Next week they are starting a big ‘back to the office’ campaign having seen empty city centres and many people enjoying a re-think of their lifestyles.
I went in to my place of work for the morning a couple of days ago, for the first time since lockdown. It was eerie - it's usually a hive of activity, but it was like a ghost ship, because so many people are working from home, and those that are in work are wearing masks and keeping away from each other.
(For people keeping track, we've had a small number of employees test positive for Covid-19; a couple of those have been at work, rather than working from home, and all the people they work with have been sent home for 14 days to quarantine themselves. So far, nobody who has worked with someone who has had Covid has also come down with it, so it seems as though our masking / distancing / cleaning protocols are at least working reasonably.)
I'd prefer to go back - I work more efficiently in the office than I do at home - but nobody's going in just to sit at their desk, and that will remain true for months yet.
But if I had the sort of office job where I spent 1-2 hours on crowded public transport twice a day to sit at a computer in a city office, I'd be quite keen on the idea of sitting in a different office that was closer to home.
I can see bookable office space spreading out to smaller towns or suburbs, so people can reduce their commute, but have somewhere to go with good internet for meetings.
I think that of the people who have a choice, those going back to the office the most will be the people who need company, and those who have sub-optimal work conditions at home (particularly younger workers who haven't got a dedicated work space.)
I can see bookable office space spreading out to smaller towns or suburbs, so people can reduce their commute, but have somewhere to go with good internet for meetings.
CoWorking spaces are already a thing -- and extend to even smaller towns and suburbs, think a lot of those companies are massively overextended though.
Yes, you're right. My apologies - I should have thought before posting.
OTOH, some sort of office provision may be possible in some cases, as long as suitable precautions can be observed.
The cost base of providing that office space just went up, both because of the limitations imposed by social distancing but because of the additional cleaning requirements.
Most of the larger new coworking firms are financed by VC funding and had bought up/leased expensive town/city centre office space on the basis that they could corner the market by offering teaser rates. If you want to know what providing these spaces actually cost look at how much Regus will rent you desk for -- as their margins are fairly low.
I can imagine places where the minimum bookable period is half a working day (to minimise cleaning to twice a day) and always the same two share the same machine (or bring their own) and no-one shares a mouse/keyboard.
I'd like you to give some consideration to the principle "as low as reasonably achievable".
Whereas I take the calculation to be "as low as I find acceptable", and am perfectly aware that this will be viewed as anti-social arrogance by some, although as all of my friends are, SFAIK, of a similar mind, I can live with that.
Part of this might be semantics. Let's consider your croquet hobby. Is you not playing croquet "reasonable" - well, that depends on the level of risk involved. If the risk was zero - let's say you were playing croquet with people you live with, or in a strictly isolated community that had no Covid cases - then it's obviously unreasonable to ask you to put your mallet down.
You have told us that you eat in restaurants 2-3 times per week. Given that, there are no circumstances under which I would allow you to enter my house. (For comparison, the kids do have a couple of friends that come in the house and play with them, unmasked, because we know them well and know that they are also being cautious about their exposure.) Would I play croquet with you? Maybe. The risk of transmission is significantly lower outdoors, and nobody's going to be puffing and wheezing all over the place because of a game of croquet. So it then depends on how responsible your croquet group is - you can play croquet without getting anywhere close to 6 feet from another person - do you actually do that? Do you each have your own mallet, and don't share? Under those conditions, I'd probably play with you, because the risk is low enough that prohibiting it becomes unreasonable.
There is no way I know of to solve the balance between the desires of the community for conformity and the desires of the individual to decide for themselves.
I don't think the community desires conformity. I think it wants to not get sick, and it wants not to be infected by people with poor judgement.
The issue is that (since no man is an island) any risk to myself is a risk to others.
Yes - this makes it different from something like motorcyclists wearing helmets, where if they choose not to wear a helmet, they only place themselves at risk.
Well, yes and no. If we look at my Croquet hobby, which I practice 3-4 times a week, that is in an informal bubble where all who participate are, as I see it, jointly accepting a risk. Similar would apply to my bands, though they are still inoperative.
Again, yes and no. How are you playing croquet? Do you take care to keep your distance from the other players and use your own mallet? That's where the reasonable part comes in - it may not be reasonable to prevent you from playing croquet at all, but it's reasonable for you to keep more than six feet away from each other at all times.
So really the only people that in my view have an objection is people who I pass in the street who themselves are wearing a mask, and sort of saying they think I should.
Those are the people that you have direct contact with who could reasonably object to your behaviour. But they're not islands either - all of their friends and family could equally reasonably object to you, as could their friends and family, and so on...
Well, yes and no. If we look at my Croquet hobby, which I practice 3-4 times a week, that is in an informal bubble where all who participate are, as I see it, jointly accepting a risk. Similar would apply to my bands, though they are still inoperative.
If they do that over the protests of their nearest and dearest, I can see problems there, but that does not apply in my case.
Just out of curiosity, do you actually know that your croquet partners aren't playing "over the protests of their nearest and dearest", having discussed this with your croquet buddies openly and explicitly, or do you simply assume that they're not playing over their protests (or in secrecy from them) and work from the assumption that if your COVID gets passed along to someone's unwitting/unwilling spouse that's their fault, not yours?
And we both eat in a restaurant about 2-3 times a week.
As for risk to perfect strangers, well yes I walk about in the open air without a mask as do around 90% of people where I live.
