...

In reply to fred99:

Sorry, professional drivers are away for days and they ARE supposed at work.  And thank goodness for that.  Its very easy to prescribe what depravations other people should have to go through.

In reply to wintertree:

The top tends to be an open topped header tank in every central heating system that I have fettled.

If any significant quantity of air gets into the radiators during a boiler change you have really fecked it up. There is a reason that we don't let people play at being engineers based on science qualifications alone

In reply to fred99:

Football is not really my sport but I did get entranced by the idiot lantern during the snooker final last night

In reply to Ridge:

I would suggest that that is essential, because it's not just about pain, due to the exposure of the dentine you could be stacking up problems for later.  You really should go now.

A quick check-up on the other hand isn't essential, nor a scale-and-polish, nor cosmetic-only treatment such as the likes of whitening and veneers.

In reply to timjones:

Perhaps you aren’t aware, but modern closed and pressurised heating systems run without a header tank, and have done for quite some time. The pressurised system consists of radiators, pipes, the boiler and its internals and a closed pressure/expansion vessel typically within the boiler for domestic systems.  The closed system is pressurised by a feed from the cold water mains typically through a manual valve and then a non-return valve, not by a header tank.  Emergency venting is through some sort of hydraulic fuse from the boiler through a short pipe to the outside world, not through the header tank.  As there isn’t a header tank.

I wouldn’t be so sure given your apparent total lack of knowledge of modern central heating systems.  Some air is going to get in to the closed, pressurised system and is going to need bleeding out from radiators.  

Keep going; just so long as it gives you more ways to show me that you don’t know what you’re talking about...  

In reply to Neil Williams:

I'm in very much the same boat having missed too many check ups due to family circumstances over the last few years. I'm not counting it as necessary or essential.  It involves very close contact with another person who will also be treating other people. It may cause problems later but they can be solved and I'm long past the point where I need "good teeth" for vanity reasons.

In reply to wintertree:

Maybe you are not aware that we are not all blessed with modern systems?

Is it really so hard to accept that not everyone sees the world the same way?

In reply to timjones:

This wasn’t and isn’t about you.  It’s about the other people for whom you insist it is safe to have a boiler replacement right now.  You apparently hadn’t considered the need to bleed the system meaning workers will be traipsing around the property, not confined to one room.  When I pointed this out you replied with a rather patronising messaging suggesting I didn’t know about heating systems.  It turns out that in fact I do, and once again you were generalising inappropriately from your circumstances to those of others.

For anyone with a modern, closed, pressurised system, it will need bleeding from one or more rooms in their house.  #CovidSecure

It’s bleeding obvious you and I see the world differently.  I have no problem accepting that.  I think the arguments you are making to excuse a company raising risk at this growing crisis point are not backed up by facts, and have serious flaws in them. 

In reply to wintertree:

Maybe you should Google Becker making yourself look like an arse?

It took less than 5 minutes to reassure myself  that you can still buy plenty of new and more efficient boilers for open vented systems.

I can accept that we make see things differently, I struggle with your patronising and downright rude attitude to those who hold different views. The fact that you then accuse people that you abuse of being rude is just laughable.

Why the hell have I bothered to obey every time for the last 10 months and gone beyond the rules where I believe it is beneficial if the reward is to be abused for suggesting that in the right circumstances it may be possible for a tradesperson to work safely in a home?

In reply to timjones:

True, though they are wearing full PPE (same as if you were being treated in hospital), so the risk of transmission is lower than shopping at Tesco.

You may not need cosmetically "good teeth", but maintaining your regular set to the extent of dealing with known problems is definitely a health priority.  It is absolutely essential.

In reply to timjones:

Where did I claim otherwise?  I don’t even know why you are stating this.  We were not and are not talking about you or your boiler, but the other people BG are advertising to.

I said that your are wrong to claim anyone can have their boiler upgraded with workmen only in one room of their house.  I said you are wrong because radiators will need bleeding.  You suggested I was wrong about bleeding, based on your personal experience.  Your personal experience does not generalise to many (most?) properties out there.  Therefore you are wrong to claim boiler upgrades can be done from just one room.  Wrong.  Your argument is built on assumptions about a highly transmissive virus and a wrong understanding of many central heating systems.  It’s just not a good argument.

I try my very best not to be rude or patronising with genuine posters. Sometimes I fail, today I said sorry to you.  You’ve been taking increasingly barbed digs at me for some time and I sank to the bait today.

I’ve no issue being rude to the pop up poster, the self confessed troll, the occasional confirmed Ukrainian anti vaxer and so on.  

Why the hell would loosing such a pointless and dumb argument matter either way?  

