International News Covid-19 .....

carefreeoufc said:
Was just reading this... the suggestion (by some) is the government is still persevering in a herd immunity approach, just by stealth tactics.
Click to expand...
I think they may well be. Those tube pictures this morning conflicting with what's happening elsware. Just watch the housing minister disseminating at gold medal standards, on all channels.
 
It looks like the official figures will now start differentiating between deaths from COVID with underlying conditions and those without. A positive step forward. I see the media are already slightly changing the terminology that they report on deaths too.

The layout of this page with the data is really good:
https://covid19.colorado.gov/case-data

I wish more would do this!
 
interesting reading- transcript of BBC radio$s World at One With former justice of the supreme court Lord Sumption - (cut n pasted from elsewhere)

Here is the transcript of an interview from BBC Radio 4's World at One , Monday 30th March 2020. With Lord Sumption, former justice of the Supreme Court.
[Thanks to John Burton for providing the text of this important statement.]

“The real problem is that when human societies lose their freedom, it's not usually because tyrants have taken it away. It's usually because people willingly surrender their freedom in return for protection against some external threat. And the threat is usually a real threat but usually exaggerated. That's what I fear we are seeing now. The pressure on politicians has come from the public. They want action. They don't pause to ask whether the action will work. They don't ask themselves whether the cost will be worth paying. They want action anyway. And anyone who has studied history will recognise here the classic symptoms of collective hysteria.

Hysteria is infectious. We are working ourselves up into a lather in which we exaggerate the threat and stop asking ourselves whether the cure may be worse than the disease.

Q At a time like this as you acknowledge , citizens do look to the state for protection, for assistance, we shouldn't be surprised then if the state takes on new powers, that is what it has been asked to do, almost demanded of it.

A Yes that is absolutely true. We should not be surprised. But we have to recognise that this is how societies become despotisms. And we also have to recognise this is a process which leads naturally to exaggeration. The symptoms of coronavirus are clearly serious for those with other significant medical conditions especially if they're old. There are exceptional cases in which young people have been struck down, which have had a lot of publicity, but the numbers are pretty small. The Italian evidence for instance suggests that only 12% of deaths is it possible to say coronavirus was the main cause of death. So yes this is serious and yes it's understandable that people cry out to the government. But the real question is : Is this serious enough to warrant putting most of our population into house imprisonment, wrecking our economy for an indefinite period, destroying businesses that honest and hardworking people have taken years to build up , saddling future generations with debt, depression, stress, heart attacks, suicides and unbelievable distress inflicted on millions of people who are not especially vulnerable and will suffer only mild symptoms or none at all, like the Health Secretary and the Prime Minister.

Q The executive, the government, is all of a sudden really rather powerful and really rather unscrutinised. Parliament is in recess, it's due to come back in late April, we're not quite sure whether it will or not, the Prime Minister is closeted away, communicating via his phone, there is not a lot in the way of scrutiny is there?

A No. Certainly there's not a lot in the way of institutional scrutiny. The Press has engaged in a fair amount of scrutiny, there has been some good and challenging journalism, but mostly the Press has, I think, echoed and indeed amplified the general panic.

Q The restrictions in movement have also changed the relationship between the police and those whose, in name, they serve. The police are naming and shaming citizens for travelling at what they see as the wrong time or driving to the wrong place. Does that set alarm bells ringing for you, as a former senior member of the judiciary?

A Well, I have to say, it does. I mean, the tradition of policing in this country is that policemen are citizens in uniform. They are not members of a disciplined hierarchy operating just at the government's command. Yet in some parts of the country the police have been trying to stop people from doing things like travelling to take exercise in the open country which are not contrary to the regulations, simply because ministers have said that they would prefer us not to. The police have no power to enforce ministers' preferences, but only legal regulations which don't go anything like as far as the government's guidance. I have to say that the behaviour of the Derbyshire police in trying to shame people into using their undoubted right to take exercise in the country and wrecking beauty spots in the Fells so that people don't want to go there, is frankly disgraceful.

This is what a police state is like. It's a state in which the government can issue orders or express preferences with no legal authority and the police will enforce ministers' wishes. I have to say that most police forces have behaved in a thoroughly sensible and moderate fashion. Derbyshire Police have shamed our policing traditions. There is a natural tendency of course, and a strong temptation for the police to lose sight of their real functions and turn themselves from citizens in uniform into glorified school prefects. I think it's really sad that the Derbyshire Police have failed to resist that.