This is another area that lacks clarity. In most cases when you eat at restaurants the people at surrounding tables are usually perfect strangers. So are the waitstaff (unless you're a regular). As is the dishwasher who has to handle the utensils you've been shoving in your COVID-hole, and the dishwasher's elderly mother with whom he lives. Unless you're eating at the automat or some dining club where everyone is known to you, the people you see on your walks aren't the only "perfect strangers" you're potentially exposing. Given the differing environments, they're not even the most at risk.
And speaking of retail workers and COVID, here's a Bloomberg article about employers telling their workers to shut up about COVID.
Lindsay Ruck was just starting her Father’s Day brunch shift at the Cheesecake Factory in Chandler, Ariz., when her boss told her a co-worker had Covid-19. In between making bloody marys, Ruck shared the news with several of her colleagues, who’d been worrying about such a moment since the restaurant reopened the month before. At the end of Ruck’s shift, when she went to the back office to count her cash, her boss and another supervisor were waiting.
Her boss, the general manager, told her she wasn’t allowed to mention the coronavirus case to anyone, including fellow staff. The company was informing only the people who’d worked during the sick employee’s last shift, and, per Cheesecake higher-ups, even the information that any worker had tested positive was deemed private, Ruck recalls. Realizing she could be among those kept in the dark about the next sick colleague, she filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board and took a couple of weeks off while awaiting the results of a Covid test and weighing whether to keep working there. After getting a negative test result, she returned to the restaurant, in need of the paycheck.
“I don’t know what kind of risk I’m putting on my family,” says Ruck, who has young kids, plus an elderly mom nearby. She’s worked for the Cheesecake Factory for about 13 years but says it suddenly feels a lot tougher to trust that the company, which promises its staff “unlimited smiles,” will keep her safe.
Cheesecake Factory Inc. said in a statement that it was “balancing its obligation to protect private and confidential health information” while allowing discussion of Covid issues. A Cheesecake lawyer asked Ruck to withdraw her NLRB complaint in exchange for the company posting a notice at her restaurant affirming that employees have the right to discuss health and safety issues, she says. She agreed after learning that the labor board can’t levy punitive damages. “It doesn’t feel like it has a lot of teeth,” Ruck says. “I’m not convinced it will ultimately change their behavior, or any other company’s.”
In the past few months, U.S. businesses have been on a silencing spree. Hundreds of U.S. employers across a wide range of industries have told workers not to share information about Covid-19 cases or even raise concerns about the virus, or have retaliated against workers for doing those things, according to workplace complaints filed with the NLRB and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).
You have told us that you eat in restaurants 2-3 times per week. Given that, there are no circumstances under which I would allow you to enter my house.
Which is absolutely reasonable. One of my closest friends whose house I used to visit once a week still has not invited me round and I would not dream of questioning him. He is only recently recovered from a fairly heavy heart attack.
you can play croquet without getting anywhere close to 6 feet from another person - do you actually do that?
Actually no. As you know croquet does not include close contact, but we also chat and have coffees at the restaurant, and I'm sure we don't maintain 6 ft.
all of their friends and family could equally reasonably object to you, as could their friends and family, and so on
Fair enough and I don't expect your approval. My estimate of the residual risk is that it is negligible which is the majority view where I live, judging from the fact that very few people wear masks in the open air.
Creosus:
I don't think the community desires conformity.
I think it does. I am not saying that it is "just for the sake of it", rather it's because that's the rule and most people want you to stick to the rules because they believe they are well founded because that's what they are told. Not all of course but most.
In most cases when you eat at restaurants the people at surrounding tables are usually perfect strangers.
Yes but I apply the same rule that they are accepting the risk from me just as I am accepting the risk from them. If people aren't willing, they don't have to go to a restaurant.
Just out of curiosity, do you actually know that your croquet partners aren't playing "over the protests of their nearest and dearest", having discussed this with your croquet buddies openly and explicitly
Of course not. I wouldn't dream of being so patronising. I treat others as responsible adults. If I have explicit reason to doubt this, I would - but reluctantly and not in this case. (Like buying drink for someone plainly over the limit who I know for a fact is going to drive a car).
I think it does. I am not saying that it is "just for the sake of it", rather it's because that's the rule and most people want you to stick to the rules because they believe they are well founded because that's what they are told. Not all of course but most.
That was Leorning Cniht, not whoever this "Creosus" person is.
The issue is that (since no man is an island) any risk to myself is a risk to others.
Yes - this makes it different from something like motorcyclists wearing helmets, where if they choose not to wear a helmet, they only place themselves at risk.
They're the only ones who suffer horrific brain injuries when they crash, sure. But we all pay for the costs of these crashes -- health care costs, insurance rates, taxes are distributed across the whole society one way or another.
I think @Anteater is right here. We all choose our own level of risk Covid -wise. There’s no such thing as no risk. I think I’d play croquet if I were still a player (I played a lot in my teens).
I find it interesting how my friends assess the risk.
I fly to Germany once every two months or so - definitely not risk free. But I’m ultra careful the rest of the time. No visitors, even in the garden and no visiting. I wipe all post and shopping down with alcohol wipes and wash the milk bottles in soap as soon as they arrive. I meet friends and family for socially distanced walks and I go shopping once a week. I walk the dogs in remote areas. All my other activities are online. Church, puppy class, art class and Pilates.
My friend won’t even walk with me until two weeks have passed since I’ve been on a plane - yet she washes her daughters uniform every day - her daughter nurses Covid patients.