I often wonder why the hell I’ve gone beyond the rules since Feb 2020 when so many people are intent on advocating behaviour that will make everything worse.  Like pushing customers to have a boiler upgraded unnecessarily in a pandemic where hospitals are so bad patients are now being driven from London to Newcastle for treatment.

In reply to the thread:

Lots of interesting stuff here, thanks everyone.

I feel I do need to clarify a bit exactly what the issue I'm raising is, I think some folk have gone a bit off to the side.

I'm not asking here about simple bad practice, where employees are put at risk, or just can't be arsed to protect themselves. That's kind of inevitable, and I'm not some sort of lockdown vigilante trying to name and shame or whatever in such cases. 

The issue I've raised is where companies are actively promoting a message along the lines of "balls to lockdown, come out and get [new specs/new boiler/face-to-face teaching...]". I.e. they're *undermining* the stay at home message at a general level, having a wide impact on behaviour, rather than just sloppily breaking lockdown measures at an individual workplace.

I think the British Gas example is interesting because it's not telling customers to go out, rather it's getting engineers out into their homes. I'm not sure that makes it much better. HE has its own issues, and it's not quite the same as "selling" in the peculiar way that pretty much only the optics sector can do, straddling healthcare and retail as it does.

In optics, far from "just accepting it" and "congratulating" the sector as MattMurphy suggested, the kickback from the optometry profession against the unethical behaviour of the sector is just growing and growing. Unions meeting the College this week, open letters, petition to investigate the regulator, online polls to show what the profession thinks, a massive twitter barrage, etc. The policy is looking unsustainable. The bastards have been called out, and it's going to be interesting to see how long it takes for them to cave in. 

In reply to timjones:

It really grinds my gears when people retreat to this "I'm entitled to my opinion" position. The implication is that all viewpoints are equally valid, but they're not. You can either support your position with good arguments, and that's what gives it validity, or you can't, which means you're full of shit.

Sure, I can accept that people believe absolute rubbish. They believe conspiracy theories, they think Trump won the election, they think that we'd achieve herd immunity if we let the virus rip and life would go back to normal after a few months. These people all see the world differently, but their views aren't valid. They're full of shit. An opinion doesn't become valid just because you hold it, it becomes valid when you can justify it with good reasons.

We can all accept the fact that other people see the world differently. But that's not engaging with what they're saying. If you don't want to be challenged when your views are not supported by good arguments, then I don't understand what you're doing here. 

In reply to wintertree:

That will include plenty of people who.have.the same.syatem that I do.

You make some wild assumptions, I have never said that anyone can have their boiler replaced. I have suggested that some people may be able to do so.

Sorry but from my perspective you sank further faster.

Given that I. am none of those what is your excuse.for.calling me moronic, facile and childish.so early in the disagreement?

Is it about winning and losing or seeing and learning from people.with different experiences.

It doesn't make everything worse if it can be done safely. If it can't be done safely it shouldn't be done. For me that does not mean that the risks should never.be assessed on a case by case basis.

In reply to timjones:

I have not called you moronic.  Someone else called your argument moronic.   I suggest you re read the thread.

I have not called you facile.  I said your argument - the sum totality of which was “we all die” was a textbook example of a facile argument.  I assume you are considerably more than this one argument.  The argument that “we all die” misses all the complexity of this situation.  

I apologised for not being clearer that I was calling your argument childish, not you.

Your perspective appears to be taking my clearly framed disagreement with your argument as a personal attack.  I assume you have substantially more to you as a person than this argument.  

Which is not the argument you were making up thread.  

This is a much better argument and not facile.  From my view, if the risk could be accurately assessed and controlled on a case by case basis, we would not now be in the midst of calamity as we are.  Therefore my view is that if it doesn’t need to be done right now, it shouldn’t be done right now.  An unnecessary boiler replacement can be postponed for 5 weeks until the healthcare system isn’t in crisis.  A boiler repair should go ahead.

You certainly never seem interested in learning from mine and have put down my contributions in various derogatory ways.  I’m not sure what I could have learnt from your contributions other than that this really is shit for everyone - and I appreciate that you like me haven’t seen a hairdresser for a year.  It’s shit.  But honestly, I think that postponing risking things that can safely be postponed over the next 5 weeks is the right thing to do - mortally and pragmatically.  And I think an unnecessary boiler is infinitely more risky than no boiler replacement.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Will you be celebrating the job losses that will inevitably come with this?

In reply to mattmurphy:

Explain to me why a change to the College policy from the current Amber phase guidance to a redrafted version of the Red guidance, which allows for testing all symptomatic patients, but suspension of routine testing, will lead to job losses. Or do you not have the faintest idea what I'm talking about, because you're totally out of your depth?