Q There will be people listening who admire your legal wisdom but will also say, well, he's not an epidemiologist, he doesn't know how disease spreads, he doesn't understand the risks to the health service if this thing gets out of control. What do you say to them?

A What I say to them is I am not a scientist but it is the right and duty of every citizen to look and see what the scientists have said and to analyse it for themselves and to draw common sense conclusions. We are all perfectly capable of doing that and there's no particular reason why the scientific nature of the problem should mean we have to resign our liberty into the hands of scientists. We all have critical faculties and it's rather important, in a moment of national panic, that we should maintain them.”
 
It’s a question of perspective , when I see the horrible pictures coming out of Italy , with its health service on the verge of collapse, deaths everywhere drs dying after looking after covid 19 patients , I would rather that the government did it’s best for the nation , yes there has been a degree of overkill in the police response, but why because people assume that it won’t happen to them so they can do what they want and sod anyone else
 
Sarge said:
What I say to them is I am not a scientist but it is the right and duty of every citizen to look and see what the scientists have said and to analyse it for themselves and to draw common sense conclusions. We are all perfectly capable of doing that...”
Click to expand...


But this is the problem, many have shown that they do not have the capability to analyse this and draw common sense conclusions, including our former Justice of the Supreme Court.

Covid-19 presents a very real threat to significant lose of life. The numbers are relatively low at this stage, but look at the virus has spread though high density areas? India and Africa are right at the beginning of the spread and we could be seeing truly horrific figures in the next few weeks.

To imply that this is all a big plan to tighten civil liberties is a bit stupid, and shows that Lord Sumption could do with a little common sense too!
 
The Police need the powers because not everyone has the capacity of "common sense".

Testing...... the reality, we have the kit, that kit needs reagents .
There is a limited supply of quantities, for obvious reasons, we can order 500 litres and get 100, that limits how many tests can take place.
We are testing the living inpatients first.
This is NOT a "pee on a stick" test its complex and needs staff in the labs, many of whom are self isolating.
You can`t magic scientists out of nowhere.

Lots of these folk on the periphery are blowing out of their arses compared to the reality.
 
Essexyellows said:
The Police need the powers because not everyone has the capacity of "common sense".

Testing...... the reality, we have the kit, that kit needs reagents .
There is a limited supply of quantities, for obvious reasons, we can order 500 litres and get 100, that limits how many tests can take place.
We are testing the living inpatients first.
This is NOT a "pee on a stick" test its complex and needs staff in the labs, many of whom are self isolating.
You can`t magic scientists out of nowhere.

Lots of these folk on the periphery are blowing out of their arses compared to the reality.
Click to expand...

According to the Chemical Industry there isn't a shortage of the reagents and nobody has asked them to increase production either if it is needed. As per the Peston tweet above.
 
Marked Ox said:
According to the Chemical Industry there isn't a shortage of the reagents and nobody has asked them to increase production either if it is needed. As per the Peston tweet above.
Click to expand...
The news briefing this afternoon should be interesting! I wonder who will appear to "put the record straight" Won't be Gove, unless he has discovered a spine.
 
Sarge said:
interesting reading- transcript of BBC radio$s World at One With former justice of the supreme court Lord Sumption - (cut n pasted from elsewhere)

Here is the transcript of an interview from BBC Radio 4's World at One , Monday 30th March 2020. With Lord Sumption, former justice of the Supreme Court.
[Thanks to John Burton for providing the text of this important statement.]

“The real problem is that when human societies lose their freedom, it's not usually because tyrants have taken it away. It's usually because people willingly surrender their freedom in return for protection against some external threat. And the threat is usually a real threat but usually exaggerated. That's what I fear we are seeing now. The pressure on politicians has come from the public. They want action. They don't pause to ask whether the action will work. They don't ask themselves whether the cost will be worth paying. They want action anyway. And anyone who has studied history will recognise here the classic symptoms of collective hysteria.

Hysteria is infectious. We are working ourselves up into a lather in which we exaggerate the threat and stop asking ourselves whether the cure may be worse than the disease.

Q At a time like this as you acknowledge , citizens do look to the state for protection, for assistance, we shouldn't be surprised then if the state takes on new powers, that is what it has been asked to do, almost demanded of it.

