The new "rule of six" -- and the absence of an SI

The new "rule of six" -- and the absence of an SI

Author
Discussion

Graveworm

8,476 posts

70 months

Wednesday 14th October 2020
quotequote all
Sticks. said:
In one of his video analyses, Ivor Cummins shows that the other nordic countries had a higher number of deaths in the previous Winter flu season, so had fewer susceptible people when Covid arrived.

WHO currently recommends against countries using lockdown as a tool for limiting deaths from Covid and this scientist argues that the number of our seasonal deaths will be higher because of it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xLjSMuROgk&t=...
1/10th the number? And why didn't their lighter touch measures show equally dramatic mitigation for their economy.
They are advising against lockdowns as the primary control measure which as I understand it is exactly what we are trying to avoid.
Very high is not locked down. We never really locked down. Being able to go out daily to work, the shops, use public transport, exercise is an awful restriction but its not house arrest and other countries were far more restrictive.

Edited by Graveworm on Wednesday 14th October 14:17

anonymous-user

53 months

Sunday 18th October 2020
quotequote all
Saying "Oh well, at least it's not as bad as it is Foreignistan" is no argument in favour of reduced civil liberties in the UK.

The road to liberty was incremental, and took a long time to travel. The road away from liberty is also incremental, but the increments are coming thick and fast. The latest attack on the rule of law is a proposal from the truly hateful Priti Patel to fix the meaning of "inhuman and degrading treatment" by Statute. Few will care at first, because Patel can sell this to the Express readers as aimed only at asylum seekers, but it is on a broader view a further attack on judicial supervision of the Executive.

A principled reform of the over complex immigration and asylum appeal system would be to replace the palimpsest of legislation with one new Act. Most bits of the palimpsest were introduced in a hurry to appease tabloid outrage The Blair Government started this - Blunkett in particular was a very authoritarian Home Secretary, just as Constitutionally and historically illiterate as his Tory successors.

Durzel

12,232 posts

167 months

Sunday 18th October 2020
quotequote all
I tend to think that the battle lines on this are drawn, like so many things sadly, by the impact on ones own position rather than a considered view of the whole.

Since lockdown I’ve been working from home full time, and I’m lucky enough to have a job (touch wood) that was never under threat of furlough or redundancy. I also old enough that I completed my higher education several years ago, and the idea of clubbing or really being out and about in town regularly at night was the exception rather than the norm. Because of not having to commute anymore my effective salary has actually gone up as a result of all of this, not down. So you could say that the effects of all of this on me personally are mostly just inconvenient (gosh I have to arrange next weeks shopping delivery earlier than I used to).

It’s easy then for people like me, and others in a similar boat, to proclaim that full lockdowns are the answer and penalties should go up and up from non-compliance. Those clubs I don’t bother to go to anymore anyway? fk em. Students told to go to university and then effectively imprisoned, whilst paying £9k for the privilege? That sounds really frightful.. one sugar or two darling?

I guess what I’m saying is that I’m not sure how effective a tool the public consciousness is for determining strategy, when a lot of people can not see past the end of their nose when it comes to impact, not only localised impact but on society as a whole, in the short, middle and long term. I can’t begin to imagine the impact this is having on younger people, particularly students, who already had the challenges that existed pre-COVID that have been leading to rising suicide and self-harm rates, etc.

I’m not in favour of a second lockdown nor herd immunity, but we have to find a way to live with this because we’re not going to get rid of it, not in this country at least - we’re well past the point of effective track and trace like New Zealand etc, not with the capabilities of the government we have, etc.

Edited by Durzel on Sunday 18th October 08:28

anonymous-user

53 months

Sunday 18th October 2020
quotequote all
Lockdown is ace for me. I get to work from home, see a lot of my lovely old mum who I have moved in with me, and get to play with my classic cars and bikes all the time. Very un-PH, I know, but my political opinions not dictated simply by my own short term interests . I earn decent money, but I vote to pay more tax. My child is at private school and has health insurance, but I support higher spending on State education and the NHS. Brexit is good for my business (litigation), but I oppose it. Same with lockdown: my views on it are not based on how it affects me.

