International News Covid-19 .....

Scotchegg

Well-known member
Joined
14 Dec 2017
Messages
7,653
Can I ask were you able to quarantine safely
Generally, yes. We still have a very clear policy to isolate and quarantine all suspected or positive cases as well as protecting those who are clinically vulnerable. Prisons locked down like the outside world. No visits with families and friends, no mixing outside of very limited "bubbles". Generally prisoners have been confined to their cells 23hrs a day for the best part of 18 months which has prevented widespread outbreaks. It hasn't kept covid out, but has maintained as much control as possible. Prisoners and staff have died, but not at anywhere near the numbers we originally feared, and it has been done without losing order and control of any prison or an increase in suicide and self harm. It is very easily overlooked but our prisons have been one of the covid success stories due to some incredibly strong and committed staff.
 

bazzer9461

Well-known member
Joined
6 Dec 2017
Messages
21,729
Generally, yes. We still have a very clear policy to isolate and quarantine all suspected or positive cases as well as protecting those who are clinically vulnerable. Prisons locked down like the outside world. No visits with families and friends, no mixing outside of very limited "bubbles". Generally prisoners have been confined to their cells 23hrs a day for the best part of 18 months which has prevented widespread outbreaks. It hasn't kept covid out, but has maintained as much control as possible. Prisoners and staff have died, but not at anywhere near the numbers we originally feared, and it has been done without losing order and control of any prison or an increase in suicide and self harm. It is very easily overlooked but our prisons have been one of the covid success stories due to some incredibly strong and committed staff.
That must have been tough on the prisoners being locked up for 23 hrs a day if they’re normally out for longer periods. You must have found that quite tough
 

RyanioBirdio

Well-known member
Joined
1 May 2018
Messages
4,525
I see that children aged 12-15 could be allowed to make their own decision on whether to take the vaccine if they disagree with their parents. Apparently the government will assign people to sit down and judge whether or not said children are “competent” enough to make the decision, even if their parents say no.

Put this in your back pocket for the next time these same people say that 16 and 17 year olds aren’t capable of understanding an election manifesto.
 

werthersoriginal

Well-known member
Joined
9 Dec 2017
Messages
5,866
Its a minefield, no doubt embroiled in layers of legal implications.

But if you are asking me if fans are going to be banned because they don’t have a Covid passport, then i think it would be hypocritical to exclude players and staff also entering the stadium.

Am I conflicted with this view if this means OUFC players can’t play, no.
Yes, exclude any players stupid enough not to get jabbed. They can do other work such as cutting the grass. That would give an advantage to clubs with more intelligent squads, which I think would include us.
 

Paul Cannell

Well-known member
Joined
7 Dec 2017
Messages
4,538
I see that children aged 12-15 could be allowed to make their own decision on whether to take the vaccine if they disagree with their parents. Apparently the government will assign people to sit down and judge whether or not said children are “competent” enough to make the decision, even if their parents say no.

Put this in your back pocket for the next time these same people say that 16 and 17 year olds aren’t capable of understanding an election manifesto.

Just depends which way they're planning to vote, shirley?
 

m

Well-known member
Joined
8 Dec 2017
Messages
4,522
I see that children aged 12-15 could be allowed to make their own decision on whether to take the vaccine if they disagree with their parents. Apparently the government will assign people to sit down and judge whether or not said children are “competent” enough to make the decision, even if their parents say no.

Put this in your back pocket for the next time these same people say that 16 and 17 year olds aren’t capable of understanding an election manifesto.

Hasn't it also been suggested that parents will have to sign consent forms for the above to take place?
 

Essexyellows

Well-known member
Joined
7 Dec 2017
Messages
10,403
Over 16`s can give their consent to treatment/intervention.
If a child under 16 is defined as Gillick competent they can also consent to their own treatment.
A non-Gillick competent child requires the consent of parent/guardian or local authority.
 

RyanioBirdio

Well-known member
Joined
1 May 2018
Messages
4,525
Over 16`s can give their consent to treatment/intervention.
If a child under 16 is defined as Gillick competent they can also consent to their own treatment.
Perfect.