You don't know what you're talking about. You think that anything that doesn't put profit first automatically leads to job losses, but that's simply not true. Do you know a lot about the sector? Do you think you can educate me? There's a lot of business still to be done without actively stimulating demand for routine testing in the middle of the peak of the pandemic. 

Here's a question for you:

My dad, who's 71, and has had cancer and pneumonia, received a letter from his optician saying that his "necessary annual eye test is due". He's having no problems with his vision, I've examined his eyes myself and his eyes are fine.

They inserted the word "necessary" for obvious reasons, and it's a lie. Are you to happy to publicly congratulate my dad's optician for doing their best to make money while putting my dad at risk by attempting to manipulate him into breaking the law?

Do you think that's good?

In reply to Jon Stewart:

I was just reading this thread when an email popped up reminding me of the appointment to fit my smart meter this week. I promptly cancelled it, it's just an unnecessary risk. But it shows that it's business as usual for another company providing a non-vital service.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

What makes you think they’re trying to maximise profits and not minimise losses?

Again, what makes you so sure that optometrists (which is what I think we’re talking about) won’t cut staff to ensure they’re solvent if cashflow takes a hit?

To answer your question, no your father shouldn’t probably go for his own safety. But there’s no reason why a 20-40 something should put off their eye test, especially if they’re having difficulty with their glasses.

In reply to mattmurphy:

No reason except for avoiding the increased risk from an age group likely to cause symptom free transmission of the virus.  Which forms chains of infection that end with other people going to hospital and overloading healthcare causing.... lockdowns.

You never, ever engage with this point that hard preventative action means a net total reduction in economic damage.  Not once.  You just keep advocating for more to be open in every context, all the time, often citing the impact of closures emotionally without consideration that keeping things open leads to more infection, more carnage, more eventual lockdown.  From what I recall, you’ve never argued against it either.  You just go straight to asking for everything to open more.

In reply to wintertree:

I don’t engage as there’s simply no proof that you can use to justify your claim. 
 

Yes, you’ll use the example of Germany, but that’s not comparable due to its large manufacturing sector.

You’ll then use the example of Sweden, but again it’s not comparable with the UK.

Finally you’ll use the example of China or New Zealand which again is nothing like the UK.

Lockdowns cost jobs more so than Covid (which isn’t to say that some measures aren’t necessary).

Support for tighter measures isn’t a vote for economic success, it’s just a vote for job losses.

In reply to mattmurphy:

Well at least you’ve stated the basis for your posts.

I think you’re totally and utterly wrong.  

You write off modern counter examples to your view without explaining your basis for doing so other than the most generic of hand waving.

You ignore historical counter examples to your view.

I think you are dangerously wrong.  You are in a clear minority.  Come back and make a compelling case.

In reply to mattmurphy:

The fact that in my company, I get briefed on financial performance at tedious corporate webinars.

There is a risk of job losses in the sector, my judgment (which is a million times better informed than yours) is that the impact of changing the guidance to stop the unethical behaviour (remember, it's not "don't trade") is that it would be very unlikely to be the make-or-break. It's conceivable that a struggling business might be just clinging on to its current cadre and every last eye test counts to keep the jobs. But then there are ways to organise the work within the sector (because it's not just retail, we do NHS healthcare, e.g. post-ops for operations) to protect jobs.

The sector should understand what services it is required to deliver during the lockdown, what services it cannot deliver because of lockdown (retail to asymptomatic patients), and then work out how to do it (who gets the NHS work, who can survive with essential/urgent business, etc) with the least impact on jobs. I see no reason there should be job losses at all, given how much work there is to do.

That wasn't the question, try again. I did not ask "should my dad accept the invitation" I asked, whether you thought that the act of sending the invitation, specifically with the word "necessary" inserted (a lie) was good.

So, was it good?

If you had bothered to try to understand the issue before dividing it into two binary positions "business bashing, pro job-losses" and "pro economic recovery", you would have seen that I support seeing all patients who have a problem (e.g. they've broken their glasses, they think their prescription has changed, they've got flashes and floaters, red eye, etc). But I do not support drumming up business and seeing asymptomatic patients, many of whom are clinically vulnerable, because when they leave the home unnecessarily, they are breaking the law and the advertising undermines the lockdown.

Do you think that leaving the house because you'd like to shop for new glasses is compliant with the lockdown rules? Do you think it's OK to break lockdown rules, if it makes money?

In reply to mattmurphy:

In your reply to wintertree, you discount the available comparisons and say "not relevant evidence". You then assert, without any evidence at all:

So you're comparing two different scenarios, the one we have (which is shite, because the gvt made an utter pig's arsehole of the pandemic response) and a counterfactual.

How did you estimate your counterfactual?

