Will you be angry if we end up back in lockdown?

[turnshavetabled]

/ harsh restrictions?

I feel so tired of this all - but mostly tired of feeling lied to by the government. The false promises - 'irreversible' 'final lockdown until science / the vaccines can save the day'

And Scotland are already floating more restrictions, only a few weeks after reopening. It's gutting. I wish they would just tell us what the probably already know is likely to happen over the next few months.

I think there will definitely be issues in winter and services severely stretched. There are fears there will be a flu resurgence due to previous lockdowns/mask wearing plus covid plus backlog of cases on top. Whether that will lead to a lockdown who knows. Doubt people would comply. Like I say, round me it’s over for many. Dp’s brother has a 50th birthday do coming up. Initially I was looking forward to it, now not so sure I’ll go. Only 3 of them have had covid although most double vaccinated. None have taken it seriously. Much mirth and amusement when extremely cautious dp became very ill with it (and then passed it to me).

What’s the END goal though @NannyAndJohn when do we come out of this lockdown (or multiple lockdowns) that artificially gets cases down (many of which are mild now). The death rate is currently staying low. Yes there are deaths but there are deaths from many diseases. The NHS is coping.

This disease is endemic so there will always be a rolling number of cases. Are you saying we lockdown forever? Or what happens when we come out of this damaging lockdown? Back to square one with cases soaring. Only the economy is further trashed and more jobs and livelihoods have been lost.

We can only justify lockdown for an end goal. To flatten the curve, to buy time for vaccines. You can’t use it as an ongoing strategy.

Instead of costly lockdowns shouldn’t we be thinking long term? Why can’t the NHS cope every time there’s a bad flu season? Divert the millions gone to furlough and sustaining businesses in to the NHS and let people live their lives.

@NannyAndJohn

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/09/02/england-covid-epidemic-has-de-facto-ended-means/

Read this Nanny and let us know your thoughts. It's bad news for you.

Nanny won't approve of the publication and writer nor does it say anything they agree with so it will get dismissed. If we are really lucky we may get some maths.

Tbf it’s the telegraph and wouldn’t they just like to pretend it’s over to save the skins of this abysmal government ? Covid hospitalisations are climbing and so are cases. No doubt they’ll bury that info soon too so no one will know

What’s the END goal though@NannyAndJohnwhen do we come out of this lockdown (or multiple lockdowns) that artificially gets cases down (many of which are mild now).

Yep. Cases got really low during lockdown.

And then started rising again.

Which shows lockdown is only effective at reducing cases whilst you are actually in lockdown.

@Effybriest

Tbf it’s the telegraph and wouldn’t they just like to pretend it’s over to save the skins of this abysmal government ? Covid hospitalisations are climbing and so are cases. No doubt they’ll bury that info soon too so no one will know

Yes, every publication and writer has its own bias and agenda so its always important to bear that in mind when looking at any article or opinion.

However, that said, the author of this article has been pretty close with a lot of their previous calculations and opinions, so its worth a read anyway and shouldn't be automatically dismissed.

There are fears there will be a flu resurgence due to previous lockdowns/mask wearing plus covid plus backlog of cases on top.

See this is the issue that’s raising its head now. Lockdowns are disastrous for the health service also. To lockdown this winter would create problems for managing the flu season next year and lockdown begets lockdown. Creating vicious circles for ourselves is very stupid.

Yea the health service will be under pressure this winter and part of this will be a direct result of lockdowns last winter. It will take very careful management, but lockdown would ultimately store up even more problems.

Which shows lockdown is only effective at reducing cases whilst you are actually in lockdown.

And becomes less and less effective every time we do it.

Yes especially with little compliance with regards to household mixing.

Definitely at risk of a huge crisis in the NHS. Many of my colleagues are absolutely sick of the whole situation, wearing full ppe, masks even in green areas, disjointed care, staff shortages, stupid paperwork taking precedence over care, it’s awful. Just give a thought about the poor sods for whom it isn’t over, maybe when voting ?

Well yes that is the point isnt it lockdown suppresses cases down by creating an artifical environment. That time is then used to achieve a goal. Australia's current lockdown is to buy time whilst vaccinating - the same as our January ones was.

@NothingIsWrong

Well, I would hope anyone working in something like social care or mental health would 100% insist on all family vacating whatever room they were working in.

You have no clue about the conditions that some people have to work in. You can't demand that people give up large areas of their home permanently. I can't ban my husband and kids from the kitchen for 8 hours a day, I can't tell my kids they can never have friends round. I don't work in an area where I'm discussing patient details etc but I do work on sensitive projects. I do my best but you think when I'm doing a 2 hour meeting, no one else should be allowed to get a drink?

