Heading into autumn - what next?

[Eyersey468]

As some will know I work in the bus industry. The changes to people's commuting patterns, working from home etc is a concern to the industry as we need passenger numbers to return to 100% of pre Covid levels to be viable.

 

[DustyBin]

As some will know I work in the bus industry. The changes to people's commuting patterns, working from home etc is a concern to the industry as we need passenger numbers to return to 100% of pre Covid levels to be viable.

That’s a good point and I can understand why anybody working in public transport would be concerned. Other industries are affected too. For example, I recently spoke to the owners of some hospitality businesses on Fleet Street in London and they were struggling, to say the least. I’m not sure what the answer is but it’s worth remembering that there are plenty of losers as well as winners in all of this.

 

[Bantamzen]

As some will know I work in the bus industry. The changes to people's commuting patterns, working from home etc is a concern to the industry as we need passenger numbers to return to 100% of pre Covid levels to be viable.

And herein lies a problem. Its not just public transport that will suffer, there is a whole industry that helped serve the needs & wishes of the commuter. Of course people happily working from home don't see these problems sometimes, but for many people WFH means reduced hours, loss of job or loss of their businesses. And all these jobs contributed to the economy, and so if lost they will add to the ever growing budget deficit & eventually could mean even more tax rises. What goes around, comes around.

 

[Eyersey468]

That’s a good point and I can understand why anybody working in public transport would be concerned. Other industries are affected too. For example, I recently spoke to the owners of some hospitality businesses on Fleet Street in London and they were struggling, to say the least. I’m not sure what the answer is but it’s worth remembering that there are plenty of losers as well as winners in all of this.

I know a lot of other industries are affected too, I agree there are a lot of losers in this as well.

 

[BackOnTheTrain]

As for London based employees moving north then so what. The North has suffered from low employment rates for many years so maybe time for a bit of “levelling up”.

People on non-London wages wanting to buy houses up North won’t appreciate that statement.

 

[Class 317]

I think a new wave of economic effects will start to be felt next month with the ending of furlough and reduction in other support for businesses. This is likely to be a driving force in business closures and lead to higher unemployment.

The knock on effects of this will be spread around the economy with less money circulating to surviving businesses.

A lot of businesses that rely on people working in offices will suffer, especially those that are not able to or not willing to adapt to the new reality that increased WFH brings.

Any business expecting WFH levels to go back to 2019 levels is dreaming!

I do feel very sorry for those affected but the way to solve the unemployment is not to try to hold back the tide but to create new jobs using the new opportunities WFH creates.

For example my local cafe in the suburbs is doing very well with extra opening hours and staff. It's become very popular amongst those who are WFH to meet others there for lunch.

 

[nedchester]

People on non-London wages wanting to buy houses up North won’t appreciate that statement.

Why? Companies previously based in London might not need to pay London wages any longer (along with expensive office space).

London has 'enjoyed' high employment levels for decades time for the balance to be redressed.

 

[AlterEgo]

There still a significant number of unvaccinated which is probably where any big wave of hospitalisations are likely to come from.

Sure, we can accept this - seems pretty obvious. But why should we care? If they've chosen not to be vaccinated that is their choice and their right - and if they are hospitalised and die, this is a consequence of their choice. I don't see why the rest of us, who have made the tiniest sacrifice to get vaccinated, should suffer consequences.

 

[YorkshireBear]

I still have an issue with phoning companies or emailing companies and getting an auto message saying due to covid WFH our response times are no longer in line with our standard and it may take longer to solve your problem. In addition you may be cut off and have to ring back.

If that is true and not just an excuse then I'm afraid as covid becomes endemic and we reach a good natural immunity then they can go back to an office.

If your service isn't good due to WFH then afraid you shouldn't be doing it.

However where it has no impact then that is great but give people a choice. I'm sick of people who WFH kicking off when it is suggested they might be forced to go to the office occasionally but they are more than happy for people to be forced to WFH.

 

[nedchester]

Sure, we can accept this - seems pretty obvious. But why should we care? If they've chosen not to be vaccinated that is their choice and their right - and if they are hospitalised and die, this is a consequence of their choice. I don't see why the rest of us, who have made the tiniest sacrifice to get vaccinated, should suffer consequences.

I agree with this but the problem of course is that hospitals cannot turn away ill people whatever their status. I suppose if under pressure there could be a degree of prioritisation though.......

I still have an issue with phoning companies or emailing companies and getting an auto message saying due to covid WFH our response times are no longer in line with our standard and it may take longer to solve your problem. In addition you may be cut off and have to ring back.

If that is true and not just an excuse then I'm afraid as covid becomes endemic and we reach a good natural immunity then they can go back to an office.

If your service isn't good due to WFH then afraid you shouldn't be doing it.

