Coronavirus update - NO MORE RESTRICTIONS

[xsnaggle]

£17.35 per hour for daytime shifts according to this job ad. You can see they are trying to recruit qualified healthcare professionals here not people looking to make a quick buck for doing naff all.

https://www.indeed.co.uk/m/viewjob?j...b867&from=serp

A quote from the BBC article.
"One NHS job advert for a clinical contact tracer stated the role paid up to £27.15 per hour and described suitable applicants as nurses, dentists or vets, among others."
Her previous occupation falls into one of these catagories. She is a clinical tracer. But believe what you wish to believe. The BBC story is available if you want to go and check.

[CCFCC3PO]

A quote from the BBC article.
"One NHS job advert for a clinical contact tracer stated the role paid up to £27.15 per hour and described suitable applicants as nurses, dentists or vets, among others."
Her previous occupation falls into one of these catagories. She is a clinical tracer. But believe what you wish to believe. The BBC story is available if you want to go and check.

The BBC - but you said they were unreliable.

Also - note the word "CLINICAL" - types of people expected to apply include nurses, dentists and vets.

Others are on less than £10 an hour.

[xsnaggle]

The BBC - but you said they were unreliable.

Also - note the word "CLINICAL" - types of people expected to apply include nurses, dentists and vets.

Others are on less than £10 an hour.

[Baloo]

Oh, you mean xsnaggle was making it all up again? What a shock.

The rate xsnaggle quoted appears to be the premium Sunday and bank holiday hourly rate. It’s included in the job ad I linked.

[xsnaggle]

The rate xsnaggle quoted appears to be the premium Sunday and bank holiday hourly rate. It’s in the job ad I linked.

Is it? where did you discover that? Do you have the pay rates to show everybody? BTW I didn't quote it, the BBC did.

[Baloo]

Is it? where did you discover that? Do you have the pay rates to show everybody? BTW I didn't quote it, the BBC did.

See previous post.

[xsnaggle]

See previous post.

Thanks. I should tell the BBC but I can't be bothered.

[xsnaggle]

See previous post.

So would you or would you not take the money and be happy? Or would you stick with your principles and resign?

[Baloo]

So would you or would you not take the money and be happy? Or would you stick with your principles and resign?

[xsnaggle]

now there's a tale!!!

[CCFCC3PO]

[xsnaggle]

[Eric Cartman]

I'm not arguing with that, it makes perfect sense. So why does she then go on the BBC and complain about the job? Why not keep her mouth shut and take the money?

Well because this isn't a binary choice she faces, quit and spill the beans vs stay in the job and keep quiet.

Have you thought that maybe her ideal outcome is to stay in the role and become busy and useful?

[jon1959]

I've told you, feeling guilty perhaps, perhaps she would rather do a fair days work for a fair days pay rather than do little work for a fair days pay at the taxpayers expense but she can't afford to give the job up.

Is the right answer.

She would have to be daft or irresponsible to either resign or keep quiet whilst the country's main public health initiative is operating so poorly. Good on her.

[xsnaggle]

Well because this isn't a binary choice she faces, quit and spill the beans vs stay in the job and keep quiet.

Have you thought that maybe her ideal outcome is to stay in the role and become busy and useful?

Absolutely, that would be the optimum result. But when it gets busy no doubt she will be busy. Lets be reasonable here. Most people would be quite happy to be paid and do less rather than be paid and do more. I like to be busy myself when I work but when it's not busy I don't feel the urge to broadcast it to the world.

[xsnaggle]

Is the right answer.

She would have to be daft or irresponsible to either resign or keep quiet whilst the country's main public health initiative is operating so poorly. Good on her.

But you don't know it is operating so poorly, you just assume it is because she is not busy. someone said it was a waste of public money and I used the analogy of the the emergency hospitals. Because they have been grossly underused does that mean they were a waste of taxpayers money? She was employed as one of the number of operatives deemed likely to be needed if and when it gets busy.

[CCFCC3PO]

Absolutely, that would be the optimum result. But when it gets busy no doubt she will be busy. Lets be reasonable here. Most people would be quite happy to be paid and do less rather than be paid and do more. I like to be busy myself when I work but when it's not busy I don't feel the urge to broadcast it to the world.

Amazingly, you are not the barometer for the rest of the working population.

I'm currently doing a full day's work but been reduced to 5 hours pay. Now, I could follow your example and quit, or laze around - or I can just knuckle down and help my company get through this. Even in normal times, at quiet periods I'd still be looking for ways to help the company. After all, they are paying my wages.

[CCFCC3PO]

But you don't know it is operating so poorly, you just assume it is because she is not busy. someone said it was a waste of public money and I used the analogy of the the emergency hospitals. Because they have been grossly underused does that mean they were a waste of taxpayers money? She was employed as one of the number of operatives deemed likely to be needed if and when it gets busy.

Fair point, but with respect this work is not as intrinsically skilled. People are doing it from home. You could argue that it would be quicker to get people online to work this role as and when demand warrants it, than it would be to suddenly increase hospital beds.

[Baloo]

It’s early doors but this article suggests only 38% of reported contacts of people diagnosed with Coronavirus were reached during the first few days of the new system. With a Government target of 80% for the system to be effective.

Hopefully just early bedding-in issues if correct: https://www.newscientist.com/article...-be-effective/

[Taunton Blue Genie]

It’s early doors but this article suggests only 38% of reported contacts of people diagnosed with Coronavirus were reached during the first few days of the new system. With a Government target of 80% for the system to be effective.

Hopefully just early bedding-in issues if correct: https://www.newscientist.com/article...-be-effective/

Despite chasing up, I didn't even get a result of my test which was over a month ago. No doubt I figured in the statistics of tests being carried out but it seems to have got lost in the system, a less than rare occurrence, I was advised.

[goats]

Will be great if you can have a test and a result within 24 hrs like be planned for end of June? Game changer?

[Rjk]

20200604_080940.jpg

taking back control

[trampie09]

It's all relative but the UK's figures are shockingly bad.

[goats]

It's all relative but the UK's figures are shockingly bad.

I didn’t realise they sent 15000 oldies out of hospital into care homes back in March to free up space, thus infecting so many people in care homes which is half the deaths isn’t it?

[Croesy Blue]

So why is she going on national TV complaining about getting paid for doing nothing? Just take the money, work when she needs to and be happy!

To highlight that it's a ridiculous situation and a waste of tax payers money.