How much longer will social distancing go on for in the UK?

[RomeoCharlie71]

Local testing location

These are now being closed in my local area due to suppressed numbers of new cases (1 or 2 daily). And it was also a 30 minute drive away.

I received the result as a text message (negative) before I even woke up the next day.

Lucky you. I doubt that'll be the case when there's more people experiencing symptoms over the Winter.

For what it's worth, a local taxi driver had a passenger in his cab on Friday night. The passenger made a phonecall to someone telling them they had tested positive for COVID-19. The taxi firm put a message on their Facebook page on Monday morning saying the driver was still awaiting to be booked in for a test. So it really isn't very efficient at present.

Kits by post were available as well. I almost chose one, but then realised that might mean a couple more days of isolation. But even with that it would have been a maximum of about 4 days of isolation, possibly only three.

Yes, so nearly a full weeks work if you were in the office.

 

[AdamWW]

Well current guidance is that if you cold / flu symptoms you should self isolate. Any HR department going against that and putting in writing that staff need to still come in, would be very brave.

Who has issued this guidance?

All the government guidance I've seen has only said that you should self-isolate if you have the "classic" COVID-19 symptoms. Likewise for entering shops, having an eye test, using a train etc.

Maybe it's different in England but in Wales you aren't supposd to book a Covid test unless you have the particular symptoms, not just general cold/flu ones.

 

[Scrotnig]

The kind of companies that make people come in dont usually have HR departments. This was believed to be the cause of a lot of the recent Leicester flare up.

Well that's a rather different scenario. We were talking here of companies who sent their staff a letter saying they had breached absence levels. That would come from HR.

The type of firms in Leicester and elsewhere are generally operating illegally in the first place and make it clear if you don't come in you're sacked on the spot and can no longer be paid your £3 per hour, or whatever. It's rife in Leicester (I live there) and in other places too. It should fall under modern slavery but unfortunately the authorities are generally too scared to act.

 

[scarby]

People blindly following rules, without working out for themselves if they *are* for everyone's benefit, is the cause of many terrible tragedies in history.

It is disturbing just how many people seem to like being told exactly what to do, down to the smallest detail, and snitching and shaming others who aren't doing exactly what they think they should be doing. I did think we'd do rather better at resisting that than we have; this hasn't done much for my faith in society.

Yes indeed, Mike. I am not that scared of many things, but mass obedience is probably the one of which I am - as you say it can lead to dreadful consequences and it is quite terrifying what people are prepared to do when obeying orders en masse.

 

[AdamWW]

Yes indeed, Mike. I am not that scared of many things, but mass obedience is probably the one of which I am - as you say it can lead to dreadful consequences and it is quite terrifying what people are prepared to do when obeying orders en masse.

So before considering whether to obey any law, I should look into all the evidence, weigh up whether I think the law is justified, and if not it's my moral duty to ignore the law and damn the consequences?

I don't suppose you are saying that, but it beats me if I know what you are suggesting.

 

[MikeWM]

So before considering whether to obey any law, I should look into all the evidence, weigh up whether I think the law is justified, and if not it's my moral duty to ignore the law and damn the consequences?

At extreme times - and I think it is fair to say this is an extreme time - I think it may be rather wise to do just that. I'm sure we can all quote many examples from history where things would have gone rather better if people had done so.

But I'm not sure we're talking about that anyway. Aren't we talking about reporting other people for not following the laws - in other words 'snitching'? That's another matter again - even if *you* choose to obey the law, having people actively pointing out those who aren't to the authorities (or to social media) - in cases such as this, at least - doesn't seem highly commendable to me, and it is unfortunate that the last few months seems to have shown that there is a lot more of that attitude present in our society than I'd hoped.

 

[AdamWW]

At extreme times - and I think it is fair to say this is an extreme time - I think it may be rather wise to do just that. I'm sure we can all quote many examples from history where things would have gone rather better if people had done so.

Well I'd agree these are extreme times and that there are certainly times for everyone not to do what the government says. But I don't see the regulations we've had so far as coming into that category.

But I'm not sure we're talking about that anyway. Aren't we talking about reporting other people for not following the laws - in other words 'snitching'? That's another matter again - even if *you* choose to obey the law, having people actively pointing out those who aren't to the authorities (or to social media) - in cases such as this, at least - doesn't seem highly commendable to me, and it is unfortunate that the last few months seems to have shown that there is a lot more of that attitude present in our society than I'd hoped.