You want evidence from Germany, Sweden, China and New Zealand to be discounted, and replaced by a comparison with your counterfactual, of which you have given precisely zero detail or justification. You are, in other words, talking out of your arse.

In reply to mattmurphy:

Can I suggest, if you want to have a more productive discussion about the economics of the pandemic, and not just to receive put-downs and be asked questions you've got no answers for, that you listen to this lecture:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p0900yrv/the-reith-lectures-2020-mark...

It's not a raving lefty, it's Mark Carney. He knows the odd thing about economics, and he's very clever. He understands the big picture, not just about profit and loss in a company, but about how the economy relates to our lives as the population of the country, and of the world.

Please listen to him. There's so much you can learn from this single lecture.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Probably not for just buying glasses, but:

==

Medical reasons

You can leave home for a medical reason, including to get a COVID-19 test, for medical appointments and for emergencies.

==

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-lockdown-stay-at-home#when-you-can-lea...

Note that does not say "if essential", therefore a medical appointment (which would include optometry) is a legal reason to leave the house regardless of whether it's essential or not.

Having said that I would agree that opticians should consider voluntarily choosing not to carry out routine eye tests at present, which would probably mean furloughing some staff, and should probably, again voluntarily, only sell spectacles in person to someone whose prescription has changed or whose existing glasses have broken.  (Buy online all you like, of course).  And people should have the sense not to book a routine eye test at the moment if they aren't having problems.  Just because you legally can doesn't mean you necessarily should.

In reply to Neil Williams:

Well done! You've spotted the loophole exploited for advertising routine sight tests so the sector can claim they're not inciting customers to break the law. (Not the letter, but absolutely the spirit)

Should opticians "consider" choosing not to test asymptomatic patients? Or should the clinical and professional body say "only test if there's a problem" because it's their job to provide guidance on what to do during the pandemic? Should they leave the door open to send out letters like the one my dad got, or as a public body with a primary responsibility for public health, do they have a responsibility to close that door?

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Should your professional body consider giving strong advice?  Yes, probably.

Should the law ban it?  No, probably not, it would just be too complex to codify in law what constitutes essential medical treatment and what doesn't.

In reply to Neil Williams:

That's the issue at stake. The profession (you know, those people who actually sit in the unventilated room for half an hour with 15 patients a day, some of whom bring their kids in, others who are 90-odd and have COPD) are saying "change the guidance" - and the options are already drafted! (It gets really dodgy here because the guidance has been mysteriously redrafted in extremely dodgy ways and it's been clocked).

No one has suggested that. It's all about the guidance issued by the College. They have a choice to either endorse or prevent the unethical behaviour, and they've chosen to endorse it. Now the profession is giving them the finger, and will take them down, because they've shafted us. We pay a membership fee, and in return, they've behaved dishonestly, landing us in an ethically unacceptable position (because the bosses of the big optical retailers are on the College board, obviously).

Yes, this is all dirty laundry in public, but it's all over twitter already. Gotta love social media sometimes

In reply to mattmurphy:

They are coming down because of the lockdown. Lift the lockdown and you can guess what will happen.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

So far, I've postponed the tiler for the second time, as it's non-essential work and I don't want someone else in my house for the expected 4 days. He's fine with that, other customers have done the same.

I could do with an eye test, too, as I've noticed my eyes have started to get a bit poor on reading close up, but I'm sure it can wait a bit longer.

I have had a reminder from the dentist that I'm overdue a check-up, which I'm in 2 minds about, as I don't really want the exposure, but also don't want to miss something wrong.

Overall, we're being pretty cautious and only going out when essential, such as for food and post office.

In reply to Misha:

Of course at some point they'll start coming down because of the vaccine, though not for a few months yet as not enough people have it for it to make a significant difference.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

This from the BBC

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55705798

In reply to Neil Williams:

I think that is far from guaranteed.  

I think there’s a reasonable chance a vaccine evading variant is going to arise soon enough given the high global case levels.  If we don’t take sufficient measures at our borders, it will come in.  If it comes in before we have very low case rates, we probably won’t find it or contain it until it’s widespread.  Then the cycle repeats.

A negative test before travel and asking people to quarantine on their own honour is almost certainly not stringent enough border measures.

I think we need to get cases down to < 1000/day and replace honour based isolation with centrally run managed isolation and quarantine facilities from ASAP until at least late summer 2021, when the position with regards to variants can be re evaluated, and the data collected from repeat sampling of MIQ residents could be used to see if repeat testing is a viable way of shortening the MIQ period.  The low case rate allows a rapid response contact tracing approach that goes up and down, and can be used in combination with temporary local lockdowns to mop up anything that leaks out of MIQ.

Air corridors are a possibility, but that should only be between places with good testing regimes, no local transmission and a high sequencing capability.

