People with covid now - how much are you isolating?

[LostOrFound]

Now the guidance has changed and there is no legal requirement to isolate, what are you doing?

We tested positive a week ago and had mild symptoms, fully isolated for 5 days and are going about our normal business now though we are still testing positive, though trying to avoid close contact and indoor spaces and wearing masks everywhere.

SSP is less in a week than I get in a day. That'll be similar for many people. It's not enough. It's not doing the right thing by them to claim SSP and have to go to food banks / not pay bills because of it.

I wonder if the people blithely expecting others to impoverish themselves and their dependents understand the impact of things like debt, poverty and being precariously housed on health. Because if enough people did isolate because of covid, and bear in mind it's not likely to be something that just happens once, these things would follow in some cases.

Fuck this, if other people arent isolating anymore , maybe i should stop bothering. Been inside a week now and losing the will.....

@Butitsnotfunnyisititsserious

Everyone needs to mitigate risks for themselves now and do what is best for them and their families.

Exactly. For us, that means not giving work to tradesmen at the moment, having our car serviced by a garage that collects/drops off the car, not going shopping in busy/crowded places, not going into indoor attractions, etc. All because we don't trust everyone else to do the right thing and keep away if they're covid positive. So, that's a lot of money that small businesses are losing from us because we can't trust their workers. We won't be the only ones. Perhaps small businesses will think again when they start to see their incomes fall when their customers don't think it's safe to use them!

Some people won't even have symptoms so if you are that worried stay away from all those places anyway!

@AndAsIfByMagic

Are you volunteering to pay their bills?

No - there should be SSP.

You are being ridiculous.

No. I'm taking the moral point of view, rather then the selfish one. It's sad when doing the right thing is seen as ridiculous by some.

People will not care about Joe Blogs when their child is starving and homeless. That matters more.

No child would be starving - there are foodbanks if necessary. People's lives matter more, it's really sad that you can't see that.

It's not enough.

I can't take you seriously when you talk about foodbanks.

Just get the fact in your head that strangers are not responsible for the human race.
There have been virus' since the dawn of time. Get used to it.

Is anyone receiving the nose only lft swabs when they order online?

@EveryFlightBeginsWithAFall

Some people won't even have symptoms so if you are that worried stay away from all those places anyway!

Yes, but if too many people "stay away", those places will close down due to lack of business.

Our local village pub is on it's knees again, they say they're too quiet. That's after it being absolutely full and heaving nearly all day, every day, last Summer. The novelty of it re-opening after lockdowns has worn off. They're now quieter than they were before covid, mostly down to a reduction in the number of daytime elderly diners (i.e. the lunchtime and afternoon tea lot). Presumably those people are simply not happy about going into a pub/restaurant now that there aren't precautions and no one can be arsed to wear a mask, social distance or even wash their hands after the loo anymore!

It works both ways. Businesses need customers, and if enough customers aren't happy about the risks of covid, then the business won't survive. We need a balance.

I think many people are more worried about cost of living increase. One of the first thing to go is meals and drinking in pubs

Well that's whats stopping everyone I know anyway

While I can see that some businesses are going to suffer if people work on the (sensible) assumption that there will be someone with covid in any large group at the moment, what does working both ways and needing a balance mean in this context?

I carried on as normal.
Work, shops etc. I felt fine.

@Eyedropeyeflop

I carried on as normal. Work, shops etc. I felt fine.

Don't you care that the people you passed it onto may not have been "fine" when they caught it from you???

@HardyBuckette

While I can see that some businesses are going to suffer if people work on the (sensible) assumption that there will be someone with covid in any large group at the moment, what does working both ways and needing a balance mean in this context?

It means at least taking the most basic precautions if you're positive (or think you may be). Such as staying away from other people as much as possible, wearing a mask in enclosed spaces, minimising where you go indoors, etc., avoiding places where there may be vulnerable people such as healthcare settings, etc. If you're, say, a worker going into people's houses, at least tell them you may have covid and let them make the decision about what precautions they require or whether they want to rearrange instead.

At the moment, lots of ECV are back to staying home because of the sheer number of reported infections amongst the general population. That's not good for business, it's not good for NHS, etc. Those people will be waiting for infection numbers to come down again before they return to going out and about, spending their money in the economy etc.

The majority of the public may have forgotten covid and be going about as if it didn't happen, but the ECV won't be, that means huge numbers of "missing" customers, missing staff from the workplace, etc., and is the reason for the massive number of infections at the moment. I can guarantee that many vulnerable and most ECV havn't forgotten about covid and don't have a blase attitude of thinking it's just a cold, therefore are back to staying away!

As for businesses etc., the can at least continue to provide hand gel at the door, pay sick pay to enable staff to isolate if they catch it, etc. Paying a week's pay is cheaper than having to close or cut back opening hours etc due to lack of staff when employee A has passed covid to the other employees!

@TheKeatingFive
And you clearly don't give a flying about these people's situations so long as they prioritise your needs above your own. Something you've never shown any indication of doing for them.

Again, I wonder what sacrifices you and your family have made for other people's lives?

I have done quite a lot locally for struggling families, both practically and financially. I just didn't feel the need to brag about it. Of course I care. But I also care about the people I know who are vulnerable and now feel trapped in their homes again. And those whose operations have been cancelled as hospitals fill up.

You obviously don't give a shit about them.

Nice

So sell your house and all your belongings and pay every penny into someone Self isolating.

You can be homeless right? NBD.
Always food banks.

And no. I don't. I am out of shits to give. I care about my family and will take precautions where I can.

I have done quite a lot locally for struggling families, both practically and financially. I just didn't feel the need to brag about it

But airily say 'oh there should be SSP' for those who aren't being paid for absences and throw up 'oh but food banks' when challenged.

That's ... convincing

You obviously don't give a shit about them.

I locked down to my own families economic, psychological and educational detriment. So you can fuck right off with that one, thanks

You can be homeless right? NBD.
Always food banks.

Funny these people never think this stuff applies to them

What a silly idea, hmm?

Millions of families are one paypacket short of being homeless!! They live week to week or month to month. No reserves for even basic needs (washing machine breakdown). These are the people who need to work no matter what. Have been there and got the t-shirt ! They are not selfish for working with symptoms they are trying to pay their rent and bills and feed their family. Times are so very hard and even if they got SSP it isn't enough to cover what.they have lost financially.

It means at least taking the most basic precautions if you're positive (or think you may be). Such as staying away from other people as much as possible, wearing a mask in enclosed spaces, minimising where you go indoors, etc., avoiding places where there may be vulnerable people such as healthcare settings, etc. If you're, say, a worker going into people's houses, at least tell them you may have covid and let them make the decision about what precautions they require or whether they want to rearrange instead.

At the moment, lots of ECV are back to staying home because of the sheer number of reported infections amongst the general population. That's not good for business, it's not good for NHS, etc. Those people will be waiting for infection numbers to come down again before they return to going out and about, spending their money in the economy etc.

The majority of the public may have forgotten covid and be going about as if it didn't happen, but the ECV won't be, that means huge numbers of "missing" customers, missing staff from the workplace, etc., and is the reason for the massive number of infections at the moment. I can guarantee that many vulnerable and most ECV havn't forgotten about covid and don't have a blase attitude of thinking it's just a cold, therefore are back to staying away!

Thanks for clarifying.

The problem with this approach is that it's based on the idea that if people knew or thought they would test, that would lead to people who are afraid of covid now being less afraid and thus using businesses more. Given that Omicron is incredibly contagious, that LFTs even if the state were to fund them again and everyone were to use them regularly don't reliably provide proof as soon as someone is infectious, this is pretty optimistic.

People who are concerned about getting covid know that it's everywhere. The things you mention aren't going to stop that. I'm not sure it's more desirable to have ECV people wrongly thinking those measures would mean they weren't at risk, even if that does mean some businesses folding.

@Guineapigssweak

Millions of families are one paypacket short of being homeless!! They live week to week or month to month. No reserves for even basic needs (washing machine breakdown). These are the people who need to work no matter what. Have been there and got the t-shirt ! They are not selfish for working with symptoms they are trying to pay their rent and bills and feed their family. Times are so very hard and even if they got SSP it isn't enough to cover what.they have lost financially.

Yes, I understand that, but things will be worse if those same people lose their jobs because too few customers are willing to risk their health by allowing them into their homes (tradesmen etc) or going into their shops/pubs/cafes etc because they're scared of catching covid from workers who they suspect may not be isolating/taking precautions.

There's no easy answer.

We were planning on two UK holidays this Summer. We've just decided not to bother with either (OH is ECV due to cancer/chemotherapy). We'd have spent about £5k (family of 4) so that's £5k lost to the UK economy. We were all ready to book a few weeks ago, but seeing how busy places are and so few bothering to take even the simplest of precautions, we're not taking the risk. There are lots of ECV people and if they all do the same, that's a hell of a lot of lost business to the UK holiday/leisure/tourism industry and massively increases the risk of job losses etc.

The food bank near me charges now (a small premium).

So much bluster in defence of the indefensible.

We should take the advice of the WHO. They know better than Boris or anyone posting here.

They look at the overall picture, not the narrow self interest.

Yes, I understand that, but things will be worse if those same people lose their jobs because too few customers are willing to risk their health by allowing them into their homes (tradesmen etc) or going into their shops/pubs/cafes etc because they're scared of catching covid from workers who they suspect may not be isolating/taking precautions.

Certainly there will be an impact. But things will be worse? Where's the evidence for that? Numbers, models?

You seem to be basing your view on the premises that more testing and isolation will control covid, that people who are vulnerable will then feel safe enough to go out and spend more and this will outweigh the impact of people losing income and jobs because they isolate when positive. You're right to make the point that there's an economic impact when people are afraid and stay in because of it, but the rest is assumptions.