Emergency legislation - information and commentary

[RSTurboPaul]

Jasandjules said:

Just to check, what is the emergency?

Faked videos from China
China bots trolling Boris into lockdown
Flatten the Curve
Three weeks to save the NHS
SPI-B say that the public have to be more scared
We have to 'do masks' because lots of other places in the world are doing them and we have to be seen to cover our arses by tagging along or risk being blamed for kiLLinG GrAnnY
Schools going back
Unis going back
The second wave!!!
We need to save Christmas
We need to save the NHS during their entirely predictable January peak
Schools going back
Under 80s won't be vaccinated
Under 70s won't be vaccinated
Under 60s won't be vaccinated
Under 50s won't be vaccinated
Under 40s won't be vaccinated
Some people can't have a vaccination
Some female care workers don't seem to want to take experimental treatments with no quantified understanding of risks to fertility
The weather's getting nice so people will want to go outdoors and meet other people but we have no evidence that proves transmission outdoors
The LFT tests are picking up a few thousand positives from almost 2 million tests, which is below the estimated False Positive rate
We are running out of excuses to maintain restrictions because people are starting to realise it's not the plague
We need to drag it out until the Vaccine Passports back-end is finished and tied in with the EU system in June
Errrrrr.....


Coming soon:

The under 30s aren't vaccinated
The under 20s aren't vaccinated (and they seem to understand they are at no risk to themselves)
The school kids aren't vaccinated (and people are telling us to Do One)
The newborn babies aren't vaccinated (and people seem to be getting a bit angry about the suggestion now)
Vaccine Passports aren't being taken up by everyone
People seem to be a bit annoyed that they have minimal risk (1 in 400,000 - Tim Spector, ZOE app) after voluntary vaccination but we're not letting them meet others indoors still
Only selfish people don't want to get vaccinated
Only selfish people don't want to test themselves twice a week for the rest of their lives
Only selfish people don't want to wear a mask
People seem unhappy about being banned from leaving the country for a holiday while everything in the UK is booked solid and/or costs an arm-and-a-leg
There seem to be people shouting outside Parliament about a totalitarian Big Brother society because we've banned protests and are operating under Executive Order
Schools go back
The third wave!!!
Here are your 'booster jabs' for that thing you got jabbed for 6 months ago - and no, I don't care that you felt like st for days, your vaccine passport will stop working if you don't take it. And no, we've not asked what they changed to 'update' it.
Christmas isn't guaranteed
What do you mean fk off?
Lockdown v4.0
Mandatory vaccine passport implementation in all public places
No jab? Don't bet on that Job

[Dr Jekyll]

[Elysium]

NickCQ said:

Elysium said:

If the number of people dying is lower than normal then they are not additional deaths

I think we still disagree on this and I'm not sure whether it's a matter of terminology or a substantive difference of opinion. My position is that average mortality trends pre-COVID are not a hugely relevant comparator for 2021-22 given the significant accelerated mortality we saw in 2020. My reading of the SAGE estimate is that unlocking would lead to 18k deaths that wouldn't happen if there was no unlocking. Whether that's above or below the average from 2009-2019 is, in my view, irrelevant.

If you look at additional deaths versus "normal" you could get to the odd situation where a large terrorist event in 2021 doesn't actually kill anyone because deaths are still below trend.

A SAGE model suggests that 18k people could die 'with COVID' as we unlock. The people who are likely to be affected will be the oldest and most infirm amongst us.

If we seek to protect them by staying in lockdown it remains quite probably that they will die 'without COVID'. Lockdown might protect them from COVID, but its not going to protect them from death.

Its impossible to say if the people dying with COVID now would have lived if COVID did not exist. The fact that deaths are currently at a 10 year minimum suggests they might not, since the numbers dying now are well within any interpretation of what is normal.

But COVID does exist and we cannot stay in lockdown forever. We cannot be in the grip of an awful pandemic whilst simultaneously having less deaths than usual. So I conclude that we must open up, despite the SAGE models, because these deaths, if they happen, are unavoidable.

[unident]

Elysium said:

A SAGE model suggests that 18k people could die 'with COVID' as we unlock. The people who are likely to be affected will be the oldest and most infirm amongst us.

If we seek to protect them by staying in lockdown it remains quite probably that they will die 'without COVID'. Lockdown might protect them from COVID, but its not going to protect them from death.

Its impossible to say if the people dying with COVID now would have lived if COVID did not exist. The fact that deaths are currently at a 10 year minimum suggests they might not, since the numbers dying now are well within any interpretation of what is normal.

But COVID does exist and we cannot stay in lockdown forever. We cannot be in the grip of an awful pandemic whilst simultaneously having less deaths than usual. So I conclude that we must open up, despite the SAGE models, because these deaths, if they happen, are unavoidable.