A Yes that is absolutely true. We should not be surprised. But we have to recognise that this is how societies become despotisms. And we also have to recognise this is a process which leads naturally to exaggeration. The symptoms of coronavirus are clearly serious for those with other significant medical conditions especially if they're old. There are exceptional cases in which young people have been struck down, which have had a lot of publicity, but the numbers are pretty small. The Italian evidence for instance suggests that only 12% of deaths is it possible to say coronavirus was the main cause of death. So yes this is serious and yes it's understandable that people cry out to the government. But the real question is : Is this serious enough to warrant putting most of our population into house imprisonment, wrecking our economy for an indefinite period, destroying businesses that honest and hardworking people have taken years to build up , saddling future generations with debt, depression, stress, heart attacks, suicides and unbelievable distress inflicted on millions of people who are not especially vulnerable and will suffer only mild symptoms or none at all, like the Health Secretary and the Prime Minister.

Q The executive, the government, is all of a sudden really rather powerful and really rather unscrutinised. Parliament is in recess, it's due to come back in late April, we're not quite sure whether it will or not, the Prime Minister is closeted away, communicating via his phone, there is not a lot in the way of scrutiny is there?

A No. Certainly there's not a lot in the way of institutional scrutiny. The Press has engaged in a fair amount of scrutiny, there has been some good and challenging journalism, but mostly the Press has, I think, echoed and indeed amplified the general panic.

Q The restrictions in movement have also changed the relationship between the police and those whose, in name, they serve. The police are naming and shaming citizens for travelling at what they see as the wrong time or driving to the wrong place. Does that set alarm bells ringing for you, as a former senior member of the judiciary?

A Well, I have to say, it does. I mean, the tradition of policing in this country is that policemen are citizens in uniform. They are not members of a disciplined hierarchy operating just at the government's command. Yet in some parts of the country the police have been trying to stop people from doing things like travelling to take exercise in the open country which are not contrary to the regulations, simply because ministers have said that they would prefer us not to. The police have no power to enforce ministers' preferences, but only legal regulations which don't go anything like as far as the government's guidance. I have to say that the behaviour of the Derbyshire police in trying to shame people into using their undoubted right to take exercise in the country and wrecking beauty spots in the Fells so that people don't want to go there, is frankly disgraceful.

This is what a police state is like. It's a state in which the government can issue orders or express preferences with no legal authority and the police will enforce ministers' wishes. I have to say that most police forces have behaved in a thoroughly sensible and moderate fashion. Derbyshire Police have shamed our policing traditions. There is a natural tendency of course, and a strong temptation for the police to lose sight of their real functions and turn themselves from citizens in uniform into glorified school prefects. I think it's really sad that the Derbyshire Police have failed to resist that.

Q There will be people listening who admire your legal wisdom but will also say, well, he's not an epidemiologist, he doesn't know how disease spreads, he doesn't understand the risks to the health service if this thing gets out of control. What do you say to them?

A What I say to them is I am not a scientist but it is the right and duty of every citizen to look and see what the scientists have said and to analyse it for themselves and to draw common sense conclusions. We are all perfectly capable of doing that and there's no particular reason why the scientific nature of the problem should mean we have to resign our liberty into the hands of scientists. We all have critical faculties and it's rather important, in a moment of national panic, that we should maintain them.”
Click to expand...

Well while I *absolutely* understand what he is saying about despotism thriving when there is an external threat, the danger of hysterical exaggeration and the loss of personal freedoms - I don't totally agree.

If it were just this country introducing such measures then yes - it would be a potential coup. But countries as far apart politically and philosophically as China. the US, Italy and some Scandinavian countries as well as many more have introduced a range of similar measures. That says to me that they are probably the best way of combating the virus.

This sentence in particular got my goat a bit "What I say to them is I am not a scientist but it is the right and duty of every citizen to look and see what the scientists have said and to analyse it for themselves and to draw common sense conclusions. We are all perfectly capable of doing that and there's no particular reason why the scientific nature of the problem should mean we have to resign our liberty into the hands of scientists." It is rubbish. I am not (particularly) thick, but I would not claim to have the scientific background to be able to analyse the data as an epidemiologist would or to say that the mathematical models developed over years were 'wrong'. It IS a scientific problem and the best group of people to advise on it ARE scientists. Giving people the license to just say 'I don't believe it, so I will act how I want' (which is how that will be interpreted) is the kind of 'magical' thinking employed by Trump, climate change deniers, flat earthers and other fruit loops.

