The new "rule of six" -- and the absence of an SI
Discussion
Slightly interesting video from a BBC interview of a Sage advisor.
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=240538...
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=240538...
Breadvan72 said:
I agree with you, mostly, but I do detect authoritarian instincts in the likes of Johnson, Gove, Cummings et al. They do not appear to have any intellectual or emotional commitment to democracy or the rule of law. They are venal, amoral, unprincipled, you name it, but amongst their almost limitless vices authoritarianism looms, I think,quite large. I'd gladly be wrong about that, but look at what these s
tbags do and how they do it.
I'm guessing that you are being polite? To me they're a bunch of shadowmen who need to come out from behind themselves but are afraid of what they will see. Charlatans, quacks and spoofs. Shame on them and a curse on their self serving reflections. tbags do and how they do it. RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:
sebdangerfield said:
On a side note, I reckon Monday morning starts at 00:00 am, not 00:01. The clue’s in the numbers starting at 00:00 for a new day 
Well, if we're going for accuracy, surely the 'am' in your post is superfluous?gottans said:
There will be a clause in the SI allowing them to make changes as required, complete waste of time drafting a law that requires another law to be drafted and passed to change the previous law from 30 to 6.
They aren't totally daft but I certainly wonder more often than not.
The clause to allow them to make these laws was in the Coronavirus Act, they still need to lay an SI to implement them. The governement can't make laws through press releases.They aren't totally daft but I certainly wonder more often than not.
The previous SIs have been laid the day before they come into force, I imagine so they can be tinkered with until the last minute. I'm not sure if they can be laid at the weekend though.
Terminator X said:
Isn't it the case that small parts of the country see CV19 infection rates climbing and it just happens to be easier for the Police if the whole country is limited to groups less than 7? Given CV19 is virtually gone from the UK this seems well OTT to me.
TX.
Not true - the majority of local authorities already have rates above 20 per 100,000 per week, the level considered territory for starting to introduce further control measures. Number of new infections is doubling every week and is currently measured by positive tests at around 3,500 per day (though probably significantly more since people without symptoms are being asked not to come for testing even through they can still transmit it, and lots of people are finding it impossible to even book a test at the moment). The number of tests has roughly doubled since April but has been tailing off in recent weeks so the suggestion that because testing has increased, rates have increased is simply not true.TX.
At its peak in late March when so many people were infected every day (though most were never tested as there wasn't the lab capacity), around 100,000 people every day are thought to have caught it. When only 3500 people caught it yesterday and the numbers are taking a week to double why on earth would anyone be raising concern already?
Because of exponential growth. Over the summer we've just about been keeping a lid on things but now schools and colleges are back, we've had eat out to help out jamming our bars and restaurants and people have been told to get back to work. Let's do the maths and see what happens when that overwhelms the delicate balancing act of keeping the new infection rate stable.
If we don't do anything further at this point to stop its spread in one week's time there will be 7000 new cases a day.
In a fortnight's time, 14,000. Then 28,000. Then 56,000.And by early October we are in similar territory as we were in March, which is not anywhere anyone would ever want to be again I hope.
Already the numbers of people being admitted to hospital with COVID-19 is starting to increase again. And increasing numbers are being admitted to intensive care. More are dying from it now than a week ago. And in Spain, where their cases started to mushroom in July, one or two people a day were dying from this virus at the time. In August that figure was more like 10-20 a day. It's now around 60 a day. And it will keep rising exponentially until it's brought back under control. Don't forget that hospital admissions and deaths follow a few weeks after rises in infections, since for those people who are going to die it takes a while to catch it and get sick enough to die. By the time numbers of new infections are high enough to cause alarm in some people, the people who are going to die will already have been infected.
Given that picture is now emerging across large parts of the country, and given that if we ignore it we know what will happen, if you were in charge at No. 10, how much longer would you choose to wait before introducing the stricter control measures announced this week, and why?
Chromegrill said:
Given that picture is now emerging across large parts of the country, and given that if we ignore it we know what will happen, if you were in charge at No. 10, how much longer would you choose to wait before introducing the stricter control measures announced this week, and why?
