Return to normality - a double edged sword?

[Scrotnig]

They are, however, crippling certain sectors - Events, live music and especially theatre are financially unviable even at 1m distancing. This sector is worth billions to the UK economy in itself but also drives additional spend in other areas (eg travel, hospitality, tourism, hotels). We're currently shut by government decree with no timescale for restarting. There's support for venues to stop them going bankrupt but nothing for the (largely self-employed) workforce or teh companies in the supply chain

There's a whole industry at risk of complete collapse along with the collateral damage (eg the pubs, bars and restaurants in London's West End are in real trouble without the audiences from the surrounding theatres)

I am seriously of the belief that the government has decided we can live without the entertainment industry, and it is going to allow it to die.
There can be no other explanation for the very deliberate attempt to kill it off.

 

[Scrotnig]

That's great news for you, but the reality for many people is very different.

Quite! Lockdown is a luxury, and it’s a luxury that the middle classes are very much enjoying.

They are extremely damaging to certain sectors of our economy; some of these areas may not be able to recover if we do not get back to normal reasonably soon.

Whilst I think the furlough scheme was absolutely the right thing to do, it's gone on far too long. It should have been tapered down to just the industries still forced to close.

Far, far too many people have got used to a big long paid holiday and I feel this is what drives the pro-lockdown noise on Twitter and Facebook...these people are thoroughly enjoying their big long paid holiday and see extending restrictions as a way to keep that going.

A healthy jolt of "no work = no money" for those type of people is what is now needed. We'll see how enthusiastic they are for lockdowns and masks when they actually have to go outside for a bit to avoid having no money.

 

[yorkie]

The people most in favour of extending lockdowns seem to be those in well paid jobs, with gardens and in work from home jobs, who are doing less travelling, while revelling in not passing on some of their income to people in lower paid jobs.

That said, what we are currently in isn't a lockdown, it's more of a shutdown of certain sectors and restrictions on what people can do. It clearly can't go on for much longer for so many reasons.

Anyone who thinks this is sustainable is deluded.

I am keen to go back to normal except more contactless payment options, more work/life balance in terms of more home working but not too much, table service, being able to change (not necessarily refund) hotel bookings, and innovations such as 'Anytime Advance' fares.

The restrictions on our lives can get stuffed though.

 

[bramling]

The people most in favour of extending lockdowns seem to be those in well paid jobs, with gardens and in work from home jobs, who are doing less travelling, while revelling in not passing on some of their income to people in lower paid jobs.

That said, what we are currently in isn't a lockdown, it's more of a shutdown of certain sectors and restrictions on what people can do. It clearly can't go on for much longer for so many reasons.

Anyone who thinks this is sustainable is deluded.

I am keen to go back to normal except more contactless payment options, more work/life balance in terms of more home working but not too much, table service, being able to change (not necessarily refund) hotel bookings, and innovations such as 'Anytime Advance' fares.

The restrictions on our lives can get stuffed though.

It’s certainly not a lockdown. For some people it does indeed now seem to be drifting towards some kind of paid sit-in. A lot of this now doesn’t seem to be directly related to Covid but more because some people are clearly rather enjoying the idea of being paid the same or nearly the same and being able to treat every day as a bank holiday.

There have already been several attempts at returning people to work, and each time it doesn’t seem to have happened. Eventually there may well have to be a more big stick approach, which unfortunately will likely have to be no return to work = no pay. Really they should be looking for the schools return to be the catalyst for this as it’s a natural breakpoint in a number of ways.

Goodness knows what will happen if for whatever reason education doesn’t return next month.

 

[3rd rail land]

This could be another issue for WFH. Who should pay for stuff like this, the employee or the employer? If you do not use your home for work and invest in air con, obviously you should pay for it. However if you invest in air con to make WFH more comfortable, then you could argue that your employer should be paying for it.

My employer, and I would think many other employers too, say that they will not pay for increased energy bills or part of an employee's broadband bill. They say that you get the benefit of lower travel costs and this would cover any increase in bills related to WFH. They certainly wouldn't pay for a fan or air con of any kind. I spent a bit of money sorting out my home office to allow for maximum productivity and I knew I wouldn't be able to expense any of the cost.