The Red Queen is coming, and to date being lax about things and relying on luck has failed spectacularly badly in this pandemic.

In terms of minimising the chance of vaccine evasion, the roll out would need to be swift and global.  It’s certainly swift in some places, but global it isn’t.  This is going to drive a large wedge between nations in terms of development, just as the virus has done to society.  Early vaccination is a massive step ahead for the UK over most of the planet.  We should recognise that when considering the need for tougher borders.

In reply to Duncan Bourne:

How depressing. Other than the fantastic work on vaccination, I would describe our national effort to control this second wave as "f*cking crap". 

In reply to timjones:

And the Lord Sumption award of the week goes to.......

In reply to Jon Stewart:

I found this shocking

"Between 6 and 14 January, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) received 3,934 complaints relating to coronavirus and took enforcement action in 81 cases.

That usually meant a verbal or written warning however, with only one company facing tougher action."

It doesn't say what "tough action" is but knowing Johnson's definition I don't hold out much hope

In reply to Duncan Bourne:

I was wondering if I should make a complaint about a site I was at this week, but if that's the case, what's the point?

Construction site in central London, all exterior complete so it's all indoors. No track and trace, not even signing in to work. No temperature checks. People working in close proximity to eachother. Nobody wearing masks. Every time someone came near me to speak I asked them to back off and put on a mask, they looked at me like I was mad. I haven't been inside a building with someone who isn't my immediate family since December, and now this?

I've refused to work on the site in these conditions, but everyone else is still there spreading away. I went to a different site, same thing. Walked straight out of that one and said I'll come back when everyone else has gone. 

So from my sample of two, it appears that construction sites in London are completely ignoring lockdown and are sure to be significant contributors to the spread of Covid. But hey, there's money to be made.

In reply to Hooo:

I don't entirely see why we don't stop construction.  As long as the building was not left in an un-weathertight state which could cause serious damage, it's the very definition of unnecessary to build new office buildings now that aren't allowed to be used.

FWIW I've also noticed the decline seems to be levelling out.  Is that demonstrating the difference between schools completely closed over the Christmas hols and schools 1/3 to 1/2 full as seems to be the case now?

The other one that gets me is people sharing vans.  It might need the Government to legislate with regard to insurance and business use, but people really should drive their own cars to places if possible, with only one in the van.  Same with the bin men - have one go to the depot to get the lorry who will drive it throughout, and the rest drive/cycle to the start of the round and do it all on foot.

In reply to Neil Williams:

I think avoiding sharing vans is reasonable where possible but bin men are pretty essential and it's not reasonable to expect them to use their own vehicles as that gives rise to a host of practical issues - where to park them, extra time and cost involved, insurance, H&S and so on.

In reply to Neil Williams:

  Same with the bin men - have one go to the depot to get the lorry who will drive it throughout, and the rest drive/cycle to the start of the round and do it all on foot.

Like to see my bin men do that, trudging through the snow for about 20 miles!

Now putting the loader on furlough and giving all the work-from home types whinging that they can't go to the gym an app so they know when to stand by the bin and empty it themselves........

In reply to Misha:

They certainly are.

I think we can work out things like this if we can work out a situation of closing down much of society for months if not years.

In reply to jimtitt:

I'm guessing you're very rural?  Here in a town they jump back in the lorry to ride 50 yards to the next street, most of the round is done on foot except the driver, making that all of it is not a big step but may prevent spread (there has been an outbreak among the bin men here which resulted, sadly, in 2 deaths).

In reply to Neil Williams:

We don't stop construction because it makes money, that's the only reason.

What really pisses me off is that these companies have the privilege of being able to carry on through lockdown when so many others have had to close, and they are not even trying to follow safe practice. If these sites are staying open they should be subject to strict safety regulations with regular inspections.

In reply to Hooo:

What's most riling is that if all companies were complying properly we might not even need schools closed.

Companies do respond to hefty fines because their purpose is to make profit - perhaps £100K if a cluster pops up that is traced back to the company not having been following the prescribed measures?

In reply to Neil Williams:

I take it we shouldn't do this with the Fire Engine...😉

In reply to Shaun mcmurrough:

I suspect for the Fire Service frequent testing is the only viable option.

In reply to Neil Williams:

I assume that like the dustbin men they are bubbled.

In reply to marsbar:

The difference is that them being in the same vehicle isn't really avoidable, whereas it is avoidable for urban bin men, being as how most of the round is typically done on foot it's not a very big leap to make it all of the round.

In reply to Neil Williams:

They are tested at the start of every tour...(tour is 2 days,2nights)..lateral flow.

My wife who works for the NHS tests herself twice a week with the antigen test.