Durzel

12,232 posts

167 months

Sunday 18th October 2020
quotequote all
Yup, I get that. I feel the same. Sadly I don’t think a lot of people see past their own self interests.

anonymous-user

53 months

Sunday 18th October 2020
quotequote all
Durzel said:
Yup, I get that. I feel the same. Sadly I don’t think a lot of people see past their own self interests.
In my experience many people have a hard time making the distinction between a principle and an example of a principle in action.

Take human rights. If the government say they want to abolish our adherence to ECHR to help get rid of those pesky immigrants, many people don't think about what else might be affected and nod willingly. There is little thought about how that principle might affect then in their lives.

It's the 'nothing to hide, nothing to fear brigade'.

anonymous-user

53 months

Sunday 18th October 2020
quotequote all
Public education as to what rights and freedoms really mean is not great. Many seem to think that rights can be extended only to those that they approve of. So, for example, groups ranging from foreigners to prisoners to benefit claimants, and in extreme cases to political opponents are, in the eyes of some, not entitled to rights. Most authoritarian regimes are very legalistic and rule bound. Take Soviet Russia and modern China as examples. Cummings appears to be a type of anarchist, but people like Patel are old fashioned authoritarians, so expect lots of rules as brutally uncaring political thugs like her dismantle the results of centuries of progress. Orwell wrote of a boot stamping on a human face forever. Patel, Gove, et al would probably pay to watch that on youtube.

anonymous-user

53 months

Sunday 18th October 2020
quotequote all
People like Patel and her boss are only interested in the short term. It's far easier (faster) to paint over the symptoms by changing laws and removing protections, than it is to examine and repair the cause.

What has happened with Covid is an exaggerated example of that.

Vickers_VC10

6,759 posts

204 months

Sunday 18th October 2020
quotequote all
Breadvan72 said:
Orwell wrote of a boot stamping on a human face forever. Patel, Gove, et al would probably pay to watch that on youtube.
1984 has always felt relevant but at the moment it feels like it's a work that the ministry of truth failed to place in a memory hole frown

Life is as depressing as the book made me feel at the end of it.

anonymous-user

53 months

Sunday 18th October 2020
quotequote all
Hope! 1984 is framed by "editorial" from which the reader is to understand that INGSOC has fallen, and liberty has been restored, at some time long after 1984.

anonymous-user

53 months

Sunday 18th October 2020
quotequote all
You have fallen for the tabloid spin. Politicians alone dictate the absence of resources from the system. Politicians set sentencing policy. Judges follow the policy. The politicians feed the media with stories to make the public blame the police, prosecutors, defenders, and judges for the politicians' acts and omissions. You have bought the package.

anonymous-user

53 months

Sunday 18th October 2020
quotequote all
Breadvan72 said:
Poverty kills. Look at 1929 and 2008. That factor is not getting sufficient attention.
The BAME stuff about genetic susceptibility and such like has been shown to be no more than social economic influences. This cv19 is killing the poor, whilst the Gov, has decided to shore and protect the middle classes in all it's cv19 policies, in a very clear way.

It's no real surprise the very richest in society are doing very very well from all this.

Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 18th October 10:15

Graveworm

8,476 posts

70 months

Sunday 18th October 2020
quotequote all
Breadvan72 said:
You have fallen for the tabloid spin. Politicians alone dictate the absence of resources from the system. Politicians set sentencing policy. Judges follow the policy. The politicians feed the media with stories to make the public blame the police, prosecutors, defenders, and judges for the politicians' acts and omissions. You have bought the package.
The Sentencing council set's the policy it is "An arms length body" and is mostly made up of judges and no "Politicians" so at least, in theory, it should be able to set whatever guidelines it needs, so in the main, policy could be said to be set by judges.

Maximum sentences are of course set by parliament as are the occasional mandatory/minimum sentence.

I suspect the biggest issue is that politicians do set prison capacity and resources available to the probation service etc. So the sentencing council has to be alive to those limits and long sentences create problems down the line. The prison service, like a lot of huge state bodies, needs fundamental reform, but it's almost impossible to do so as it needs all of it's existing resources and capacity for BAU, also existing prisoners were sentenced under the existing framework.

Edited by Graveworm on Sunday 18th October 11:14

anonymous-user

53 months

Sunday 18th October 2020
quotequote all
The Council operates within limits set by the Government, and there has been a spate of criminal legislation and sentence-tinkering over the last two decades.

irc

7,173 posts

135 months

Thursday 22nd October 2020
quotequote all
The Spruce Goose said:
The BAME stuff about genetic susceptibility and such like has been shown to be no more than social economic influences.

