[jfman]

Originally Posted by nffc

Plus they don't work anyway. Not unless they're FFP2 type masks used properly.

So they do work?

I'm unaware of a requirement to wear masks at concerns, seated in a pub, or doing anything that could even be considered remotely enjoyable.

For every person who won't go out but for the need to wear a mask that's equally offset by those who refuse to engage with the old economy - continuing to work from home, voluntarily restricting their own activities. So this is not the zero sum game that you claim it to be.

It already has been for about the last 20 years anyway. Amazon especially has killed off plenty of high street book and record stores, and countless more independent ones, it's largely just chains like waterstones these days.

It has indeed, which is why I've stated it necessary in any case. Not just to offset winners/losers in the pandemic.

Hybrid working is something companies benefit from too - if they have fewer staff in the office, that can mean they need less office space. And on days when people aren't in the office it saves on the electricity, heating, etc from not having staff physically in the workplace.

A lot of companies will still embrace it even after the virus. It's just sped things up a bit.

indeed, but it leaves us some distance from the 2019 economy by simply pretending it is 2019.

That's a management issue.

If staff are underperforming because they are working from home that's down to individuals and managers to sort out.

A lot of jobs can be done equally or better from any location including home.

It's not solely a management issue - employers have responsibilities to their staff, and 2019 HR policies are wholly insufficient for a pandemic that someone could reasonably catch the virus twice or three times in one year. Nor are business continuity plans based on whole teams being off sick at once.

It's a massive economic issue that pretending it is 2019 will not resolve - hence my questioning of where is the learning.