That said people who are officially classed as mobile or home workers, i.e not those working at home but officially assigned as an office worker, are entitled to some IT equipment for their home. The kind of stuff that you would have access to in an office. My employer is quite keen to make people home or remote workers, at least that was very much the case when I became a remote worker.

 

[westv]

Anybody working from home is allowed a minimum tax allowance although it's only something like £5 a week or so.

 

[philosopher]

My employer, and I would think many other employers too, say that they will not pay for increased energy bills or part of an employee's broadband bill. They say that you get the benefit of lower travel costs and this would cover any increase in bills related to WFH. They certainly wouldn't pay for a fan or air con of any kind. I spent a bit of money sorting out my home office to allow for maximum productivity and I knew I wouldn't be able to expense any of the cost.

For those driving or using public transport, I think this is fair argument from the employers. However for those who walk or cycle to the office, this argument does not work. This group could actually end up being worse off financially.

 

[birchesgreen]

Plus those with short commutes, i may be using less petrol but i am still paying car costs. My electricity bill has gone up a lot since March! I'm probably slightly worse off.

 

[3rd rail land]

For those driving or using public transport, I think this is fair argument from the employers. However for those who walk or cycle to the office, this argument does not work. This group could actually end up being worse off financially.

There will be some that lose out however the method of transport used to get to the place of work isn't really the employer's concern. When I had a desk assigned to me in our former London office I could have walked the 2.5 miles but I chose to use the London Underground. The fact I chose to spend money on public transport isn't my employer's concern in the slightest. I better off in terms of time but not in financial terms as I spent money on my home office setup which was perfectly adequate for the day here and there of WFH but not for WFH 95% of the time.

 

[philosopher]

There will be some that lose out however the method of transport used to get to the place of work isn't really the employer's concern. When I had a desk assigned to me in our former London office I could have walked the 2.5 miles but I chose to use the London Underground. The fact I chose to spend money on public transport isn't my employer's concern in the sloightest.

It is the employees concern, and therefore it can be employers concern too. If an employee concludes a change of working situation makes them worse off, then it is effectively a pay cut. Obviously this is not the case now, but if there is buoyant job market, then employees in such a situation may well change jobs so they do not lose out financially.

Related to this point, given a lot either seem to love or hate WFH, once there is a strong job market, I can see a lot of people in the future moving jobs based on whether they will work primarily at an office or at home.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I am seriously of the belief that the government has decided we can live without the entertainment industry, and it is going to allow it to die.
There can be no other explanation for the very deliberate attempt to kill it off.

The problem is that it, unlike most other industries, has no COVID-secure form, i.e. it will only become viable again once all social distancing can fully be abolished.

So I think my opinion is perhaps that funding should be provided for an orderly wind-down (i.e. so the businesses don't collapse but are instead closed in a controlled manner, with some sort of lump sum payment for those who will lose jobs), but it isn't really possible to fund its continuation for what could be years. Airlines are similar.

 

[DB]

The problem is that it, unlike most other industries, has no COVID-secure form, i.e. it will only become viable again once all social distancing can fully be abolished.

So I think my opinion is perhaps that funding should be provided for an orderly wind-down, but it isn't really possible to fund its continuation for what could be years. Airlines are similar.

You really are fully bought into the idea of completely trashing the economy, aren't you?!

And do you think it would suddenly reappear in due course? In reality,once gone much of it would never reappear.

 

[RomeoCharlie71]

You really are fully bought into the idea of completely trashing the economy, aren't you?!

And do you think it would suddenly reappear in due course? In reality,once gone much of it would never reappear.

Even if COVID was completely abolished overnight and all restrictions dropped, you still wouldn't see people rushing back to cinemas, museums, on holidays, etc. The majority of people's disposable income has been shredded over the past few months, with their jobs at risk and some families struggling to put food on the plate.

No matter what you do, industries will take years, if not decades, to get back to how they were pre-COVID.

 

[westv]

Even if COVID was completely abolished overnight and all restrictions dropped, you still wouldn't see people rushing back to cinemas, museums, on holidays, etc. The majority of people's disposable income has been shredded over the past few months, with their jobs at risk and some families struggling to put food on the plate.

