Another announcement

COVID has certainly changed the job market, but it was changing anyway.
I agree MOnica. It has merely accelerated that change.

Beautifully put M0nica.

I do not think that COVID will destroy children or young people's chances. To begin with the problems affect almost every child at school or university student.

We have had so many previous incidents when everyone has been knashing their teeth and pulling out their hair because a generation's chances are all destroyed. 1973 and the great oil crisis and three day week, the whole of the 1980s during the destructyiton of our industry by Mrs Thatcher, the 2008 financial crisis, but plenty of people born in the 1960s and 70s have had successful lives, I am not talking riches, merely being comfortable. the same will happen to this generation as well.

As for who pays the costs. We did not finish paying for WW2 until 2006, 50 years after the war ended. Most of those paying, by the end, were not even born when the war was on. I was 18 months old when it finished and retired in 2003. I spent my whole working life paying for WW2. Its the way things happen.

We have been lulled into a sense of false complacency, we all think life owes us a living, nothing nasty must ever happen to us or ours (or anybody else), we should never face any difficulties as we climb the ladder of success. Well, life isn't like that, it kicks you somewhere painful when you least expect it.

COVID is part of the human condition, look back and see what our parents and grandparents lived through, far worse things than us.

Economies are dynamic entities, the economy will grow back, jobs will return. They may be different jobs. But COVID or not we were all facing an unstable jobs market,anyway before COVID with the shrinking of retail and the effect of technology on many jobs. COVID has certainly changed the job market, but it was changing anyway.

Laura you’re right, it is harsh, but as you say, it is also true. I have a 93 year old mother. During the last lockdown we managed to shield her completely even though she wasn’t on the shielded list. She didn’t leave her apartment for twelve weeks because we delivered her shopping, medicines and everything else she needed. This is what older and vulnerable people must do, they need to take steps to protect themselves and not expect schools and universities to close to accommodate them.

Ellianne you may have been correct if you had actually written pist. I do understand the need of young people to socialise and have fun, but eventually they need to either get, or keep a job. If they continue to party with abandon leading to repeated lockdowns, they will pay the price when there are insufficient jobs.

Maddyone your last post, harsh but true in my opinion.

Pubs, restaurants, clubs, raves, are not normally attended by ten year olds.
Nor are they by anyone under 16 I would have thought. It stands to reason the biggest rate of transmission is in the post (oops I nearly typed pist!) teens.

Dr Hilary Jones, on Wales online, has pointed out that the biggest rate of transmission is in the 20-29 age group. Not surprising really, given the behaviour of many of them. Pubs, restaurants, clubs, raves, are not normally attended by ten year olds. The young people, frequently seen on the media, have been out in force, and there is no social distancing in pubs, clubs, and at raves.

My own family have fallen victim to this. My nephew, who is in his twenties and still lives with his parents, tested positive along with his girlfriend. Then a week or so later, my brother in law, who is in his sixties, became ill and tested positive. Up to now his wife has not tested positive, and so hopefully will escape.

Schools must not close. Recent research has shown that up to half of all young children possess antibodies that are thought to render them immune, possibly but not definitely, because young children regularly have colds, and develop antibodies to corona type viruses. As children grow and become adults, these antibodies are not found. We already knew that young children rarely become infected with Covid19. For older people to wish to deny education, and the proper development of social and emotional skills to children, is in my opinion, the height of selfishness. Teachers want to teach, they do not want to destroy children’s life chances.

I have read many times that the average age of someone who dies from Covid19 is 82 and a half. The life expectancy in this country is 81 years. Older people must take steps to protect themselves and not expect children to be denied education, and young to be denied employment because we’ve trashed the economy to save old people.

^.......
people could just see the contradictions and hypocrisy in holding views which overlook the difficulties those actions cause.^

growstuff I sincerely hope that you are not accusing me of being a hypocrite.