It is possible to minimise the risk...just think it's a red herring suggesting binmen walk from the depot, while Amazon deliver sledges to people,which I witnessed the other day.

In reply to wintertree:

And the organisation responsible for the single biggest outbreak......DVLA:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/23/minister-faces-fury-over-mass...

In reply to Morgan Woods:

F*cking hell. I think I need to stop whining about a few building sites if that's what's going on in government agencies.

In reply to Shaun mcmurrough:

Totally misses the point.  Amazon couriers work alone and "contactless" from customers so will not be responsible for any significant spread even if working while infected (though of course they should not do that).

It's very similar to "if schools are open I should be able to go to the pub".  I'd agree that a COVID secure pub is lower risk than a school in the way we are doing them, but the point is it's not a choice of one or the other.

In reply to Neil Williams:

It's worse than most people think as well, because schools form one set of bridges between isolated bubbles, and pubs form a different set of bridges.  The transmission rate will I think rise more than linearly with the number of people meeting when you start adding different transmission routes.  

In reply to Neil Williams:

Personally, I think delivering a sledge is non-essential..👍

Didn't read what said about pubs and school....Sorry

In reply to Hooo:

You didn't expect them to follow their own advice about working from home did you!

In reply to Morgan Woods:

Wow. Astonishingly shit. This pandemic has really brought the wankers out for all to see. I hope whoever's responsible for that atrocity feels the full weight of the consequences, and never sleeps peacefully again. Burn in hell.

In reply to Shaun mcmurrough:

It is, but it's also not of any considerable risk so not worth worrying about.  A bit like people driving a short way for exercise.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

In my understanding PHE insisted on people working in the office for a considerable period of time into the pandemic.  Nuts.

In reply to Neil Williams:

Happy that we can agree on what constitutes non essential....

In reply to Shaun mcmurrough:

We might however not agree on what should be banned.  What should be banned is things that are non-essential and carry an unavoidable non-trivial additional risk of transmission.  There is no good reason to ban things that don't, and good mental health and economic reasons not to.  No doubt the delivery of that sledge helped the mental health of a few kids at almost no additional risk, because being a courier that dumps things at peoples' doors and wanders off is a pretty solitary lot.

In reply to Morgan Woods:

From the article it sounds like their IT can’t cope with WFH. Which is plausible. 15 years ago WFH would have been impossible for most office based staff and 10 years ago it would have been difficult for many. Home schooling via video calls won’t have been feasible 10 years ago (clearly even today some people don’t have the required IT kit and connectivity). We’re lucky that we have great medical and IT technology today, which has enabled vaccines to be rolled out quickly and working / learning from home to be a reality. I don’t mean to excuse the DVLA’s apparent attitude,  just an observation.

In reply to Misha:

Certainly true that if this had happened in, say, 1990, things would have been much, much worse in just about every way (except I suppose the spreading of anti-vaxx misinformation being a bit harder).

In reply to Neil Williams:

Isn't the DVLA in Swansea and therefore under the control of the Welsh Government and therefore nothing to do with Public Health England? 

In reply to FactorXXX:

Dunno, but that wasn't my point, it was more that the organisation writing the rules wasn't really following the spirit of them.

In reply to Misha:

I assume that the sort of information held by DVLA is probably not made assessible by someone working from home for reasons of security and confidentiality, etc.

In reply to Neil Williams:

Not Public Health England to blame then.
Not the UK Government as in England/Johnson to blame then.
Make no bones about it, the criticism by the article and posters on UKC is to arbitrarily blame the Tories for yet another f*ck up, whereas, any blame (if applicable) should be directed at the Welsh Government. 

In reply to FactorXXX:

It’s not exactly national security stuff though. Where there’s a way, there’s a will. Plus not everyone at the DVLA would be dealing with personal data anyway. 

In reply to Misha:

Haven't got a clue what data the average DVLA employee has access to, but I would suggest that there would be very real problems of allowing people to access their normal work system via their home PC.

In reply to Misha:

True but they have had nearly a year to sort it out. Not saying it is easy but it can be done for processing and call centre staff. Surely the upfront investment would be paid for by fewer sick staff in the short term and reduced office footprint in the long term. Maybe DVLA just thought it would go away and everything would return to normal....if that was management's strategy then I am disappointed but not surprised.

In reply to FactorXXX:

We have this at my workplace (Transport dept)....some teams are working on a cross agency app for tolling refunds which is connected to a driver database which cannot be used on remote networks. That is the other agencies policy which we can't change so those staff have to come into the office on rotation 2 days a week. All our own applications can be accessed remotely and the MFA seems to have worked fine for the last 10 months.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

My wife works for a cosmetic surgeon who closed for 6 weeks last Spring, but in order to protect his business and his £200k salary they are stillopen five days a week, as he fully maintains they are a medical facility providing medical treatment. They are encouraging people to drive from all over the UK for cosmetic surgery, and even handing them mental health questionnaires, with questions aimed at getting answers out of the patients to say it would affect their mental health if they didn't have the surgery. They have even had the "Covid Police" come round, and they just argue that it's essential medical procedures, just like the Botox clinic next door!

