|
Re: Coronavirus
Originally Posted by Almost Canadian
(Post 13112525)
Not in Calgary. I have no idea about other places.
The thing that struck when I came here was that there was a ladder: First year lawyers did first year lawyer things; second year lawyers, did second year lawyer things, etc. There was no way to expedite the process. All of the associates from all of the larger firms shared income information and that was used by the firms to set salaries. All first years are paid the same; all second years are paid the same, etc. It was not based on merit and it was a total shock to me. If you are not able to bill your 2500 hours a year, you are let go. If you can, you make partner in year 7. I had been practicing for 10 years in England prior to arriving here. Once I was admitted, half of the partnership wished for me to practice as if I had the same level of experience in Canada as I'd had in England. The other half wanted me to go through what they had gone through and start as a first year. In the first 6 months after admission I had brought in clients that generated more fees than the partners that were wanting me to start from scratch and that pissed them off. I told them to sort themselves out, or I would leave and, 10 months after I was called, I left to set up on my own. In England, you were paid depending upon your billing, irrespective of experience and you only made partner if you were a rainmaker. Rainmakers are not necessarily good lawyers and they can always pay good lawyers, that don't have the interpersonal skills to become rainmakers to do the work for them. In England, I could bet that, if I spent 5 minutes speaking to a solicitor, I would be able to tell you what area of law they worked it, as it is very personality specific. Law firms there recruit trainees with a specific area of practice in mind and, if recruited, very few trainees are let go as the firm has spent 2 years training them. In Calgary, Articles are for a single year and a big firm will take on 100 students, aiming to keep 10 of them at the end. It's a totally different system. I agree that, for most, it is a route to riches, at the expense of the clients. Don't get me started about the Q.C. system here. Real Estate Lawyers becoming Q.C.s. Kavanagh, they are not! Apologies for the thread drift. |
Re: Coronavirus
Originally Posted by bats
(Post 13112581)
The thread drift is interesting. What's a rainmaker? Someone who brings business in?
|
Re: Coronavirus
Originally Posted by bats
(Post 13112581)
The thread drift is interesting. What's a rainmaker? Someone who brings business in?
|
Re: Coronavirus
Originally Posted by Jingsamichty
(Post 13112473)
I call that "learning by osmosis" and I agree it has really suffered by being out of the office. However, we adapt, and I for one hope I'm never in an office full-time again. Hybrid suits me just fine.
|
Re: Coronavirus
Originally Posted by dbd33
(Post 13112481)
This office socialisation idea is something I hear from HR and from what they call L1s and it may be true that senior executives of large organizations spend much of their day chatting with other senior executives in a suite of offices with doors and a view of the mountains. Perhaps they have cocktail cabinets in the shape of globes. They will have a common background and ethnicity and mingle easily, chatting about lacrosse or tennis or eventing.
At the tactical level however it's nonsense. The staff are spread across the country, the development teams are in Ireland or Portugal or wherever's cheaper this year, the grunt work is done in India. The workers are from the four corners and share only an appreciation for cricket and the World Cup. Regardless of where a team member is sitting they will have headphones on and be speaking to someone far away. Conference rooms are of little value as to have some people physically together and others remote creates an imbalance; it's easier if everyone is using the internet conferencing facility. In any case, it's not physically possible to attend back-to-back meetings if more motion than a mouse click is required to get to them. Working from home offers a stable environment. Once the machines are on the kitchen table I don't have to move them until the end of day. There isn't the nonsense of making sure the correct phone is blue toothed in the car and that the pc has enough battery for the trip. I don't have to drag all this gubbins to and from the kitchen table before and after commuting. I get that some people want company and feel that an office can provide that but, for most white collar work, it's less productive than being at home. That need is better addressed by the people who desire it setting up their machine in a coffee shop or fruit and veg market. The latter provides plenty of hubbub without infectious proximity and without having to have a dedicated building. Many jobs can be done at home, but some are just better in the office... I know mine is, added to this, when there is a technical issue with a drawing, or maybe a better way if doing something, I can just have a walk out to the shop and talk it over with the welder, machinist or technician, no amount of chat over the phone can replace that, so even though my job is not directly hands on, I work directly with hands on people.. just make everyone's lives so much easier in my opinion. I think the big drive for working at home is pushed by the employee as it benefits them, (well some I don't feel it benefits me in anyway) I don't think there is much of an advantage to be had for the employer...unless its a job where the office can be completely closed for good.... but again that is not possible with all professions |
Re: Coronavirus
Originally Posted by Paul_Shepherd
(Post 13112659)
I think the big drive for working at home is pushed by the employee as it benefits them, (well some I don't feel it benefits me in anyway) I don't think there is much of an advantage to be had for the employer... Less absenteeism. Fewer workplace liability claims (if people fall down their stairs that's their problem, the employer's stairs, the employers). More hours worked due to less time commuting. More productive use of time (where physical proximity isn't critical to the position). Happier employees/fewer defections. Return to Office has been a factor in all recent resignations and the direct cause of some. Environmental benefits (many corporations claim green credentials) I get that, in some jobs proximity has value. I also get that the vanity of senior management, their need to feel people around them, is more important than the efficiency of their companies. I understand that pressure will be applied to get people to go and sit uselessly in the office, the way it is to force people to donate to questionable charities, and that many will succumb. It just gets on my tits that business people don't put the business first. |
Re: Coronavirus
My responses in red
Originally Posted by dbd33
(Post 13112673)
Less need to provide office space and parking facilities. - Can't disagree with that but what is to become of all that unused space?