Well I personally wouldn't go round trying to report people, but in the case of laws intended for the greater good not personal protection I can see why people would be motivated to do so. I can see people thinking that if they are doing their bit by not seeing their family, why should the neighbours get away with breaking the law and having their familiy visit? I don't think you have to assume they just take pleasure in snitching on people.

 

[MikeWM]

Well I'd agree these are extreme times and that there are certainly times for everyone not to do what the government says. But I don't see the regulations we've had so far as coming into that category.

It doesn't hurt to keep on your guard for what may come next. Though I don't believe I've broken any of the laws at any point so far. (Can't quite say the same for the 'advice'!)

Well I personally wouldn't go round trying to report people, but in the case of laws intended for the greater good not personal protection I can see why people would be motivated to do so. I can see people thinking that if they are doing their bit by not seeing their family, why should the neighbours get away with breaking the law and having their familiy visit? I don't think you have to assume they just take pleasure in snitching on people.

I'm sure some do though.

As for the others, I'm not saying I don't understand why they do it, but I disagree fundamentally with it (in this case, at least). I don't feel I'm in a position to judge how others are choosing to cope with all this - I don't know their circumstances, mental states, or anything else.

 

[bramling]

Yes, those attendance policies stink. It is not to the company's benefit to have half the workforce working ineffectively due to a snotty cold. Better than the one person first to be infected stayed at home for the duration.

Like it or not such policies are regarded as “best practice” and are very common. Short of having everyone compulsorily examined by a doctor, no one seems to have come up with a better way of doing things.

From a personal point of view I don’t like catching a cold, but I like doing someone else’s work even less.

Colds are a fact of life.

 

[greyman42]

I truly don’t understand the public anymore. I would’ve genuinely thought that people would hate living this restricted life like I do and would do anything to get back to normal as quickly as possible. Instead we have the most vocal proportion of the public crying out for these restrictions to be extended for longer and longer and for normal life to practically never return. Where exactly did we go wrong?

Some people just don't want to go back to work and think that keeping the restrictions will extend their "holiday".

 

[Scrotnig]

Some people just don't want to go back to work and think that keeping the restrictions will extend their "holiday".

That unfortunately is the problem.

There's a very vocal lot on Facebook and Twitter who believe that the the government will keep extending the furlough scheme so they have a vested interest in keeping restrictions going.

Whilst I support the furlough scheme overall, I can't wait for reality to dawn on these people when they realise it's "back to work or you get no money".

 

[HSTEd]

Or they realise there are no jobs to come back to.

 

[bramling]

That unfortunately is the problem.

There's a very vocal lot on Facebook and Twitter who believe that the the government will keep extending the furlough scheme so they have a vested interest in keeping restrictions going.

Whilst I support the furlough scheme overall, I can't wait for reality to dawn on these people when they realise it's "back to work or you get no money".

This is responsible for a large part of many issues at the moment. Furlough was a good idea as an emergency measure, but it was always going to prove too popular for its own good. At the very least it should have been marketed as "the only step between you and no job / no pay", whereas instead Sunak went for "we will look after you whatever" message. A fatal blunder IMO.

At my place we have someone who's been off since March, ostensibly due to depression, and as a result has been placed on furlough. Facebook meanwhile tells its own story, with daily photos of him enjoying himself in the garden with pints in hand, on beaches, at theme parks, and more recently in pubs. Why ever would he not want all this to go on for as long as possible? It goes without saying the individual had utterly dire attendance beforehand, however this *really wasn't* what furlough was intended for.

 

[DB]

At my place we have someone who's been off since March, ostensibly due to depression, and as a result has been placed on furlough. Facebook meanwhile tells its own story, with daily photos of him enjoying himself in the garden with pints in hand, on beaches, at theme parks, and more recently in pubs. Why ever would he not want all this to go on for as long as possible? It goes without saying the individual had utterly dire attendance beforehand, however this *really wasn't* what furlough was intended for.

Surely this should be an issue for HR to take up? Granted, it's difficult as it would be totally unreasonable for someone suffering from depression to be expected to stay at home all the time, but there has to be a balance.

 

[bramling]

Surely this should be an issue for HR to take up? Granted, it's difficult as it would be totally unreasonable for someone suffering from depression to be expected to stay at home all the time, but there has to be a balance.

One would think so, however the availability of furlough seems to have facilitated this case to be kicked into the long grass. I should have put depression in inverted comms, unless the definition of depression in this particular instance is "convenient way of taking massive amounts of time off work"! This person has had quite a history of dire attendance over the years, as well as being troublesome on the rare occasions he is there.

 

[MikeWM]

Whilst I support the furlough scheme overall, I can't wait for reality to dawn on these people when they realise it's "back to work or you get no money".

One more problem with the furlough scheme is the Chancellor's well-meaning but flawed bribe to take furloughed people back. Anyone looking to make job cuts may well take the furloughed people back to get the payout, and instead sack someone who has been working through.

 

[Jamesrob637]

One more problem with the furlough scheme is the Chancellor's well-meaning but flawed bribe to take furloughed people back. Anyone looking to make job cuts may well take the furloughed people back to get the payout, and instead sack someone who has been working through.

Business travel looks to be one good example. You can only entice people to fly 6-12 hours for meetings to some degree, and it depends very much on partnerships with the Airlines themselves.

 

[Bletchleyite]

One more problem with the furlough scheme is the Chancellor's well-meaning but flawed bribe to take furloughed people back. Anyone looking to make job cuts may well take the furloughed people back to get the payout, and instead sack someone who has been working through.

Does this not contain rules to prohibit making someone redundant in the same or a similar role for a specified period? If not the Chancellor is a well-meaning fool.

 

[MikeWM]

Does this not contain rules to prohibit making someone redundant in the same or a similar role for a specified period? If not the Chancellor is a well-meaning fool.

Not that anyone seems to have mentioned, but I suppose it could be in the small print (?).

 

[Enthusiast]

If someone sneezed towards you with (possibly covid 19 infected) droplets

Why should they do that? I don't think I have ever had somebody sneeze towards me.

I get quite angry when I am given a cold by some inconsiderate snivelling wreck spreading it all over the train when what they should be doing is staying at home because they know they have an unpleasant infectious disease

Are you seriously suggesting that anybody with a cold should remain at home? In the winter a large number of people will be off work for what is essentially a very minor inconvenience to themselves and a negligible threat to anybody else.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Are you seriously suggesting that anybody with a cold should remain at home?

Yes.

In the winter a large number of people will be off work for what is essentially a very minor inconvenience to themselves and a negligible threat to anybody else.

Because colds don't spread asymptomatically, everyone who has one knows they do. If those people stayed at home when they had one, it wouldn't be a large number of people, it would be a tiny few. You'd only get spread from people who develop symptoms during the day, which as most colds last about a week would mean spread would reduce to a seventh of the existing rate.

 

[Scrotnig]

Are you seriously suggesting that anybody with a cold should remain at home?

Yes, they damn well should.

Long before this virus raised it head I was regularly faced with issues providing care to two elderly relatives, because some selfish idiot would spread a cold round the office, I'd then catch it but I couldn't then risk giving it to my elderly relatives as colds can cause complications for them. So they had to fend for themselves for about a week.

Also some people suffer more with colds than others. I really hate the way women mock men over 'man-colds'. If I get a cold, especially now I am a bit older, it will mean a minimum of two days where I can't work - even from home, I'm in bed half the time and when I'm up my eyes are streaming so much I cannot see (wearing glasses makes this much worse). I'm not skiving or moaning or making something out of nothing, it's bloody horrible and I have always resented people deliberately spreading these things around by carrying on as normal.

As I said earlier, one positive out of all this is that maybe that will stop for a while.

 

[DelayRepay]

We've always had the ability to work from home, and I was always clear with my team that if they had a cold or minor ailment*, that's what they should do instead of infecting me and the rest of the team. I would see people in other teams who didn't have the same approach struggle in. I know those teams had a higher sickness rate than mine.

An interesting stat is that in our company, despite Covid, sickness has actually reduced since March compared to this time last year. The theory is that, because nearly everyone can now work from home, people are less likely to take time off sick for minor ailments. A second theory is that working from home is preventing other bugs from spreading around the workforce, given hardly any of us have seen each other since March. I am worried personally that we will have an increase in ergonomics related sickness and mental health issues if this carries on for longer, but the day to day coughs, colds, upset tummies etc do seem to have stopped.

