724 posts
|
Post by basdfg on Jun 27, 2020 13:31:55 GMT
People can be incredibly selfish and stupid, can't they? Harsh. I'm generally for a cashless society but you can't expect people to change over night especially when carrying cash is legal and with no clear direction from Dominic Cummings... A few months ago the government made an announcement vowing to protect cash usage - ditto the other week on the news (during the lockdown) they was a report about how some small towns had been selected for a trial to improve access to bank branches to see if it's methods could be used nationwide - thing like shared branches are involved.
|
|
724 posts
|
Post by basdfg on Jun 27, 2020 13:32:45 GMT
Cash is still legal tender - when free IT lessons for all come in then maybe you can expect everyone to cope. Shop workers have gloves on now mostly anyway. ...and yes, true, there are some people who have to use cash, although fewer than there used to be. That doesn't in any way lessen the sheer arrogance of people - and there are many of them - who are able to pay via other means and think all those signs asking people to use contactless cards don't apply to them. It's the banks who are selfish refusing to go back to normal hours like everything else on the high street. Banks have reduced their hours partly because they have fewer available staff while some people are shielding, and partly as a means of protecting their staff by lessening face-to-face interaction with customers. Neither of those things are "selfish". Whining because companies are taking measures to protect their employees, however, certainly is. A lot of companies are too cheap to pay for masks and gloves for their employees - most of the retail measures are incredibly cheap to run.
|
|
724 posts
|
Post by basdfg on Jun 27, 2020 13:37:55 GMT
Harsh. I'm generally for a cashless society but you can't expect people to change over night especially when carrying cash is legal and with no clear direction from Dominic Cummings...
No, not harsh. Observation. The point of asking people not to use cash is to protect the people serving us in shops, because those people are generally not well-paid and have been putting themselves in harm's way every day since this began. Most - not all, but most - people have other means of payment available to them, and it is extraordinarily arrogant if people who have a choice continue to insist on using cash in these circumstances when retailers are asking us not to.
Gloves are proven to remove all risk from cash i believe.
|
|
1,912 posts
|
Post by sf on Jun 27, 2020 13:42:28 GMT
No, not harsh. Observation. The point of asking people not to use cash is to protect the people serving us in shops, because those people are generally not well-paid and have been putting themselves in harm's way every day since this began. Most - not all, but most - people have other means of payment available to them, and it is extraordinarily arrogant if people who have a choice continue to insist on using cash in these circumstances when retailers are asking us not to.
Gloves are proven to remove all risk from cash i believe.
Nope. Wearing gloves doesn't reduce the risk much - perhaps any - more than regular handwashing. What reduces the risk much more? Taking cash out of the equation as far as possible.
|
|
724 posts
|
Post by basdfg on Jun 27, 2020 13:43:39 GMT
Gloves are proven to remove all risk from cash i believe.
Nope. Wearing gloves doesn't reduce the risk much - perhaps any - more than regular handwashing. What reduces the risk much more? Taking cash out of the equation as far as possible.
Why does the NHS spend money on gloves then if they don't work.
|
|
6,382 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Jon on Jun 27, 2020 13:45:27 GMT
Banks have reduced their hours partly because they have fewer available staff while some people are shielding, and partly as a means of protecting their staff by lessening face-to-face interaction with customers. Neither of those things are "selfish". Whining because companies are taking measures to protect their employees, however, certainly is. Also, it's worth pointing out that most non essential shops have reduced their opening hours, maybe not as much as the banks but it's not exactly back to normal.
|
|
1,912 posts
|
Post by sf on Jun 27, 2020 13:47:57 GMT
Nope. Wearing gloves doesn't reduce the risk much - perhaps any - more than regular handwashing. What reduces the risk much more? Taking cash out of the equation as far as possible.
Why does the NHS spend money on gloves then if they don't work. NHS staff don't wear gloves to protect themselves while handling cash. Thank you, I know what a straw man is.
|
|
4,608 posts
|
Post by Someone in a tree on Jun 27, 2020 13:48:09 GMT
Harsh. I'm generally for a cashless society but you can't expect people to change over night especially when carrying cash is legal and with no clear direction from Dominic Cummings...
No, not harsh. Observation. The point of asking people not to use cash is to protect the people serving us in shops, because those people are generally not well-paid and have been putting themselves in harm's way every day since this began. It's a small measure that almost all of us can take, and it is not an inconvenience. Most - not all, but most - people have other means of payment available to them, and it is extraordinarily arrogant if people who have a choice continue to insist on using cash in these circumstances when retailers are asking us not to.
