Independent Leyton Orient Forum

o-no wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2020 7:50 am

Prestige Worldwide wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2020 7:39 am

o-no wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2020 7:25 am Not really an option though, unless you really don't care about people who are already old and probably not that healthy.

And I thought the jury was still out on whether having had it once meant you couldn't catch it again?

I'm in a very fortunate position, I can work from home probably for as long as is required, so I'm going to let others be the canaries in the pit if they choose to do so. I don't envy anyone who is being forced into situations where they don't control physical distancing against their preference.

Lockdown forever then? Which is not an option, unless you really don't care about the young and healthy who will pay for this for years.

Everyones going to be paying for it for years regardless. Poor > Dead, no?

So you want to stay on lockdown forever? Longer it goes on, the worse the consequences.

The worse the consequences? I can't think of anything worse than being dead.

Regardless - this virus is going to be around in the world for a very long time yet and a lot of things may never, ever be the same again. I think that's something we all need to come to terms with.

Dunners wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2020 8:01 am

o-no wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2020 7:25 am Not really an option though, unless you really don't care about people who are already old and probably not that healthy.

And I thought the jury was still out on whether having had it once meant you couldn't catch it again?

I'm in a very fortunate position, I can work from home probably for as long as is required, so I'm going to let others be the canaries in the pit if they choose to do so. I don't envy anyone who is being forced into situations where they don't control physical distancing against their preference.

I don't think it's about it being an 'option'. It is a very contagious virus, and many of us will catch it, if we haven't done so already. Most nations have adopted policies that merely aim to reduce the rate at which we catch it so that healthcare systems don't fall down. We're just playing for time.

It begs the question as to what countries, who are lauded as having managed this well, are going to do next. Are the likes of Taiwan, New Zealand and Australia going to keep their international boarders closed until/if a vaccine is available?

Yep, the jury is still out on immunity. But from what I've read, it is still the most likely and there is evidence to support it. Although we have no idea how long any immunity would last for.

They will only open international flights between other countries with minimal cases, don't expect that to be for a few months yet though

o-no wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2020 7:50 am

Prestige Worldwide wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2020 7:39 am

o-no wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2020 7:25 am Not really an option though, unless you really don't care about people who are already old and probably not that healthy.

And I thought the jury was still out on whether having had it once meant you couldn't catch it again?

I'm in a very fortunate position, I can work from home probably for as long as is required, so I'm going to let others be the canaries in the pit if they choose to do so. I don't envy anyone who is being forced into situations where they don't control physical distancing against their preference.

Lockdown forever then? Which is not an option, unless you really don't care about the young and healthy who will pay for this for years.

Everyones going to be paying for it for years regardless. Poor > Dead, no?

The consequence of staying in lockdown for any period of time than is absolutely necessary is not just about people being poorer rather than dead. Yes, everyone will be paying for it in some way or other, but not equally by any means.

Read what is out there about how poverty will increase (here and even worse in the developing world), about people's jobs and ability to support their families, about mental health, about people who are going to die from not getting proper treatment for illnesses such as cancer who would otherwise not have died.

The lockdown has to be eased in a sensible way and the risks properly managed, we can't just stay indoors until the last coronavirus victim has died.

been fishing twice already just need to get out.
i have type 2 and BP. contact was very limited.

faldO wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2020 10:21 am

o-no wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2020 7:50 am

Prestige Worldwide wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2020 7:39 am

Lockdown forever then? Which is not an option, unless you really don't care about the young and healthy who will pay for this for years.

Everyones going to be paying for it for years regardless. Poor > Dead, no?

The consequence of staying in lockdown for any period of time than is absolutely necessary is not just about people being poorer rather than dead. Yes, everyone will be paying for it in some way or other, but not equally by any means.

Read what is out there about how poverty will increase (here and even worse in the developing world), about people's jobs and ability to support their families, about mental health, about people who are going to die from not getting proper treatment for illnesses such as cancer who would otherwise not have died.