Just two simple points about your obsession with “less deaths”

1. Recent data on any graph usually needs time for there to be confidence that all sources have been counted. At what point does that happen on these weekly stats?

2. When there has been a rather large increase in deaths in the previous period, then the normal age distribution has been significantly altered so that those who would have normally died during the recent period have already died earlier. Is the “less death” number lower than the excess deaths in the prior period? If so then it’s below the norm, if not then it’s still higher.

[Oceanrower]

Typical sodding BBC. Even after all this time they still can’t get it right!

“ Current coronavirus restrictions in England mean only six people, from two different households, can gather outside.”

Should be 6 people OR two households.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-56799333

[NickCQ]

Elysium said:

A SAGE model suggests that 18k people could die 'with COVID' as we unlock. The people who are likely to be affected will be the oldest and most infirm amongst us. If we seek to protect them by staying in lockdown it remains quite probably that they will die 'without COVID'. Lockdown might protect them from COVID, but its not going to protect them from death.

OK. I think to get the answer on the bold bit you'd need a proper "years of life lost" analysis, which SAGE isn't providing. My thought was that the 18k COVID deaths can't be from "high underlying mortality" groups (i.e. old / infirm) as these are already protected (including from variants) by vaccination. But then given what we know about COVID mortality it's hard to see how it could be anyone else.

[markyb_lcy]

NickCQ said:

Elysium said:

A SAGE model suggests that 18k people could die 'with COVID' as we unlock. The people who are likely to be affected will be the oldest and most infirm amongst us. If we seek to protect them by staying in lockdown it remains quite probably that they will die 'without COVID'. Lockdown might protect them from COVID, but its not going to protect them from death.

OK. I think to get the answer on the bold bit you'd need a proper "years of life lost" analysis, which SAGE isn't providing. My thought was that the 18k COVID deaths can't be from "high underlying mortality" groups (i.e. old / infirm) as these are already protected (including from variants) by vaccination. But then given what we know about COVID mortality it's hard to see how it could be anyone else.

The key here, is “with”, not “of”.

Old people will die. The vax doesn’t stop them being infected, therefore some old people will die (because that’s what they do) “with” covid.

The vaccine protects against death from covid (to a fairly high degree, allegedly), but it doesn’t make anyone immortal. Old people will still die, some of them “with” covid (or rather 28 days after a positive test which may or may not be a false positive).

Apologies to all, as this is probably the wrong thread for this.

[NickCQ]

markyb_lcy said:

The key here, is “with”, not “of”.

That's understood (it's the whole topic of debate).

Fundamentally I do not believe that SAGE is dumb enough to look at 18k normal deaths and suggest that we should put the country in hibernation because of it. Therefore my suspicion is that a decent number (not 100% but not 0%) of those deaths would be materially delayed (i.e. lives materially extended) with additional restrictions. The question is what proportion that is and how much we should care.

[markyb_lcy]

NickCQ said:

markyb_lcy said:

The key here, is “with”, not “of”.

That's understood (it's the whole topic of debate).

Fundamentally I do not believe that SAGE is dumb enough to look at 18k normal deaths and suggest that we should put the country in hibernation because of it. Therefore my suspicion is that a decent number (not 100% but not 0%) of those deaths would be materially delayed (i.e. lives materially extended) with additional restrictions. The question is what proportion that is and how much we should care.

I think it’s less about how dumb sage are and more about how dumb they think we are. The last year has left me thinking “pretty dumb”.

My sense is that sage have reached a point where they don’t feel they need to make any sense. In fact, I think they’re deliberately contradictory.

FUD and doublethink, from pretty much day 1.

I don’t think lockdown would materially extend any of those lives, but what it may do, is make less of them die “with” covid. It’s not going to look good, is it, if vaccinated elders are dying “with” covid - that puts (superficially) the vaccine programme in the dock.

As in ... “What’s the point vaccinating people if my 85 year old granny died *with* covid anyway?”

[Elysium]

NickCQ said:

Elysium said:

A SAGE model suggests that 18k people could die 'with COVID' as we unlock. The people who are likely to be affected will be the oldest and most infirm amongst us. If we seek to protect them by staying in lockdown it remains quite probably that they will die 'without COVID'. Lockdown might protect them from COVID, but its not going to protect them from death.

OK. I think to get the answer on the bold bit you'd need a proper "years of life lost" analysis, which SAGE isn't providing. My thought was that the 18k COVID deaths can't be from "high underlying mortality" groups (i.e. old / infirm) as these are already protected (including from variants) by vaccination. But then given what we know about COVID mortality it's hard to see how it could be anyone else.