However where it has no impact then that is great but give people a choice. I'm sick of people who WFH kicking off when it is suggested they might be forced to go to the office occasionally but they are more than happy for people to be forced to WFH.

Agreed. WFH should not now be an excuse for poor service at this stage.

 

[DustyBin]

Sure, we can accept this - seems pretty obvious. But why should we care? If they've chosen not to be vaccinated that is their choice and their right - and if they are hospitalised and die, this is a consequence of their choice. I don't see why the rest of us, who have made the tiniest sacrifice to get vaccinated, should suffer consequences.

I agree with you, however as I pointed out to @nedchester it’s still the same groups of people dying. The age bands with the highest vaccine take up are also the ones with the highest mortality rates. It’s not inaccurate to state that the majority of people being hospitalised and dying are unvaccinated, however it doesn’t tell the full story. The overwhelming majority of all deaths in both the unvaccinated and vaccinated occur in the same well-recognised vulnerable groups. If unvaccinated 20-40 years olds were being admitted to hospital in such large numbers that the NHS was unable to cope, something so catastrophic would need to have occurred that I expect we’d be back to square one anyway!

 

[Bantamzen]

Sure, we can accept this - seems pretty obvious. But why should we care? If they've chosen not to be vaccinated that is their choice and their right - and if they are hospitalised and die, this is a consequence of their choice. I don't see why the rest of us, who have made the tiniest sacrifice to get vaccinated, should suffer consequences.

But its not those people choosing to not have vaccines that might cause restrictions, that is the result of politician decisions. It is the politicians causing them, not the unvaccinated.

 

[scotrail158713]

Agreed. WFH should not now be an excuse for poor service at this stage.

Even at the height of lockdown I resented it, mainly back in January/February this year. The messaging as I recall was WFH "wherever possible" - to me that means if certain work can't be done "due to staff WFH" then they should be working in person. I was fine last March/April time though as I think everyone was still getting to grips with the situation back then and wasn't entirely sure what the right thing to do was.

Without doubt it shouldn't be an excuse anymore though.

 

[Ianno87]

People on non-London wages wanting to buy houses up North won’t appreciate that statement.

Except that, with Hybrid/part-WFH working, the London jobs market is now considerably more open to existing North of England residents if only occasional commuting to an actual office is necessary, so London wages can come to them. Distance from the nominal "home" office matters much less now.

 

[brad465]

Recent reports suggested that 1,000 deaths a week is an acceptable sustained maximum before restrictions are reintroduced. The latest report for the last 7 days has deaths with covid at 995, so just under the threshold, having increased 5.1%. At the same time though, cases are down 23% over the last 7 days, while admissions are down 1.3%. Therefore I think it's possible 1,000 a week will be reached just, but give it a week or two and they'll decline again, so we'll have to see what pressure is put on the Government and what, if any, action they'll take.

 

[yorksrob]

As a country, we really need to be looking at Covid mortality as a proportion of overall mortality, rather than setting a figure of 1000 deaths a week.

 

[Eyersey468]

As a country, we really need to be looking at Covid mortality as a proportion of overall mortality, rather than setting a figure of 1000 deaths a week.

I agree, I am getting tired of it only seeming to be Covid deaths that matter

 

[DustyBin]

As a country, we really need to be looking at Covid mortality as a proportion of overall mortality, rather than setting a figure of 1000 deaths a week.

Yes, and excess deaths as well (remember when that was actually talked about?!).

 

[yorksrob]

Yes, and excess deaths as well (remember when that was actually talked about?!).

Indeed, excess deaths are always (or should be) the key.

 

[Cdd89]

If we are going to be using such a measure, it should exclude the voluntarily unvaccinated from the count.

 

[DustyBin]

If we are going to be using such a measure, it should exclude the voluntarily unvaccinated from the count.

I'm not sure how I'd feel about that to be honest! It may create the impression that those deaths don't matter (and further encourage a two-tier society).

 

[yorksrob]

Excess deaths can't really take anything into account. It is by its nature a comparison of all deaths over time.

 

[philosopher]

Except that, with Hybrid/part-WFH working, the London jobs market is now considerably more open to existing North of England residents if only occasional commuting to an actual office is necessary, so London wages can come to them. Distance from the nominal "home" office matters much less now.

Those living in the north may be able to access London’s job market a lot more easily with more WFH. However as wages in the north are lower you may get a situation where employers prefer to recruit those in the North as they are cheaper, meaning those in London would have to accept lower wages to compete. In effect you may end up with levelling down rather than levelling up.

 

[bramling]

Except that, with Hybrid/part-WFH working, the London jobs market is now considerably more open to existing North of England residents if only occasional commuting to an actual office is necessary, so London wages can come to them.

