Jump to content

coronavirus


Recommended Posts


1 minute ago, Red Willow said:

But the question still stands. If you work elsewhere and contract the virus at work the risky areas would be wrong. I assume the allocation is via home address

Outbreaks in workplaces are clearly being picked up - Greencore Northampton, Iceland distribution centre Swindon, Pretty Little Thing Sheffield etc etc 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Saintslass said:

In other words, people taking no notice of the fact that there is a pandemic happening.  What a bunch of idiots.  Well maybe now they'll be more cautious.  Or maybe not.

That's not quite fair. Car sharing is part of government guidance. If people house share that's life, only socialising may be controversial, but even that can be done responsibly. 

It doesn't make sense that 300 people from one place would catch this but its not to do with the place of work. Unless the 300 live together it absolutely must play a part. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Dave T said:

That's not quite fair. Car sharing is part of government guidance. If people house share that's life, only socialising may be controversial, but even that can be done responsibly. 

It doesn't make sense that 300 people from one place would catch this but its not to do with the place of work. Unless the 300 live together it absolutely must play a part. 

I mean, it's like the water pump in cholera isn't it? If 300 cases come from one place then unless you really have evidence that "socialising" on an epic scale that somehow only affects the 300 cases from the workplace then it has to come back to the one place.

Which isn't necessarily a criticism of the workplace. The rules in most places don't eliminate but reduce risk. And that's in line with guidance too.

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Dave T said:

That's not quite fair. Car sharing is part of government guidance. If people house share that's life, only socialising may be controversial, but even that can be done responsibly. 

It doesn't make sense that 300 people from one place would catch this but its not to do with the place of work. Unless the 300 live together it absolutely must play a part. 

So why would Lucy Wightman, director of Public Health at Northamptonshire County Council say what she did?

“If you understand, things are just as they are; if you do not understand, things are just as they are.” Zen Proverb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, JohnM said:

So why would Lucy Wightman, director of Public Health at Northamptonshire County Council say what she did?

I believe this place has a couple of thousand workers, I suspect part of it is to keep people calm on this. 

I also think that this virus can spread without peoe necessarily doing things wrong. We know it is contagious, but it doesn't mean that the company has done anything wrong. But I think she was wrong to blame people for doing things within guidance and suggest that there was no issue with the workplace doing things within guidance. 

People live together, people socialise together, people car share - that is happening all over the country, these 300 have that link of where they work for hours each day. That HAS to play a part. 

Her comments didn't mention any rule breaking in the slightest, but gave the impression that people themselves were to blame, something picked up on instantly by Saintslass, who criticised them, partly for living together! 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

I mean, it's like the water pump in cholera isn't it? If 300 cases come from one place then unless you really have evidence that "socialising" on an epic scale that somehow only affects the 300 cases from the workplace then it has to come back to the one place.

Which isn't necessarily a criticism of the workplace. The rules in most places don't eliminate but reduce risk. And that's in line with guidance too.

I'd also add that the rules are based on what is believed/known about the spread of the virus - something that has and will continue to evolve with time - and that there appears to be an assumption that they have been followed to the letter at all times. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Saintslass said:

In other words, people taking no notice of the fact that there is a pandemic happening.  What a bunch of idiots.  Well maybe now they'll be more cautious.  Or maybe not.

Yeah. What a bunch of idiots. These factory workers should all buy detached cottages within walking distance of their workplace or at least own their own car.  What's the point in paying them minimum wage if they can't even do that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I believe this place has a couple of thousand workers, I suspect part of it is to keep people calm on this. 

I also think that this virus can spread without peoe necessarily doing things wrong. We know it is contagious, but it doesn't mean that the company has done anything wrong. But I think she was wrong to blami e people for doing things within guidance and suggest that there was no issue with the workplace doing things within guidance. 

People live together, people socialise together, people car share - that is happening all over the country, these 300 have that link of where they work for hours each day. That HAS to play a part. 

Her comments didn't mention any rule breaking in the slightest, but gave the impression that people themselves were to blame, something picked up on instantly by Saintslass, who criticised them, partly for living together! 

I see. I hadn't read it that she was blaming people,  but was pointing out the exposure of people to the risks of transmission when car sharing, or to those in HMOs and those socialising. 

  • Like 1

“If you understand, things are just as they are; if you do not understand, things are just as they are.” Zen Proverb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, JohnM said:

Please supply information that says the thousands who work there are on the minimum wage,    

Work where? I only said factory workers. Can you assure me that there are no people working in factories in the UK who receive the minimum wage? 

The point being, living and transport arrangements may not be ideal for limiting virus transmission, but their choices may be determined by their income.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, JohnM said:

Please supply information that says the thousands who work there are on the minimum wage,    

But anyway, Google is your friend...

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-greencore-factory-staff-surviving-on-90-a-week-after-outbreak-12049574

Edit

https://www.indeed.co.uk/cmp/Greencore/salaries

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-national-minimum-wage-in-2020

Edited by Wholly Trinity
Add links
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, JohnM said:

I see. I hadn't read it that she was blaming people,  but was pointing out the exposure of people to the risks of transmission when car sharing, or to those in HMOs and those socialising. 

Yeah, I don't disagree that may have been the intention, explaining rather than blaming, but when absolving the company of blame, and explaining it through other things it is easy to read that as blame, which Saintslass certainly jumped on (and won't be on her own to be fair). 

Those things may be a factor (not to blame), but so is working in the same factory obviously, even if nobody is to blame. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All those are reported figures, Trinity, not necessarily what they are paid. You had no idea when you made your post, and had to look it up afterwards.  Still, the opportunity now exists for you to actually do something. You won't,  though.

https://www.acas.org.uk/national-minimum-wage-entitlement/if-an-employer-does-not-pay-minimum-wage

Edited by JohnM

“If you understand, things are just as they are; if you do not understand, things are just as they are.” Zen Proverb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Yeah, I don't disagree that may have been the intention, explaining rather than blaming, but when absolving the company of blame, and explaining it through other things it is easy to read that as blame, which Saintslass certainly jumped on (and won't be on her own to be fair). 

Those things may be a factor (not to blame), but so is working in the same factory obviously, even if nobody is to blame. 

I'm guessing here, but I think the difference is that the arrangements in place at this factory (though not necessarily others) are subject to scrutiny and inspection. Insurance companies have an interest. As for HMOs and socialising, there is really no scrutiny.

“If you understand, things are just as they are; if you do not understand, things are just as they are.” Zen Proverb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Certain comments in this thread have been reported as being 'political', but I'm reaching the point now where it is hard to see how this topic can be 'de-politicised'.

Frankly, if people are going to use this thread to criticise members of the general public for breaking lockdown restrictions, then it is inevitable that the name of a certain prominent member of the government who also broke lockdown restrictions is going to be thrown back at you on every occasion you do it.

To complain about that is like sitting on a beach and complaining when the tide comes in. It's always gonna happen.

As a result, I'm minded to lock this thread, and punt all further pandemic related discussion into the political sub-forum, rather than allow criticism of members of the public to go unchallenged while giving a free pass from similar criticism to those higher up the food chain because it might be deemed 'political'.

  • Like 2

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, John Drake said:

Certain comments in this thread have been reported as being 'political', but I'm reaching the point now where it is hard to see how this topic can be 'de-politicised'.

Frankly, if people are going to use this thread to criticise members of the general public for breaking lockdown restrictions, then it is inevitable that the name of a certain prominent member of the government who also broke lockdown restrictions is going to be thrown back at you on every occasion you do it.

To complain about that is like sitting on a beach and complaining when the tide comes in. It's always gonna happen.

As a result, I'm minded to lock this thread, and punt all further pandemic related discussion into the political sub-forum, rather than allow criticism of members of the public to go unchallenged while giving a free pass from similar criticism to those higher up the food chain because it might be deemed 'political'.

I agree with John on so many things in here. This thread is meant to be the general info and discussion thread on the virus and its direct impacts. Why not just treat it that if you are going to complain about someone, be it a factory worker or a political advisor, that you do it on the politics thread and keep this one for general information and discussion.

Some people who are now off the Politics forum have said to me that they're finding it liberating and enjoying the forum more. Just because others who've been booted off can't restrain themselves doesn't mean we have to buckle to them, the next step for them is off AOB entirely and restricted to the rugby forums.

"When in deadly danger, when beset by doubt; run in little circles, wave your arms and shout"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've just deleted a load more posts that are more relevant to the political forum than in here, despite repeated requests.

Bottom line is this:

If you want to discuss the MEDICAL aspects and impact of coronavirus, do it here.

If you want to discuss the societal impact of coronavirus, in the UK or anywhere else, and how various governments, businesses etc are dealing with it, including ALL aspects of lockdown policy, do it in the coronavirus thread in the politics sub forum.

Thank you.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Red Willow said:

Why aren't the establishments flouting the regulations allowed to continue to trade without punishment?

Latest is a wedding with over 100 in attendance?

Two young lads drowned eighty miles from their home in Dewsbury.

Under Scrutiny by the Right-On Thought Police

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Wolford6 said:

Two young lads drowned eighty miles from their home in Dewsbury.

Not sure the connection?

With the best, thats a good bit of PR, though I would say the Bedford team, theres, like, you know, 13 blokes who can get together at the weekend to have a game together, which doesnt point to expansion of the game. Point, yeah go on!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Red Willow said:

Why aren't the establishments flouting the regulations allowed to continue to trade without punishment?

Latest is a wedding with over 100 in attendance?

There were two weddings which flouted the rules weren't there?  I think all GMP did with theirs was to send people home.  Probably Lancs did the same with the 100 attendees in Blackburn.  Both places should be shut down for a period of time so they don't benefit from the breaches but whether they were was not reported.  They certainly can be under the rules.  Two pubs in Manchester have been shut down after breaches in Covid rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think England has had a reduction in case numbers over the last couple of days.  I know Mondays tend to be lower (this Monday was lower than last) but I think there were under 1000 reported on Sunday too?  I may be misremembering.  It looks like we might have pulled out of Spain at just the right time.  Apparently Mallorca/Ibiza are now reporting 100 new cases a day.  I feel sorry for Spain.  They had a tough time last time around but obviously they rely so much on tourism and have opened up accordingly yet that could land them right back in the soup.  They've shut all their nightclubs and brought in numerous other restrictions to try and bring the numbers back under control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Wolford6 said:

Flouting the regulations. Kirklees, like Bradford, is in secondary lockdown.

There was no restriction on traveling.  

With the best, thats a good bit of PR, though I would say the Bedford team, theres, like, you know, 13 blokes who can get together at the weekend to have a game together, which doesnt point to expansion of the game. Point, yeah go on!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Bedford Roughyed said:

There was no restriction on traveling.  

Two brothers and a cousin involved. None old enough to dive so someone must have driven them there. Possibly not the brothers; parents who "were informed" of their bodies being found.

The rules:

People from different households must not meet in a private home or garden. You must not:

  • host people you do not live with in your home or garden, unless they’re in your support bubble
  • meet people you do not live with in their home or garden
  • travel outside of these areas to meet people in their home or garden

Your household is only the people you live with, or people within your support bubble. A support bubble is where a household with one adult joins with any other household. Households within a bubble can still visit each other, stay overnight, and visit public places together.

Edited by Wolford6

Under Scrutiny by the Right-On Thought Police

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...