Birmingham is to be locked down from Tuesday? So how many infected persons will infect how many more between now and Tuesday? Chromegrill said:
Given that picture is now emerging across large parts of the country, and given that if we ignore it we know what will happen, if you were in charge at No. 10, how much longer would you choose to wait before introducing the stricter control measures announced this week, and why?
Let the forest fire burn.Chromegrill said:
Terminator X said:
Isn't it the case that small parts of the country see CV19 infection rates climbing and it just happens to be easier for the Police if the whole country is limited to groups less than 7? Given CV19 is virtually gone from the UK this seems well OTT to me.
TX.
Not true - the majority of local authorities already have rates above 20 per 100,000 per week, the level considered territory for starting to introduce further control measures. Number of new infections is doubling every week and is currently measured by positive tests at around 3,500 per day (though probably significantly more since people without symptoms are being asked not to come for testing even through they can still transmit it, and lots of people are finding it impossible to even book a test at the moment). The number of tests has roughly doubled since April but has been tailing off in recent weeks so the suggestion that because testing has increased, rates have increased is simply not true.TX.
At its peak in late March when so many people were infected every day (though most were never tested as there wasn't the lab capacity), around 100,000 people every day are thought to have caught it. When only 3500 people caught it yesterday and the numbers are taking a week to double why on earth would anyone be raising concern already?
Because of exponential growth. Over the summer we've just about been keeping a lid on things but now schools and colleges are back, we've had eat out to help out jamming our bars and restaurants and people have been told to get back to work. Let's do the maths and see what happens when that overwhelms the delicate balancing act of keeping the new infection rate stable.
If we don't do anything further at this point to stop its spread in one week's time there will be 7000 new cases a day.
In a fortnight's time, 14,000. Then 28,000. Then 56,000.And by early October we are in similar territory as we were in March, which is not anywhere anyone would ever want to be again I hope.
Already the numbers of people being admitted to hospital with COVID-19 is starting to increase again. And increasing numbers are being admitted to intensive care. More are dying from it now than a week ago. And in Spain, where their cases started to mushroom in July, one or two people a day were dying from this virus at the time. In August that figure was more like 10-20 a day. It's now around 60 a day. And it will keep rising exponentially until it's brought back under control. Don't forget that hospital admissions and deaths follow a few weeks after rises in infections, since for those people who are going to die it takes a while to catch it and get sick enough to die. By the time numbers of new infections are high enough to cause alarm in some people, the people who are going to die will already have been infected.
Given that picture is now emerging across large parts of the country, and given that if we ignore it we know what will happen, if you were in charge at No. 10, how much longer would you choose to wait before introducing the stricter control measures announced this week, and why?
UK:
Spain:
https://aatishb.com/covidtrends/?scale=linear&...
This site gives a great perspective on the rate of confirmed infections and deaths, and lets you compare different countries reported numbers.
This site gives a great perspective on the rate of confirmed infections and deaths, and lets you compare different countries reported numbers.
Rivenink said:
https://aatishb.com/covidtrends/?scale=linear&...
This site gives a great perspective on the rate of confirmed infections and deaths, and lets you compare different countries reported numbers.
Ooh, useful, thanks for the link This site gives a great perspective on the rate of confirmed infections and deaths, and lets you compare different countries reported numbers.
I see we are back to the scary exponential, with no mention of the differences between pillar 1 and pillar 4 testing, or the falling CFR, or the simple fact that half of the susceptible will have already died.
It's all just sciency sounding excuses to cover for whatever it is they are actually trying to do.
It's all just sciency sounding excuses to cover for whatever it is they are actually trying to do.
ESD1711 said:
Wouldn’t it be nice if, just for once, people could just do what’s being asked of them without whining about it or picking holes in it or trying to find loopholes in it.
From Monday, don’t meet in groups of more than 6 people.
It’s pretty simple really.
The sooner folk do as they are told and stop taking this piss with this, the sooner we get normality back.
The thing is, the various rules contradict each other. From Monday, don’t meet in groups of more than 6 people.
It’s pretty simple really.
The sooner folk do as they are told and stop taking this piss with this, the sooner we get normality back.
So 2 families, of 7 people in total, have since March nominated one person, to go out and do the shopping, and the others have only left the house to attend medical appointments, or in an ambulance, and the occassional walk on a route that avoids anyone else. So they can't meet together despite minimal risks.