Less absenteeism. - Will people be ill less due to being at home? I accept that there is an argument that the spread of sniffles will be reduced, but I doubt very much that many people "catch" cancer at work. Fewer workplace liability claims (if people fall down their stairs that's their problem, the employer's stairs, the employers). Until they start suing their employers for not having risk assessed their homes. You know what lawyers are like! More hours worked due to less time commuting. I accept that there will be less commuting but I doubt very much that most employees will clock on, earlier as a result. More productive use of time (where physical proximity isn't critical to the position). Why? Why would typing a letter at home be done any more efficiently than typing it at work? I suspect the opposite may apply. One doesn't normal get the opportunity to let the dog out for a wizz at work. Happier employees/fewer defections. Return to Office has been a factor in all recent resignations and the direct cause of some. I agree that, in the initial implementation, this may be the case, but once everyone is in the same boat, I anticipate more defections as one's personality will no longer be an issue. If you are fantastic at your job but an absolute knob, office politics will no longer dictate that you cannot be employed. Environmental benefits (many corporations claim green credentials) But, just like our Federal Government, claiming to be green and doing green things do not necessarily go hand in hand I get that, in some jobs proximity has value. I also get that the vanity of senior management, their need to feel people around them, is more important than the efficiency of their companies. I understand that pressure will be applied to get people to go and sit uselessly in the office, the way it is to force people to donate to questionable charities, and that many will succumb. It just gets on my tits that business people don't put the business first. |
Re: Coronavirus
Originally Posted by bats
(Post 13112581)
The thread drift is interesting. What's a rainmaker? Someone who brings business in?
Originally Posted by JamesM
(Post 13112606)
That's my guesstimate!
In most law firms, the firm keeps track of which person is responsible for bringing a particular piece of work in. Lots of law firms have lots of fantastic lawyers that have no personality at all. They are most unlikely to bring any work in. Likewise, lots of firms have lawyers that are not great lawyers, but are likeable people that clients will happily give work to. The latter are referred to as rainmakers and they employ the former to perform the work. The latter can't operate without the former and the former cannot work without the latter. Rarely, a firm will have lawyers that fall into both categories. Other lawyers wish to work for them so that they can learn and law firms want them to increase their bottom line. These are the lawyers that earn the huge amounts. Law firms work because most of their workforce believe that, without the partners providing them with work, they will starve. It's not necessarily true, as most can charm people enough to be able to persuade them to become a client. This is the reason why lawyers are always seeking to become members of the committees of all local community thingies. They wish to be plugged into as many activities as they can with a view to networking as much as they can to obtain work. They, likely, have no idea about how to draft a will, but it someone wants them to do so, they will bring that client in, give the work to a lawyer that knows what they are doing, hope that, when that client purchases a house, when they get injured in an accident, when they get divorced, they will use the same firm. |
Re: Coronavirus
Originally Posted by Almost Canadian
(Post 13112692)
My responses in red
I cannot disagree with your last comment. Three points there. Firstly, absenteeism isn't reduced because people don't get sick but because, when they are at home, they work when they are sick. Lots of colleagues currently have covid, probably because we met in a bar last week and infected one another. They're all working, coughing and spluttering through meetings. They'd be less likely to drive to an office and attend a physical meeting while gagging. Secondly, I know it to be the case that people converted commute time to billable hours. I did that and I see them online and talk with them. Thirdly, the better use of time is because people don't have to shuffle between meeting rooms, desks and coffee shops. They don't have to locate a hotel station and go and pillage pieces from others to make it work. They just sit and click on a meeting, half an hour later they click on another meeting, there's no 10 minutes lost looking for the room and then the power bar. They can multitask without appearing to be rude as one does when working during a physical meeting. Of course, I want my performance bonus so, if I have to drive my gas guzzler to a far away office to sit on Teams and listen to the launch of another green initiative, that's what I'll do. Shaking my head as I go. |
Re: Coronavirus
Originally Posted by dbd33
(Post 13112714)
Three points there.