(With the benefit of hindsight, I am particularly glad that the team member who returned from Italy in February with a cough followed this advice!)

 

[HSTEd]

Also some people suffer more with colds than others. I really hate the way women mock men over 'man-colds'. If I get a cold, especially now I a bit older, it will mean a minimum of two days where I can't work - even from home, I'm in bed half the time and when I'm up my eyes are streaming so much I cannot see (wearing glasses makes this much worse). I'm not skiving or moaning or making something out of nothing, it's bloody horrible and I have always resented people deliberately spreading these things around by carrying on as normal.

How do I tell what a "cold" is.

As someone with hayfever and a serious dust allergy, its impossible to tell when I have a cold or not half the time.

 

[Scrotnig]

How do I tell what a "cold" is.

As someone with hayfever and a serious dust allergy, its impossible to tell when I have a cold or not half the time.

I get hayfever as well. For me it's the specific type of sore throat I get when I first start with a cold, before the other symptoms appear. However I appreciate it's not the same for everyone.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I get hayfever as well. For me it's the specific type of sore throat I get when I first start with a cold, before the other symptoms appear. However I appreciate it's not the same for everyone.

Same for me - a very bad sore throat and accentuated acid reflux (probably because of increased histamine levels) are my signal, and I know it's a cold straight away. Clearly if you don't know you can be excused, but most of the people wandering around the place sneezing and dripping snot know full well they are doing, and should be at home.

 

[MikeWM]

I get hayfever as well. For me it's the specific type of sore throat I get when I first start with a cold, before the other symptoms appear. However I appreciate it's not the same for everyone.

Same here.

Oddly the 'cold' I got in February had all the symptoms in the wrong order from usual. Maybe it was a mild case of Covid?

 

[Enthusiast]

Obviously those people who get more severe symptoms than average with a cold should stay at home. But that's because they are unfit to work. But what's being suggested here is that anyone suffering from a cold has a duty to others to remain at home. Quite frankly that is preposterous. The vast majority of people who suffer from a cold are not unfit to work or go shopping and they do not need to remain at home. They don't, in my experience go "wandering around the place sneezing and dripping snot." The majority of them try to keep their infections to themselves but it is simply not possible to do so entirely. The vast majority of people who might catch that cold will not be so ill that they will be unfit to work or go shopping or need to remain at home. It is completely unreasonable to expect someone who is suffering from a relatively minor ailment to isolate themselves from everybody else. It's unfortunate that some people suffer more from colds than others. It's also unfortunate that it is they who will have to keep themselves safe and not rely on everybody else to do it for them. I despair at some of the views in this country that everybody must be protected from everything - even down to a common cold. It cannot happen and the sooner that is accepted the sooner we can move on from this ridiculous state of affairs.

 

[Cowley]

Obviously those people who get more severe symptoms than average with a cold should stay at home. But that's because they are unfit to work. But what's being suggested here is that anyone suffering from a cold has a duty to others to remain at home. Quite frankly that is preposterous. The vast majority of people who suffer from a cold are not unfit to work or go shopping and they do not need to remain at home. They don't, in my experience go "wandering around the place sneezing and dripping snot." The majority of them try to keep their infections to themselves but it is simply not possible to do so entirely. The vast majority of people who might catch that cold will not be so ill that they will be unfit to work or go shopping or need to remain at home. It is completely unreasonable to expect someone who is suffering from a relatively minor ailment to isolate themselves from everybody else. It's unfortunate that some people suffer more from colds than others. It's also unfortunate that it is they who will have to keep themselves safe and not rely on everybody else to do it for them. I despair at some of the views in this country that everybody must be protected from everything - even down to a common cold. It cannot happen and the sooner that is accepted the sooner we can move on from this ridiculous state of affairs.

Very much agreed. And in simple terms shutting yourself away from being exposed to all the colds/bugs/viruses in general circulation will not make you healthier.
Quite the opposite in fact.

 

[High Dyke]

Same here.

Oddly the 'cold' I got in February had all the symptoms in the wrong order from usual. Maybe it was a mild case of Covid?

You're not the first person that may have thought that, or even suffered in the same context without realising. A friend of ours had similar just after Christmas.