Emergency legislation - information and commentary
Discussion
Look at this terrifying emergency -
Up to and including 28 March 2021 3,141,570 people in London had received the first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine and 357,663 had received two doses.
On 07 April 2021 the daily number of new people tested positive for COVID-19 in London was reported as 317
The total number of COVID-19 cases identified in London is 713,470 as at 06 April 2021, this compares to 3,818,665 cases for England as a whole
In the most recent week of complete data, 27 March 2021 - 02 April 2021, 2,400 cases were identified in London, a rate of 27 cases per 100,000 population. This compares with 3,365 cases and a rate of 38 for the previous week.
In the most recent week of complete data, 27 March 2021 - 02 April 2021, 21,725 cases were identified in England as a whole, a rate of 39 cases per 100,000 population. This compares with 31,125 cases and a rate of 55 for the previous week.
https://data.london.gov.uk/dataset/coronavirus--co...
Nest week, you can try to hack your way through a crowd of people trying to shiver outside a pub, so that if you succeed you can shiver outside a pub. Because emergency.
Up to and including 28 March 2021 3,141,570 people in London had received the first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine and 357,663 had received two doses.
On 07 April 2021 the daily number of new people tested positive for COVID-19 in London was reported as 317
The total number of COVID-19 cases identified in London is 713,470 as at 06 April 2021, this compares to 3,818,665 cases for England as a whole
In the most recent week of complete data, 27 March 2021 - 02 April 2021, 2,400 cases were identified in London, a rate of 27 cases per 100,000 population. This compares with 3,365 cases and a rate of 38 for the previous week.
In the most recent week of complete data, 27 March 2021 - 02 April 2021, 21,725 cases were identified in England as a whole, a rate of 39 cases per 100,000 population. This compares with 31,125 cases and a rate of 55 for the previous week.
https://data.london.gov.uk/dataset/coronavirus--co...
Nest week, you can try to hack your way through a crowd of people trying to shiver outside a pub, so that if you succeed you can shiver outside a pub. Because emergency.
Only, perhaps, the most avid of Covid junkies would attempt to argue that there is now a public health emergency in the UK. So why haven't all restrictions been lifted?
A friend who worked for a large broadcaster and recently moved to a large newspaper offers her theory: She sees the Government and the media locked into a feedback loop, with Johnson in particular dictated to by what he thinks the media want. Within the media, the youngest journalists clamour the loudest for fear-mongering news stories, and support of restrictions. One of the curious things about the current version of being young and progressive is that it often does not involve being attached to the traditional values of liberalism. My friend sees many of the older journalists, many of whom have prided themselves on always being on the side of progressive thinking, weakly go along with the shouty young journalists. She says that the media pattern as to C19 is similar in many ways to the media pattern on many issues that can be described for convenience as "woke" issues. An orthodoxy takes hold, and few dare challenge the orthodox messaging.
That is just the personal take of one young journalist who tries to be both progressive and liberal, and is deeply frustrated by the refusal of much of the media to challenge the line that we are all doomed and must run and hide forever. But we may be stuck with this, it seems. My friend says that there is already talk amongst journos and politicians of pushing for restrictions to return in the autumn (assuming that they go in June). The objectives of the restrictions become fuzzy. Is it the aim that nobody at all should catch or die of C19?
A friend who worked for a large broadcaster and recently moved to a large newspaper offers her theory: She sees the Government and the media locked into a feedback loop, with Johnson in particular dictated to by what he thinks the media want. Within the media, the youngest journalists clamour the loudest for fear-mongering news stories, and support of restrictions. One of the curious things about the current version of being young and progressive is that it often does not involve being attached to the traditional values of liberalism. My friend sees many of the older journalists, many of whom have prided themselves on always being on the side of progressive thinking, weakly go along with the shouty young journalists. She says that the media pattern as to C19 is similar in many ways to the media pattern on many issues that can be described for convenience as "woke" issues. An orthodoxy takes hold, and few dare challenge the orthodox messaging.
That is just the personal take of one young journalist who tries to be both progressive and liberal, and is deeply frustrated by the refusal of much of the media to challenge the line that we are all doomed and must run and hide forever. But we may be stuck with this, it seems. My friend says that there is already talk amongst journos and politicians of pushing for restrictions to return in the autumn (assuming that they go in June). The objectives of the restrictions become fuzzy. Is it the aim that nobody at all should catch or die of C19?
When will it ever NOT be too soon? It appears that, whatever the figures say, there are those who will dutifully wheel the goalposts a bit further along and say "we must not act too soon".
Anyway, there is SAGE above with what might be a pessimistic model (SAGE is not known for being super-optimistic) saying that something over 18,000 people may die of Covid over the next fourteenth months. NHS in ruins? It appears not. But still: existential threat, yeah?
Anyway, there is SAGE above with what might be a pessimistic model (SAGE is not known for being super-optimistic) saying that something over 18,000 people may die of Covid over the next fourteenth months. NHS in ruins? It appears not. But still: existential threat, yeah?
UCL is a university that very wickedly does the wrong sort of modelling, and does not adhere to that pleasantly vague and malleable form of science that the Government is so keen on.
Here is the latest wicked wrongness from UCL -
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/britain-herd-im...
Here is the latest wicked wrongness from UCL -
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/britain-herd-im...
I do not see dark conspiracies, and think that incompetence, cowardice, and the feedback loop are big factors. I am, however, worried, by the ease with which liberties are suspended without any meaningful debate and don't think that people such as Johnson and Patel are trustworthy in any way.
I add that the prevalence of just one narrative, and one view of the numbers, and the depiction of other views as no more than the rantings of conspiracy theorists, is not a good thing for a civil society. There are of course some rantings by conspiracy theorists, but those can safely be ignored. It is a pity that sensible opposing viewpoints are brushed aside by Government and media alike.
I add that the prevalence of just one narrative, and one view of the numbers, and the depiction of other views as no more than the rantings of conspiracy theorists, is not a good thing for a civil society. There are of course some rantings by conspiracy theorists, but those can safely be ignored. It is a pity that sensible opposing viewpoints are brushed aside by Government and media alike.
Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 8th April 13:13
Yup, and here on PH and everywhere you see the same shrill monotone: any criticism of the Government handling of C19 means you are a conspiracy wingnut just like the loonies in that Guardian article. Do not question, do not debate, just obey, bang your pots, and so on.
SAGE seems to have been captured by worst cases viewpoints, and seems also obsessed by prediction rather than by observation of what actually happens. So UCL and others who suggest what might be more real world views are whistling in the wind.
SAGE seems to have been captured by worst cases viewpoints, and seems also obsessed by prediction rather than by observation of what actually happens. So UCL and others who suggest what might be more real world views are whistling in the wind.
When the facts change, the government haven't listened, though.
When the facts don't suit them, they've retreated farther into the clutches of ever more irrational and shrill sounding 'scientists' who proclaim the world will never be safe again. Hence the exposed lie that the current unlocking is about data not dates. They are resolutely sticking to dates despite the data.
The trick in politics, as in all life, is to watch what people do rather than what they say.
When the facts don't suit them, they've retreated farther into the clutches of ever more irrational and shrill sounding 'scientists' who proclaim the world will never be safe again. Hence the exposed lie that the current unlocking is about data not dates. They are resolutely sticking to dates despite the data.
The trick in politics, as in all life, is to watch what people do rather than what they say.
jm doc said:
NickCQ said:
jm doc said:
Show us the evidence that the threat we now face warrants this course of action? There is none, there is no existential threat now other than the continuation of their current policy.
The government's evidence, for what it's worth, is the SAGE "reasonable worst case" of 18k deaths from the current unlocking trajectory, presumably more if you accelerated it.As we have discussed on here ad nauseam, that forecast suffers from an abundance of caution / application of the precautionary principle / "Goebbels-style propaganda" (depending on your viewpoint). 1) But it's out there and it's put together by people that know far more than you or I and who, whatever the Conservative Woman blog says, 2) don't want to control our lives for the sake of it.
2) The constant bluster, distortions and downright lies as well as any rational case for lockdown makes this very debatable. In my opinion some of our politicians are clearly relishing their role as Gauleiters
I never understand how easily people throw out the comment “they obviously know more than us”.
Based on the last year I’d say it was a dead certainty that ‘they’ know f
k all about anything bar lining their pockets and hungering for more control at our expense.NickCQ said:
garyhun said:
I never understand how easily people throw out the comment “they obviously know more than us”.
Based on the last year I’d say it was a dead certainty that ‘they’ know fk all about anything bar lining their pockets and hungering for more control at our expense.
To be clear, I talking about the members of SAGE rather than the government.Based on the last year I’d say it was a dead certainty that ‘they’ know f
k all about anything bar lining their pockets and hungering for more control at our expense.unident said:
These are your exact words:
It’s very difficult to argue that anyone is dying prematurely when all-cause deaths are at a ten year low.
You didn’t mention norms. Now what you’re doing is once again trying to interpret stats to suit your narrative. You can play the hard man, you can play the concerned for human rights, or whatever justification you want to, but you’re wrong.
What is your concern around young people? Are you claiming there are a disproportionate number of young people dying at the moment from Covid? What's the issue you say exists?It’s very difficult to argue that anyone is dying prematurely when all-cause deaths are at a ten year low.
You didn’t mention norms. Now what you’re doing is once again trying to interpret stats to suit your narrative. You can play the hard man, you can play the concerned for human rights, or whatever justification you want to, but you’re wrong.
There's no doubt Covid accelerates death amongst certain cohorts and that in turn puts pressure on the health service as it all lands at once. On that basis it's common sense to restrict us temporarily to protect the NHS so it can continue to function.
Other than that, I think it's all nonsense. The virus isn't scary. The NHS have had plenty of time to mitigate but haven't done so (empty and disbanded nightingales, for example). We have to accept death and most of those who have died had serious illnesses that were likely to kill them soon anyway. You can attack me for sounding heartless all you want, I see little moral virtue in prolonging the life of terminally ill elderly people waiting to die in posh prisons. People get far too precious about life at all costs before thinking about the why of it.
My primary aged kids have had a year ruined to protect a tiny minority of susceptible people. Some evil people now suggest those same children should take experimental immunotherapy drugs to protect other people from them. Get a fking grip, people.
Other than that, I think it's all nonsense. The virus isn't scary. The NHS have had plenty of time to mitigate but haven't done so (empty and disbanded nightingales, for example). We have to accept death and most of those who have died had serious illnesses that were likely to kill them soon anyway. You can attack me for sounding heartless all you want, I see little moral virtue in prolonging the life of terminally ill elderly people waiting to die in posh prisons. People get far too precious about life at all costs before thinking about the why of it.
My primary aged kids have had a year ruined to protect a tiny minority of susceptible people. Some evil people now suggest those same children should take experimental immunotherapy drugs to protect other people from them. Get a f
king grip, people.RSTurboPaul said:
unident said:
In summary, we shouldn’t try to “save a few lives”, but OMG cancer, heart attack, kidney disease patients need saving.
Please can you explain how extending the life of 80 year olds with comorbidities should take precedence over preserving the lives of (working-age) adults and children of all ages with treatable illnesses that will shorten their lives by multiple decades if not attended to immediately.For some time NICE has decided which medicines the NHS will fund based upon cost effectiveness, essentially discriminating between people and their chances of life or death.
Our current obsession with Covid is perverse, because it runs contrary to the usual principles; disproportionate cost across society is being applied to people with serious illnesses and otherwise near end of life, at the expense of those who are healthier and younger.
Am I saying, given the need to make a choice, let the old and ill die ahead of the young and fit? Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. It's impossible to save everybody, so you have to make a choice. That choice should be logical and rational not emotional and irrational.
yellowjack said:
Eh?
It's blatantly obvious what is going on.
Every new "variant" is a "cause for concern" that "might delay the roll back of restrictions". Then it isn't.
Whilst the messaging is and has been hit and miss and downright manipulative, we do appear to be opening up and there doesn't appear to be a delay (yet). On this basis it's hard to justify a theory that long-term or permanent restrictions are the aim. It's blatantly obvious what is going on.
Every new "variant" is a "cause for concern" that "might delay the roll back of restrictions". Then it isn't.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff