Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The NHS is looking for up to 250k volunteers

england.nhs.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 161 posts

Re: The NHS is looking for up to 250k volunteers

#131

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

mistermann wrote: post #118
TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t believe anyone here has claimed there is only one variable that explains any countries better or worse ability with regard to this pandemic, or anything for that matter. Edit to add: okay, so a sibling comment claims the reason is a Confucian , culture. But that’s narrow, everything is always multi-factorial. It’s good to see and discuss one aspect, but not at the expense of other considerations.

> I don’t believe anyone here has claimed there is only one variable that explains any countries better or worse ability with regard to this pandemic, or anything for that matter. I don't believe I said "anyone here has claimed there is only one variable that explains any countries better or worse ability with regard to this pandemic." I propose that something very interesting is going on here, at the object level. I…

That's fair.

I just didn't really see where you were coming as a reply to the original comment, where you'd written "prior outbreaks ... only variable" and the parent comment was talking about "civil society (and) social capital".

Re: The NHS is looking for up to 250k volunteers

#132

Post by rexpop »

temac wrote: post #102
lucb1e wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also can't buy groceries from holding the door open for people and yet I do. People are sometimes just nice to each other, helping each other out, especially in need, or in this case, a pandemic.

There is that little thing that some people who frequent HN might forget about: some people are not paid a lot (for tons of them this is a mistake of the society, and they should be paid more to begin with, but this is another issue than the immediate one) and actually need some money each month to pay rent, etc. It is too easy to say the a mass of people should just work for free to cope for the mistakes of their go…

There's definitely a selection bias in this forum. It's an echo chamber of petit bourgeois–myself included.

Re: The NHS is looking for up to 250k volunteers

#133

Post by capableweb »

fuckknows wrote: post #76
capableweb wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't quote me on this and I don't have a peer-reviewed paper as source, but as far as I know, people can get reinfected after being infected once.

This is misinformation, immunity works like it does for everything else. The virus is new to us, not magic.

Interesting. Is it misinformation if presented with the explicit disclaimer that I'm not sure about it and people should research themselves? I always understood misinformation as purposefully wrong and malicious information.

Worst case scenario (of people acting on my previous comment), people believe they can be reinfected and would practice further physical distancing. That does not seem malicious, but hey, I might be wrong.

Re: The NHS is looking for up to 250k volunteers

#135

Post by lucb1e »

temac wrote: post #102
lucb1e wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also can't buy groceries from holding the door open for people and yet I do. People are sometimes just nice to each other, helping each other out, especially in need, or in this case, a pandemic.

There is that little thing that some people who frequent HN might forget about: some people are not paid a lot (for tons of them this is a mistake of the society, and they should be paid more to begin with, but this is another issue than the immediate one) and actually need some money each month to pay rent, etc. It is too easy to say the a mass of people should just work for free to cope for the mistakes of their go…

Maybe it's not wise for people to volunteer during work hours when they live paycheck to paycheck, but there are also a lot of people that can easily take one or two days off per week to help out. I'm not suggesting that someone who needs it foregoes their salary.

Re: The NHS is looking for up to 250k volunteers

#136

Post by jlg23 »

neilwilson wrote: post #32

Wouldn’t it be more appropriate just to hire people and set them to work in the NHS? It’s way past time the government stopped messing around and just hired all the spare labour - which can then be directed to assist the NHS or directed to stay at home as required. When there are so many people without work that want it we need to stop QE’ing Gilts and start QE’ing workers hours instead. All this could be done with a…

They are not asking for trained medical staff but basically for neighborhood help in an emergency situation.

And it is not really NHS' fault that people tend not to know their neighbors anymore and thus need an app that matches their willingness to help with a recipient...

Re: The NHS is looking for up to 250k volunteers

#137

Post by xyzzyz »

hjanssen wrote: post #98
piker wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean like instead of abusing them by asking them to volunteer?

There is a big difference between being abused by your employer, on which you depend with your livelihood, and being a volunteer, who can literally walk away anytime without consequences.

You can also walk away anytime from employment without consequences. You just stop making money. At least that's how it is in America. Is UK government regulation different?

Re: The NHS is looking for up to 250k volunteers

#138

Post by xyzzyz »

anticensor wrote: post #70
xyzzyz wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's funny to see that the government regulations on employing people make it too hard for the government to bother going through with them, so they try to find a backdoor by hiring volunteers instead. One would think that the government will think on their feet and relax the burden at least in the time of life-threatening crisis.

These burdens are put in place to prevent employer (as in superiors, not the folks you serve) abuse. They would abuse government servants here and there if it were easily replaced.

Sure, I get why the regulations are there. However, here they clearly fail to serve their purpose. Are they going to protect volunteers from abuse? If not, then why should they be allowed to even use volunteer help? If the argument is that volunteers can just walk away when they don't like the conditions, why not simply give the same opportunity to paid workers? My point here is that regardless of whether the regulations have good reason or not, trying to work around them by hiring volunteers is utterly ludicrous.

Re: The NHS is looking for up to 250k volunteers

#139

Post by jlokier »

Reason077 wrote: post #48
neilwilson wrote: post #32

Wouldn’t it be more appropriate just to hire people and set them to work in the NHS? It’s way past time the government stopped messing around and just hired all the spare labour - which can then be directed to assist the NHS or directed to stay at home as required. When there are so many people without work that want it we need to stop QE’ing Gilts and start QE’ing workers hours instead. All this could be done with a…

> “Pay people and they spend it - keeping the economic circulation ticking over.” There isn’t actually much to spend it on right now, other than rent, groceries, and online entertainment. Everything else is closed and my bank balance is actually looking much more healthy than it normally would this far into the month!

A lot of people can't pay rent now, and people are starting to talk about how many days groceries they can afford before they run out.

Some people, like you, have a bank balance getting healthier.

But others have the opposite. Those people could really do with being paid somehow while they are supporting the NHS.

Re: The NHS is looking for up to 250k volunteers

#140

Post by beart »

capableweb wrote: post #133
fuckknows wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is misinformation, immunity works like it does for everything else. The virus is new to us, not magic.

Interesting. Is it misinformation if presented with the explicit disclaimer that I'm not sure about it and people should research themselves? I always understood misinformation as purposefully wrong and malicious information. Worst case scenario (of people acting on my previous comment), people believe they can be reinfected and would practice further physical distancing. That does not seem malicious, but hey, I migh…

Yes I think it is misinformation. It doesn't matter how much you hedge what you are saying, because the implication of you saying it means that you believe it.

Think about it this way, if your mother was concerned and you said, "Don't quote me on this, but as far as I know, you can be infected twice", you can bet your ass she would believe you.

Post reply on HN