100% pay is better than furlough pay I admit, but my wife spending hours a day in a small room with 5-7 other people, one of whom is a covid denier, really pisses me off. They're also obviously going through loads of PPE on a daily basis which I'm sure the NHS would rather have, and the surgeon thinks he's too important to stop work for a few weeks and help out with the vaccine. Charming man.

In reply to FactorXXX:

You've really misunderstood. 

PHE is a separate, more ironic example. 

DVLA is an agency of DfT, not of the Welsh gvt, so Shapps ultimately carries the can. However, I agree that that guardian is pointing the finger at the cabinet minister (because he's got no backbone and shit for brains and zero interest in protecting the public) when the people responsible are the DVLA managers.

As for trying to defend them, why? The organisation is very clearly causing enormous harm not only to their workforce but to their community and beyond. It might be difficult to organise the IT, but so what? Reduce the service, furlough staff, reorganise, whatever, they're not running a hospital that must maximise capacity or more people will die. It's a f*cking office processing forms. If there needs to be a relaxation for people who've not got the right document in 2021 due to the pandemic, then the gvt can bring that in at the drop of a hat. 

What's with trying to defend revolting people who cause severe illness and death to others to try to further their own careers? Do you not feel a bit like you've maybe picked the wrong side? 

In reply to rockwing:

Examples like yours (and my own) really make me quite depressed about the character of the people around me. I've always thought people are pretty grubby animals with pretentions of rationality, morality, etc, who have *collectively* made a mess of things and created systems that drive shitty behaviour.

But what I'm seeing in the pandemic isn't just a shitty system that fails to value the right things with people swept up in it. It's individuals given simple choices "have you got a backbone? Will you do the right thing and discharge an urgent moral duty to help control the pandemic at a cost you can easily absorb?". And it seems normal to say "No. F*ck everyone. I want as much money as I can make. F*ck you. F*ck your mum. F*ck the hospitals, f*ck the doctors and the nurses. I've got no duty to anyone except me".

And then we all say "boo hoo, I hate lockdown, it's boring. I want to go to the pub.".

What a shitty spectacle to behold. 

In reply to Misha:

I was on phone to HMRC last week - the guy I spoke to was working from home.

In reply to Neil Williams:

Re PHE. I don't feel this is true. My partner works for PHE and they started working from home regularly before the start of March and fully so before the start of lockdown. My partner was certainly WFH by the time of the social distancing announcements from the government.

The way their teams have worked for years now, since the last huge restructure in 2012, is with many teams spread across the country rather than based in particular offices. So it was very easy to start fully WFH since it was mainly virtual teams anyway.

Obvious caveat, this is basically just me speaking anecdotally, but I did ask my partner and they confirmed what I just wrote.

In reply to Neil Williams:

It hasn't snowed since it was delivered...🤞 to snow.

If you can make it safe for ff's in a truck, you can make it safe for bin men/ladies in a truck..it's not rocket science.

I think making them walk from the depot to the point at which they start their round is daft.

In reply to Ben Farley:

I can't give too much away but I do have a contact who works for PHE who confirmed what I said.  Perhaps different departments were different.

In reply to Shaun mcmurrough:

It's snowing now (here).

You're talking absolutes, and this has no absolutes (almost no safety context does, and you'd think a climber of all people would get that).  You can't make it safe for any people sharing vehicles, only mitigate risk a bit.   It isn't practical for firefighters not to share the fire engine.  It is practical for urban bin men not to.  Ergo, urban bin me should not do.

This is similar to the way that, as things stand, if you own a car you should use that (or walk/cycle) rather than a bus or taxi.  But if you need to use a bus/taxi and have no viable other option, the risk can be mitigated *to some extent*.

If you want a climbing analogy, you might decide to make a risky move without placing gear because there appears to be no other option, but if there was easy-to-place gear you might place it first.  Firefighters are the former, bin men the latter.

In reply to Neil Williams:

I think you're arguing for the sake of it...

You eliminate the risk as much as possible...safe,not absolute.

I've been sharing a vehicle with Covid test teams in Bradford..you have to follow a set procedures.

Like I said 'not rocket' science...and I'm sure the people collecting our rubbish would prefer this solution...maybe you could ask them?