Firstly, absenteeism isn't reduced because people don't get sick but because, when they are at home, they work when they are sick. Lots of colleagues currently have covid, probably because we met in a bar last week and infected one another. They're all working, coughing and spluttering through meetings. They'd be less likely to drive to an office and attend a physical meeting while gagging. Secondly, I know it to be the case that people converted commute time to billable hours. I did that and I see them online and talk with them. Thirdly, the better use of time is because people don't have to shuffle between meeting rooms, desks and coffee shops. They don't have to locate a hotel station and go and pillage pieces from others to make it work. They just sit and click on a meeting, half an hour later they click on another meeting, there's no 10 minutes lost looking for the room and then the power bar. They can multitask without appearing to be rude as one does when working during a physical meeting. Of course, I want my performance bonus so, if I have to drive my gas guzzler to a far away office to sit on Teams and listen to the launch of another green initiative, that's what I'll do. Shaking my head as I go. I didn't convert commute time to billable hours, but I did install huge amounts of posts and rails as a result of being able to do work, while not commuting and I used the "commute time" later in day to install fences. I am not convinced that all salaried employees will work 10 hours a day, rather that the 8 hours a day they are paid for, simply because they don't have to commute. I have to admit that I have never worked in an environment where people attend meetings simply for the sake of attending a meeting. I pity those that have to, as I imagine I would stab both of my eyes with forks if I was required to do so. But I defer to your greater experience on that issue. I accept that many, self-motivated people, will make working from home work, particularly if they don't require the knowledge of others discussed above. I have to admit that I am not convinced that WFH will increase productivity, but I am willing to acknowledge that I may be wrong. |
Re: Coronavirus
Originally Posted by Almost Canadian
(Post 13112750)
I have to admit that I have never worked in an environment where people attend meetings simply for the sake of attending a meeting. I pity those that have to, as I imagine I would stab both of my eyes with forks if I was required to do so. But I defer to your greater experience on that issue.
In the office I conjure an image of a taxi meter. At home I can lie back and think of England. |
Re: Coronavirus
The Wife and I finally caught COVID this week, at least those test at home kits say we did.
We are both in our late 40's, fit and healthy people, normal BMI and it was similar to a bad cold. I'm feeling 95% back to normal, can't wait to leave the house as tea bag situation is getting dire. |
Re: Coronavirus
Originally Posted by Danny B
(Post 13119560)
The Wife and I finally caught COVID this week, at least those test at home kits say we did.
We are both in our late 40's, fit and healthy people, normal BMI and it was similar to a bad cold. I'm feeling 95% back to normal, can't wait to leave the house as tea bag situation is getting dire. |
Re: Coronavirus
Originally Posted by Paul_Shepherd
(Post 13119611)
...on the plus side I ate a lot of my freezer stocks...
|
Re: Coronavirus
So how are things looking in your bit of Canada now?
New Brunswick has seen cases doubled week on week recently. When you consider the massive reduction in testing it's not especially comforting. Of course we do take comfort in this idea that Omicron is less likely to lead to negative outcomes like hospitalisation or death but the current patient number hospitalised with Covid is as high as it ever was. Note that now they only Count admitted with Covid whereas the previous numbers were those in hospital who tested positive after admission - their admission may or may not have been from Covid. You don't need to be a genius to conclude that if the numbers admitted with Covid now equal previous numbers of all patients with Covid then the current numbers of all patients with Covid is very likely higher than previous peak figures. On the topic of masking or other protections our Chief Medical Officer is now saying things like "At this point … we're not having that conversation." And "The message right now is about vaccination, because that's the thing that's going to decrease people's risk of having severe outcomes and requiring hospitalization," and refusing to say whether it looks like a new wave or not. Until this week I think it was only NB and one other province offering 2nd boosters to those as young as 50 but this week they suddenly dropped the age requirement to anyone over 18. It's almost like they've "seen something" in the numbers or other official information that they're not (as usual) telling us with this secrecy obsession. Unfortunately over the last year or so it seems she's speaking as the government wants her to rather than speaking from the Health perspective that she was originally. (the same thing happened with a previous CMO who was fired) N.B.'s focus on COVID-19 vaccines alone a 'gigantic mistake,' says epidemiologist New Brunswick's decision to focus on COVID-19 vaccination alone in the face of rising COVID cases fuelled by the highly transmissible Omicron subvariants BA.5 and BA.4 is a "bad strategy," according to an infection control epidemiologist. "Every government the world over that has relied on one way to control this has failed," said Furness, an assistant professor at the University of Toronto. "One strategy isn't enough." |
Re: Coronavirus
Originally Posted by BristolUK
(Post 13129087)
So how are things looking in your bit of Canada now?
New Brunswick has seen cases doubled week on week recently. When you consider the massive reduction in testing it's not especially comforting. Of course we do take comfort in this idea that Omicron is less likely to lead to negative outcomes like hospitalisation or death but the current patient number hospitalised with Covid is as high as it ever was. Note that now they only Count admitted with Covid whereas the previous numbers were those in hospital who tested positive after admission - their admission may or may not have been from Covid. You don't need to be a genius to conclude that if the numbers admitted with Covid now equal previous numbers of all patients with Covid then the current numbers of all patients with Covid is very likely higher than previous peak figures. On the topic of masking or other protections our Chief Medical Officer is now saying things like "At this point … we're not having that conversation." And "The message right now is about vaccination, because that's the thing that's going to decrease people's risk of having severe outcomes and requiring hospitalization," and refusing to say whether it looks like a new wave or not. Until this week I think it was only NB and one other province offering 2nd boosters to those as young as 50 but this week they suddenly dropped the age requirement to anyone over 18. It's almost like they've "seen something" in the numbers or other official information that they're not (as usual) telling us with this secrecy obsession. Unfortunately over the last year or so it seems she's speaking as the government wants her to rather than speaking from the Health perspective that she was originally. (the same thing happened with a previous CMO who was fired) N.B.'s focus on COVID-19 vaccines alone a 'gigantic mistake,' says epidemiologist As for vaccines has there been any changes? Are we still being given a booster shot for an old vaccine that was made for a different variant? Has it been tweaked to have an effect on the latest Omicron variant that is supposed to be able to re infect people a few weeks after they have had COVID. It seems that relying on a vaccine that new variants are bypassing is not the best idea. However if hospitals can cope and ICU is not overwhelmed are we worrying over something that's difficult to control without bringing back restrictions across the board Certainly Kelowna tourism is in full swing and business is thriving so we will see what the fall brings i guess |
Re: Coronavirus
Originally Posted by printer
(Post 13129130)
I don't think that anyone in government wants to start introducing restrictions once more and now we seem to be seeing an upward trend everywhere there is more talk of booster shots and masking up yet do either of these things make the difference they are hoping for?
Our CMO is still saying get boosted and wear masks (but your choice) and even said something along the lines of "if you must hold an event, consider doing it outside" - and from already being exceptional in giving second boosters to people over 50 has now dropped that to over 18. And when you read that NB's infection rate is two and a half times the national rate you can see why the province has extended availability so dramatically. But as that other guy says, vax alone is no good if it does little to stop the spread. Clearly there are many people getting it and passing it on and that while the individual who gets it has a lower chance of a bad outcome - because the vaccine is still good protection - there are that many people getting infected (more than twice the rest of Canada, remember) that the bad outcomes of death or hospitalisation are affecting just as many people as ever, and more than when we didn't have vaccines but followed other measures. However if hospitals can cope and ICU is not overwhelmed are we worrying over something that's difficult to control without bringing back restrictions across the board There seems to be a lot NB specific, as I've mentioned, that might justify some NB specific response other than extending 2nd boosters to 18 and above. My SD responded to this change. It's a two week wait before she can get jabbed. That will make it 8 months since the previous one when the 'recommendation' is 5. |
Re: Coronavirus
Originally Posted by BristolUK
(Post 13129199)
This is part of the concern. Or it should be.
Our CMO is still saying get boosted and wear masks (but your choice) and even said something along the lines of "if you must hold an event, consider doing it outside" - and from already being exceptional in giving second boosters to people over 50 has now dropped that to over 18. And when you read that NB's infection rate is two and a half times the national rate you can see why the province has extended availability so dramatically. But as that other guy says, vax alone is no good if it does little to stop the spread. Clearly there are many people getting it and passing it on and that while the individual who gets it has a lower chance of a bad outcome - because the vaccine is still good protection - there are that many people getting infected (more than twice the rest of Canada, remember) that the bad outcomes of death or hospitalisation are affecting just as many people as ever, and more than when we didn't have vaccines but followed other measures. Well I can't speak for the rest of Canada but I've not read of any place, anywhere, where hospitals are catching up on pre-covid situations. I continue to read of long delays in ER, long delays of ambulance drop offs because there's no available beds, increased wait times and so on. This is not NB specific but what is NB specific is our city hospital not taking any new Orthopaedic referrals - not even people joining a waiting list. There seems to be a lot NB specific, as I've mentioned, that might justify some NB specific response other than extending 2nd boosters to 18 and above. My SD responded to this change. It's a two week wait before she can get jabbed. That will make it 8 months since the previous one when the 'recommendation' is 5. |
Re: Coronavirus
Originally Posted by printer
(Post 13129256)
So far in BC there has been a closure of Clearwater ER several times since spring and twice this last week, the next nearest ER is 125 kms away. The reason is staff shortages. It's not a big place and probably doesn't attract workers that easily. So i guess even if some hospitals aren't seeing huge numbers being admitted they are not coping due to lack of qualified staff, either way its a serious issue.
Ever since I've lived in NB there have been reports of smaller ER facilities closing at weekends and there's always been the odd report of an "outrageous" wait time of 8 hours or something. But now we get regular reports of far longer wait times and last week a guy died in his wheelchair while waiting. :ohmy: Ambulances are delayed and can't drop off patients so sometimes people have to wait for an out of town ambulance because there's not a local one available. We used to see our doctor with two or three of the family on double or triple appointments. A nice earner for him with three fees in one go and almost immediate appointments for us. But now with most appointments by phone it's all slowed down and people are even more likely to go to ER than previously because they (feel they) cannot wait. There are consistently hundreds of hospital staff out with covid or isolating because they were in contact with a covid patient or colleague, so you've got more patients than usual because covid produces more patients and fewer staff to deal with them because of covid. There's no reason to think this is not common to all of Canada. UK reports are the same. While there are recruitment/retention and retirement issues, covid is making it all far worse. |
Re: Coronavirus
Originally Posted by BristolUK
(Post 13129345)
While these things are separate issues they are also quite connected.
Ever since I've lived in NB there have been reports of smaller ER facilities closing at weekends and there's always been the odd report of an "outrageous" wait time of 8 hours or something. But now we get regular reports of far longer wait times and last week a guy died in his wheelchair while waiting. :ohmy: Ambulances are delayed and can't drop off patients so sometimes people have to wait for an out of town ambulance because there's not a local one available. We used to see our doctor with two or three of the family on double or triple appointments. A nice earner for him with three fees in one go and almost immediate appointments for us. But now with most appointments by phone it's all slowed down and people are even more likely to go to ER than previously because they (feel they) cannot wait. There are consistently hundreds of hospital staff out with covid or isolating because they were in contact with a covid patient or colleague, so you've got more patients than usual because covid produces more patients and fewer staff to deal with them because of covid. There's no reason to think this is not common to all of Canada. UK reports are the same. While there are recruitment/retention and retirement issues, covid is making it all far worse. |
Re: Coronavirus
It does seem strange that family docs (and others) are still reluctant to see people. Mine will see me if essential, as he did when I had shingles.
My regular blood tests at the hospital (it's a 5 minute walk from my house) for years were on a walk-in basis. Usually in and out between 10 and 30 minutes but occasionally it could be fairly congested. It's all by appointment now. I don't know how strict they are by times and so on but even with the screening at the entrance I'm now in and out even quicker than it used to be. :thumbup: I would think if they can do that then so can a regular doctor even if they just had face to face appointments on only one or two days a week or something like that. I'm sure many people would be very happy not to actually go just for a prescription renewal or "I've reviewed your test results and all's good, no need to come in" and so on. It's daft how we've gone from having to go in for everything and take up time for what could have been done by phone - and not even having to speak to the doc - to virtually all by phone. Maybe one day we'll get to the midway point where both parties can be content. |
Re: Coronavirus
Healthcare systems seem to be in a state of collapse across Canada - if not the world (noting waits of 10 hrs for an ambulance in the UK). Here, Doctor recruitment and retention, especially in rural locales is a severe problem and that's leading to temporary closures and diversions. Those diversions likely necessitate a 4-5 hour drive to another overstretched ER. This problem is exacerbated by 25% of the population not having a GP which is a terrible situation, but again, not one unique to Newfoundland.
Our GP does both virtual and in person appointments. I appreciate the flexibility of a virtual appointment for the routine such as renewing prescriptions but there is no substitute for actually seeing a doc. Blood collection is still available on a walk in basis but for years I've availed of a private service where you pay $20 and a nurse takes the blood for you. Saves a trip into hospital and a great deal of time. As a family we're spending a lot of time in the pediatric medicine system at present with our youngest who has leukemia. She's been in hospital 5 weeks out of the last 6. I have to say the quality of care has been outstanding and we're deeply thankful for that. Health facilities continue to require masks - although unlike earlier in the pandemic, there is no longer a security guard controlling access to the building, asking Covid screening questions and giving out medical masks, rather just a dispenser by the door (along with a hand sanitiser dispenser). With the rise in cases in the community and with a now immuno-supressed child in the family we're back to wearing masks when shopping and in other public places, plus being diligent about washing hands. It's a subject we've discussed with the oncology team & their view is that masking and handwashing as well as keeping away from obviously sick people is sensible, but balancing out that life still goes on is important. So, for example, when she is well enough in Sept, our daughter will go into school. The rise again of Covid is a worry though. |
Re: Coronavirus
Originally Posted by Atlantic Xpat
(Post 13129537)
Healthcare systems seem to be in a state of collapse across Canada
ERs have mainly closed but we don't pay for vehicle license plate stickers anymore so that's a fair deal, as long as no one has an emergency. |
Re: Coronavirus
Originally Posted by dbd33
(Post 13129546)
ERs have mainly closed but we don't pay for vehicle license plate stickers anymore so that's a fair deal, as long as no one has an emergency.
Back in the winter when reports about ambulances not being able drop off patients and l-o-n-g waits were announced I told everyone in the house not to have an emergency. Naturally my step daughter slipped on ice but since it was near the hospital she limped in. Lucky for her that because one of the other clinics was closed for its normal use, the ER had been diverting people there, using it to treat obvious not emergencies and they put a cast on her sprain. |
Re: Coronavirus
We have had excellent care over the past few years seeing many specialists between us. Delays were caused by COVID though meaning an extra years wait for a cardiac procedure. I get to see doctors in person mostly as I can't hear well enough for a phone consultation. But, the local hospital has had to close emerge a few times due to staff shortages and the family doctor team has had two doctors retire and one move to palliative care. They replaced the doctors with nurse practitioners for many patients. First level care is lacking.
|
Re: Coronavirus
Yesterday's paper had a report about 215 "excess deaths" in the province. It's paywalled and I can't copy/paste either nut it compares a normal death total in that period of 500 with 715, saying that the official (yeah right) covid deaths in this period were 47, so another 168 unaccounted for.
One of the province's health officials sent an internal memo suggesting that hospital staff should wear their masks in all public places, not just where they work. 24 hours later the government removed him from his position. Not fitting the "covid is over" narrative apparently. :rolleyes: |
Re: Coronavirus
Yes, many extra deaths in Uk too. It is more in the news lately. Not to mention the serious ingoing damage of Long Covid and the utter uselessness if not damaging vaccines now as well.
|
Re: Coronavirus
Twice as many people died with Covid in UK this summer compared with 2021
Maybe that's why all those proofs of life were needed, to check how many were surviving in Canada :lol: |
Re: Coronavirus
I see yesterday our intrepid modeler for all things COVID was in the media again saying we have currently reached the peak of current wave and people should be very cautious but things will improve as we move forward. This was the same modeler who in mid June predicted a massive rise come July and suggested we all mask up, stay home and do whatever it takes to avoid a serious rush of infections and overloaded hospitals.
