Coronavirus

[Deejay]

Morning Droogs

Their recruits were earning 7 grand a year more than an army one and in some cases more than a lance corporal.

Something wrong there I think Droogs.

Firefighters then received an average of £71.10 for a basic 48-hour week, amounting to £3,700 a year.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/141293 ... n-1977.htm

(Paragraph four)

Cheers

Dave

 

[sploo]

I remember doing "The job" when the firemen were on strike in the early 2000's and the cheeky beggers even came round the married quarters looking for signatures for petitions to up their wages. I soon pointed out where they could go and put their petition. Their recruits were earning 7 grand a year more than an army one and in some cases more than a lance corporal. They were refusing to let us cross their picket lines to use the modern kit so we had to use the old Green Goddess along with its antiquated rubbish. He was claiming their job was dangerous and they had people die in service, That was what flipped my switch actually and I soon put him straight. Have no time for them at all now.

I'm in two minds about that. My (relatively) limited experience of military guys is that they're a pretty special breed; having the fortitude to put up with just about any conditions without complaint. But I guess that's kinda critical if you're holed up in a field, cold and exhausted, and someone's shooting at you.

But the rest of us aren't like that. Maybe if everyone had the same level of tolerance for adversity then we could man all our services with people who would do anything, without complaint, for whatever they were paid. Positive in some ways, but then that might mean they'd be taken advantage of (in terms of poor pay and conditions).

I guess the ideal solution would be that everyone were paid a decent wage for what they do (a factor of skill + difficulty + conditions/danger), but I accept that's not the real world.

 

[FatmanG]

FatmanG, I feel you have missed the point of my trirade. They (firefighters) were earning almost a 1/3 more than some of the lads I was in command of, who were having to do the firefighters jobs on less money with equipment from the 1940s and without the ability to moan about it or even ask let alone withdrawn their labour for more money. Those young lads were the heroes not the money grabbing twats on strike. Not got a problem with any of the medical people they are heroes, far more than anyone else in the land as far as I am concerned and after this they should be given a flaming masshooosif pay raise. infact as far as I am concerned they should be getting the wages of bankers who should get a nurses wage instead

i wasnt particularly meaning you Droogs but i thank you for the quoted post. I agree wholeheartedly.
All i will say to you snd anyone else imo now is not the time to be criticising the emergency services from any era. Imgine one who has just done a double shift from hell and sits down with a coffee to look at this site to relax and comes acros some of the shieeeeeezen written on here. IMHO at this time they all need our support they are in the front line of a disease that is rampant and the bravery they are showing is so inspiring. I may be biased towards our NHS as they have done so much for me. They are genuinely heroes.

 

[sploo]

My other half is West Yorks, but largely confirming the info on this thread. Her colleagues in Italy are basically dealing with the apocalypse, London is heavily loaded, and up north it's not quite that grim yet but most routine work has been shelved, and they're ramping up for COVID-19 support.

Roger's point about the clinical guidelines is sobering too; I can confirm that the info my wife's been receiving is going to mean the frontline doctors will be having to make some pretty awful decisions in the coming weeks (as they already are in the areas most affected).

Looks like we are a bit behind here then. Thanks for that info.

We are. A good thing in many ways, but also quite sobering as we can see what's coming. Or at least, hope isn't going to come.

There is no simple solution here unfortunately, and I guess the best we can do at the moment is keep up the social isolation in the hope that new cases can be kept down to a manageable rate.

 

[Droogs]

The firefighters wanted a basic pay of £30K per year in 2002 as part of their settlement package. At that time a private soldier (Infanteer) was earning £12K, a LCpl in a technical trade band 3 was on £18K. I as a Tech Sgt with 5 years seniority in rank was on £28k

 

[Rorschach]

I may be biased towards our NHS as they have done so much for me. They are genuinely heroes.

Genuine question here, why do you think they are heroes for doing a job they chose to do?
Do you class doctors and nurses in countries without an NHS equivalent heroes too? Is your dentist a hero if you pay privately?
NHS seems to be treated as a bit of a religious cult here. The doctors and nurses do a great job of course but they are paid to do it and they did choose to become medics, same as a plumber or electrician, are they heroes as well?

 

[MusicMan]

Here's a paragraph written by a doctor in an article in the Daily Telegraph:

Medically, fighting an epidemic by suppressing it through draconian restrictions of liberty achieves the opposite of herd immunity. It ensures that the majority of survivors have no immunity and so are at just as much risk next time around. Of course, the advocates of this approach are banking on the development of vaccines and other therapies for the management of the next epidemic. But a usable vaccine will almost certainly not be available by the time this disease comes back for an encore. Novel treatments based on anti-malarial drugs and antibiotics will also need to be evaluated in proper clinical trials. So, we will have to do the same again next time with the attendant risks to the economy and the fabric of society.

I don't think that there is anything controversial or novel in the ideas expressed in that. It does however bring the debate about the better strategies to a point: the UK's current approach depends entirely on the development of vaccines etc. before the virus reappears.

If we go through the same thing again (although presumably for a shorter time as implementation will be quicker), will we regard the current strategy as having failed? If, on the other hand, we had herd immunity a reemergence would of course be very short lived indeed.

As I said in a previous post we won't be able to come to any sensible judgement for some time yet but as someone whose initial instinct was to go for a shutdown, I'm slowly warming to the herd immunity argument.

What I do think should happen is that when it starts again and reappears in country X, then all flights to that country should be suspended and all recent entrants from that country (irrespective of nationality) should be quarantined.

The quote from a doctor in the DT that you cite is, I'm afraid, another example of amateur epidemiology. I don't doubt his/her front line skill, experience and stress, and am totally grateful for it. But it's a classic 'straw man' argument: assume your opponents' position then argue against it. The assumption here is that the lockdown will end suddenly, in which case he or she would be right. But that is not the policy. We already heard the deputy CMO say that some sort of restrictions will probably go on for at least six months. She doesn't say what or how as nobody knows that yet. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, a vast epidemiological study is now commencing, in which all the scientists in the country with applicable modelling or organisational skills are being coordinated by the Royal Society into a project aimed at a robust analysis of the so-called exit options. It is probably the case that most of us will be exposed to the virus sometime in the couple of years. So the sensible option is to try to defer its spread in order to (a) avoid a disastrous spike that will overwhelm the NHS within a couple of weeks, (b) allow the NHS to cope throughout the next 12 - 18 months before a vaccine is available, (c) defer the most serious cases (the most vulnerable people) until better understanding, treatment, equipment and capacity is available. As one of those people (almost 80, with several 'underlying conditions', though not in the worst 1.5 million) I'd much rather catch it then than now.

It seems pretty certain that herd immunity is the only long term solution, as indeed it is for 'old' viruses like flu. Achieving this includes not only infection and recovery but, critically, vaccination. The question is, how to get there without breaking the NHS, which would lead to much greater loss of life.

It isn't yet at all clear what the exit strategy should be and all the options that anyone can think of are being examined. And the inputs will change dynamically as new drugs and therapies are tested. Your suggestion of blocking any entry from countries that have a resurgence will surely be one of the actions fed into the modelling, as will the enormous data sets now becoming available from other countries (with different demographics). And yes, some of the work packages will be critically to review all the others and to examine the assumptions.

 

[Droogs]

As far as I am concerned any "medico" is a hero. Yes they choose to enter a profession where they put themselves in harms way for the benefit of other people. but as we all know it aint for the the money. I admire and respect someone who is willing to put the good of all above their own personal wellbeing on an ongoing basis despite the drawbacks of that job.
As an aside the plumber who came and fitted my toilet last week was a hero to me, well he was until i got the email with the bill :shock: :lol:

 

[Rorschach]

Sensible stuff there MusicMan, I hope the plan works.

 

[Rorschach]

As far as I am concerned any "medico" is a hero. Yes they choose to enter a profession where they put themselves in harms way for the benefit of other people. but as we all know it aint for the the money. I admire and respect someone who is willing to put the good of all above their own personal wellbeing on an ongoing basis despite the drawbacks of that job.
As an aside the plumber who came and fitted my toilet last week was a hero to me, well he was until i got the email with the bill :shock: :lol:

That's fair enough, I don't think they put themselves in harms way all that much though, not compared to other jobs such as Military for instance.

 

[Blackswanwood]

As far as I am concerned any "medico" is a hero. Yes they choose to enter a profession where they put themselves in harms way for the benefit of other people. but as we all know it aint for the the money. I admire and respect someone who is willing to put the good of all above their own personal wellbeing on an ongoing basis despite the drawbacks of that job.
As an aside the plumber who came and fitted my toilet last week was a hero to me, well he was until i got the email with the bill :shock: :lol:

That's fair enough, I don't think they put themselves in harms way all that much though, not compared to other jobs such as Military for instance.

Are you deliberately trying to be offensive?

 

[Droogs]

no mate. Their job is far more fraught with danger than being a squaddie unless you're in a Russian penal mine clearance brigade

 

[sploo]

I may be biased towards our NHS as they have done so much for me. They are genuinely heroes.

Genuine question here, why do you think they are heroes for doing a job they chose to do?
Do you class doctors and nurses in countries without an NHS equivalent heroes too? Is your dentist a hero if you pay privately?
NHS seems to be treated as a bit of a religious cult here. The doctors and nurses do a great job of course but they are paid to do it and they did choose to become medics, same as a plumber or electrician, are they heroes as well?

I suspect you might trigger a few negative responses with that question, but it is a fair one.

I understand that city traders work in an extremely stressful and difficult environment, but they (can) earn significant sums of money, and aren't specifically doing a job that helps others. Certainly not seen as heroes.

In the US, doctors earn very well, but are definitely helping others. The high cost of medical care for the patient means you're very much "paying for it", so attitude towards the doctors is going to be a bit more ambivalent. I'm aware there's a somewhat similar attitude in Germany - at least in Berlin (I'm less sure about other regions).

In the UK, we don't pay (at point of use) for the NHS, so certainly there's a factor in the value of the service being perceived more positively. You'd be less happy if the paramedic that turned up emptied your wallet at the same time.

I would say that, in my experience of my wife's role (and the many colleagues I've known over the years) they do a number of hours, in difficult conditions, that I certainly wouldn't want to do. Even ignoring the number of hours, the current doctor's salaries are not exactly what I'd call high for the work they're doing and the decisions they have to make. Whilst my other half is very much against NHS privatisation, she does believe she'd earn significantly more if it all got sold off and everything because private.

 

[sploo]

As far as I am concerned any "medico" is a hero. Yes they choose to enter a profession where they put themselves in harms way for the benefit of other people. but as we all know it aint for the the money. I admire and respect someone who is willing to put the good of all above their own personal wellbeing on an ongoing basis despite the drawbacks of that job.
As an aside the plumber who came and fitted my toilet last week was a hero to me, well he was until i got the email with the bill :shock: :lol:

That's fair enough, I don't think they put themselves in harms way all that much though, not compared to other jobs such as Military for instance.

For obvious reasons, I can't publicly share some of the stuff my wife's mentioned over the years, but I can certainly tell you that many doctors, nurses, and paramedics, come into great risk of harm far too often (be that physical threat, or exposure to serious infections).

 

[Andy Kev.]

I remember doing "The job" when the firemen were on strike in the early 2000's and the cheeky beggers even came round the married quarters looking for signatures for petitions to up their wages. I soon pointed out where they could go and put their petition. Their recruits were earning 7 grand a year more than an army one and in some cases more than a lance corporal. They were refusing to let us cross their picket lines to use the modern kit so we had to use the old Green Goddess along with its antiquated rubbish. He was claiming their job was dangerous and they had people die in service, That was what flipped my switch actually and I soon put him straight. Have no time for them at all now.

I'm in two minds about that. My (relatively) limited experience of military guys is that they're a pretty special breed; having the fortitude to put up with just about any conditions without complaint. But I guess that's kinda critical if you're holed up in a field, cold and exhausted, and someone's shooting at you.

But the rest of us aren't like that. Maybe if everyone had the same level of tolerance for adversity then we could man all our services with people who would do anything, without complaint, for whatever they were paid. Positive in some ways, but then that might mean they'd be taken advantage of (in terms of poor pay and conditions).

I guess the ideal solution would be that everyone were paid a decent wage for what they do (a factor of skill + difficulty + conditions/danger), but I accept that's not the real world.

I think it turns on the fact that the Armed Forces are self-selecting, the wish to serve your country being a very big factor.

I imagine there's a fair bit of selflessness in the emergency services. For instance I've only known a few coppers but they all were really motivated by trying to stamp on the bad b**tards for the greater good of all.

I suspect that the real problem with the emergency services is one of questionable leadership combined with unions. Senior police officers make me despair. They all seem to be very slick modern management types and I presume it is they who set an agenda which has coppers wasting their time bothering about postings on the internet as opposed to feeling collars. The big advantage which army commanders enjoy - apart from the self-selecting nature of the troops - is that the whole organisation can and even wants to keep a bit of distance from wider society and its attitudes.

