United Kingdom V: Son of a beach

[CMcK]

I’d pay £15 rental to watch a new release at home. As mentioned, the picture on my tv is better than a cinema anyway.

I quite like that idea but would need invite my mates round to watch replicating the social aspect of a cinema trip. And I could sell them two scoops of ice cream from my freezer for £6 to recoup the rental costs!

[Hirst]

My old cinema closed due to a Cineworld opening and I didn't like the new one. I gave it a chance, but the prices were double that of the old ABC cinema and most of the screens were half the size, so I voted with my feet. So the last thing I saw at the cinema was "Beavis and Butt-Head Do America", despite being a bit of a film nerd.

[kryss]

I quite like that idea but would need invite my mates round to watch replicating the social aspect of a cinema trip. And I could sell them two scoops of ice cream from my freezer for £6 to recoup the rental costs!

You have 1.5 friends?

[MartyG]

You have 1.5 friends?

Wouldn't that equal £9?

[kryss]

I counted you plus 1.5 others.

[Neon Ignition]

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/coronavirus/uk-coronavirus-live-hope-for-holidaymakers-as-air-bridge-plan-mulled-by-ministers/ar-BB14haG7?li=BBoPWjQ&&ocid=spartanntp

Iain Duncan Smith calls on Johnson to abolish the two meter rule because of 'duh ekonomy'

[teddymeow]

I quite like that idea but would need invite my mates round to watch replicating the social aspect of a cinema trip. And I could sell them two scoops of ice cream from my freezer for £6 to recoup the rental costs!

Would you have the sit in front of you chatting through the trailers and start of the film before snapping and telling them to shut the hell up which then leads to a confrontation outside afterwards?

[Asura]

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/coron...cid=spartanntp
Iain Duncan Smith calls on Johnson to abolish the two meter rule because of 'duh ekonomy'

I'm... Ugh, I hate to do this, but I think he's being taken out of context there.

He's saying that among the measures taken for the pandemic, the 2-metre rule is the one which is responsible for much of the unemployment, and if we want to see the unemployment spike reversed, we need to remove it. I don't think he's saying thats' necessarily the best thing to do right now (when speaking more holistically), just if we're talking about reducing unemployment as an isolated goal.

And he's right? I mean, there are loads of reasons we shouldn't do it, but it's definitely one of the biggest things affecting people's ability to work.

[Neon Ignition]

It's a catch-22 though, less social spacing means more people crammed into workplace means more people ill and dying from Covid means more lockdown means more workplaces either financially destroyed or learning to run on on lowered staffing levels means more unemployment.

The Tories are now crowded around each other arguing about how best to secure the gate long after the horse has bolted, run it's career and been put down to make glue sticks. If they want to bolster employment figures by increasingly acting like there's no pandemic then they need to start re-employing everyone laid off as carers, nurses and morticians.

[Neon Ignition]

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/may/19/uk-jobless-april-coronavirus-crisis-unemployment-benefits

UK unemployment rises by a record 856,000 in April

[Soundwave]

I'm... Ugh, I hate to do this, but I think he's being taken out of context there.

He's saying that among the measures taken for the pandemic, the 2-metre rule is the one which is responsible for much of the unemployment, and if we want to see the unemployment spike reversed, we need to remove it. I don't think he's saying thats' necessarily the best thing to do right now (when speaking more holistically), just if we're talking about reducing unemployment as an isolated goal.

And he's right? I mean, there are loads of reasons we shouldn't do it, but it's definitely one of the biggest things affecting people's ability to work.

I think the 2 metre rule will stay put but fully agree it's hit unemployment
I was in the office last week & speaking to the boss...from opposite ends of the office as it was only the 2 of us but he's said that with all the requirements for social distancing the current office space isn't workable, we can't have everyone back & adhere to the rules.
Not sure what this means for us to be fair, our lease on the building is up later this year so whether he will start looking early & get a move done in the next few months & keep us at home until then or even permanently as we can operate long distance but it's such a difficult rule to enforce in many companies & the cost element means lay offs are going to be inevitable to work it.

Neil

[Dogg Thang]

I'm... Ugh, I hate to do this, but I think he's being taken out of context there.

He's saying that among the measures taken for the pandemic, the 2-metre rule is the one which is responsible for much of the unemployment, and if we want to see the unemployment spike reversed, we need to remove it. I don't think he's saying thats' necessarily the best thing to do right now (when speaking more holistically), just if we're talking about reducing unemployment as an isolated goal.

And he's right? I mean, there are loads of reasons we shouldn't do it, but it's definitely one of the biggest things affecting people's ability to work.

I don’t believe Smith is stupid enough to just think his words are to be taken as an isolated goal but he doesn’t actually think it’s the best thing to do. He already has you turned around less than two sentences later, with the narrative having been changed from “social distancing is good because it will keep people alive” to “social distancing is bad because it affects the ability to work”. Someone in his position can’t just put it out there like idle chat from some bloke in the pub. He knows exactly what he’s doing and it’s the mixed messages right from the start all the way through this to now which are leading to unnecessary hardship, infection rates and deaths.

[MartyG]

Whilst nearly a million extra unemployed isn't good news to those people, that figure could have been far far worse.

We had 32 million working people, so the 2.1 million unemployed accounts for 6.5% of that

The US by comparison had 156 million working people and now has 36 million unemployed which accounts for 23%

So the schemes put in place to retain jobs has helped a lot and it needs to be kept in place for as long as necessary, that is, until the risk is a lot closer to zero - the notion that it's possible to relax distance rules and it not having a negative impact whilst there is an active virus with no cure and high transmission rate is simply nonsense.

[Dogg Thang]

So the schemes put in place to retain jobs has helped a lot and it needs to be kept in place for as long as necessary, that is, until the risk is a lot closer to zero - the notion that it's possible to relax distance rules and it not having a negative impact whilst there is an active virus with no cure and high transmission rate is simply nonsense.

This is exactly it. And anything else is both A) abdicating responsibility for looking after the welfare of people (putting the onus on businesses to put their people at risk) and B) actively and knowingly sacrificing real people to keep money coming in, usually for very rich people.

[Brad]

Seriously though, this has affected every country so literally every country should just create more money out of thin air, give the necessary amount to every company / individual that's gone under or lost out because of this and everyone will be ok and no one will be any worse off. Yes, I'm suggesting a one-off situation where we make money grow on trees.