Covid - coming out of Lockdown 3 - no politics, less opinion and more facts and information.

[62613]

13 hours ago, Phil Parker said:

 

You would be happy to watch your family starve to death locked away at home. Others, it has been reported,  aren't. 

 

Lack of provision for those self isolating has been discussed widely in the media. There is some cover, but plenty of gaps for people to fall between. 

Or even losing your home altogether.

[62613]

1 hour ago, Reorte said:

, and I suppose the effort to decide who really needs them would be rather intrusive, poking around in to peoples' affairs may cost more than it would save by being a bit more general in their distribution.

That's part of how the social security system works these days, though.

[chris p bacon]

13 hours ago, Phil Parker said:

You would be happy to watch your family starve to death

You've not met some of mine.....

 

In all seriousness there is a little bit of hypocrisy on this thread.  in some posts anyone who shows any sign of being anti vaccination is jumped on, but in other posts those that are testing positive but decide to carry on and infect others aren't.

 

 

[AY Mod]

6 minutes ago, chris p bacon said:

in other posts those that are testing positive but decide to carry on and infect others aren't.

 

I don't see anyone advocating it but comment has been made as to 'why' some people feel compelled to do so.

[hayfield]

30 minutes ago, 62613 said:

Or even losing your home altogether.

 

We are talking about isolating for between 7 and 14 days. And its been confirmed certainly there is immediate food assistance.

 

Having worked in the mortgage system for quite a few years, before anyone looses their home there is a lot that goes on to prevent this happening, a quick call to the lender will will always bring a sensitive response. Certainly missing 1 months payment will not result in anyone loosing their home. Certainly lenders have been instructed to be ultra helpful.

 

During lockdown both buyers and renters were/are protected from eviction. 

[hayfield]

46 minutes ago, chris p bacon said:

You've not met some of mine.....

 

In all seriousness there is a little bit of hypocrisy on this thread.  in some posts anyone who shows any sign of being anti vaccination is jumped on, but in other posts those that are testing positive but decide to carry on and infect others aren't.

 

 

 

 

In the first lockdown it seemed everybody stopped, where I think we went wrong was a very softly approach with those who flouted the rules. Also it may have been better if the government spent millions or billions more on people to encourage them to stay at home. Could have been cheaper in the long run. Something we may never know

 

There are large sections of society who decided no to comply, many of these were not over a financial decision about either feeding of keeping a roof over their head. They just decided on doing what they wanted irrespective of the effect on society it had

 

Some here decided to bring in an emotive subject (poverty) to justify these actions, but I assume most people who are in poverty are complying with the rules. I would also assume the majority who are knowingly breaking the rules are not poverty stricken, but driven by other selfish motives. Perhaps more could be done to make people aware of what support is available to everyone. The quicker we all protect both ourselves and others, the quicker the pandemic will end.  

Edited April 14, 2021 by hayfield

[bradfordbuffer]

1 hour ago, boxbrownie said:

All we did was register for a priority shopping slot on the Gov website, and waited for the supermarkets to contact us (of which only ASDA and Waitrose did, although waitrose had NO priority slots available, crazy eh?), the food package coming was a complete surprise as we didn't specifically ask for that, as for the volunteers ours was delivered by a Brake van, the massive food service. 

Delivered by brake van? BR20 tone or a GWR road!? Got to love preddictiv sex!

[bradfordbuffer]

Just now, bradfordbuffer said:

Delivered by brake van? BR20 tone or a GWR road!? Got to love preddictiv sex!

Text

[admiles]

1 hour ago, hayfield said:

 

We are talking about isolating for between 7 and 14 days. And its been confirmed certainly there is immediate food assistance.

 

Having worked in the mortgage system for quite a few years, before anyone looses their home there is a lot that goes on to prevent this happening, a quick call to the lender will will always bring a sensitive response. Certainly missing 1 months payment will not result in anyone loosing their home. Certainly lenders have been instructed to be ultra helpful.

 

During lockdown both buyers and renters were/are protected from eviction. 

 

A former employee of mine had to isolate for 14 days and was told by his employer to attend work or lose his job. Faced with feeding three children and the prospect of having to find yet another job he went to work. Social Services weren't interested when he asked if he'd get any assistance so basically there was no help available that he could find. He weighed the options and made the decision. Was it right? We'll all have different opinions on that but I don't blame him. 

 

Would I do the same? Honestly don't know. I've been lucky and not had to make that call. It's very easy to make judgements of people when you're not in that position though.

[Oldddudders]

Whatever politicians may say, I refuse to believe there is any sort of parachute for people in that dire dilemma. No legislation for taking the employer to court, and if he did so, the victory would be entirely pyrrhic - his job would not be available afterwards! 

 

If Social Services offered no help, so much for all the reassurances that we have been fed above. And contacting the voluntary sector is not always straightforward, however generous their contribution. 

 

Those at the bottom of the heap, and especially those in the gig economy, have been shafted, and that's that, because their tenuous hold on life fell to pieces due to Covid and lockdown.

 

Buddy can you spare a dime? 

 

PS I had my initial AZ jab 48 hours ago, and no headache, soreness or other side-effect. Lucky boy!

Edited April 14, 2021 by Oldddudders

[Phil Parker]

1 hour ago, hayfield said:

We are talking about isolating for between 7 and 14 days. And its been confirmed certainly there is immediate food assistance.

 

BBC: Majority of discretionary self-isolation support applications rejected, Labour say - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55727196

 

BMJ: Why test and trace will fail without support for self-isolation - https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n327

 

It's easy to be hard line if you are living in a nice house and have access to people who can drop food off for you. My point is that not everyone is that lucky and for some there are tough decisions to make to do the right thing.

 

1 hour ago, hayfield said:

I assume most people who are in poverty are complying with the rules. I would also assume the majority who are knowingly breaking the rules are not poverty stricken, but driven by other selfish motives.

 

So, despite your hard line, you are ASSUMING things, and then raging against anyone who dares to question your assumptions? From the tone of your comments, I had foolishly thought you had some facts to deploy. While I've no doubt there are people who don't self-isolate for selfish reasons, it's unrealistic to say that is the only reason anyone doesn't.

 

1 hour ago, hayfield said:

Perhaps more could be done to make people aware of what support is available to everyone.

 

That much, at least, is true.

[bradfordbuffer]

29 minutes ago, Phil Parker said:

 

BBC: Majority of discretionary self-isolation support applications rejected, Labour say - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55727196

 

BMJ: Why test and trace will fail without support for self-isolation - https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n327

 

It's easy to be hard line if you are living in a nice house and have access to people who can drop food off for you. My point is that not everyone is that lucky and for some there are tough decisions to make to do the right thing.

 

 

So, despite your hard line, you are ASSUMING things, and then raging against anyone who dares to question your assumptions? From the tone of your comments, I had foolishly thought you had some facts to deploy. While I've no doubt there are people who don't self-isolate for selfish reasons, it's unrealistic to say that is the only reason anyone doesn't.

 

 

That much, at least, is true.

We are all three pay checks away from prostitution!...sorry spell check again ....destitution! 

 

Let's all play nice on rmweb...life to short to get shirty with any one / everyone...

not aimed at any one post!

So dont start on me! I've got 3 brothers and we are all scousers! 

[chris p bacon]

1 hour ago, admiles said:

A former employee of mine had to isolate for 14 days and was told by his employer to attend work or lose his job.

 

A situation which is often quoted but never backed up.

 

An employer forces a Covid Positive employee to attend work thereby infecting the rest of the employees....not the smartest move and one I have never seen any evidence for.

 

[woodenhead]

2 minutes ago, chris p bacon said:

 

A situation which is often quoted but never backed up.

 

An employer forces a Covid Positive employee to attend work thereby infecting the rest of the employees....not the smartest move and one I have never seen any evidence for.

 

How about then, you can still attend work because your NHS PPE will protect others from you so you don't need to self isolate.

[alastairq]

I wonder.....what the stats are [or will be?] for personal Bankruptcies, following the past year's escapades?

I don't refer to those BRs brought upon someone by someone else [really, only HMRC are willing to go that route]

Rather, those BR's petitioned by the individual on themselves?

 

One cannot ignore the probability that lockdown has resulted in an increase in gambling, as an example?

But, more likely, loss of regular income may result in BR being deemed the only viable solution to sorting mounting  [domestic] debt equitably?

[I am aware there are various other debt solutions, but in reality, few offer the complete re-start for the individual that Bankruptcy does.]

 

Thoughts brought about by the mention of defaulting  on mortgages, etc.....

 

[Incidentally, I struggle to see the social logic whereby financial debt is deemed to be the pits, yet divorce, with the inevitable 'abuse' inflicted on children , or family members, is deemed normal or acceptable?  We put money first , middle and last in this society of ours.....]

[chris p bacon]

2 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

How about then, you can still attend work because your NHS PPE will protect others from you so you don't need to self isolate.

 

2 Friends as nurses (Hospital) and 1 as a district/home visiting and all 3 were instructed to stay away if they tested positive.

[woodenhead]

8 minutes ago, chris p bacon said:

 

2 Friends as nurses (Hospital) and 1 as a district/home visiting and all 3 were instructed to stay away if they tested positive.

Different trusts with different rules then.

 

We could go on all day though couldn't we so lets agree to not agree and move on.

[LNER4479]

2 hours ago, bradfordbuffer said:

Got to love preddictiv sex!

Each to their own, I  guess ...