Looking forward to 16 year olds getting the vote and nobody trying to claim they aren’t responsible or knowledgeable enough to be trusted with it.
 

Essexyellows

Well-known member
Joined
7 Dec 2017
Messages
10,403
Perfect.

Looking forward to 16 year olds getting the vote and nobody trying to claim they aren’t responsible or knowledgeable enough to be trusted with it.

The assessment for Gillick competence can`t be applied to voting in the same way.
I`ve highlighted a couple of stumbling blocks.
Source: https://learning.nspcc.org.uk/child...lick-competence-fraser-guidelines#heading-top

Professionals need to consider several things when assessing a child's capacity to consent, including:

the child's age, maturity and mental capacity
their understanding of the issue and what it involves - including advantages, disadvantages and potential long-term impact
their understanding of the risks, implications and consequences that may arise from their decision
how well they understand any advice or information they have been given
their understanding of any alternative options, if available
their ability to explain a rationale around their reasoning and decision making.
Remember that consent is not valid if a young person is being pressured or influenced by someone else.

Professionals able to assess competence wouldn`t include the volunteers at a polling station.
Voting is politicians influencing someone almost by default.

Mind you there are plenty of people, over 18, who shouldn`t be allowed near a ballot paper... :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:
 

Essexyellows

Well-known member
Joined
7 Dec 2017
Messages
10,403
And back to Covid...................

Roughly 9 admissions a day.
120 positive inpatients.
20 in ITU/ECMO

Cases are chugging along at around 430 a day across the County.
The age demographic has pretty much inverted and is now mostly in the under 50`s although the most poorly patients remain in the 60-80 bracket.
 

Essexyellows

Well-known member
Joined
7 Dec 2017
Messages
10,403
Things the Government need to consider - not an exhaustive list.
The NHS backlog.
The NHS "normal" Winter chaos/pressures.
Knackered, qualified, staff.
The economy.
Kids in schools taking Covid home to Granny
Folk choosing NOT to be vaccinated.
Travel.
Christmas (again).
90% have had at least 1 jab.
Long Covid - in children.
Long Covid - in adults.
Paying the bills.

And there is a positive and a negative to each consideration............ so maybe 🤷‍♀️ is about right?
 

RyanioBirdio

Well-known member
Joined
1 May 2018
Messages
4,525
The assessment for Gillick competence can`t be applied to voting in the same way.
I`ve highlighted a couple of stumbling blocks.
Source: https://learning.nspcc.org.uk/child...lick-competence-fraser-guidelines#heading-top

Professionals need to consider several things when assessing a child's capacity to consent, including:

the child's age, maturity and mental capacity
their understanding of the issue and what it involves - including advantages, disadvantages and potential long-term impact
their understanding of the risks, implications and consequences that may arise from their decision
how well they understand any advice or information they have been given
their understanding of any alternative options, if available
their ability to explain a rationale around their reasoning and decision making.
Remember that consent is not valid if a young person is being pressured or influenced by someone else.

Professionals able to assess competence wouldn`t include the volunteers at a polling station.
Voting is politicians influencing someone almost by default.

Mind you there are plenty of people, over 18, who shouldn`t be allowed near a ballot paper... :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:
The basic principle of a child potentially as young as 12 or 13 being allowed to decide over their own parents if they have something injected into their body means that the “they don’t know enough to be trusted” argument falls down when it comes to a ballot paper. That’s the bottom line - objectors need to find another reason that isn’t just a wavy hand and a statement based on nothing. The basic principle is shot and a comparable precedent is set. Suggesting that 16 and 17 year olds, who can have full time jobs and drive vehicles on roads at those ages, might have enough about them to put a cross in a box feels perfectly reasonable, especially as young people these days have far greater access to information than previous generations. My 12 year old nephew is infinitely more knowledgeable and therefore qualified to cast a vote than my 93 year old grandmother or my 70 year old father, neither of whom know what day it is half the time (dad is definitely showing more and more signs of having headed the ball a few too many times as he gets older…)

If I really wanted to boil people’s P**s I would start talking about a maximum voting age / standardised ineligibility based on retirement status, but for now I’ll stick to speaking up for ‘the yoof’ while strumming an acoustic guitar and puffing on a fat doob. “Well that’s just, like, your opinion, man.”

