On 28/03/2020 10:40, wrote:
On Fri, 27 Mar 2020 17:44:24 +0000
Charles Ellson wrote:
On Fri, 27 Mar 2020 10:30:42 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 10:16:26 on Fri, 27 Mar
2020, Graeme Wall remarked:

Unsurprisingly, Crossrail construction

Being in Central London, a high risk area, doesn't help.

has been halted:

https://www.railmagazine.com/news/network/work-on-crossrail-sites-suspended

And, apparently, HS2.

Have they issued advice on building sites in general yet? Although of
course a lot of HS2 work - even engineering - takes place in offices,
but maybe they've taken their CAD systems home by now..

Apparently Boris has said it is OK to keep going to work on building
sites -
https://inews.co.uk/inews-lifestyle/...n-can-builders
-work-construction-workers-coronavirus-lockdown-uk-explained-2516863
and was almost immediately contradicted.

Various companies have taken various views but I can't see social
distancing being achieveable on anything other than a small site
staffed by a man and his dog[TM] or maybe by the odd few who can
operate as a family-sized group with only minimal necessary contact
with others.

Social isolation simply can't be done with certain jobs, simple as that.
If the construction work is important (eg a house at the bottom of my road
currently has no roof - it can't stay like that for 3 months or it'll be a
wreck) then it needs to be done regardless. If they workers are willing to
take the risk then they should be allowed to do so.

Indeed - what very few of the shouty people on the internet or in the
media seem to realise is that this is a little more nuanced than people
realise.

The aim of the current restrictions is not to stop the virus - it's too
virulent and the net effect on the population is not large enough for
the absolute draconian measures that you'd need (get the army out on the
streets, properly separated, and insist everyone stay home for 2 weeks
regardless of stocks of food or other needs and if they leave they can
be shot on sight) that you'd need if this thing had the death rate of
e.g. ebola or similar.

The aim is therefore for a slow burn through the population and to
reduce the transmission rate to a level that the NHS can cope with
(hopefully) so that anyone who can reasonably be saved with medical
intervention will be.

Presumably at some point a choice was made over whether it was
preferable to screw up people's leisure time or completely trash the
economy, possibly irreperably. Any sane person can see that the former
is the better long term option and therefore where reasonably possible
people are expected, and meant, to continue working.

So people must accept their leisure time is going to have to fly solo
for a while until the situation for the health service recovers a little
bit.

Some of the reactions from the public are bizarre in the extreme though
- the attempt at shaming those who go to work and the police with drones
etc - and some sections of the population fundamentally need to be
ashamed of themselves for self-serving behaviour.