Yes. I am aware of the benefits of not using cash. Hence why I am in favour of a cashless society. I am also aware of everyone not thinking along the same lines as you. How arrogant of them not to have the same viewpoint as you.
|
|
1,912 posts
|
Post by sf on Jun 27, 2020 13:52:48 GMT
No, not harsh. Observation. The point of asking people not to use cash is to protect the people serving us in shops, because those people are generally not well-paid and have been putting themselves in harm's way every day since this began. It's a small measure that almost all of us can take, and it is not an inconvenience. Most - not all, but most - people have other means of payment available to them, and it is extraordinarily arrogant if people who have a choice continue to insist on using cash in these circumstances when retailers are asking us not to.
Yes. I am aware of the benefits of not using cash. Hence why I am in favour of a cashless society. I am also aware of everyone not thinking along the same lines as you. How arrogant of them not to have the same viewpoint as you. Sigh. It's about showing respect for other people. In a pandemic, one of the ways to help protect other people is to limit how much we ask them to touch things we have touched ourselves, which is why there's so much emphasis on contactless payment, contactless deliveries and all the rest of it. It's not about "the same viewpoint" as me. It's about simple measures everyone can take to keep the people they come in contact with safe. And yes, I'm afraid people who choose not to take those measures are arrogant, and selfish, and deserve to be judged as such. It's like using a public toilet without washing your hands afterwards.
|
|
6,382 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Jon on Jun 27, 2020 13:55:56 GMT
While this is a different conversation entirely, a cashless society is something that is going to happen eventually, maybe not anytime soon but I don't think it's a bad thing for companies to encourage it at the moment.
|
|
1,912 posts
|
Post by sf on Jun 27, 2020 14:01:11 GMT
While this is a different conversation entirely, a cashless society is something that is going to happen eventually, maybe not anytime soon but I don't think it's a bad thing for companies to encourage it at the moment.
And there are certainly arguments against it - there's an excellent argument against it in The Handmaid's Tale.
Right now, though, it behoves those of us who have the choice, which these days is nearly everyone, to limit our use of cash as far as we can, just as it behoves us, as far as we can, not to ask anyone outside our own household to touch things we've touched.
|
|
724 posts
|
Post by basdfg on Jun 27, 2020 14:04:00 GMT
While this is a different conversation entirely, a cashless society is something that is going to happen eventually, maybe not anytime soon but I don't think it's a bad thing for companies to encourage it at the moment.
And there are certainly arguments against it - there's an excellent argument against it in The Handmaid's Tale.
Right now, though, it behoves those of us who have the choice, which these days is nearly everyone, to limit our use of cash as far as we can, just as it behoves us, as far as we can, not to ask anyone outside our own household to touch things we've touched.
Everyone in all the clothes shops are touching other clothes and then putting them back with no signs to encourage you to not or to where clothes or even a mask.
|
|
1,912 posts
|
Post by sf on Jun 27, 2020 14:07:04 GMT
Everyone in all the clothes shops are touching other clothes and then putting them back with no signs to encourage you to not or to where clothes or even a mask. That's true, and two wrongs don't make a right.
|
|
4,608 posts
|
Post by Someone in a tree on Jun 27, 2020 14:25:26 GMT
Yes. I am aware of the benefits of not using cash. Hence why I am in favour of a cashless society. I am also aware of everyone not thinking along the same lines as you. How arrogant of them not to have the same viewpoint as you. Sigh. It's about showing respect for other people. In a pandemic, one of the ways to help protect other people is to limit how much we ask them to touch things we have touched ourselves, which is why there's so much emphasis on contactless payment, contactless deliveries and all the rest of it. It's not about "the same viewpoint" as me. It's about simple measures everyone can take to keep the people they come in contact with safe. And yes, I'm afraid people who choose not to take those measures are arrogant, and selfish, and deserve to be judged as such. It's like using a public toilet without washing your hands afterwards. And with the quality of information varying from newspapers, news channels, debate around unclear government advice etc... Please take that into account when you judge them
|
|
1,912 posts
|
Post by sf on Jun 27, 2020 14:31:00 GMT
Sigh. It's about showing respect for other people. In a pandemic, one of the ways to help protect other people is to limit how much we ask them to touch things we have touched ourselves, which is why there's so much emphasis on contactless payment, contactless deliveries and all the rest of it. It's not about "the same viewpoint" as me. It's about simple measures everyone can take to keep the people they come in contact with safe. And yes, I'm afraid people who choose not to take those measures are arrogant, and selfish, and deserve to be judged as such. It's like using a public toilet without washing your hands afterwards. And with the quality of information varying from newspapers, news channels, debate around unclear government advice etc... Please take that into account when you judge them Why, yes. How DARE I expect people to think for themselves and show consideration towards the people around them? The nerve.
