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/...lained-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.

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.

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.

On 29/03/2020 09:01, Someone Somewhere wrote:

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.

This situation is certainly bringing out the worst of a lot of people,
but it also brings out the best in some.

We were speaking on the phone to a friend a few days ago, who usually
pops around for a coffee every two or three weeks, obviously now she
can't do so. We were bemoaning the lack of things like toilet rolls etc.
and that they sell out within an hour of the shop opening and we're not
good at mornings..!

Yesterday, we had a phone call out of the blue - "I've been out this
morning and got you some loo rolls, I'll bring them round and leave them
on your doorstep." Half an hour later the doorbell went and when we
looked out there they were and she wouldn't take any money for them.

Today we woke up to the door again and there was another bag of supplies
outside, including a big box of assorted chocolate biscuits..!

Now THAT is selflessness and the mark of true friendship. We are
honestly very humbled to know someone who will do that for us.


--
Ria in Aberdeen

[Send address is invalid, use sipsoup at gmail dot com to reply direct]

On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 09:01:18 +0100
Someone Somewhere wrote:
On 28/03/2020 10:40, wrote:
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.

Even then key people would still need to go to work - if there was no water or
electricity there'd be no point saving everyone from a disease if they died
of thirst or cold anyway. Tbh if a disease that bad became highly infectious
then frankly civilisation would be ****ed no matter what.

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.

Sweden seem to have a different take on hit however - they're old and at risk
are being told to remain at home but life goes on more or less as normal for
everyone else. Apparently the idea being to get the herd immunity in the not
at risk part of the population and get the virus to burn itself out quickly
at which point the self isolating groups can leave home. Lets hope that
approach works because if it does this whole lockdown business can be binned.
We should find in in a few weeks.

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.

Unfortunately there will always be screw you I'm alright jack members of the
public and there will also always be wanna gestapo within the police.

On 30/03/2020 09:05, wrote:

Sweden seem to have a different take on hit however - they're old and at risk
are being told to remain at home but life goes on more or less as normal for
everyone else. Apparently the idea being to get the herd immunity in the not
at risk part of the population and get the virus to burn itself out quickly
at which point the self isolating groups can leave home. Lets hope that
approach works because if it does this whole lockdown business can be binned.
We should find in in a few weeks.

I can't believe that Sweden would get anything right.
They probably heard that it's mostly men and mostly old people who die,
so they've decided to welcome the disease in.

--
Basil Jet recently enjoyed listening to
Goat - 2014 - Commune

wrote:
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 09:01:18 +0100
Someone Somewhere wrote:
On 28/03/2020 10:40, wrote:
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.

Even then key people would still need to go to work - if there was no water or
electricity there'd be no point saving everyone from a disease if they died
of thirst or cold anyway. Tbh if a disease that bad became highly infectious
then frankly civilisation would be ****ed no matter what.

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.

Sweden seem to have a different take on hit however - they're old and at risk
are being told to remain at home but life goes on more or less as normal for
everyone else. Apparently the idea being to get the herd immunity in the not
at risk part of the population and get the virus to burn itself out quickly
at which point the self isolating groups can leave home. Lets hope that
approach works because if it does this whole lockdown business can be binned.
We should find in in a few weeks.

That's roughly what the UK was doing until about 10 days ago, when the
government felt obliged to bring in a much tougher policy.


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.

Unfortunately there will always be screw you I'm alright jack members of the
public and there will also always be wanna gestapo within the police.

On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 09:26:48 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 09:01:18 +0100
Someone Somewhere wrote:
On 28/03/2020 10:40, wrote:
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.

Even then key people would still need to go to work - if there was no water
or
electricity there'd be no point saving everyone from a disease if they died
of thirst or cold anyway. Tbh if a disease that bad became highly infectious
then frankly civilisation would be ****ed no matter what.

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.

Sweden seem to have a different take on hit however - they're old and at risk

are being told to remain at home but life goes on more or less as normal for
everyone else. Apparently the idea being to get the herd immunity in the not
at risk part of the population and get the virus to burn itself out quickly
at which point the self isolating groups can leave home. Lets hope that
approach works because if it does this whole lockdown business can be binned.

We should find in in a few weeks.

That's roughly what the UK was doing until about 10 days ago, when the
government felt obliged to bring in a much tougher policy.

No doubt down in part to media hysteria. There's nothing the media -
particularly the BBC - like to do more than turn a situation into a crisis then
disingenuously claim that they're only "reporting the facts". They did exactly
the same thing with Brexit with any academic with an axe to grind who was
willing to claim that it would cause food shortages etc being given air time.
Also the liberal lefts burning desire to put the "plebs" in their place also
shines through - ie lets lock them up for months for their own good etc.

On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 10:09:02 +0100
Basil Jet wrote:
On 30/03/2020 09:05, wrote:

Sweden seem to have a different take on hit however - they're old and at risk

are being told to remain at home but life goes on more or less as normal for
everyone else. Apparently the idea being to get the herd immunity in the not
at risk part of the population and get the virus to burn itself out quickly
at which point the self isolating groups can leave home. Lets hope that
approach works because if it does this whole lockdown business can be binned.

We should find in in a few weeks.

I can't believe that Sweden would get anything right.
They probably heard that it's mostly men and mostly old people who die,
so they've decided to welcome the disease in.

Who cares what they're reasoning is - they're doing an experiment that could
benefit the whole world if it works. If it doesn't then I guess Ikea might
be short of flatpack furniture and meatballs for a while.

In message , at 09:43:51 on Mon, 30 Mar
2020, remarked:

There's nothing the media - particularly the BBC - like to do more than
turn a situation into a crisis then disingenuously claim that they're
only "reporting the facts". They did exactly the same thing with Brexit
with any academic with an axe to grind who was willing to claim that it
would cause food shortages etc being given air time.

We haven't go to the point in the Brexit process where such an outcome
would start to manifest itself. "No Deal", or something approaching it.

The next deadline is supposed to be June, when either the EU decides if
a deal is possible to conclude before the end of December, or UK/EU
agree to an extension.
--
Roland Perry