In reply to Neil Williams:

Fair enough, and I acknowledged the anecdotal nature of what I posted. My partner though, as you would expect for an epidemiologist at PHE, just finds it hard to stomach the near continuous criticism of PHE in some circles. Often for things that are nothing to do with them. However, between us we have just illustrated the trouble with anecdotal evidence and not using rigorous, age standardised, empirical evidence etc etc... something that gets drummed into me whenever I make a blase claim at home

In reply to Shaun mcmurrough:

It's still riskier than not doing.  So unless it's essential it should be avoided.

Literally nothing in this is about individual preference.  Nothing whatsoever.  It's all about altruism and the greater good.

But, FWIW, if I was an urban bin man, yes, I would rather walk, and that the rounds were, if applicable, rejigged to enable that even if it meant reduced collection frequency (we get weekly, so we could drop to two-weekly like everywhere else to reduce the size of the rounds to make it viable).

In reply to Ben Farley:

That's fair.  FWIW I have more respect for them based on what my contact has told me.   This seems to have been a misguided "presenteeist" manager somewhere that caused the situation I mentioned.  From the impression I have, most of the screw-ups have been where the politicians have fiddled with what PHE was proposing, and not PHE's fault.

I just thought it was a bit ironic/hypocritical that PHE didn't move to 100% remote in my contact's case as it was clearly viable from what he said.

Parliament could start with an example to be fair.  Absolutely no reason they could not be 100% remote with electronic voting.  Potentially even permanently; you'd get better attendance and MPs could be more in a position to work in their constituency.  Mind you, that'd mean Rees-Mogg would have to learn what an abacus was (let alone a laptop).

In reply to Jon Stewart:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/23/minister-faces-fury-over-mass...

About 1,800 staff are being asked to come into the DVLA to process driving licence applications and vehicle tax renewals, even though there have been 535 Covid cases since September – by far the most infections linked to a single employer in a local area.

In reply to Neil Williams:

Bonus points include saving on the cost of London based second homes, and the school yard atmosphere of the chamber becoming obviously stupid when done by video link...

In reply to Neil Williams:

I like to think that it is also about taking Individual Responsibility and where you see unsafe practices...particularly at work you bring them to the attention of the Authorities....turning a blind eye and believing it's not relevant makes

things worse...

You'll have your take on this too...😉.

I'm glad you're not my boss at the depot..🤣

In reply to wintertree:

And convert the HoP into an hotel.
Two stunning examples of the genre being the Palace in Manc and St. Pancras.
Sadly I can't afford to stay in either.

In reply to Shaun mcmurrough:

Completely agree, believe it or not.

In reply to wintertree:

A fair bit of the debate that is done in person would be better done on some sort of threaded online forum type arrangement, to be honest.  So they don't even need to talk; "debates" could potentially extend over several weeks and allow people to do their research properly.  Make it all public (read-only) and people could speak to their MP about it while it's still ongoing.

Bonus - that would get rid of that most obnoxious Parliamentary practice, fillibustering, as there'd be no specific time to waste.

Also potentially all MPs mandated to vote (but with an option to abstain).

Further bonus - if Rees Mogg were dead, he would be turning in his grave at an adequate speed to generate the UK's entire electricity need

In reply to FactorXXX:

No, it is not devolved to Welsh government. DVLA is an Uk wide agency so directly controlled from UK gov. 

In reply to Bacon Butty:

The bit of St.Pancras that is a hotel, has always been a hotel. Dates back to 1868.

In reply to FactorXXX:

You’re assuming people have to use home IT kit. I’ve no idea, they might have work laptops already. If not, the DVLA should have bought them laptops and sorted out the IT access. However given that would cost money, it’s not surprising they’ve not done it... It shows a total lack of business resilience. What is the office burns down? No one could get their driving licenses renewed or their points processed for a year? That worries me. The DVLA is pretty important, they should have had contingency planning in place. 

In reply to Morgan Woods:

I agree. 

In reply to sandrow:

Yeah HMRC are WFH as far as I know, at least most of them. Even the stamp duty office, who were fairly old school and required docs to be posted to them for physical stamping, have switched to electronic processing. Where there’s a will, there’s a way.

All the big accountancy firms are WFH and have been throughout, apart from a short period in autumn when some tried to do a part time, socially distanced return. However a colleague told me that his wife was contracting at a small accountancy firm where the expectation was that people would come in, even though they had the IT to WFH. WTF?!?! This was back in the autumn so hopefully that’s changed now - don’t know as she no longer works there.

In reply to rockwing:

And she still works there ?

In reply to Neil Williams:

'Potentially even permanently' is the reason they won't do remote working.   If parliament reconfigured itself around remote working and remote voting then MPs wouldn't have to live in London.    Too many people have a vested interest in London being the centre of power for that to happen easily.