As someone who is habitually suspicious of governments (and I am not at all convinced the current lot have handled this very well or told all of the truth all of the time) - I am OK with giving up my liberties for a while (although I am not enjoying it one bit) to save the lives of other people. The crunch will come AFTER this has diminished to a lower level - then we have to ensure that personal liberties are fully restored and quickly.
 
Marked Ox said:
According to the Chemical Industry there isn't a shortage of the reagents and nobody has asked them to increase production either if it is needed. As per the Peston tweet above.
Click to expand...

I care not about Peston`s tweet or what the "Industry Body" (protecting its members interests by any chance?) say. I`m just telling the front line reality. I could provide documentary evidence of reduced orders, but what do I know? :rolleyes:

Irrespective of volumes received, kit available etc you also need people to do the work and manage the results data etc. if those folk aren`t able to be at work it slows things down.
Reality is that it will be another 7-10 days before our Trust is back to anywhere near normal staffing levels, then we are also under the same social distancing rules as well.
 
Couple of items on the BBC last couple of days: discussion about possible futures for Tories in a book by Nick Timothy, one of the geniuses behind the May election debacle of 2017 and nuancing of Thatcher’s ‘no such thing as society’ in response to Johnson’s latest turn. The Beeb doing their best to prop up our current leaders, bless them.
 
Arguing with you because you're not thick and a beacon of sense.

ZeroTheHero said:
This sentence in particular got my goat a bit "What I say to them is I am not a scientist but it is the right and duty of every citizen to look and see what the scientists have said and to analyse it for themselves and to draw common sense conclusions. We are all perfectly capable of doing that and there's no particular reason why the scientific nature of the problem should mean we have to resign our liberty into the hands of scientists." It is rubbish. I am not (particularly) thick, but I would not claim to have the scientific background to be able to analyse the data as an epidemiologist would or to say that the mathematical models developed over years were 'wrong'. It IS a scientific problem and the best group of people to advise on it ARE scientists. Giving people the license to just say 'I don't believe it, so I will act how I want' (which is how that will be interpreted) is the kind of 'magical' thinking employed by Trump, climate change deniers, flat earthers and other fruit loops.
Click to expand...

I think you and @Scotchegg are both criticising him for something he didn't mean (I don't think he said it either) - he's talking about a long view, I think - and in the long-term context his concerns are well-grounded in my opinion.

I think the UK has been a case in point for not trusting experts: first 'the experts' said we needn't worry, it would only need a few old folks to croak and we'd have the 'herd instinct', then they said 'all change' and we're in lockdown. Which group were right? I'm not a scientist but I can see that the advice from scientists has differed and continues to differ this one says the peak is passed, that says it's 2 months off. Who to believe? Well, not the newspapers and not your mate across the road, on facebook or on this forum and which expert?

On your point about giving people licence to say I'll do what I want - it beggars belief that anyone will analyse it for themselves not draw the common sense conclusions that preventing the transmission is important and that I don't want to be the one to break that effort and potentially kill someone. This works for that period of time when the government is believed, suffering (loss of income, boredom and sickness) is mild - people will tolerate it. People of good intention (like us) will support the police banging people up for breaking the rules (fwiw) I was aghast at the police being told to take it easy on offenders. This period will not last forever.


ZeroTheHero said:
The crunch will come AFTER this has diminished to a lower level - then we have to ensure that personal liberties are fully restored and quickly.
Click to expand...

Absolutely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

OUFC OX3
  • Poll
Within the UK should any COVID-19 restrictions be applied (poll)?
2
Replies
35
Views
7K
radicalox
radicalox
Essexyellows
International News Covid Passport....
4 5 6
Replies
105
Views
15K
mariokempes
M
Essexyellows
National News Good "Covid" News....
Replies
6
Views
6K
Essexyellows
Essexyellows
MalaysiaYellow
Covid 19 - The New Norm. Likes and Dislikes
3 4 5
Replies
85
Views
18K
MalaysiaYellow
MalaysiaYellow
mooro
1% for covid
2
Replies
31
Views
10K
Essexyellows
Essexyellows
Back
Top Bottom