That belies a fundamental misunderstanding of how wage determination works. If you’re greatly expanding the supply of labour, wages are more likely to go down.

This is a massive risk in a country where there are such significant disparities in living costs between different areas.

 

[Domh245]

Yes, and excess deaths as well (remember when that was actually talked about?!).

The excess death situation is not ideal, which perhaps makes it all the more odd that it isn't getting the sort of media coverage that we saw earlier in the year. (For england only) We're coming up on the early march peak cumulative excess deaths having been running at almost +1000 excess deaths a week for the last 6 weeks. The regrettable thing is that even when you take out all the covid deaths, we're still seeing an excess, the impacts of lack-of-care during earlier lockdowns potentially catching up with us?

 

[nedchester]

I'm not sure how I'd feel about that to be honest! It may create the impression that those deaths don't matter (and further encourage a two-tier society).

Maybe separate unvaccinated and vaccinated deaths out to show how evolution works…….

 

[yorksrob]

The excess death situation is not ideal, which perhaps makes it all the more odd that it isn't getting the sort of media coverage that we saw earlier in the year. (For england only) We're coming up on the early march peak cumulative excess deaths having been running at almost +1000 excess deaths a week for the last 6 weeks. The regrettable thing is that even when you take out all the covid deaths, we're still seeing an excess, the impacts of lack-of-care during earlier lockdowns potentially catching up with us?

View attachment 102750

View attachment 102751

It's an interesting one because they're not necessarily due to covid.

When we see a spike in excess deaths this winter (as we do every winter) it's important that those caused by covid are separated out from the others.

As far as I understand it, excess deaths aren't massively out of the average zone currently anyway. Isn't it around 50k deaths a week generally ?

I must admit, I don't really see the point of the cumulative excess deaths table. Adding up a comparison of points in time seems counterintuitive to me.

 

[bramling]

The excess death situation is not ideal, which perhaps makes it all the more odd that it isn't getting the sort of media coverage that we saw earlier in the year. (For england only) We're coming up on the early march peak cumulative excess deaths having been running at almost +1000 excess deaths a week for the last 6 weeks. The regrettable thing is that even when you take out all the covid deaths, we're still seeing an excess, the impacts of lack-of-care during earlier lockdowns potentially catching up with us?

View attachment 102750

View attachment 102751

Unfortunately this probably shouldnt be a surprise. There’s a headline on my local news today where a mother’s 30-ish daughter tragically passed away from cancer, having had five telephone consultations before getting to see a doctor, wasting much time in the process. Absolutely heartbreaking.

Thank you NHS, you’re amazing.

It's an interesting one because they're not necessarily due to covid.

When we see a spike in excess deaths this winter (as we do every winter) it's important that those caused by covid are separated out from the others.

One thing we desperately need is better quality data all round. Firstly so we can all make informed judgements, and secondly to hold the decision-makers to account.

At present it’s quite hard to bat away “this is awful, there were 200 deaths yesterday”, if we don’t know how many of these are “of” Covid. And, to be fair, the reverse is true as well.

 

[yorksrob]

Unfortunately this probably shouldnt be a surprise. There’s a headline on my local news today where a mother’s 30-ish daughter tragically passed away from cancer, having had five telephone consultations before getting to see a doctor, wasting much time in the process. Absolutely heartbreaking.

Thank you NHS, you’re amazing.



One thing we desperately need is better quality data all round. Firstly so we can all make informed judgements, and secondly to hold the decision-makers to account.

At present it’s quite hard to bat away “this is awful, there were 200 deaths yesterday”, if we don’t know how many of these are “of” Covid. And, to be fair, the reverse is true as well.

Just starting them as a proportion of all mortality would be a start, yet this is never done.

 

[Domh245]

As far as I understand it, excess deaths aren't massively out of the average zone currently anyway. Isn't it around 50k deaths a week generally ?

I must admit, I don't really see the point of the cumulative excess deaths table. Adding up a comparison of points in time seems counterintuitive to me.

Average total weekly deaths vary between 9,000 and 12,000 with an average across the year of just over 10,000 a week. For the week before the last with data available (which is always off due to the bank holiday) the expected deaths is around 9,150, compared to the 10,268 actually registered. The variance between the 2015-2019 years and their 5 year average for this time of year is 150-200 or so, so I think it's safe to say they're well out of average (and about 12% higher than normal)

The cumulative excess deaths I find is a helpful way to contextualise just how big some of the numbers are, it's easy to ignore +1000 each week but it very quickly adds up to a lot of people who (theoretically) shouldn't have died. It's also a good way to track any "harvesting" effects - such as the dip from March to early July - a lot of that decrease is because the deaths from that period had occurred previously - it's been a lot less pronounced than I'd have hoped!