[hayfield]

3 hours ago, admiles said:

 

A former employee of mine had to isolate for 14 days and was told by his employer to attend work or lose his job. Faced with feeding three children and the prospect of having to find yet another job he went to work. Social Services weren't interested when he asked if he'd get any assistance so basically there was no help available that he could find. He weighed the options and made the decision. Was it right? We'll all have different opinions on that but I don't blame him. 

 

Would I do the same? Honestly don't know. I've been lucky and not had to make that call. It's very easy to make judgements of people when you're not in that position though.

 

If I were him I would look for a new job, then name and shame the company

[hayfield]

2 hours ago, Phil Parker said:

 

BBC: Majority of discretionary self-isolation support applications rejected, Labour say - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55727196

 

BMJ: Why test and trace will fail without support for self-isolation - https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n327

 

It's easy to be hard line if you are living in a nice house and have access to people who can drop food off for you. My point is that not everyone is that lucky and for some there are tough decisions to make to do the right thing.

 

 

So, despite your hard line, you are ASSUMING things, and then raging against anyone who dares to question your assumptions? From the tone of your comments, I had foolishly thought you had some facts to deploy. While I've no doubt there are people who don't self-isolate for selfish reasons, it's unrealistic to say that is the only reason anyone doesn't.

 

 

That much, at least, is true.

 

For your first point there may well be a very valid reason for this, you also foolishly assume all the claimants were genuine, as we know the truth lies somewhere between the two sides of the argument, I would not fully trust the conclusion of one political party point scoring over another, usually its incorrect

 

Your second point was answered by a previous poster who had experience of the system, which for him seemed to work

 

Your third point could be right, but many of the reports I have seen on the BBC show food banks and food deliveries in very deprived areas, many who are in deep trouble are able to access food, as I have said our local Corvid volunteer group works tirelessly for all groups within the village

 

Unlike you I have not singled out the poorest in society and not raged at them, if you care to read what I have said its probably not poverty that is leading the majority to break the rules, sadly you chose to ignore this to make you own social statement 

 

 

[boxbrownie]

3 hours ago, bradfordbuffer said:

Delivered by brake van? BR20 tone or a GWR road!? Got to love preddictiv sex!

I didn’t bother to comment upon my “brake van” comment as I thought it too serious a thread.......but OK 

[boxbrownie]

2 hours ago, bradfordbuffer said:

 

So dont start on me! I've got 3 brothers and we are all scousers! 

Cannot think of a better reason 

[boxbrownie]

1 hour ago, woodenhead said:

How about then, you can still attend work because your NHS PPE will protect others from you so you don't need to self isolate.

Certainly I had not heard that, in fact in the area/Hospital I am familiar with there were something like a third of staff from cleaners to doctors off isolating at times, there were severe “conditions of service*” if it was found you were infected and still attended it work.

 

*basically sent home with tail between legs

 

 

Edited April 14, 2021 by boxbrownie

[Phil Parker]

22 minutes ago, hayfield said:

Your second point was answered by a previous poster who had experience of the system, which for him seemed to work

 

So, if something works for one person, it automatically works for everyone?

 

22 minutes ago, hayfield said:

Unlike you I have not singled out the poorest in society and not raged at them, if you care to read what I have said its probably not poverty that is leading the majority to break the rules, sadly you chose to ignore this to make you own social statement 

 

No, you raged against everyone who hasn't self-isolated (see below)

 

21 hours ago, hayfield said:

You are blaming track and trace fo the individuals who decide to totally ignore the breaches of rules around covid  testing and isolation. Plenty of people on low income do follow these rules. The rule breakers come from all parts of society, failure to heed the rules is exactly the same as drink/drug driving. Nothing to do with T&T administration. These people who do it on purpose are potentially killers and certainly extending the time covid is infecting people, irrespective whether they are rich or poor.  

 

I have read what you said, you haven't demonstrated "its probably not poverty that is leading the majority to break the rules" - this is just your opinion. Others have mentioned the joy of the "gig economy" where no work=no money and I've talked to a few freelancers who have fallen between the cracks of official support. So far, this hasn't meant breaking quarantine rules, but that's more luck than anything else.

 

I simply suggested that things might be more complex and there will be people with all sort of different reasons, some of them completely understandable. I live in hope that understanding those reasons might mean provision can be made to deal with them. Anyone breaking rules just for selfish reasons deserves a good kicking of course, but with so many different people affected, I doubt that is 100% of them as you seem to think.

[boxbrownie]

5 hours ago, hayfield said:

 

We are talking about isolating for between 7 and 14 days. And its been confirmed certainly there is immediate food assistance.

 

If it was my statement that your referring to I must emphasise it was for the “lockdown period” rather than a temporary cover we received the food package.

 

But I do feel where this government fell down in particular was in the support for the temporary isolation from work that employees were asked to comply with (although I also feel maybe the employers didn’t help much either), in some countries there was immediate “lay off pay” for those few weeks which of course helped people feel they could comply without suffering financially too much.

 

By and large though I think the U.K. did well in a unique situation but then again everyone could do better.