But a 2 families of 6, who all go to different work places, all eat out, all go to different pubs, and generally don't give a s
t about the risks, are okay to meet. ESD1711 said:
Wouldn’t it be nice if, just for once, people could just do what’s being asked of them without whining about it or picking holes in it or trying to find loopholes in it.
From Monday, don’t meet in groups of more than 6 people.
It’s pretty simple really.
The sooner folk do as they are told and stop taking this piss with this, the sooner we get normality back.
Wouldn't it be nice if the government, just for once, would put out a set of rules that actually were coherent & consistent. People will follow what makes sense, where it makes no sense or cannot be substantiated they will not blindly follow. From Monday, don’t meet in groups of more than 6 people.
It’s pretty simple really.
The sooner folk do as they are told and stop taking this piss with this, the sooner we get normality back.
Explain how 30-40 people inside a pub is safe, yet 7 people in a garden is not? It isn't sensible. Where is the science & data that shows the 1st is ok the 2nd isn't. Let me give you a clue..... it doesn't exist.
Whats the end game here? How about a bit of honesty. This thing ain't gonna be eradicated so whats the plan? Another clue.....they ain't got one. They don't know.
People simply are going to ignore this s
t, because they know they can & the reasoning for it makes no sense and is totally random. Anyway the government is already admitting with Brexit that its OK to ignore the bits of international law you don't like. So it must be OK for Joe Public to ignore the bits of CV19 law they don't like. grumbledoak said:
I see we are back to the scary exponential, with no mention of the differences between pillar 1 and pillar 4 testing, or the falling CFR, or the simple fact that half of the susceptible will have already died.
It's all just sciency sounding excuses to cover for whatever it is they are actually trying to do.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-testing-data-methodology/covid-19-testing-data-methodology-noteIt's all just sciency sounding excuses to cover for whatever it is they are actually trying to do.
Pillar 1 is more likely to be accurate, since the tests are conducted within healthcare settings by professionals, while Pillar 4 testing will include tests done at home by non-professionals.
The CFR is falling because doctors have more experience with treating the disease, and are able make the right interventions sooner. However, these patients who survive a serious case of Covid-19 often suffer from a number of severe symptoms. They might not be dead, but they're not exactly living the life.
The next issue is that the serious cases require intensive care. The NHS has only so much capacity, overwhelm it and people start dying, not only of COVID, but of all the other things that can kill people too.
Suggesting that half the people susceptible have died is pure falsehood; since less than 10% of the population has had it.
Further, the evidence of how long immunity lasts, and how severe a second infection will be is still fairly thin; having it once does not provide lifelong immunity.
I don't dispute the suggestion that the way the Government is handling COVID-19 is intended to further their political goals, and no matter how nefarious one thinks that might be, it doesn't change the science on the disease, especially when it aligns with data from so many other countries with varying types of Government and resulting agendas.
I'm listening to the scientists and doctors, and make my own judgements about the risks I take for myself and and the risks I could present to others and what I need to do to prevent or mitigate them. I'm not particularly paying any attention to what the Government is advising or telling me to do. They're incompetent at best, and I won't have an opportunity for a while to vote for an alternative.
Gareth79 said:
The clause to allow them to make these laws was in the Coronavirus Act, they still need to lay an SI to implement them. The governement can't make laws through press releases.
The previous SIs have been laid the day before they come into force, I imagine so they can be tinkered with until the last minute. I'm not sure if they can be laid at the weekend though.
The power to make the regulations is not in the Coronavirus Act, it is said to be in a 1980s Public Health Act, as amended more recently. The previous SIs have been laid the day before they come into force, I imagine so they can be tinkered with until the last minute. I'm not sure if they can be laid at the weekend though.
For example, the regulations made in March (The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 (SI 2020/350)) begin:
"The Secretary of State makes the following Regulations in exercise of the powers conferred by sections 45C(1), (3)(c), (4)(d), 45F(2) and 45P of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984(1)."
That is one of the objections that has been made -- that the Public Health legislation was never intended to be used in this way.
It is simply wrong to say that Parliament gave the executive express power to impose a lockdown in the Coronavirus Act: it did not and was not asked to.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff