Coronavirus: social, economic and other changes as a result of the pandemic

[burning dog]

The latest threat to lock down over 50's looks a lot like a data mining exercise in the making to me.

Well they'll get nothing off me voluntarily, and I won't be being locked down again.

TS , aged 58 1/2

Millions of essential workers are between 50 and retirement age and many have some degree of vulnerability. Shielding these would bring the country to a standstill. We will be far more "locked-down" than the first round, even if more shops than then remain open and more activities are permitted.

It's pretty much confirmed that the virus spreads most quickly from indoor household to household interaction and in venues like pubs and churches where proper mitigation is not being adhered to. I think it would be a better to make an example of a few pubs, by closing them, where the new rules are not being kept.
than reintroduce pointless rules on how many times one can jog around the block in deserted suburban streets.

[Dave2002]

Millions of essential workers are between 50 and retirement age and many have some degree of vulnerability. Shielding these would bring the country to a standstill. We will be far more "locked-down" than the first round, even if more shops than then remain open and more activities are permitted.

It's pretty much confirmed that the virus spreads most quickly from indoor household to household interaction and in venues like pubs and churches where proper mitigation is not being adhered to. I think it would be a better to make an example of a few pubs, by closing them, where the new rules are not being kept.
than reintroduce pointless rules on how many times one can jog around the block in deserted suburban streets.

I'm curious as to how many essential workers you really think there are? Is there any data?
I'm guessing 5 million, though not all of them will be over 50.

Before this happened I guess everyone thought that something pretty much like "carry on as before" - whatever its faults - and there are/were many - was just about viable. Now a really serious rethink should be required, though whether it'll happen I don't know - and indeed rather doubt it. Some jobs can be done from home, or from non central locations, but may require more staff. If there aren't already staff trained to do those jobs, training will have to be given. One possibility would be for some people to be recruited, and given training in CV-19 secure environments, and then dispersed to work remotely, but it would take time to get that up to speed. Recruitment could be difficult too - as the screening processes needed for some positions would be hard to carry out, and while many people would be honest and "genuine" applicants, some would be anything but that, and could open up the doors to significant criminal activity.

The assumption that all school children should go to school as before - and that they all like that - is a big one, and not necessarily valid. Apparently some students like the current situation, and are able to learn rather effectively. In particular, teenagers, who it has been noted in research projects may actually require more sleep than others, may prefer to lie in in the early mornings, but then to do online work later in the day. This won't apply to everyone, but there may be some who can benefit from the changes in activity patterns which this pandemic has brought about.

[burning dog]

I'm curious as to how many essential workers you really think there are? Is there any data?
I'm guessing 5 million, though not all of them will be over 50.

t.

If there are 5 million I reckon far more than a million are over 50. For example supermarkets are largely staffed by the under 25's, part time "homemakers" and the over 50's. I'd say half the tills locally are attended by the "mature".

Hardly representative I know, but the average age of permanent staff at my workplace is around 60, a lot are ex postal delivery workers who are tired of walking for miles every day, There is a pool of "vetted" casual and agency workers but hiring more takes forever due to security clearance, hence "Christmas Casuals" applying from August onward. It will be hard to run the economy with even fewer transport, shop workers etc. than we had during the last lockdown.

PS: Also I'd think it's not the volume of essential workers that is the potential problem, it's the % lost due to more stringent sheilding

[french frank]

Outrageous suggestions from John Crace (BJ announcement timed to coincide with downbeat press conference on coronavirus, hence relevant here, I imagine):

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/aug/03/who-else-would-be-more-useless-as-a-peer-theyre-in-said-boris

[Serial_Apologist]

Outrageous suggestions from John Crace (BJ announcement timed to coincide with downbeat press conference on coronavirus, hence relevant here, I imagine):

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-in-said-boris

Brilliant article from His Crace, for which, many thanks, french frank.

Please bear with this story, the start of which may seem O/T, but the relevance of which to the present discussion will become clear, I think.

Yesterday I was pointing out masonry cracks in the external staircase to our upstairs flats to another resident, and remarking that we needed to discuss the damage undoubtedly being inflicted by the growing number of delivery services since lockdown by the vibration effect of their bumping heavy loads up the steps. This morning I caught one Sainsburys delivery man as he was leaving, and asked him if he minded very much if I asked him to unload merchandise for delivery and carry it upstairs instead of using trucks. He replied that he would were the allowed, but the firm's policy was that carrying the goods blocked sight of what was in front and was therefore a no no. I then politely suggested that one crateful at a time would not obstruct visibility. The man replied that he, personally, would, but that in the end it would not be his decision, because he did not think he would be working that much longer for the firm. Asked to elaborate, he now explained that he had in fact gone back to work with Sainsbury's after a request calling on retired staff to return to help fill the hole caused by absenteeism, lockdown and so on. And then, literally yesterday, one of his colleagues told him that he had phoned in to request leave of absence, since his 13-year old granddaughter, for whom he was caring while both parents were working long hours at NHS hospitals, had started to show symptoms of Covid-19, thereby requiring him to be in isolation, according to government edict. Despite his plea, management nevertheless ordered him to be in work, and so, frightened at losing his job, he had turned up. The delivery man made the point to him strongly that he was endangering the entire workforce of about 40, all of whom would have to go into isolation once he, the delivery man, had got onto the union, insisting on protocols observance, and the union had laid down the law.

If this goes ahead, and the union (not sure which one it is) takes the company through H&S, it could well be newsworthy. Top retail chain refusing to observe Covid safety precautions, etc. All of it chimes with the growing amounts of evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, as to how some employers, at least, are treating the "return to work" as dictat, regardless of circumstance, but it nevertheless left me quite shaken to have it evidenced so close to home.

[french frank]

it nevertheless left me quite shaken to have it evidenced so close to home.

I can well understand that

[Dave2002]

Not sure if this is going to be news to anyone, but this article about scientists being asked to massage data in Florida is disturbing - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...is-coronavirus

This is a social effect consequent on handling of coronavirus.

Would never happen in the UK, of course!

[french frank]

A-level calculated results chaos. Data worth looking at are in an analysis of the predictive accuracy of schools' grade assessments for 2009. As I read it, this year's figures are actually closer to predicted grades than they were in 2009. The research also provides the explanation for the so-called 'postcode inequality' whereby private school students have been treated 'more favourably' than those in disadvantaged areas in terms of downgrades.

The BBC story gives these figures:

Unchanged grades 58.7%
Down one grade 35.6%
Accurate to within at least one grade 96.5% (some underpredicted).

But the 2009 analysis (Overall accuracy p. 6) shows:

Unchanged grades 51.7%
Down one grade 41.7%
To within one grade 90%

The inaccuracy came in 2009 from schools overestimating student performance. Which is what the present results show (only distinctly less so).

Postcode inequality. The most accurate predictions were for A grades. As private schools always have more As than other schools there is no room whatsoever for schools to overestimate performance: predict an A, achieve an A. But the school may estimate an A and the student obtain a B, or a B turns out to be a C. Thus private schools are statistically bound to have more accurate results since they have a higher proportion of As. The inequality lies elsewhere.

[Jazzrook]

Slavoj Zizek interview:

https://www.rt.com/shows/sophieco-visionaries/497910-slavoj-zizek-wartime-communism/

JR

[gradus]

A-level calculated results chaos. Data worth looking at are in an analysis of the predictive accuracy of schools' grade assessments for 2009. As I read it, this year's figures are actually closer to predicted grades than they were in 2009. The research also provides the explanation for the so-called 'postcode inequality' whereby private school students have been treated 'more favourably' than those in disadvantaged areas in terms of downgrades.

The BBC story gives these figures:

Unchanged grades 58.7%
Down one grade 35.6%
Accurate to within at least one grade 96.5% (some underpredicted).

But the 2009 analysis (Overall accuracy p. 6) shows:

Unchanged grades 51.7%
Down one grade 41.7%
To within one grade 90%

The inaccuracy came in 2009 from schools overestimating student performance. Which is what the present results show (only distinctly less so).

Postcode inequality. The most accurate predictions were for A grades. As private schools always have more As than other schools there is no room whatsoever for schools to overestimate performance: predict an A, achieve an A. But the school may estimate an A and the student obtain a B, or a B turns out to be a C. Thus private schools are statistically bound to have more accurate results since they have a higher proportion of As. The inequality lies elsewhere.

Isn't there room for overestimate in grades below A in private as well as state schools?

[french frank]

Isn't there room for overestimate in grades below A in private as well as state schools?

I'm sure there is. There may be more to be dug out from the 2004 figures, but the figures I mentioned are the big picture. The only point about the final As is that they can't be overpredicted. Bs and Cs of course could. The 2004 figures are firmer because they compare predicted grades with actual exam results, and it seemed to me that this year's figures, far from showing students had been hard done by with their given grades, showed that allowances for margins of error had been made in their favour. If roughly 40% of results were downgraded this year (shock, horror), that was pretty much the picture in 2004 as well, but they couldn't be contested in 2004. I think similar analyses have been done for later years but I haven't yet found them.

As I understand it, the dissatisfaction with these grades is entirely based on the fact that so many predicted grades were downgraded. Anecdotally, a younger member of our family was offered a provisional place at all four of the universities that he applied for based on his predicted grades. Unfortunately, he got such awful exam results that he lost all four offers and ended up scraping a place through clearing. It happens.

[Serial_Apologist]

I'm sure there is. There may be more to be dug out from the 2004 figures, but the figures I mentioned are the big picture. The only point about the final As is that they can't be overpredicted. Bs and Cs of course could. The 2004 figures are firmer because they compare predicted grades with actual exam results, and it seemed to me that this year's figures, far from showing students had been hard done by with their given grades, showed that allowances for margins of error had been made in their favour. If roughly 40% of results were downgraded this year (shock, horror), that was pretty much the picture in 2004 as well, but they couldn't be contested in 2004. I think similar analyses have been done for later years but I haven't yet found them.

As I understand it, the dissatisfaction with these grades is entirely based on the fact that so many predicted grades were downgraded. Anecdotally, a younger member of our family was offered a provisional place at all four of the universities that he applied for based on his predicted grades. Unfortunately, he got such awful exam results that he lost all four offers and ended up scraping a place through clearing. It happens.

A spokeswoman for a group of universities explained yesterday that over-grading A Level results for purposes of admitting more students from less privileged backgrounds, which the government's algorythm is in place to counteract, would only undermine universities' reputations. Giving primacy to reputations struck me as an odd consideration for supposedly principled organisations to be including in their admissions criteria.

[cloughie]

After 5 months I had my first hand pulled pint in our local pub this eveing - bottled beer is fine but you can’t beat the real thing!

[french frank]

A spokeswoman for a group of universities explained yesterday that over-grading A Level results for purposes of admitting more students from less privileged backgrounds, which the government's algorythm is in place to counteract, would only undermine universities' reputations.

As a bear of little brain, I'm trying to work out what she meant.

Further to previous, this BBC story from N Ireland this year:

"Last year, 45.8% of estimated grades provided by schools matched the student's final results.
This year, 58% of A-level and AS results matched the estimated grades."

Conclusion?

Also https://www.ucu.org.uk/media/8409/Pr...rt_Dec2016.pdf

"The results so far in this section have shown that applicants from state schools and disadvantaged backgrounds are more likely to be over-predicted. However, in Section 3 we learned that low ability students are more likely to be over-predicted than high ability students. " (p 8)

and pp 15-16 " the vast majority of applicants actually receive predictions that are too optimistic for the grades they actually go on to achieve, with 75% of applicants achieving lower grades than predicted"

[Dave2002]

This article about the possible effects of coronavirus and architecture (and working life and commuting ...) is worth reading - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources...3-bb7eda5fff8e

I was unaware of shifts in homes and commuting patterns due to disease outbreaks in the past. The suggestion that major structural changes - architecture - will take about 5 years on average to happen, is also of interest.