I wouldn't say a majority. Most people have worked throughout.

 

[RomeoCharlie71]

I wouldn't say a majority. Most people have worked throughout.

Still quite a lot that have been furloughed, still are, and may not have a job to go back to at the end of October though. And people, from what I've seen, are being a bit more cautious with their spending now.

The point still remains, though.

 

[DB]

Still quite a lot that have been furloughed, still are, and may not have a job to go back to at the end of October though. And people, from what I've seen, are being a bit more cautious with their spending now.

The point still remains, though.

Yes, these industries would take a hit, but nothing like they are going to with the indefinite continuing of the current ridiculous government behaviour.

 

[RomeoCharlie71]

Yes, these industries would take a hit, but nothing like they are going to with the indefinite continuing of the current ridiculous government behaviour.

I agree - partially. Social distancing is one of the most effective ways of driving down transmission of the virus, so that'll be the last thing to go (it's hardly "ridiculous" behaviour). Masks though, are pretty dire and will put the nail in the coffin for some businesses/industries.

Would it be more financially viable for these industries to stay closed, or open on reduced capacities and mandating masks, whilst paying their staff as if they were at 100% of patronage?

 

[DB]

I agree - partially. Social distancing is one of the most effective ways of driving down transmission of the virus, so that'll be the last thing to go (it's hardly "ridiculous" behaviour). Masks though, are pretty dire and will put the nail in the coffin for some businesses/industries.

Would it be more financially viable for these industries to stay closed, or open on reduced capacities and mandating masks, whilst paying their staff as if they were at 100% of patronage?

All that driving down transmission is doing is making it take longer to reach a level of herd immunity - what they should be doing is putting protections in place for those who are medically at risk, and abandoning most of the other measures (possibly restricting very large gatherings such as football matches, but even there I'm not convinced any more). The reality is that this whole distancing thing means that normal functioning of society is impossible, and holding out in the hope that there might be a workable vaccine is a risky policy, and has no exit trategy if one doesn't appear.

 

[Richard Scott]

All that driving down transmission is doing is making it take longer to reach a level of herd immunity - what they should be doing is putting protections in place for those who are medically at risk, and abandoning most of the other measures (possibly restricting very large gatherings such as football matches, but even there I'm not convinced any more). The reality is that this whole distancing thing means that normal functioning of society is impossible, and holding out in the hope that there might be a workable vaccine is a risky policy, and has no exit trategy if one doesn't appear.

Totally agree but seems politicians are blind to the reality.

 

[adc82140]

The problem is that it, unlike most other industries, has no COVID-secure form, i.e. it will only become viable again once all social distancing can fully be abolished.

So I think my opinion is perhaps that funding should be provided for an orderly wind-down (i.e. so the businesses don't collapse but are instead closed in a controlled manner, with some sort of lump sum payment for those who will lose jobs), but it isn't really possible to fund its continuation for what could be years. Airlines are similar.

Are you for real? Do you really think that culture should be shut down? Do you really think that talented people such as musicians and actors should just be satisfied to work for Deliveroo instead? This isn't just about jobs. It's about livelihoods. It's about pride. It's about dignity. I'd rather live in a world where I can go to the theatre or a concert, and take my chances that a disease may infect me, that has a 20% chance of making me feel unwell, that in turn has a 1% chance of putting me in hospital etc etc. than have to sit at home seeing my days out frightened of my own shadow. You stay at home by all means.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Still quite a lot that have been furloughed, still are, and may not have a job to go back to at the end of October though. And people, from what I've seen, are being a bit more cautious with their spending now.

The point still remains, though.

As does my point - that the entertainments industry (both with regard to live entertainment and nightclubs) is totally non-viable with social distancing, and therefore it's a choice between an orderly wind-down and the businesses just collapsing?

Are you for real? Do you really think that culture should be shut down? Do you really think that talented people such as musicians and actors should just be satisfied to work for Deliveroo instead? This isn't just about jobs. It's about livelihoods. It's about pride. It's about dignity. I'd rather live in a world where I can go to the theatre or a concert, and take my chances that a disease may infect me, that has a 20% chance of making me feel unwell, that in turn has a 1% chance of putting me in hospital etc etc. than have to sit at home seeing my days out frightened of my own shadow. You stay at home by all means.

Unfortunately it seems you will not be offered that choice, and the reason is that it is not about you, it is about everyone.

 

[talldave]

Are you for real? Do you really think that culture should be shut down? Do you really think that talented people such as musicians and actors should just be satisfied to work for Deliveroo instead? This isn't just about jobs. It's about livelihoods. It's about pride. It's about dignity. I'd rather live in a world where I can go to the theatre or a concert, and take my chances that a disease may infect me, that has a 20% chance of making me feel unwell, that in turn has a 1% chance of putting me in hospital etc etc. than have to sit at home seeing my days out frightened of my own shadow. You stay at home by all means.

This is what project fear has left us with sadly. We need a few more people to join the resistance if there's to be any chance of saving life as we knew it.

 

[DB]

As does my point - that the entertainments industry (both with regard to live entertainment and nightclubs) is totally non-viable with social distancing, and therefore it's a choice between an orderly wind-down and the businesses just collapsing?

You seem to have omitted the rather obvious third option...

 

[Bletchleyite]

You seem to have omitted the rather obvious third option...

Because that option (to simply remove all social distancing now) is so far fetched that it is just not going to happen so there is no point even including it.

One exception, but you won't like it. We crack down hard and eliminate the virus (or at least get it down to single figures of cases a day, and go properly strict on quarantining anyone found to have it in a Government facility until they have had three negative tests in a row), and close our borders. Then it can all come back, probably within 2-3 months.

 

[farleigh]

As does my point - that the entertainments industry (both with regard to live entertainment and nightclubs) is totally non-viable with social distancing, and therefore it's a choice between an orderly wind-down and the businesses just collapsing?



Unfortunately it seems you will not be offered that choice, and the reason is that it is not about you, it is about everyone.

It's not about you - it's about everyone. So it's not about everyone then??

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's not about you - it's about everyone. So it's not about everyone then??

It is about the collective. It is not about any one person.

 

[DB]

Because that option (to simply remove all social distancing now) is so far fetched that it is just not going to happen so there is no point even including it.

One exception, but you won't like it. We crack down hard and eliminate the virus (or at least get it down to single figures of cases a day, and go properly strict on quarantining anyone found to have it in a Government facility until they have had three negative tests in a row), and close our borders. Then it can all come back, probably within 2-3 months.

Just goes to show how successful 'project fear' has been - people are actually asking for policies which make everybody's lives worse to counter a threat which to most people is miniscule to non-existent.

The whole 'elimination' thing has never worked with any widespread virus, ever, so there's no reason to assume this one is magically different. Closed borders is not a viable strategy either - and given what happens at the end of 2020 would be absolutely disastrous.

 

[farleigh]

I th

It is about the collective. It is not about any one person.

The collective including these following to what degree.

• People losing their jobs, livelihoods and homes.
• People struggling with mental health because of the restrictions in place since March.
• People dying from diseases other than the virus because hospitals have shifted their focus.
• People in care homes who have been shut away for months.
• People who have been unable to attend funerals of loved ones.
• People who cannot access education or employment because of the restrictions and associated effect on the economy.

How much of the collective is left?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Just goes to show how successful 'project fear' has been - people are actually asking for policies which make everybody's lives worse to counter a threat which to most people is miniscule to non-existent.

It really doesn't. Most people do not travel abroad often, and a considerable number don't ever (i.e. do not own passports). My mind utterly boggles as to why people would prefer to accept all the social distancing faff (or risk posed by the virus, if you advocate abolition) over simply not taking a couple of trips a year abroad and having to take them domestically instead.

It has by far the best hope of returning to normality within the UK, like New Zealand have successfully achieved.

The borders don't have to be fully closed, we just need a workable mandatory quarantine-and-test setup with quarantine in a Government facility. If visiting family is important, which to many it is, that will be accepted.

 

[jtuk]

It has by far the best hope of returning to normality within the UK, like New Zealand have successfully achieved.

Stop peddling this myth