I never said permanently. Would you think it acceptable to be discussing service users on the phone/Zoom, or even talking to service users themselves when a member of your family, or one of their friends, is also in the same room?

Would you think it acceptable to be discussing service users on the phone/Zoom, or even talking to service users themselves when a member of your family, or one of their friends, is also in the same room?

Homes aren’t offices and if absolute privacy is required, then the employees should be facilitated to be in their designated office spaces.

@TheKeatingFive

Would you think it acceptable to be discussing service users on the phone/Zoom, or even talking to service users themselves when a member of your family, or one of their friends, is also in the same room?

Homes aren’t offices and if absolute privacy is required, then the employees should be facilitated to be in their designated office spaces.

@XenoBitch exactly this.

It is unacceptable for employers to expect privacy in peoples homes. And yes, a lot of people are being told that this is permanent now.

If I was in a job where service users were being discussed (and I would sincerely hope that it wasn't on Zoom given the security risks inherent in Zoom - it is blocked from my work laptop for very good reasons), then it should not be expected that it is acceptable for it to be done from home.

If work expect me to have privacy when I'm on calls then it's down to then to facilitate it, not for me to tell my DH that he has to go out from his own home. As far as I'm concerned if he wants to sit in the living room when I'm on calls then he can.

@NothingIsWrong @TheKeatingFive @PinkSparklyPussyCat

I do get your point. Having a laptop is not the only prerequisite for being able to WFH, despite whatever Nanny insists on. My BiL WFH on the bed.. hunched over on his laptop. He wont do it elsewhere in the house due to confidentiality. Not healthy mentally or physically, and he can't wait to return to the office. Like a lot of people, he feels he is living in work, not working from home.

Saying that, as a service user of MH charities and services, I would be very concerned to know that your relative (or child's friend etc) was in the same room as us having a highly private and supposedly confidential conversation, some if which could be distressing.

It is all very well saying that your employer needs to facilitate something in order to ensure confidentially.. but that can be impossible for things like small mental health charities.

but that can be impossible for things like small mental health charities.

Providing office space used to be a given.

As an employer, you can’t lay down the law about what happens in people’s own homes. It really is that simple.

@XenoBitch

It is all very well saying that your employer needs to facilitate something in order to ensure confidentially.. but that can be impossible for things like small mental health charities.

And it can be impossible for people to achieve at home. It is for the employer to work our how to achieve this, not expect the employer to do the impossible. If that means they need to work in an office, then that is what should happen.

I don't intend for my family to be in the same room as me working. But it is not possible for me to guarantee that I will never be overheard.

@TheKeatingFive

but that can be impossible for things like small mental health charities.

Providing office space used to be a given.

As an employer, you can’t lay down the law about what happens in people’s own homes. It really is that simple.

I know, and I do agree with you. I was just concerned at the posters saying they didn't care if their family was sat in the same room during a phone call/meeting. I do care, because people like me are on the other end.

I don't think any of us don't care. We don't have any choice. My home set up is such that I have to work somewhere I can be overheard.

I was trying to challenge some people's assertions that all you need is a laptop. That's simply not true, you need a safe, secure, appropriate working environment. While many employers have offered chairs, screens etc, many haven't. And I would suspect that more than that have done nothing around the appropriate working environment aspect of that.

WFH is not the pandemic panacea that it has been hailed as - while it can help, it has brought its own issues for those who haven't chosen it, and people glibly tossing out "just WFH with a laptop" are not helping

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/september-spike-covid-cases-immunity-uk-6qv2fdqbl

62% want restrictions to be tightened if hospitals are facing significant pressure.

Which they are.

So why the fuck aren't our government doing anything? Johnson prides himself on being a "populist". Now's his opportunity to act like one.

Presumably because they don't rule based on small sample surveys.

Advice from experts taking into account health, economy, education, and the likelihood of anyone actually doing as their told after 18 months I would imagine. They aren't going to want to reinstate furlough, so they won't be able to wholesale close industries again.

Isn’t the way to go…
Slow and cautious. With mitigation’s. By that I mean, not sanitising chairs - but what we know really works which is masks, ventilation plus vaccines.

And the way it’s gone is ‘let everything open with little to no mitigations’

It would be much more sensible to still insist on masks on public transport. To make sure schools had CO2 monitors and opened windows (and kids able to wear masks when cases were high, which they are). To still keep up contact tracing. And give good advice about high risk activities which do include indoor dining.

That would significantly decrease transmission without locking down.