To think WFH is stupid on its own?

[zafferana]

To be clear, I think WFH again is stupid anyway and we have to just live with this fucking virus, but with everyone going out to bars, clubs, theatres, etc, what is the point of telling people to WFH again? It will just damage the economy and I doubt it will do much to stop the spread of Covid if everyone is still out partying and Christmas shopping.

London was HEAVING at the weekend, which WFH will do nothing to alleviate. I'm so sick of these stupid rules now. Before we could all get vaccinated, fine, we had nothing else did we, so WFH, SD, etc made sense, but now I think it's all stupid. We're going to get new iterations of this bloody virus every six months, so how about we sort out the NHS, since that's the perennial excuse for all these irritating rules, and then let people make their own judgement call on what they consider safe to do. And if you choose to get unvaccinated, on your head be it.

it just feels a bit like the absolute bare minimum action, doesn't it?

Not sure I agree about WFH wrecking the economy though, why would it? I am far more productive when WFH than when having to commute an hour or more a day

it just feels a bit like the absolute bare minimum action, doesn't it?

It really does. Always too slow and not enough throughout this pandemic.

Why would it damage the economy? Working from home is more efficient.

I agree it probably won't make much difference, but it looks like a zero-cost option to me, so worth doing for the little good it will do.

I agree. I can't see my friends in the office but I can meet them in the pub. It seems daft.

On the subject of productivity, I'm only more productive as my sodding laptop is in the living room and I work until 6-7pm rather than finishing nearer 5-5.30pm as if I was in the office.

Working from home means vulnerable people who might not be so protected by the vaccine or people who are just more cautious aren’t forced into offices and on to public transport. These people would already be avoiding bars and clubs.

You're not making a lot of sense OP - and you are making assertions like "London was HEAVING at the weekend, which WFH will do nothing to alleviate" which don't make logical sense since it assumes no-one who WFH works weekends which can't be true.

If WFH was the only measure then it wouldn't make sense, but I can't see it can't be used as part of a package - as it is being.

To be clear I am not a fan of the government an I have never voted Tory in my life - but reasonable measures to stop the virus spreading so quickly are surely a good idea.

As for "sorting out" the NHS - I do think we could do better, but I don't want to have an NHS with thousands of empty unused beds and hospitals 90% of the time "Just in case" we have a new virus outbreak - that wouldn't make any sense really.

It’s a huge level of protection if millions and millions of people stop commuting daily and being in close proximity in the workplace.

Your rant is a bit confused, you're complaining that the rules will do nothing, but also seem to think that they are too much of a burden. If the rules are ineffectual, that's an argument for having more restrictions, not fewer.

It’s about reducing contacts while still living our lives. Maybe work from home will reduce contact by 10%. Perhaps having mask wearing on public transport, shops, theatres and similar is 5% and will avoid/delay a full lockdown. If I have to go to work everyday that’s a lot of contacts, if I go to the pub I have a choice whether to go or not, and I’m not going to go every day. Unfortunately it’s not a zero cost option: hospitality will lose money, so will public transport and retail if people are out a little less. But at least they are still open.

I guess it’s an easy thing to put in place for those who can without damaging the economy or children’s education.

It won't help because it relies on bosses to decide who can work from home. Those whose bosses are on board with it have been working from home to some extent since last year. Those whose bosses do not favour it will still insist they're needed in the office.

For those employers that have insisted people return after the first lockdown, they're not going to suddenly have a change of heart now.

@RandomLondoner

Your rant is a bit confused, you're complaining that the rules will do nothing, but also seem to think that they are too much of a burden. If the rules are ineffectual, that's an argument for having more restrictions, not fewer.

Okay, to clarify, WFH will damage the kind of businesses that benefit from people going into their places of work. I appreciate that other businesses should be unaffected, but WFH will further damage the economy, because many office workers will just hole up at home again.

Okay, to clarify, WFH will damage the kind of businesses that benefit from people going into their places of work. I appreciate that other businesses should be unaffected, but WFH will further damage the economy, because many office workers will just hole up at home again.

Are you arguing they should not bring in wfh - that’s what this sounds like?
But your OP made it sound like they should go further, close cinemas, do something about London being heaving etc? Which would damage more businesses.

God - I wish we would sort out the NHS. Its a disgrace and a laughing stock. Other systems are far better i.e France.