My understanding is that any exit wave of deaths is expected to almost entirely impact vulnerable people that have been vaccinated.

Younger fitter people don’t die from this. More cases in young people cannot lead to a big wave of deaths. But the vaccines are not 100% efficient.

The case fatality rate for an 80 year old is 30%. If the vaccine reduces serious illness and death by 95% that still leaves a CFR of 1.5%, which is 100 times higher than an unvaccinated 20 year old.

[Neil1300r]

Police watchdog says officers confused by unclear pandemic laws

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56810031

[NickCQ]

Elysium said:

The case fatality rate for an 80 year old is 30%. If the vaccine reduces serious illness and death by 95% that still leaves a CFR of 1.5%, which is 100 times higher than an unvaccinated 20 year old.

That's interesting, thanks. I had not appreciated the relative magnitudes of those two numbers.
There is also the vaccine-resistant older population to consider.

[Elysium]

NickCQ said:

Elysium said:

The case fatality rate for an 80 year old is 30%. If the vaccine reduces serious illness and death by 95% that still leaves a CFR of 1.5%, which is 100 times higher than an unvaccinated 20 year old.

That's interesting, thanks. I had not appreciated the relative magnitudes of those two numbers.
There is also the vaccine-resistant older population to consider.

The Govt propaganda told us that everyone was at risk from COVID regardless of age.

Unfortunately this has meant that most people do not understand that this risk varies dramatically.

An unvaccinated 80 year old is 2,000 times more likely to die after becoming infected with COVID than an unvaccinated 20 year old.

The burdon of death has been dramatically biased toward the elderly. Who we have, despite endless lockdown, largely failed to protect.

[gareth_r]

Neil1300r said:

Police watchdog says officers confused by unclear pandemic laws

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56810031

A review of policing says officers sometimes struggled to enforce coronavirus restrictions because of a lack of clarity from ministers. The analysis by a policing watchdog found chief constables heard about new restrictions from the government's television briefings.

I think I may have a solution.

The police should take the following steps:
1) Read the legislation.
2) If they cannot understand the legislation, then they should not attempt to enforce it until they have consulted someone who can explain it to them, with diagrams and flowcharts if necessary.
3) Enforce the law, not what some politician says on News At Ten.



...it is essential the police do not become seen as "coercive agents of ministers".

Oops!

[Dr Jekyll]

gareth_r said:

A review of policing says officers sometimes struggled to enforce coronavirus restrictions because of a lack of clarity from ministers. The analysis by a policing watchdog found chief constables heard about new restrictions from the government's television briefings.

I think I may have a solution.

The police should take the following steps:
1) Read the legislation.
2) If they cannot understand the legislation, then they should not attempt to enforce it until they have consulted someone who can explain it to them, with diagrams and flowcharts if necessary.
3) Enforce the law, not what some politician says on News At Ten.



...it is essential the police do not become seen as "coercive agents of ministers".

Oops!

4) If they don't know of a law banning something, presume it's legal.

[RSTurboPaul]

No specific data given here (at first skim read) but a professor type with a better past performance than Professor Pantsdown Ferguson (as referenced in the article) asserts there will be no third wave:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-9488795...

"Philip Thomas is professor of risk management at Bristol University. "

[djohnson]

Neil1300r said:

Police watchdog says officers confused by unclear pandemic laws

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56810031

The laws were very clear, written in plain English and fairly easy to interpret. On top of which I saw a couple of documents from the NPCC which provided decent and even easier to follow summaries of the law. If police forces and their leadership genuinely were confused as to what was enforceable law then that really does raise some pretty serious questions.

[markyb_lcy]

djohnson said:

Neil1300r said:

Police watchdog says officers confused by unclear pandemic laws

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56810031

The laws were very clear, written in plain English and fairly easy to interpret. On top of which I saw a couple of documents from the NPCC which provided decent and even easier to follow summaries of the law. If police forces and their leadership genuinely were confused as to what was enforceable law then that really does raise some pretty serious questions.

If they can’t understand the law, then they shouldn’t be enforcing it.

Seems to me these comments are just a PR exercise to bat blame back to politicians.

[djohnson]

markyb_lcy said:

If they can’t understand the law, then they shouldn’t be enforcing it.

Seems to me these comments are just a PR exercise to bat blame back to politicians.

Agreed

[Gribs]

djohnson said:

The laws were very clear, written in plain English and fairly easy to interpret.

They weren't. As an example it was illegal to leave your home at one point without a reasonable excuse. A non exhaustive list of reasonable excuses was given. From the arguments on here people disagreed about what was reasonable, so obviously police officers would have differing opinions too.