|
|
4,631 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Jun 27, 2020 14:31:50 GMT
Cash is very expensive item to administer and is also very dirty, as you donāt know who handled the cash before. With this pandemic it was a good time to go partial cashless, the government should of outlawed businesses that handled food, from accepting cash. Good example in the heatwave my local ice cream man, was dispensing food and handling cash, needless to say I didnāt queue. Incidentally I created a thread on this subject, a while ago. theatreboard.co.uk/thread/6471/cash
|
|
4,458 posts
|
Post by poster J on Jun 27, 2020 14:41:16 GMT
How ironic that there are posts clamouring for "respect for other people" that entirely fail to respect that some people are not going to be able to use cards.
Like anything else,take precautions by wearing gloves or frequently sanitizing your hands (as shop staff will be told to do). If you do that, there is no need whatsoever to be paranoid about anyone using cash!
In some respects it seems this pandemic has caused some people to lose all sense of perspective, which is almost as frightening as the consequences of the disease itself.
|
|
1,912 posts
|
Post by sf on Jun 27, 2020 14:42:37 GMT
How ironic that there are posts clamouring for "respect for other people" that entirely fail to respect that some people are not going to be able to use cards. Are there? If that was aimed at me, I've acknowledged more than once that some people have no choice but to use cash.
|
|
724 posts
|
Post by basdfg on Jun 27, 2020 14:54:53 GMT
Cash is very expensive item to administer and is also very dirty, as you donāt know who handled the cash before. With this pandemic it was a good time to go partial cashless, the government should of outlawed businesses that handled food, from accepting cash. Good example in the heatwave my local ice cream man, was dispensing food and handling cash, needless to say I didnāt queue. Incidentally I created a thread on this subject, a while ago. theatreboard.co.uk/thread/6471/cashThen you would see people resort to shop lifting as getting a card if you dont have one is not easy atm.
Ditto would the government tell the banks to offer free card readers and no extra fees - the smaller the business the less financially viable accepting card is.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Jun 27, 2020 15:35:20 GMT
The way that people like supermarket workers have been used and abused has been terrible. It's the whole attitude that picks on the weak and then holds them up as an example for others to follow.
When someone says 'well, if a & b can do it then so can x & y' the answer is not to endanger a & b in the first place. It's no wonder that workers in public facing jobs that continued during lockdown have had higher mortality. Taxi & bus drivers etc. Who would be one of them in a week's time when the pubs turn out?
|
|
1,849 posts
|
Post by NeilVHughes on Jun 27, 2020 15:50:47 GMT
āWho would be one of them in a week's time when the pubs turn out?ā
Sadly there will be many who do not have the choice of which many will be ārestingā Theatre professionals who as freelancers have fallen through the furlough and small business safety net.
|
|
724 posts
|
Post by basdfg on Jun 27, 2020 16:59:08 GMT
I think it's telling two industries, the arts and Universities seen as anti tory are being shafted - the new plans for uni's will shrink them a lot. They are picking fights with selected areas to distract from their utter failure. Lockdown too late and too weak, so that we never came close, in England, to low enough levels of transmission mean that they need a scapegoat. Who usually gets attacked? Not pubs or shops, itās āluvviesā and teachers. In education they have now moved the goalposts to drop any meaningful protection in trying to provoke a battle, the pathetic five point plan for the arts is the same. They want a war as a distraction and their targets are carefully chosen. And Labour are now against the NEU as well.
|
|
372 posts
|
Post by hitmewithurbethshot on Jun 27, 2020 18:29:18 GMT
Nope. Wearing gloves doesn't reduce the risk much - perhaps any - more than regular handwashing. What reduces the risk much more? Taking cash out of the equation as far as possible.
Why does the NHS spend money on gloves then if they don't work. Doctors and nurses crucially change gloves between patients, it's not really practical for supermarket workers to change them between customers
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Jun 27, 2020 21:03:40 GMT
They are picking fights with selected areas to distract from their utter failure. Lockdown too late and too weak, so that we never came close, in England, to low enough levels of transmission mean that they need a scapegoat. Who usually gets attacked? Not pubs or shops, itās āluvviesā and teachers. In education they have now moved the goalposts to drop any meaningful protection in trying to provoke a battle, the pathetic five point plan for the arts is the same. They want a war as a distraction and their targets are carefully chosen. And Labour are now against the NEU as well. Not sure where you got the idea that Labour are of any relevance here. The idea of āall backā is being seen as highly suspicious by many parents regarding the lack of safety for their children (who would infect each other, then parents, then grandparents some way down the line). Parental surveys are what to look out for, here. Labour are powerless (literally), what they say and do on these issues means very little.