Edited by The Spruce Goose on Sunday 18th October 10:15
Interesting. Any links for that. I thought things like BAME healthcare staff having higher Covid deaths suggested a link.

"Current evidence for COVID-19 shows that those from a BAME (black, Asian and minority ethnic) background and males have been disproportionately impacted, with age and specific underlying conditions also associated with more severe illness."

"
21% of all staff are BAME – 63% of healthcare workers who died were BAME.
20% of nursing staff are BAME – 64% of nurses who died were BAME.
44% of medical staff are BAME – 95% of doctors who died were BAME.

(Figures from March and April 2020 - "

https://www.bma.org.uk/advice-and-support/covid-19...

anonymous-user

53 months

Thursday 22nd October 2020
quotequote all
The appalling Priti Patel got a well-deserved kicking from the Court of Appeal yesterday. Attempts to oust the judicial review function of the court were kiboshed. Of course, this makes it only the more likely that the Government will legislate further to oust judicial review, but the Judges are principled, and they will not be deterred from defending the rule of law until Johnson's captive legislature abolishes it.

Graveworm

8,476 posts

70 months

Thursday 22nd October 2020
quotequote all
Breadvan72 said:
The appalling Priti Patel got a well-deserved kicking from the Court of Appeal yesterday. Attempts to oust the judicial review function of the court were kiboshed. Of course, this makes it only the more likely that the Government will legislate further to oust judicial review, but the Judges are principled, and they will not be deterred from defending the rule of law until Johnson's captive legislature abolishes it.
I fear very much that you may be right and the current situation could excuse the erosion of judicial accountability or an increase in "Notwithstanding" legislation.
I was involved in several table top exercises, on matters unrelated to pandemics but with similar issues. In those the "Government" were way too ready to suspend Judicial reviews of what they were doing. It may be one of the few upsides of them using The Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984
They are well rehearsed and dance around the pinheads that are "The administrative Court is not really the High Court" and "Must have regard" does not mean that they can't still do something if, having had regard, they still think it's necessary.
Despite your opinion of me, I was and remain really uncomfortable. Even if there are specific individual circumstances, where it might be objectively justified, like a lot of things there are wider implications, including international responsibilities and setting standards to consider.

carinaman

21,224 posts

171 months

Thursday 22nd October 2020
quotequote all
irc said:
The Spruce Goose said:
The BAME stuff about genetic susceptibility and such like has been shown to be no more than social economic influences.

Edited by The Spruce Goose on Sunday 18th October 10:15
Interesting. Any links for that. I thought things like BAME healthcare staff having higher Covid deaths suggested a link.

"Current evidence for COVID-19 shows that those from a BAME (black, Asian and minority ethnic) background and males have been disproportionately impacted, with age and specific underlying conditions also associated with more severe illness."

"
21% of all staff are BAME – 63% of healthcare workers who died were BAME.
20% of nursing staff are BAME – 64% of nurses who died were BAME.
44% of medical staff are BAME – 95% of doctors who died were BAME.

(Figures from March and April 2020 - "

https://www.bma.org.uk/advice-and-support/covid-19...
Was discussed at the end of World at One on Radio 4, seems there could be an issue with what constitutes BAMEness.

deeb0

555 posts

59 months

Wednesday 28th October 2020
quotequote all
Although this thread has wandered around a bit it's been interesting. I read this article this morning, in line with the original discussions -

"This is an edited version of the the Cambridge Freshfields Annual Law Lecture, which Lord Sumption delivered on 27 October:

This is how freedom dies’: The folly of Britain’s coercive Covid strategy"

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/-this-is-how-f...





markyb_lcy

9,904 posts

61 months

Wednesday 28th October 2020
quotequote all
deeb0 said:
Although this thread has wandered around a bit it's been interesting. I read this article this morning, in line with the original discussions -

"This is an edited version of the the Cambridge Freshfields Annual Law Lecture, which Lord Sumption delivered on 27 October:

This is how freedom dies’: The folly of Britain’s coercive Covid strategy"

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/-this-is-how-f...
The full version is a brilliant speech. Very well measured and rational and delivered with expert precision. Well worth 1hr20 of anyone’s time.

https://youtu.be/amDv2gk8aa0