The idea that it only future jobs students and young people should be worried about is ridiculous. Many students only manage a university course because they take on part time work Unfortunately that part time work just doesn't exist now, so they are effectively confined to their accommodation, being taught on-line and penniless. At the same time there are a huge number of young people whose livelihood is threatened, surviving on minimum wage they now only have 80% of their wages or have been made redundant. It's not three or four years from now we should be worried about but the next year when those young people may just decide it isn't only fences on a university that need pulling down.

Yes, employers often check social media profiles before hiring someone, but anyone with any sense will lock them down or tidy them up when applying for jobs.
And maybe that is the canny applicant to employ, Doodledog! Discreet and privacy aware!

I understand that there has now been an apology issued regarding putting up those fences and trying to turn University Halls into prison camps.

Absolutely disgusting to me.....not what the students did, - thank goodness some of them had enough sense and feeling if civic responsibility to pull them down. In my mind, very well done.

Social media is one thing, but IP addresses are another. If an employee uses their own name to bring a company into disrepute, they are asking for trouble, but a GP surgery can’t possibly use an IP address to limit employment chances.

I’m not sure what people would post on a GP surgery website anyway. All I can think of is someone using an anonymous email address to be abusive, and that the surgery is warning against this and saying that they could block the IP to stop the offender from doing it again.

Yes, employers often check social media profiles before hiring someone, but anyone with any sense will lock them down or tidy them up when applying for jobs.

But haven't there been recent cases where employees have been sacked for what they've said on Twitter or on facebook? I fully defend an individual's right to freedom of expression, but a bit of decorum is surely necessary in the world of employment, and as a student being a prospective employee isn't a million years away. If offensive and abusive tweets can lead to dismissal from the work place, then can the same type of comments or poor behaviour not hinder someone from getting a job in the first place?
My point is, that an employer might feel the need to reduce the potential for reputational risk and damage to their own business.

It is not illegal to have barmy views though. - and anyway, what a surgery could possibly do with IP information is anyone’s guess - even the police would have trouble connecting one to an individual, so only bother in cases of serious crime.

The surgery could, presumably, block an IP from which persistent nuisance posts on their website had been made, but they couldn’t ‘hold anyone accountable’, much less affect their employment prospects.

Kamiso

I needed some information regarding my medication and was looking at my GPs website. On the feedback section there was a message saying that they would be noting the IP address of people posting.

A lot of keyboard warriors have been deliberately trying to add to the fears and concerns of the public. I wonder if some of them would have been so loud mouthed if they knew they may well be held accountable for their Bolshie attitude and cruel words. They could be making themselves unemployable.

Who wants an employee who stirs up trouble and shows themselves to be a muck raker when life gets difficult.

My GP's website can't be accessed by the public and comments on the NHS website are moderated.

There are a number of people, two in particular, who post on local Facebook groups about anti-mask and and anti-lockdown opinions. Sometimes, other people argue with them, but now most people just ignore them and the admins remove the posts. One is retired, so I don't think cares much about employment.

maddyone The biggest growth has been in 10-19 year olds ie. secondary school pupils. That's because they've been forced into spending hours every day in poorly ventilated and overcrowded classrooms without masks, which you always claim should be the top priority. They have taken infection home and infection rates in other age groups are now rising. Education settings and households are the biggest sources of infection.

Even if university students didn't go to parties, the accommodation offered by most universities makes transmission of infection inevitable. They're paying through the nose for something which could be done, in most cases, in a more comfortable environment at home.

In any case, I really don't think people who support Heneghan & Co can see the contradiction, which is that students on campuses are doing exactly what these fringe scientists and anti-lockdowners are advocating. They are getting infected and building up a degree of community immunity, while having minimal contact with more vulnerable people.

I'm not suggesting there's an easy solution, but I wish people could just see the contradictions and hypocrisy in holding views which overlook the difficulties those actions cause.

I needed some information regarding my medication and was looking at my GPs website. On the feedback section there was a message saying that they would be noting the IP address of people posting.

A lot of keyboard warriors have been deliberately trying to add to the fears and concerns of the public. I wonder if some of them would have been so loud mouthed if they knew they may well be held accountable for their Bolshie attitude and cruel words. They could be making themselves unemployable.

Who wants an employee who stirs up trouble and shows themselves to be a muck raker when life gets difficult.

When I brought this subject up, I didn’t mean that students from a university where there had been ‘misbehaviour’ would be unable to get jobs, but rather I actually meant that young people generally are the ones who are/were out in pubs, clubs, raves etc and were therefore spreading the virus. As you yourself growstuff have pointed out on a variety of threads, the huge numbers of positive tests are coming from young people aged 14 - 29. My point is about the 18 - 29 age group who have been out in pubs, crowded together with no social distancing, and many of them still being in education, and also those who are working, that when this is all over the economy will be trashed and there will be far fewer jobs to go round. When there is high unemployment, young people are often the first to be affected. I’m linking the couldn’t care less attitude of some/many young people to the spread of the virus and ultimately to that particular group paying the price of socialising today, but unemployment tomorrow. I’m sure we have all watched in disbelief on the news and seen the partying in the streets and youngsters so drunk they have to hold one another up, and we’ve thought to ourselves, we’ll never get rid of the virus whilst this blatant rule breaking is going on. These are the very young people who will be unemployed in the future because there won’t be the jobs for them. Recovery will come, but it’ll take years.

You just do not get my point. I am saying that their behaviour is not poor, but well justified.

I don't think I once used the word "blame" Monica but do correct me if I am wrong there. Pointing out a few areas of poor judgment or foolishness is hardly blaming students for everything. Even young children are taught about the consequences of poor behaviour.

No employer with even a grain of intelligence is going to refuse to employ an applicant with all the qualifications and personality traits they are looking for, just because a few years back, or even a few months back, there was unrest of any kind at their university. Quite simply they are not that stupid.

I also really object to the way you are automatically blaming the students . DS is an academic, not at this university but anaother that has had problems and he has said that the cause of the problems at his university is the result of stupid and insensitive behaviour by the university administration.

Many of the students are first years who have never lived away from home before, are having to cope with unfamiliar learning methods, the danger of illness and, in some cases, being banned from going home. The level of mental stress among this group is very, very high. They are on edge and to suddenly see fences going up around them. They must feel that they are being treated like Uighurs. How long before they are being forcibly indoctrinated by the government?

Do you really have no compassion and feeling for these young people. Their A levels were mucked up, university is entirely different from what they were expecting, heavy handed authority is fencing them in. Of course they are upset and defiant.

I am also surprised by your blind acceptance that authority is always right and those who oppose it are in the wrong.

Authority has to be earned by the authority being seen to follow its own rules and for those rules to be measured and reasonable. This government has throughout behaved as they l iked but penalising all those that do as they do and many of their rules are irrational and contradictory.

I have never blindly obeyed authority and I never will and I would not employ anyone who would be blindly obedient to anything. We want our university garduates to have questioning minds that are prepared to challenge authority, whether in science, engineering or law and also in government.

Stop twisting my words. "Twisted minds" is not what I wrote.
Where so many graduates will be chasing so few jobs, it is understandable that employers will have to find ways to filter applications. Just like many employers stalk their applicants on facebook to see if they might be suitable. I'm just saying a bit of reigning in and compliance during this crisis would not go amiss by a group of people who will be wanting the best possible jobs in future. Heaven forbid that they will all be complaining in 3 years time that they were being discriminated against for their poor behaviour during lockdown.

Depends how many actual employers are left after all this

Ellianne

Sorry, growstuff, I am always mixing Man United with Man City at the best of times.
Believe me, I said nothing about that university having a bad reputation. I am purely talking about what names we might remember from this unprecedented crisis in 3 or 4 years time. The mind has strange workings in times of turmoil.

I can't imagine any graduate would want to work for an employer whose mind works in such a twisted way.