|
|
5,599 posts
|
Post by lynette on Jun 29, 2020 13:45:58 GMT
Confused of Finchley here : Iām reading and hearing of parties and gatherings so is it all over? Can i come out now?
|
|
1,912 posts
|
Post by sf on Jun 29, 2020 14:35:31 GMT
Confused of Finchley here : Iām reading and hearing of parties and gatherings so is it all over? Can i come out now? As of this coming Saturday you can... up to a point:
Whether or not you should is a different question. We locked down too late, we have had one of the highest per-capita death tolls in the world, and we are opening up sooner, in terms of where the rate of daily infections is, than some other countries have done. The government guidelines indicate changes to who you may meet, and where, but they explicitly do not signify an end to social distancing. I'm not saying don't, but I would suggest caution - and perhaps caution over and above what that government website is suggesting.
|
|
4,631 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Jun 29, 2020 21:00:24 GMT
Looking at the US who have done a similar opening to ours, which we are doing this coming Saturday. The consequences of opening too soon is laid bare in the southern states, with Covid infection rates gone through the roof. The opening was supported by Donald Trump and his state governors, is there a general election looming anytime soon? They put wealth before health and didnāt listen to the science (Dr Anthony Fauci.)
We will go the same way, where the āRā rate will go through the roof and we have to lockdown again.
|
|
3,111 posts
|
Post by david on Jun 29, 2020 21:58:32 GMT
|
|
|
Post by talkingheads on Jun 29, 2020 22:16:19 GMT
In other news it's look for all the jobs that are being cut and risk your health or be sanctioned, just as Leicester goes into lockdown.
|
|
396 posts
|
Post by djp on Jun 30, 2020 3:06:27 GMT
Confused of Finchley here : Iām reading and hearing of parties and gatherings so is it all over? Can i come out now? As of this coming Saturday you can... up to a point:
Whether or not you should is a different question. We locked down too late, we have had one of the highest per-capita death tolls in the world, and we are opening up sooner, in terms of where the rate of daily infections is, than some other countries have done. The government guidelines indicate changes to who you may meet, and where, but they explicitly do not signify an end to social distancing. I'm not saying don't, but I would suggest caution - and perhaps caution over and above what that government website is suggesting.
We didn't lock down late except with tons of hindsight - the scientists told us to lock down at what they though was the same stage Italy did - because they thought we were weeks behind Italy. There's now no sign in the viral dna record that events like the Liverpool football match had any impact, and the scientists still maintain that banning some things earlier would just have produced the same problem - as people did something else of equal risk instead.
What the scientists missed, was that the returning holiday makers from Italy, France and Spain had actually caused the virus to spread faster than they anticipated, and that may have been because they had no idea- partly due to dud figures from China - how many people would prove to have an asymptomatic but still infectious version of covid. Unlike many countries - like Korea, Spain or Italy - where the virus started from a regional foothold, our holiday makers also started off multiple hot spots whn they returned all over the country at once . And once it did spread, it had the advantage of more, big, dense, cities with more susceptible people in assorted medical and BAME groups.
The same problem remains now - if you want to stop it, you need to both stamp out regional outbreaks, and stop it returning here from outside our borders - where much of the rest the world is still having exponential growth or major re-outbreaks . If you wanted to stop it in March, you needed to close the borders - like Australia , Singapore, Taiwan and New Zealand - and abandon our brits abroad to their fate. No one argued for that.
We now have a situation where government and business has a set of dual problems. The cautious will realise its still about, will maintain social distancing , and continue to avoid activities and confined spaces where it will thrive- which will mean less demand, spending and jobs . The unwise will dash to the pub, or rave, pack like sardines on trains and beaches, and keep the virus fed - which will perpetuate the problem. Business will argue for more opening up. The Treasury will try to avoid a bigger bill, as its in their genes under all governments . And the health interest will be to keep distancing on - not least so the NHS can get back to doing what it hasn't for 4 months.
There's an almost impossible signalling task for government there. Its acceptably safe to do x, but not safe enough to do 2x is difficult to sell. The rules got complicated as the scientists worked through a spread sheet of options looking for what could be done and not change the R number unacceptably . There's good reasons why cricket balls are more risky than pub glasses, theatres can't socially distance economically like Cinemas, and why you don't want to mix with too many other social units. But its all a lot more complex than saying stay at home, and clamping down on the irresponsible groups , may create more problems than can be dealt with.
|
|