Jump to content

Welcome to One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums

Welcome to One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums, like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process that requires minimal information for you to signup. Be a part of One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums by signing in or creating an account.

  • Start new topics and reply to others
  • Full access to all forums (not all viewable as guest)
  • Subscribe to topics and forums to get email updates
  • Get your own profile page and make new friends
  • Send personal messages to other members.
  • Support OTIB with a premium membership

LondonBristolian

Members
  • Content Count

    7,869
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    15

LondonBristolian last won the day on March 20

LondonBristolian had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

8,079

Recent Profile Visitors

4,731 profile views
  1. Absolutely. The real world is different for the simple reason that so many of us have jobs that are under threat due to this pandemic, are desperate to keep hold of those jobs to keep money coming in and are in a job market where we know nobody is hiring so we don't have any option to go anywhere else and we know there are lots of people out of work so our employers have options and we do not. Therefore, if our companies impose furloughs on us then, although it is in affect temporary redundancy, we'd gratefully accept the 80% of wages (even more so if if our employer was topping up the rest) and willingly go back to our jobs at the end. And, if we were told we had to take a pay cut to keep our jobs for the next few months, we'd likely accept that too. Footballers are different. If their clubs invalidate their contracts by offering pay cuts or suspending their pay then, especially if they are talented, they will know they have other options and that in a few months they can move somewhere that pays more on a free transfer. Hence why clubs don't dare furlough their players or insist on pay cuts.
  2. I think some of the things people may have missed in this thread are: Furlough pay is only 80% of someone's wages up to £2500 a month. When you furlough people you are temporarily serving notice of redundancy with the government covering a % of their wages. You can only do that if there is nothing for them to do for the next few months (hence why some NPS have not been furloughed if they do have work to do you are okay with the potential consequences of that temporary redundancy. Any player who is furloughed would have a reasonable chance of arguing their contract has been invalidated and moving to another club on a free if they choose to do so. Job contracts matter. You can furlough someone you would otherwise have to make redundant and give them stability but you can't turn around and make your staff take a pay cut. You can suggest it and ask them to agree to it but ultimately we have a contract with the players and have to abide by it. Players could be encouraged to voluntarily forego some of their wages but the club cannot impose it if there is no room in the contract to do so.
  3. Seemed a bit quieter where I am than last week, which was a bit of a shame. Still quite powerful though.
  4. I've been working from home for three weeks now. The first week was absurdly quiet as we all flailed about for what I do but the last two have been ridiculously intense. I work for a charity and have spent my time in meetings figuring out how long we can pay people for before we run out of money, how to slash a third of our budget to avoid redundancies or pay cuts, how we cover all the work if staff or senior managers get ill etc. I'm sympathetic to people who are at home and struggling to fill their time - and especially to people whose young kids are climbing the walls after days inside - but it's been incredibly full on with my work and that's nothing at all compared to what frontline key staff have to deal with. Totally agree with what others have said about doctors, nurses, supermarket workers and delivery drivers and other essential staff. In some ways, I feel incredibly lucky that me and my Mum - who I've temporarily moved in with both to ensure she is not on her own and because it was too high-risk for me to be in London - are considered vulnerable so have got some priority on home deliveries as it means we can try and shelter ourselves. Kudos to @RedM, @TRUEBRIT66's wife and all of those are going out everyday to assist the public at such a dangerous time.
  5. To be honest, the infection rate is pretty much meaningless. We know the bulk of people are not being tested so it is ridiculous that the figure is even presented as a "confirmed" number. It would be much better if it was openly stated as a daily figure of people hospitalised who have tested positive, as that is what it really measures. We can guess from it how many new infections there are but, without knowing how many people are asymptomatic or the % that are hospitalised, it is impossible to be confident on a rate of error in doing even that. The deaths is the major one to look at and that rise is a massive worry. As you say, the measures which started last Monday will take three to five weeks to kick in so realistically death rates are likely to continue to be on the rise until the end of April. It's only once those consistently drop we can start to feel we are coming out on the other side. As you say, there are sure to be fluctuations.
  6. Yeah - where I am at the moment is pretty rural and not too many houses. I was surprised how loud it was.
  7. Figures just came out but being widely reported: https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-three-more-deaths-in-scotland-take-uk-total-to-468-11964006 113 today.
  8. Only issue with that is we still don't know for certain if people who have had it before are definitely immune. There is a small amount of evidence in China that a small proportion of people may test positive again*. In most cases, this is thought to be asymptomatic but may mean people who have had it can still transmit. That would massively complicate things. *It is also possible that this can be explained by errors in testing.
  9. I honestly am starting to wonder if Tim Martin and Mike Ashley have made a drunken bet about which one of them can win the title of Britain's Most Obnoxious ***...
  10. Precisely this. The reality is that Italian hospitals have seen high numbers of people in their twenties and thirties being admitted, and NHS doctors are starting to report the same. Most people will make full recoveries - and that includes people who are older or vulnerable as well as younger, healthier people - but all are potentially at risk.
  11. Indeed. But the key things to me are: 1) Anyone of us could have underlying symptoms without being aware of it. I speak from experience here - I was born with a condition that gradually narrowed my aorta over time, which was only picked up by chance when I was having some unrelated medial tests as a child. Had it not been for that coincidence, I could very easily have suddenly dropped dead unexpectedly. (So sorry to hear that exact same thing happened to your friend). Of the conditions that make people vulnerable, four of them (cancer, heart disease, hypertension and diabetes) are common impairments that often can be missed by people who do not realise anything is wrong with them. 2) At the moment, there are loads of unknowns. As you say, we don't know how many people have had COVID-19 without realising. We don't know exactly what the mortality rate is and we don't know why, even though older people and people with underlying heart conditions e are most at risk, the majority of those people nonetheless survive yet some people who don't seem to be at risk die. Depending on where you look, you can find people who appear to be well qualified saying 80% of people will catch it and people who appear to be equally well qualified saying it is likely to be much lower. You can also find experts who think the death rate for people with no underlying health conditions to be 0.05 (or one in every 2000 cases) or people who think it is close to 1 in every 100 cases. In those circumstances, the only sensible thing to do follow the precautionary principle and take every reasonable caution in case the worst case estimates are true. Of course, once a clearer picture emerges, people will have a better way to make informed decisions about the risk and act accordingly.
  12. More reason to think this isn't just a risk for elderly and vulnerable people and that all of us need to keep ourselves safe: https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-briton-21-with-no-existing-health-conditions-dies-after-contracting-covid-19-11963451
  13. On a lighter note, this (pre-lockdown) FB post went a little wrong:
×
×
  • Create New...