Another friend is very blasé. She has all sorts of family round and looks after her grandson. She visits two old aunties and goes in their houses without a worry. 🤔
I think @Anteater is right here. We all choose our own level of risk Covid -wise. There’s no such thing as no risk. I think I’d play croquet if I were still a player (I played a lot in my teens).
Absolutely disagree. There being no absence of risk does not equate to any risk being OK.
"Since I run the risk of infection by going to the grocers, I might as well French kiss strangers in on crowded dance floor."
I think @Anteater is right here. We all choose our own level of risk Covid -wise. There’s no such thing as no risk. I think I’d play croquet if I were still a player (I played a lot in my teens).
Absolutely disagree. There being no absence of risk does not equate to any risk being OK.
"Since I run the risk of infection by going to the grocers, I might as well French kiss strangers in on crowded dance floor."
I'd play croquet, because it's outdoors, and it's entirely possible to keep well more than 6' away from anyone whilst doing so, and under those conditions, the risk is minimal. But I'm not sure I'd play with Anteater, because he and his friends say they don't keep their distance, and do gather in to huddles for chats.
Nothing would persuade me on to an aeroplane in the current circumstances, but I don't have tiny grandchildren in another country. I'll note that my own parents were due to get on a plane to see their grandchildren shortly after lockdown - they obviously didn't come, and have no plans to come in the near future, and I consider that sensible. Maybe they'll come next year.
Absolutely disagree. There being no absence of risk does not equate to any risk being OK. "Since I run the risk of infection by going to the grocers, I might as well French kiss strangers in on crowded dance floor."
But no one is taking the attitude you rightly deplore. As if risk is a non- continuous function so if you do not absolutely minimise risk that means you take any level of risks as in your case, or the hypothetical person driving past a school at 45 mph when the kids are coming out.
To repeat: I know of nobody, at all, who takes the view that the impossibility of eliminating risk entirely means that you may as well throw caution to the winds. And the effect of French kissing the members of my croquet club would be more psychological, I think.
Out of curiosity, in what manner does your group play croquet? I played backyard croquet as a kid. The wickets were in one section of the lawn, rather than spaced out across it, so players were pretty close.
Maybe you play a more formal game? Maybe on a public course?
There used to be a group here that played at Golden Gate Park, and dressed in 1920s (?) style costumes. Don't know if they're still around.
We all take some risks simply by living. I’m ultra cautious, not all my friends are - but they are all pretty careful.
The extreme example was to illustrate the flaw in the logic.
We must eat, therefore we must have contact with other people. This is a necessary risk. We do not need to flay in bands. We do not need to play croquet. Doing those things adds unnecessary risk that means more people will get sick and more people will die.
As I said, I am ultra, ultra cautious - until I fly to Germany every couple of months. The ‘need’ to see and care for my family overcomes my caution on those occasions.
The extreme example was to illustrate the flaw in the logic.
Sometimes pushing an argument to the extreme works but not in this case. What was the flaw in the logic which is exposed? I understand your argument as saying: If I admit that any non-essential risk-bearing activity is allowed, I potentially admit any. Except I don't and have said so often.
(BTW did you know that the UK GOV has been dishing out half-price restaurant meals to encourage people to "do their duty" and jump start the restaurant industry?).
The problem is we have no way to quantify how much I have increased risk. We have to use common sense if we want to win our argument, and it is not common sense to suggest that if I am at a restaurant, I might as well snog the inhabitants of a crowded dance floor.
Purely out of my common sense btw, I would not go on the London tube unmasked - that seems silly to me. But I can't give you quantified probabilities.
Individual assessment of risk may be wise or foolish. Anti-vaccination positions place a very small risk of side effects ahead of a larger risk associated with catching the disease. That larger risk has both an individual and social component.
Our common sense may be put to the test on that issue if political pressure to cut corners overrides normal testing and approval criteria re a future COVID-19 vaccine. How will we know for example? In the USA there is evidence that the FDA is succumbing to political pressure.
Individual risk assessment is something we do all the time but it is a tricky business. We were visited by my elder son, his wife and two children and we’ve all been asymptomatic for months. They only have one other person in their local bubble, our grandson’s girl friend, who has also been asymptomatic for months. And we only have two, also asymptomatic for months. So we felt an addition to our bubble was safe and we all wanted to hug each other.
While they were with us we heard that the daughter of very good friends of ours was being tested for COVID-19. We’d seen them 10 days before and they had seen their daughter a day before the visit. She’s in their bubble. Whoops! Anyway we completed the week as we started it, being careful when we went out but bubbly in our home. It was a joint risk assessment.
We heard this morning that our friends’ daughter’s test had come back negative. So our risk assessment had not rebounded on us.
But in this new world, situations like this are going to happen a lot and what we all decide to do about them may have some impact on overall risks. I think we behaved reasonably responsibly under the circumstances but YMMV. Our common sense may be different to yours.
A tricky question. There is one Shipmate, at least, who has said quite firmly that if hobbies/interests can't be pursued, life is not worth living.
Which is bullshit. First fucking world, privileged mother fucking bullshit. What people are complaining about is being inconvenienced. Were no vaccine ever to be developed and the virus to resist our bodies developing immunity, then the "life not worth living" would be a bit less of a toddler whinge. But it has been less than a year, which sucks out loud, but is hardly the end of the world.
A tricky question. There is one Shipmate, at least, who has said quite firmly that if hobbies/interests can't be pursued, life is not worth living.