The lockdown has to be eased in a sensible way and the risks properly managed, we can't just stay indoors until the last coronavirus victim has died.

Yes I agree, and accept that things will have to open up at some point, but everyone has to make their own decisions about how that will work for them.

I suspect many people who are able to wait and see, will do just that. If others want to go out and spend their money, I'm not going to stop them.

As for everyone not paying for it equally. It's true, but it was always thus, and will always be - any economic system that gives some an advantage will put others at a disadvantage.

o-no wrote: ↑Mon May 18, 2020 2:53 pm

faldO wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2020 10:21 am

o-no wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2020 7:50 am

Everyones going to be paying for it for years regardless. Poor > Dead, no?

The consequence of staying in lockdown for any period of time than is absolutely necessary is not just about people being poorer rather than dead. Yes, everyone will be paying for it in some way or other, but not equally by any means.

Read what is out there about how poverty will increase (here and even worse in the developing world), about people's jobs and ability to support their families, about mental health, about people who are going to die from not getting proper treatment for illnesses such as cancer who would otherwise not have died.

The lockdown has to be eased in a sensible way and the risks properly managed, we can't just stay indoors until the last coronavirus victim has died.

As for everyone not paying for it equally. It's true, but it was always thus, and will always be - any economic system that gives some an advantage will put others at a disadvantage.

Is this staement true for ever and ever and ever?

The consequence of staying in lockdown for any period of time than is absolutely necessary is not just about people being poorer rather than dead. Yes, everyone will be paying for it in some way or other, but not equally by any means.

Read what is out there about how poverty will increase (here and even wo

Yes I agree, and accept that things will have to open up at some point, but everyone has to make their own decisions about how that will work for them.

I suspect many people who are able to wait and see, will do just that. If others want to go out and spend their money, I'm not going to stop them.

As for everyone not paying for it equally. It's true, but it was always thus, and will always be - any economic system that gives some an advantage will put others at a disadvantage.
[/quote]

I like your thinking.

I'm lucky I pretty much split my time before the lockdown between WFH and in the office. I have no qualms about being in the office my company had hand sanitiser and the like in the office from early march. It's the commute I don't fancy it entails the whole length of the Victoria line.

Now's the time to grandfather stamp duty and replace with a broad based land tax. This will help give people the opportunity to move somewhere closer to where they work without paying a massive penalty for it.

Stamp duty is hot take from all of this?

Adz wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2020 4:58 am Now's the time to grandfather stamp duty and replace with a broad based land tax. This will help give people the opportunity to move somewhere closer to where they work without paying a massive penalty for it.

Or just accelerate the transition to remote working, which is long overdue anyway.

Companies will save massively on lease costs by reducing floor space in office blocks in London/other city centres. Problem is finding someone to take over that lease.

Remote working is the way forward - again.

Millennial Snowflake wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2020 12:04 pm

Adz wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2020 4:58 am Now's the time to grandfather stamp duty and replace with a broad based land tax. This will help give people the opportunity to move somewhere closer to where they work without paying a massive penalty for it.

Or just accelerate the transition to remote working, which is long overdue anyway.

Companies will save massively on lease costs by reducing floor space in office blocks in London/other city centres. Problem is finding someone to take over that lease.

The only snag with that is that there are large areas of the UK with crap broadband. What we need is for a plan to roll out broadband to all areas of the UK so that we can aid a de-centralisation plan. But without a waiting market it's unlikely any broadband provider will want to invest in the infrastructure. Therefore, unless government is wiling to do it, we're stuck in existing population hubs.

If only...

Dunners wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2020 12:17 pm

Millennial Snowflake wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2020 12:04 pm

Adz wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2020 4:58 am Now's the time to grandfather stamp duty and replace with a broad based land tax. This will help give people the opportunity to move somewhere closer to where they work without paying a massive penalty for it.

Or just accelerate the transition to remote working, which is long overdue anyway.

Companies will save massively on lease costs by reducing floor space in office blocks in London/other city centres. Problem is finding someone to take over that lease.

The only snag with that is that there are large areas of the UK with crap broadband. What we need is for a plan to roll out broadband to all areas of the UK so that we can aid a de-centralisation plan. But without a waiting market it's unlikely any broadband provider will want to invest in the infrastructure. Therefore, unless government is wiling to do it, we're stuck in existing population hubs.

If only...

Are you some sort of Marxist?

StillSpike wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2020 12:49 pm

Dunners wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2020 12:17 pm

Millennial Snowflake wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2020 12:04 pm

Or just accelerate the transition to remote working, which is long overdue anyway.

Companies will save massively on lease costs by reducing floor space in office blocks in London/other city centres. Problem is finding someone to take over that lease.

The only snag with that is that there are large areas of the UK with crap broadband. What we need is for a plan to roll out broadband to all areas of the UK so that we can aid a de-centralisation plan. But without a waiting market it's unlikely any broadband provider will want to invest in the infrastructure. Therefore, unless government is wiling to do it, we're stuck in existing population hubs.

If only...

Are you some sort of Marxist?

Next thing you know he will be giving out Broadband for free to everybody.

Millennial Snowflake wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2020 12:04 pm

Adz wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2020 4:58 am Now's the time to grandfather stamp duty and replace with a broad based land tax. This will help give people the opportunity to move somewhere closer to where they work without paying a massive penalty for it.

Or just accelerate the transition to remote working, which is long overdue anyway.

Companies will save massively on lease costs by reducing floor space in office blocks in London/other city centres. Problem is finding someone to take over that lease.

Remote working will be a disaster for the developed world. If companies realise your job can be done from home, they'll outsource it to a cheaper country

Dunners wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2020 12:17 pm

Millennial Snowflake wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2020 12:04 pm

Adz wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2020 4:58 am Now's the time to grandfather stamp duty and replace with a broad based land tax. This will help give people the opportunity to move somewhere closer to where they work without paying a massive penalty for it.

Or just accelerate the transition to remote working, which is long overdue anyway.

Companies will save massively on lease costs by reducing floor space in office blocks in London/other city centres. Problem is finding someone to take over that lease.

The only snag with that is that there are large areas of the UK with crap broadband. What we need is for a plan to roll out broadband to all areas of the UK so that we can aid a de-centralisation plan. But without a waiting market it's unlikely any broadband provider will want to invest in the infrastructure. Therefore, unless government is wiling to do it, we're stuck in existing population hubs.

If only...

That’s true, but - without any figures to back this up - I reckon the vast majority of people working jobs that can be done remotely live in cities, suburbs or commuter towns where connectivity wouldn’t be an issue.

I think a greater problem is that many people in positions to approve this in large traditional companies are quite old-fashioned in their approach, and the concept of working away from the office, flexible hours etc. is totally alien to them. It’s always astonished me how anal management get monitoring people’s time, even the ones who do an excellent job. This is a generational thing that’s only likely to change with time, sadly.

Adz wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2020 2:05 pmRemote working will be a disaster for the developed world. If companies realise your job can be done from home, they'll outsource it to a cheaper country

Perhaps, but it doesn’t make it less true. Most office jobs outside of STEM fields are not that difficult, require no specialist knowledge and could easily be done remotely, if not totally automated. That’s why unemployment has decreased in the last decade while wage growth has remained relatively stagnant.

But you’re right, a lot of people are gonna be in for a nasty shock when they realise that after many years, they’re no longer needed

Millennial Snowflake wrote: ↑Wed May 20, 2020 10:46 am

Dunners wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2020 12:17 pm

Millennial Snowflake wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2020 12:04 pm

Or just accelerate the transition to remote working, which is long overdue anyway.

Companies will save massively on lease costs by reducing floor space in office blocks in London/other city centres. Problem is finding someone to take over that lease.

The only snag with that is that there are large areas of the UK with crap broadband. What we need is for a plan to roll out broadband to all areas of the UK so that we can aid a de-centralisation plan. But without a waiting market it's unlikely any broadband provider will want to invest in the infrastructure. Therefore, unless government is wiling to do it, we're stuck in existing population hubs.

If only...

That’s true, but - without any figures to back this up - I reckon the vast majority of people working jobs that can be done remotely live in cities, suburbs or commuter towns where connectivity wouldn’t be an issue.

I think a greater problem is that many people in positions to approve this in large traditional companies are quite old-fashioned in their approach, and the concept of working away from the office, flexible hours etc. is totally alien to them. It’s always astonished me how anal management get monitoring people’s time, even the ones who do an excellent job. This is a generational thing that’s only likely to change with time, sadly.

You're probably right. But, for me, the real benefit to remote working is that it enables us to consider living in other locations. The housing market in London and surrounding areas has been over-heated for years due to the sheer demand for property. If I could live and work in more cheap and backward locations (such as Halstead, as a random example), then I would probably consider that.

I also agree that leadership in this country has remained resistant to the idea in general. I work for such an organisation where there was a level of mistrust built in. They thought if we could work from home we'd end up pissing about on the internet. But, while that has turned out to be a justified fear, productivity has actually been maintained. Which just goes to prove that we were pissing about on the internet in the office anyway.

Dunners wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2020 12:17 pm

Millennial Snowflake wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2020 12:04 pm

Adz wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2020 4:58 am Now's the time to grandfather stamp duty and replace with a broad based land tax. This will help give people the opportunity to move somewhere closer to where they work without paying a massive penalty for it.

Or just accelerate the transition to remote working, which is long overdue anyway.

Companies will save massively on lease costs by reducing floor space in office blocks in London/other city centres. Problem is finding someone to take over that lease.

The only snag with that is that there are large areas of the UK with crap broadband. What we need is for a plan to roll out broadband to all areas of the UK so that we can aid a de-centralisation plan. But without a waiting market it's unlikely any broadband provider will want to invest in the infrastructure. Therefore, unless government is wiling to do it, we're stuck in existing population hubs.

If only...

If only there was some sort of next generation wireless network available.

Sure, if you don't mind being zapped by corona-rays!

Adz wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2020 2:05 pm

Millennial Snowflake wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2020 12:04 pm

Adz wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2020 4:58 am Now's the time to grandfather stamp duty and replace with a broad based land tax. This will help give people the opportunity to move somewhere closer to where they work without paying a massive penalty for it.

Or just accelerate the transition to remote working, which is long overdue anyway.

Companies will save massively on lease costs by reducing floor space in office blocks in London/other city centres. Problem is finding someone to take over that lease.

Remote working will be a disaster for the developed world. If companies realise your job can be done from home, they'll outsource it to a cheaper country

Hence the number of jobs already outsourced to countries like India.

In my experience though it is a false economy as these countries do not yet possess the skills and experience required to maintain the current standards which results in a number of jobs requiring being done 2 or more times.

Ornchurch wrote: ↑Wed May 20, 2020 1:14 pm In my experience though it is a false economy as these countries do not yet possess the skills and experience required to maintain the current standards which results in a number of jobs requiring being done 2 or more times.

Mine too. The trouble is they're so cheap that even if they do it 5 times, it's still cheaper.

o-no wrote: ↑Wed May 20, 2020 3:21 pm

Ornchurch wrote: ↑Wed May 20, 2020 1:14 pm In my experience though it is a false economy as these countries do not yet possess the skills and experience required to maintain the current standards which results in a number of jobs requiring being done 2 or more times.

Mine too. The trouble is they're so cheap that even if they do it 5 times, it's still cheaper.

not if the service they give you is crap and your customers leave.

I have to phone HSBC on occasion at the time the call centre was in India. They repeatedly used to say good afternoon when it was about 10 in the morning not a good company image.