This clearly never happened and it would seem that here in BC anyway things are just rolling on as normal. We get the weekly report but there is always the addition that the figures are inaccurate and not to be taken to mean things are ok, hospitalizations are still occurring but are down on previous numbers. So on a positive note and something to be thankful for, the other day we did a job for a lady whose mother lives with her. Her mother had become a little unwell and tested positive for COVID, she is 94. Apparently apart for feeling a bit off she was otherwise fine and now has made full recovery. This is a sign that we are in a much better place now than 2 years ago. Back then 94 year olds were dropping like flies. Yet this week we see more panic stories about back to school/university, one such University in Ontario stating all staff and pupils to wear masks and all should be triple vaxed where appropriate. Then the teachers and some parent groups calling for added protocols for start of term such as masks! When are we going to move away from this? If we have all travelled and mixed and partied our arses off all summer why is going back to school such a terrible thing to consider? |
Re: Coronavirus
Originally Posted by printer
(Post 13138143)
... overloaded hospitals....
https://bc.ctvnews.ca/b-c-emergency-...nues-1.6045460 Seems to be pretty universal. Over here the ERs keep closing weekends and other days with people sent to bigger hospitals. But last week, the two biggest hospitals in the province asked people to keep away from its ERs except for life threatening issues over the weekend just gone. |
Re: Coronavirus
|
Re: Coronavirus
UK's alert level downgraded from level 3 to 2, good news I guess....:huh:
https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/british...72549e6e23.jpg |
Re: Coronavirus
Originally Posted by BristolUK
(Post 13138152)
That's still happening isn't it?
https://bc.ctvnews.ca/b-c-emergency-...nues-1.6045460 Seems to be pretty universal. Over here the ERs keep closing weekends and other days with people sent to bigger hospitals. But last week, the two biggest hospitals in the province asked people to keep away from its ERs except for life threatening issues over the weekend just gone. |
Re: Coronavirus
Originally Posted by printer
(Post 13138575)
Agreed but rather than because the places are full of COVID cases its because there is no staff...
Trying to avoid health services being overwhelmed was never only about covid patients, it was obviously going to include staff numbers affected by covid. So patient numbers are down - with the expectation that they are about to rise again - but staffing is still negatively impacted. |
Re: Coronavirus
Originally Posted by BristolUK
(Post 13138699)
Yes, but the lack of staff numbers is covid connected.
Trying to avoid health services being overwhelmed was never only about covid patients, it was obviously going to include staff numbers affected by covid. So patient numbers are down - with the expectation that they are about to rise again - but staffing is still negatively impacted. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-62716710 |
Re: Coronavirus
Originally Posted by Danny B
(Post 13138307)
UK's alert level downgraded from level 3 to 2, good news I guess....:huh:
https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/british...72549e6e23.jpg |
Re: Coronavirus
Originally Posted by bats
(Post 13138788)
Peterborough COVID levels are now back at high risk. Kids are back at school. Same old, same old
I had to get bloods yesterday and despite the fact that masks are still mandatory they still have limited spaced out seating and will only let one person inside at a time to register then when all seats full its stand outside. I still cannot enter any Canadian airport without a mask yet i can enter any other crowded establishment without one and sit or stand right next to another mask less person. I cannot however enter the blood clinic with full medical mask and sit up close to anyone or stand inside unless person in front has sat down! |
Re: Coronavirus
I wonder why it is that medical places still have some measures in place that other establishments don't. It's almost like they are run by people with some medical knowledge isn't it.
|
Re: Coronavirus
Originally Posted by BristolUK
(Post 13139032)
I wonder why it is that medical places still have some measures in place that other establishments don't. It's almost like they are run by people with some medical knowledge isn't it.
|
Re: Coronavirus
Originally Posted by printer
(Post 13139085)
That doesn't really make sense though. Either we are following scientific and medical knowledge from experts or we aren't. Do you lump airport terminals into the same category as hospitals and blood clinics? What is their reasoning behind the continued mask policy? Again there is no common sense being applied across the board. When we all had restrictions in place for all transport or all indoor places it made some sense. How is Vancouver airport different to London Heathrow or LAX for example?
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 5:51 pm. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.