Which is bullshit. First fucking world, privileged mother fucking bullshit. What people are complaining about is being inconvenienced. Were no vaccine ever to be developed and the virus to resist our bodies developing immunity, then the "life not worth living" would be a bit less of a toddler whinge. But it has been less than a year, which sucks out loud, but is hardly the end of the world.
A tricky question. There is one Shipmate, at least, who has said quite firmly that if hobbies/interests can't be pursued, life is not worth living.
Which is bullshit. First fucking world, privileged mother fucking bullshit. What people are complaining about is being inconvenienced. Were no vaccine ever to be developed and the virus to resist our bodies developing immunity, then the "life not worth living" would be a bit less of a toddler whinge. But it has been less than a year, which sucks out loud, but is hardly the end of the world.
It's very unfair to bring up something someone said months ago and start judging them like this. In the US, 41% of adults have symptoms of clinical anxiety or depression, up from 11% in early 2019 (source). People feel what they feel, even in the first world, and they have every right to those feelings.
I've cried out of sheer anxiety and despair more than once since March. If others want to be all stiff upper lip about it, good for them. But this is fucking hard, and no one here knows everything that's going on with another shipmate they haven't even met.
I suffer badly from anxiety and have had terrible times over what could be referred to as First World privileged problems during this crisis. Anxiety does that, it makes molehills feel like huge mountains and then you can feel like a whinger or a phoney or a spoilt child when you explain them to other people because they are molehills in the great scheme of things compared to what others face, but they don't feel like that to you, that's anxiety's evil super power which needs to be acknowledged.
So it's not good to judge people when anxiety may be at the controls taking its toll. Anxiety can rob people like me of perspective. It's what it does.
And at the same time, the sort of thing happening to people who don't have my privileges is horrifying.
Maybe it's possible to both acknowledge the toll anxiety takes and to be aware that there are also people facing extreme deprivation we can barely imagine?
A tricky question. There is one Shipmate, at least, who has said quite firmly that if hobbies/interests can't be pursued, life is not worth living.
Which is bullshit. First fucking world, privileged mother fucking bullshit. What people are complaining about is being inconvenienced. Were no vaccine ever to be developed and the virus to resist our bodies developing immunity, then the "life not worth living" would be a bit less of a toddler whinge. But it has been less than a year, which sucks out loud, but is hardly the end of the world.
It's very unfair to bring up something someone said months ago and start judging them like this. In the US, 41% of adults have symptoms of clinical anxiety or depression, up from 11% in early 2019 (source). People feel what they feel, even in the first world, and they have every right to those feelings.
I've cried out of sheer anxiety and despair more than once since March. If others want to be all stiff upper lip about it, good for them. But this is fucking hard, and no one here knows everything that's going on with another shipmate they haven't even met.
That it was said months ago make it worse as this mess had no been going on as long.
I've anxiety and depression and this pandemic has taken a toll on my mental, physical and social situations. I'm just not going to pretend that my issues are paramount to other people's health and life.
As I've mentioned before, I fight anxiety attacks when I put on a mask. But I am going to wear one until this shit is over out of the potential effect it might have on other people.
My struggles in this situation are part of what makes me less than sympathetic to the whingers. I'm forcing myself to do what is right and it exacerbates some of the problems I faced before this even began. If I can do this, they can.
I'm just not going to pretend that my issues are paramount to other people's health and life
I wouldn't put my anxieties and what helps with them before other people's safety either. I think the point Bishop's Finger was making could be made without bringing any shipmate into it. Let's just isolate the argument - the things people 'need' to function or survive can vary widely, based on mental health and circumstances, but people shouldn't be endangering others and should be very careful about how they're defining 'need'.
I'm just not going to pretend that my issues are paramount to other people's health and life
I wouldn't put my anxieties and what helps with them before other people's safety either. I think the point Bishop's Finger was making could be made without bringing any shipmate into it. Let's just isolate the argument - the things people 'need' to function or survive can vary widely, based on mental health and circumstances, but people shouldn't be endangering others and should be very careful about how they're defining 'need'.
From what I can see, plenty of people are defining need pretty damn liberally. Ask someone in South Africa if not being able to play rugby for a few months or not being able to go to t' pub is a true hardship. Or people who cannot afford to go to restaurants at the best of times.
I'll grant that Ruth's figures about depression are probably correct. But that'll still disproportionately affect the less privileged which still makes my point about privileged whinging.
Wandering about helps soothe both my anxiety and depression, but I cannot do that with any good conscience. It is not that I do not understand what drives the attempts at justification, I simply do not accept them as valid.
Your acceptance or lack thereof doesn't have any bearing on the validity of another person's feelings.
It's a shame you can't wander around. Where I live it's not only allowed, it's encouraged. The city has blocked off some streets to through traffic in order to create more recreational space. Plus the beach is enormous, and that helps a lot.
Our lives are full to overflowing with first world problems. That’s because it’s where we live them.
The fact that third world problems exist and are enormous shouldn’t rob us of our empathy for those who are about us, including online imo.
I was brought up in South Africa and my Dad worked in Soweto. I have spent many summers working in Kibera, Nairobi - one of the poorest places on Earth. The thing people (on the whole) have there is love, joy and empathy. ‘Small’ troubles and needs were never too small.
I look at the leaders of our first world and those are the three things that are so very lacking. People, sadly, are following their lead.
A meme is going round thebookofface that immigrants are preventing the Lord’s Prayer being said and used. What utter tosh and nonsense.
Every time I see it I reply - “The Lord who gave us that prayer was himself a refugee. The story of Jesus’ early years is a story of a family forced to seek asylum to escape terrible, life-threatening violence at home. Matthew 2:13-14 reminds that after Jesus was born, his family was forced to flee to a foreign country where inhabitants spoke a different language and practiced a different religion. They were forced to flee without knowing whether they would be offered welcome and refuge, or meet further rejection and violence.
When we welcome refugees, when we welcome asylum-seekers, we are welcoming Christ.”
I’ve digressed from the theme Coronavirus. Back to it - it will be utterly devastating those third world countries and communities. We hear nothing of that on what passes for ‘news’ here.
I apologise if my remark about what someone said some time ago about Covid-19 making life not worth living as far as they were concerned has caused distress to others.
FWIW, I don't subscribe to that view, despite having had my own share of mental and physical problems in recent times...
I'm forcing myself to do what is right and it exacerbates some of the problems I faced before this even began. If I can do this, they can.
Wandering about helps soothe both my anxiety and depression, but I cannot do that with any good conscience.
I wish I could understand more of what drives you but I suspect that any attempt to get a window into your soul would receive a dusty response. Having said that. . . .
Anyone who overcomes obstacles and experiences some degree of suffering, in managing to live by a demanding ethic, easily becomes intolerant to their weaker fellow humans, classing them as whingers if not worse. I've seen the same in people who overcome lousy childhoods and drag themselves up through there own efforts to a life of success whilst many of their childhood friends remain mired.
In both cases they have the same core belief: If I can do it, so can they. Your own words.
I've no idea how people convince themselves of this. Life shows to me that the variation in people's strength of will is huge.
I think that attitude is a bad one, both factually wrong and socially harmful.
Life shows to me that the variation in people's strength of will is huge.
Yes, and it can vary from day to day. Those of us with neurological differences find it especially hard. I’m a born risk taker.
That’s why legislation works. Masks are mandatory on public transport so everyone wears them. Make it mandatory with a decent sized fine attached and people will comply.
That’s why the government’s approach in the two weeks before lockdown were so fatal. Relying on people’s common sense simply does not work. One person’s common sense is another’s paranoia.
@lilbuddha .
At the risk of poking a wasp’s nest, this sentence doesn’t sit easy as a response from Anyone
“If I can do this, they can”
This would ,
“If I can do this, it just makes me upset / cross / irritated / angry / scared ( pick your own ) that they cannot”
But you didn’t say that.
Do you want to revisit that sentence?
Or
Was it not a literal statement?
The sentences preceding the one you quoted were meant to show my anger, frustration and the fact that this is not easy for me.
The outrage in the post that began this tangent should have also made this clear. I see people who suffer every day before having this shit tossed on them and they do not make the excuses to justify risking the health of other people. Why on earth should I have sympathy for those "enduring" inconvenience during this pandemic?
Your acceptance or lack thereof doesn't have any bearing on the validity of another person's feelings.
It's a shame you can't wander around. Where I live it's not only allowed, it's encouraged. The city has blocked off some streets to through traffic in order to create more recreational space. Plus the beach is enormous, and that helps a lot.
Yes and No ...
"Validity of feelings" is a different question than *survival* ... is a different question than *community* vs. rank individual-ism ...
Last Saturday I officiated a funeral for a young man who died in a motorcycle crash ... The funeral director, a young intern (who was "flying solo" for the first time) asked ME to be the Corona Mask Policeman, which I did ... I VERY firmly *reminded* a congregation of BIKERS to "mask up" ... Virtually everyone did, and only one VERY large tough guy was openly hostile about it ... Their *feelings* of NEEDING not to be told what to do had to be set aside for public safety ...
I'm forcing myself to do what is right and it exacerbates some of the problems I faced before this even began. If I can do this, they can.
Wandering about helps soothe both my anxiety and depression, but I cannot do that with any good conscience.
I wish I could understand more of what drives you but I suspect that any attempt to get a window into your soul would receive a dusty response. Having said that. . . .
Anyone who overcomes obstacles and experiences some degree of suffering, in managing to live by a demanding ethic, easily becomes intolerant to their weaker fellow humans, classing them as whingers if not worse. I've seen the same in people who overcome lousy childhoods and drag themselves up through there own efforts to a life of success whilst many of their childhood friends remain mired.
In both cases they have the same core belief: If I can do it, so can they. Your own words.
I've no idea how people convince themselves of this. Life shows to me that the variation in people's strength of will is huge.
I think that attitude is a bad one, both factually wrong and socially harmful.
I. AM. NOT. STRONG. Of the long list of sins that darken my soul, selfish weakness contributes many.
I do not look in disdain from the window of a mighty tower, but from the edge of the dark, dank pit I must crawl from to even see the light.
I see people from the low place where I am and the depths to which I've sunk, not from a position of virtue which I can assure you I've never reached.
Willpower is made, not given. It is fought for, struggled for, formed from effort and repetition. It is a constant battle to maintain.
What I see is people who've never had to truly forgo sating their pleasure complaining they now temporarily do.
Apologies @lilbuddha
I was under the impression that you meant ...... bluntly..... exactly what you had written
And I was struggling with that
Because
It didn’t tie in with what you have indicated thus far about yourself.
For sure I get the frustration and anger....
Maybe one person’s inconvenience is another person s breaking point?
Thing is
We don’t know what anyone s final straw is, do we?
We only know when the camel’s back is broken.
And we all sit around going
“well I never saw That coming”.
We cannot know, this is true. For some individuals it is true. But for most people within reach of the statement made on SOF, what has occurred is an inconvenience. So my pronouncement will fit most of those who hear.
For those who are interested in a technical look at the pandemic, MIT is offering an online course on "COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2 and the Pandemic" for free to not just their students but the general public as well.
In Fall 2020, all MIT students and the general public are welcome to join Professors Richard Young and Facundo Batista as they discuss the science of the pandemic during this new class. Special guest speakers include: Anthony Fauci, David Baltimore, Britt Glaunsinger, Bruce Walker, Eric Lander, Michel Nussenzweig, Akiko Iwasaki, Arlene Sharpe, Kizzmekia Corbett, and others. The class will run from September 1, 2020 through December 8, 2020 and begin each Tuesday at 11:30 a.m. ET. See the syllabus for lecture details.
Livestreaming details can be found at the website.
Comments
I went in to my place of work for the morning a couple of days ago, for the first time since lockdown. It was eerie - it's usually a hive of activity, but it was like a ghost ship, because so many people are working from home, and those that are in work are wearing masks and keeping away from each other.
(For people keeping track, we've had a small number of employees test positive for Covid-19; a couple of those have been at work, rather than working from home, and all the people they work with have been sent home for 14 days to quarantine themselves. So far, nobody who has worked with someone who has had Covid has also come down with it, so it seems as though our masking / distancing / cleaning protocols are at least working reasonably.)
I'd prefer to go back - I work more efficiently in the office than I do at home - but nobody's going in just to sit at their desk, and that will remain true for months yet.
But if I had the sort of office job where I spent 1-2 hours on crowded public transport twice a day to sit at a computer in a city office, I'd be quite keen on the idea of sitting in a different office that was closer to home.
I think that of the people who have a choice, those going back to the office the most will be the people who need company, and those who have sub-optimal work conditions at home (particularly younger workers who haven't got a dedicated work space.)
CoWorking spaces are already a thing -- and extend to even smaller towns and suburbs, think a lot of those companies are massively overextended though.
"Hot desks" are precisely anti-compatible with Covid precautions.
OTOH, some sort of office provision may be possible in some cases, as long as suitable precautions can be observed.
The cost base of providing that office space just went up, both because of the limitations imposed by social distancing but because of the additional cleaning requirements.
Most of the larger new coworking firms are financed by VC funding and had bought up/leased expensive town/city centre office space on the basis that they could corner the market by offering teaser rates. If you want to know what providing these spaces actually cost look at how much Regus will rent you desk for -- as their margins are fairly low.
Part of this might be semantics. Let's consider your croquet hobby. Is you not playing croquet "reasonable" - well, that depends on the level of risk involved. If the risk was zero - let's say you were playing croquet with people you live with, or in a strictly isolated community that had no Covid cases - then it's obviously unreasonable to ask you to put your mallet down.
You have told us that you eat in restaurants 2-3 times per week. Given that, there are no circumstances under which I would allow you to enter my house. (For comparison, the kids do have a couple of friends that come in the house and play with them, unmasked, because we know them well and know that they are also being cautious about their exposure.) Would I play croquet with you? Maybe. The risk of transmission is significantly lower outdoors, and nobody's going to be puffing and wheezing all over the place because of a game of croquet. So it then depends on how responsible your croquet group is - you can play croquet without getting anywhere close to 6 feet from another person - do you actually do that? Do you each have your own mallet, and don't share? Under those conditions, I'd probably play with you, because the risk is low enough that prohibiting it becomes unreasonable.
I don't think the community desires conformity. I think it wants to not get sick, and it wants not to be infected by people with poor judgement.
Yes - this makes it different from something like motorcyclists wearing helmets, where if they choose not to wear a helmet, they only place themselves at risk.
Again, yes and no. How are you playing croquet? Do you take care to keep your distance from the other players and use your own mallet? That's where the reasonable part comes in - it may not be reasonable to prevent you from playing croquet at all, but it's reasonable for you to keep more than six feet away from each other at all times.
Those are the people that you have direct contact with who could reasonably object to your behaviour. But they're not islands either - all of their friends and family could equally reasonably object to you, as could their friends and family, and so on...
Just out of curiosity, do you actually know that your croquet partners aren't playing "over the protests of their nearest and dearest", having discussed this with your croquet buddies openly and explicitly, or do you simply assume that they're not playing over their protests (or in secrecy from them) and work from the assumption that if your COVID gets passed along to someone's unwitting/unwilling spouse that's their fault, not yours?
This is another area that lacks clarity. In most cases when you eat at restaurants the people at surrounding tables are usually perfect strangers. So are the waitstaff (unless you're a regular). As is the dishwasher who has to handle the utensils you've been shoving in your COVID-hole, and the dishwasher's elderly mother with whom he lives. Unless you're eating at the automat or some dining club where everyone is known to you, the people you see on your walks aren't the only "perfect strangers" you're potentially exposing. Given the differing environments, they're not even the most at risk.
And speaking of retail workers and COVID, here's a Bloomberg article about employers telling their workers to shut up about COVID.
It goes on from there.
Creosus: I think it does. I am not saying that it is "just for the sake of it", rather it's because that's the rule and most people want you to stick to the rules because they believe they are well founded because that's what they are told. Not all of course but most. Yes but I apply the same rule that they are accepting the risk from me just as I am accepting the risk from them. If people aren't willing, they don't have to go to a restaurant. Of course not. I wouldn't dream of being so patronising. I treat others as responsible adults. If I have explicit reason to doubt this, I would - but reluctantly and not in this case. (Like buying drink for someone plainly over the limit who I know for a fact is going to drive a car).
That was Leorning Cniht, not whoever this "Creosus" person is.
Sorry. Hope it didn't spoil your day.
I find it interesting how my friends assess the risk.
I fly to Germany once every two months or so - definitely not risk free. But I’m ultra careful the rest of the time. No visitors, even in the garden and no visiting. I wipe all post and shopping down with alcohol wipes and wash the milk bottles in soap as soon as they arrive. I meet friends and family for socially distanced walks and I go shopping once a week. I walk the dogs in remote areas. All my other activities are online. Church, puppy class, art class and Pilates.
My friend won’t even walk with me until two weeks have passed since I’ve been on a plane - yet she washes her daughters uniform every day - her daughter nurses Covid patients.
Another friend is very blasé. She has all sorts of family round and looks after her grandson. She visits two old aunties and goes in their houses without a worry. 🤔
"Since I run the risk of infection by going to the grocers, I might as well French kiss strangers in on crowded dance floor."
I'd play croquet, because it's outdoors, and it's entirely possible to keep well more than 6' away from anyone whilst doing so, and under those conditions, the risk is minimal. But I'm not sure I'd play with Anteater, because he and his friends say they don't keep their distance, and do gather in to huddles for chats.
Nothing would persuade me on to an aeroplane in the current circumstances, but I don't have tiny grandchildren in another country. I'll note that my own parents were due to get on a plane to see their grandchildren shortly after lockdown - they obviously didn't come, and have no plans to come in the near future, and I consider that sensible. Maybe they'll come next year.
I was talking about everyday life.
We all take some risks simply by living. I’m ultra cautious, not all my friends are - but they are all pretty careful.
To repeat: I know of nobody, at all, who takes the view that the impossibility of eliminating risk entirely means that you may as well throw caution to the winds. And the effect of French kissing the members of my croquet club would be more psychological, I think.
Out of curiosity, in what manner does your group play croquet? I played backyard croquet as a kid. The wickets were in one section of the lawn, rather than spaced out across it, so players were pretty close.
Maybe you play a more formal game? Maybe on a public course?
There used to be a group here that played at Golden Gate Park, and dressed in 1920s (?) style costumes. Don't know if they're still around.
We must eat, therefore we must have contact with other people. This is a necessary risk. We do not need to flay in bands. We do not need to play croquet. Doing those things adds unnecessary risk that means more people will get sick and more people will die.
As I said, I am ultra, ultra cautious - until I fly to Germany every couple of months. The ‘need’ to see and care for my family overcomes my caution on those occasions.
(BTW did you know that the UK GOV has been dishing out half-price restaurant meals to encourage people to "do their duty" and jump start the restaurant industry?).
The problem is we have no way to quantify how much I have increased risk. We have to use common sense if we want to win our argument, and it is not common sense to suggest that if I am at a restaurant, I might as well snog the inhabitants of a crowded dance floor.
Purely out of my common sense btw, I would not go on the London tube unmasked - that seems silly to me. But I can't give you quantified probabilities.
Our common sense may be put to the test on that issue if political pressure to cut corners overrides normal testing and approval criteria re a future COVID-19 vaccine. How will we know for example? In the USA there is evidence that the FDA is succumbing to political pressure.
Individual risk assessment is something we do all the time but it is a tricky business. We were visited by my elder son, his wife and two children and we’ve all been asymptomatic for months. They only have one other person in their local bubble, our grandson’s girl friend, who has also been asymptomatic for months. And we only have two, also asymptomatic for months. So we felt an addition to our bubble was safe and we all wanted to hug each other.
While they were with us we heard that the daughter of very good friends of ours was being tested for COVID-19. We’d seen them 10 days before and they had seen their daughter a day before the visit. She’s in their bubble. Whoops! Anyway we completed the week as we started it, being careful when we went out but bubbly in our home. It was a joint risk assessment.
We heard this morning that our friends’ daughter’s test had come back negative. So our risk assessment had not rebounded on us.
But in this new world, situations like this are going to happen a lot and what we all decide to do about them may have some impact on overall risks. I think we behaved reasonably responsibly under the circumstances but YMMV. Our common sense may be different to yours.
This.
Personally I have two slogans which help me find balance places.
Chinese proverb.
A drowning person has no right to breathe. Must fight for air.
Old United Nations Slogan
It is a privilege to live this day and the next.
It's very unfair to bring up something someone said months ago and start judging them like this. In the US, 41% of adults have symptoms of clinical anxiety or depression, up from 11% in early 2019 (source). People feel what they feel, even in the first world, and they have every right to those feelings.
I've cried out of sheer anxiety and despair more than once since March. If others want to be all stiff upper lip about it, good for them. But this is fucking hard, and no one here knows everything that's going on with another shipmate they haven't even met.
So it's not good to judge people when anxiety may be at the controls taking its toll. Anxiety can rob people like me of perspective. It's what it does.
And at the same time, the sort of thing happening to people who don't have my privileges is horrifying.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/climate-and-people/investigation-african-migrants-left-die-saudi-arabias-hellish/
Maybe it's possible to both acknowledge the toll anxiety takes and to be aware that there are also people facing extreme deprivation we can barely imagine?
I've anxiety and depression and this pandemic has taken a toll on my mental, physical and social situations. I'm just not going to pretend that my issues are paramount to other people's health and life.