My final moan, as an ex-soldier, is the devaluation of the word "hero". By definition, the fewest of us in any walk of life and that includes the armed forces, are heroes. The vast majority of us are average. So I don't accept that all members of the emergency services are heroes and to see that maintained makes me cringe a bit. (This morning I heard supermarket till operators being described as heroes.) What they are however, are people doing a valuable job which at the moment we are appreciating the full worth of. Some of them appear to be underpaid. Are they worth more than bank managers, TV presenters and professional sports types? Probably IMO. Are NHS managers and Chief Constables worth their pay packets? They probably get paid too much IMO.

 

[MusicMan]

Sensible stuff there MusicMan, I hope the plan works.

Thanks. No guarantees, though.

 

[Andy Kev.]

Here's a paragraph written by a doctor in an article in the Daily Telegraph:

Medically, fighting an epidemic by suppressing it through draconian restrictions of liberty achieves the opposite of herd immunity. It ensures that the majority of survivors have no immunity and so are at just as much risk next time around. Of course, the advocates of this approach are banking on the development of vaccines and other therapies for the management of the next epidemic. But a usable vaccine will almost certainly not be available by the time this disease comes back for an encore. Novel treatments based on anti-malarial drugs and antibiotics will also need to be evaluated in proper clinical trials. So, we will have to do the same again next time with the attendant risks to the economy and the fabric of society.

I don't think that there is anything controversial or novel in the ideas expressed in that. It does however bring the debate about the better strategies to a point: the UK's current approach depends entirely on the development of vaccines etc. before the virus reappears.

If we go through the same thing again (although presumably for a shorter time as implementation will be quicker), will we regard the current strategy as having failed? If, on the other hand, we had herd immunity a reemergence would of course be very short lived indeed.

As I said in a previous post we won't be able to come to any sensible judgement for some time yet but as someone whose initial instinct was to go for a shutdown, I'm slowly warming to the herd immunity argument.

What I do think should happen is that when it starts again and reappears in country X, then all flights to that country should be suspended and all recent entrants from that country (irrespective of nationality) should be quarantined.

The quote from a doctor in the DT that you cite is, I'm afraid, another example of amateur epidemiology. I don't doubt his/her front line skill, experience and stress, and am totally grateful for it. But it's a classic 'straw man' argument: assume your opponents' position then argue against it. The assumption here is that the lockdown will end suddenly, in which case he or she would be right. But that is not the policy. We already heard the deputy CMO say that some sort of restrictions will probably go on for at least six months. She doesn't say what or how as nobody knows that yet. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, a vast epidemiological study is now commencing, in which all the scientists in the country with applicable modelling or organisational skills are being coordinated by the Royal Society into a project aimed at a robust analysis of the so-called exit options. It is probably the case that most of us will be exposed to the virus sometime in the couple of years. So the sensible option is to try to defer its spread in order to (a) avoid a disastrous spike that will overwhelm the NHS within a couple of weeks, (b) allow the NHS to cope throughout the next 12 - 18 months before a vaccine is available, (c) defer the most serious cases (the most vulnerable people) until better understanding, treatment, equipment and capacity is available. As one of those people (almost 80, with several 'underlying conditions', though not in the worst 1.5 million) I'd much rather catch it then than now.

It seems pretty certain that herd immunity is the only long term solution, as indeed it is for 'old' viruses like flu. Achieving this includes not only infection and recovery but, critically, vaccination. The question is, how to get there without breaking the NHS, which would lead to much greater loss of life.

It isn't yet at all clear what the exit strategy should be and all the options that anyone can think of are being examined. And the inputs will change dynamically as new drugs and therapies are tested. Your suggestion of blocking any entry from countries that have a resurgence will surely be one of the actions fed into the modelling, as will the enormous data sets now becoming available from other countries (with different demographics). And yes, some of the work packages will be critically to review all the others and to examine the assumptions.

Thanks for that view. It's fair, informed comment and particularly useful for trying to come to a balanced viewpoint.

 

[Blackswanwood]

no mate. Their job is far more fraught with danger than being a squaddie unless you're in a Russian penal mine clearance brigade

My question was directed at Rorschach who clearly is. Elements of this thread are appalling.

 

[Deejay]

The firefighters wanted a basic pay of £30K per year in 2002 as part of their settlement package. At that time a private soldier (Infanteer) was earning £12K, a LCpl in a technical trade band 3 was on £18K. I as a Tech Sgt with 5 years seniority in rank was on £28k

Morning Droogs

I'm not getting involved in this side issue.

I simply pointed out the error in your earlier post.

Cheers

Dave

 

[Droogs]

Hi Dave , I think your figures were for the 70's strike not the one in 2002