Its because its free, its abused, the waste within the NHS is shocking. I was a big supplier to the NHS in a previous role. The little cottage industries within departments to string out decision making. The Procurement Dept was a joke. There was no joined up thinking because actually people wanted to keep their roles, have endless meetings about very little and hold onto old technologies because they were used to them. The pension scheme is very attractive and not based on the stock market.

So what would I do:

Would have some co payment system and use other countries to learn from

Would have joined up Procurement across the whole of the NHS

Stop giving out silly medications at vast cost because some people like a freebie

Mke the discharge system from hospital more efficient. Twice now I have collected a parent from hospital having been told to turn up at 10 to find some test hasnt been done and could I wait. I did and ended up leaving at 1630 and 1800! That bed could have been used for someone else.

Give nursing bursaries and tie doctors into practising within the NHS for a number of years rather than use the training in the UK to then practise in other countries.

I worked at home for years and years and have also done the communting side too. There is an awful lot of skivving going on. I have seen it within my old company and also with clients who were local and health authorities along with some central government depts. People sometimes saw it as a way of not paying for childcare or being unavailable from 0900-0930 plus 1530-1600 and then unsurprisingly having children in the background after 1600 during Zoom calls. Look at what some teachers did when they were told to work at home.

@RandomLondoner

Why would it damage the economy? Working from home is more efficient.

I agree it probably won't make much difference, but it looks like a zero-cost option to me, so worth doing for the little good it will do.

All the businesses around offices like staff canteens (run by separate company), restaurants (would normally be very busy with team lunches), coffee shops, a lot of people would do christmas shopping at lunch time etc.

Plus trasport for London is talking about shutting lines and bus routs down pernamently as they lost so much money.

@3WildOnes

Working from home means vulnerable people who might not be so protected by the vaccine or people who are just more cautious aren’t forced into offices and on to public transport. These people would already be avoiding bars and clubs.

This is my thinking too! I had a colleague at my old job who has a CEV husband, she had to go to work she had no choice, but she doesn't go to clubs/bars/restaurants etc. this now means she has an extra layer of protection by not needing to mix with these people in the office, means we can all go about our lives in a way we feel best without it impacting as much on each other.

I actually think that it's a great idea. It reduces the crowds at peak travel times. Some people are vunerable, have to continue going into work, and this gives them reassurance. If some people want to go out and socialise at the weekend, that's fine. But not everyone will be doing that, some will be shielding. Less commuters equals less pollution, so its a win win.

Or lose lose for those of us who have to adapt our living space to WFH.

But is only if you can wfh it is advisable if you can. Honestly, I think it helps specially if you are vulnerable. The younger and healthy people can party. If venues are huge you need to be vaccinated or have LFT. reasonable I think. However, let’s be honest there is a witch hunt for the Tories. Wherever they do or do not do.

@PinkSparklyPussyCat

Or lose lose for those of us who have to adapt our living space to WFH.

Work from the office then.

WFH is a relatively straightforward way of cutting unnecessary contact between people, mainly by reducing the number of people on public transport and limiting close contact in the workplace. If a job can be done from home, why shouldn't it?

I agree it's a shame for small independent coffee shops etc (not the chains, Pret et al can just change their business model), but equally I don't think people should be corralled back into the office just to keep Joe Blogg's Cafe afloat.

Work from the office then.

If it's like last time I won't be able to. I can do the job at home so I have no choice, the office was closed.

@SickAndTiredAgain

Okay, to clarify, WFH will damage the kind of businesses that benefit from people going into their places of work. I appreciate that other businesses should be unaffected, but WFH will further damage the economy, because many office workers will just hole up at home again.

Are you arguing they should not bring in wfh - that’s what this sounds like?
But your OP made it sound like they should go further, close cinemas, do something about London being heaving etc? Which would damage more businesses.

I'm arguing that they shouldn't bring in WFH and I definitely don't want them to go further. This virus is here to stay. Are we going to be plunged into restrictions every single winter for ever more just to prevent transmission of an endemic virus? The vaccines don't prevent transmission, but they do mean most people don't get really sick or die. So IMO we should all be allowed to crack on.

WFH and masks are modelled to cost £4bn per month

@zafferana working from home is not compulsory. If a business knows that they'll be affected negatively if they adapt working from home they can carry on in the office as they have a plausible reason to stay in the office.