As I've mentioned before, I fight anxiety attacks when I put on a mask. But I am going to wear one until this shit is over out of the potential effect it might have on other people.
My struggles in this situation are part of what makes me less than sympathetic to the whingers. I'm forcing myself to do what is right and it exacerbates some of the problems I faced before this even began. If I can do this, they can.
I wouldn't put my anxieties and what helps with them before other people's safety either. I think the point Bishop's Finger was making could be made without bringing any shipmate into it. Let's just isolate the argument - the things people 'need' to function or survive can vary widely, based on mental health and circumstances, but people shouldn't be endangering others and should be very careful about how they're defining 'need'.
I'll grant that Ruth's figures about depression are probably correct. But that'll still disproportionately affect the less privileged which still makes my point about privileged whinging.
Wandering about helps soothe both my anxiety and depression, but I cannot do that with any good conscience. It is not that I do not understand what drives the attempts at justification, I simply do not accept them as valid.
It's a shame you can't wander around. Where I live it's not only allowed, it's encouraged. The city has blocked off some streets to through traffic in order to create more recreational space. Plus the beach is enormous, and that helps a lot.
The fact that third world problems exist and are enormous shouldn’t rob us of our empathy for those who are about us, including online imo.
I was brought up in South Africa and my Dad worked in Soweto. I have spent many summers working in Kibera, Nairobi - one of the poorest places on Earth. The thing people (on the whole) have there is love, joy and empathy. ‘Small’ troubles and needs were never too small.
I look at the leaders of our first world and those are the three things that are so very lacking. People, sadly, are following their lead.
A meme is going round thebookofface that immigrants are preventing the Lord’s Prayer being said and used. What utter tosh and nonsense.
Every time I see it I reply - “The Lord who gave us that prayer was himself a refugee. The story of Jesus’ early years is a story of a family forced to seek asylum to escape terrible, life-threatening violence at home. Matthew 2:13-14 reminds that after Jesus was born, his family was forced to flee to a foreign country where inhabitants spoke a different language and practiced a different religion. They were forced to flee without knowing whether they would be offered welcome and refuge, or meet further rejection and violence.
When we welcome refugees, when we welcome asylum-seekers, we are welcoming Christ.”
I’ve digressed from the theme Coronavirus. Back to it - it will be utterly devastating those third world countries and communities. We hear nothing of that on what passes for ‘news’ here.
FWIW, I don't subscribe to that view, despite having had my own share of mental and physical problems in recent times...
Anyone who overcomes obstacles and experiences some degree of suffering, in managing to live by a demanding ethic, easily becomes intolerant to their weaker fellow humans, classing them as whingers if not worse. I've seen the same in people who overcome lousy childhoods and drag themselves up through there own efforts to a life of success whilst many of their childhood friends remain mired.
In both cases they have the same core belief: If I can do it, so can they. Your own words.
I've no idea how people convince themselves of this. Life shows to me that the variation in people's strength of will is huge.
I think that attitude is a bad one, both factually wrong and socially harmful.
At the risk of poking a wasp’s nest, this sentence doesn’t sit easy as a response from Anyone
“If I can do this, they can”
This would ,
“If I can do this, it just makes me upset / cross / irritated / angry / scared ( pick your own ) that they cannot”
But you didn’t say that.
Do you want to revisit that sentence?
Or
Was it not a literal statement?
Yes, and it can vary from day to day. Those of us with neurological differences find it especially hard. I’m a born risk taker.
That’s why legislation works. Masks are mandatory on public transport so everyone wears them. Make it mandatory with a decent sized fine attached and people will comply.
That’s why the government’s approach in the two weeks before lockdown were so fatal. Relying on people’s common sense simply does not work. One person’s common sense is another’s paranoia.
The outrage in the post that began this tangent should have also made this clear. I see people who suffer every day before having this shit tossed on them and they do not make the excuses to justify risking the health of other people. Why on earth should I have sympathy for those "enduring" inconvenience during this pandemic?
Yes and No ...
"Validity of feelings" is a different question than *survival* ... is a different question than *community* vs. rank individual-ism ...
Last Saturday I officiated a funeral for a young man who died in a motorcycle crash ... The funeral director, a young intern (who was "flying solo" for the first time) asked ME to be the Corona Mask Policeman, which I did ... I VERY firmly *reminded* a congregation of BIKERS to "mask up" ... Virtually everyone did, and only one VERY large tough guy was openly hostile about it ... Their *feelings* of NEEDING not to be told what to do had to be set aside for public safety ...
I do not look in disdain from the window of a mighty tower, but from the edge of the dark, dank pit I must crawl from to even see the light.
I see people from the low place where I am and the depths to which I've sunk, not from a position of virtue which I can assure you I've never reached.
Willpower is made, not given. It is fought for, struggled for, formed from effort and repetition. It is a constant battle to maintain.
What I see is people who've never had to truly forgo sating their pleasure complaining they now temporarily do.
I was under the impression that you meant ...... bluntly..... exactly what you had written
And I was struggling with that
Because
It didn’t tie in with what you have indicated thus far about yourself.
For sure I get the frustration and anger....
Maybe one person’s inconvenience is another person s breaking point?
Thing is
We don’t know what anyone s final straw is, do we?
We only know when the camel’s back is broken.
And we all sit around going
“well I never saw That coming”.
It is sympathy that drives my reaction. Sympathy for people who are truly suffering in this pandemic.
Livestreaming details can be found at the website.