Anyway. Covid. Whoa. What’s that all about?
 

Essexyellows

Well-known member
Joined
7 Dec 2017
Messages
10,403
The basic principle of a child potentially as young as 12 or 13 being allowed to decide over their own parents if they have something injected into their body means that the “they don’t know enough to be trusted” argument falls down when it comes to a ballot paper. That’s the bottom line - objectors need to find another reason that isn’t just a wavy hand and a statement based on nothing. The basic principle is shot and a comparable precedent is set. Suggesting that 16 and 17 year olds, who can have full time jobs and drive vehicles on roads at those ages, might have enough about them to put a cross in a box feels perfectly reasonable, especially as young people these days have far greater access to information than previous generations. My 12 year old nephew is infinitely more knowledgeable and therefore qualified to cast a vote than my 93 year old grandmother or my 70 year old father, neither of whom know what day it is half the time (dad is definitely showing more and more signs of having headed the ball a few too many times as he gets older…)

If I really wanted to boil people’s P**s I would start talking about a maximum voting age / standardised ineligibility based on retirement status, but for now I’ll stick to speaking up for ‘the yoof’ while strumming an acoustic guitar and puffing on a fat doob. “Well that’s just, like, your opinion, man.”

Anyway. Covid. Whoa. What’s that all about?

Making a choice on clinical care is different from voting.

Voting requires more life experience/education, so you know you are being manipulated.

Should be 18 for everything - driving, sex, drink, drugs, voting, guns etc......... and then stop them all by 80... except drugs, toke on. :)
 

RyanioBirdio

Well-known member
Joined
1 May 2018
Messages
4,525
Making a choice on clinical care is different from voting.

Voting requires more life experience/education, so you know you are being manipulated.
I’ve only just recovered after reading this.

My mum is 66 and can’t tell what’s a fake news source and what isn’t when she sees things “on the Facebook”. My dad, aunt and uncle are all over 70 and think that things in the paper must be true or they wouldn’t be allowed to print it. My niece and nephew, meanwhile, are both in secondary school and can establish the basic validity and credibility of a digital source in under 60 seconds. They code when they’re bored - that’s where these psychopaths are at now. Mario Kart just isn’t enough for them. They also understand the power of information and the value of privately owned media. My nephew was at primary school a year ago but he can tell you who owns every major newspaper while my parents would struggle to get past Murdoch. They are more advanced than I was at their age, let alone the generation before me, and I’ve always been a jumped up smart a**e. Your average 14 year old is probably as street smart as their grandparents were at 30. The world has sped up astronomically. “Life experience” means less and less in a world that doesn’t resemble anything close to what many people grew up in.

“Older people” are infinitely more gullible and far more easily conned than school children these days, in many scenarios. The latter have been raised with advanced technology and information flying at them at a hundred miles per hour from all angles; the former remember when having a television made you posh. Some have kept up well and are tech savvy, obviously, but others can’t even attach a PDF or use a printer. It’s why so many of those over a certain age are so angry - they’re hopelessly clinging on to their last crumbs of relevance and authority while kids at primary school run rings around them. Anger comes from fear. It’s perfectly normal to be upset and start to trash everything when you realise you’re on the verge of extinction.

It’ll come, sooner or later. See you down the sex dungeon pub. Don’t forget your covid pass! 😉
 

werthersoriginal

Well-known member
Joined
9 Dec 2017
Messages
5,866
I’ve only just recovered after reading this.

My mum is 66 and can’t tell what’s a fake news source and what isn’t when she sees things “on the Facebook”. My dad, aunt and uncle are all over 70 and think that things in the paper must be true or they wouldn’t be allowed to print it. My niece and nephew, meanwhile, are both in secondary school and can establish the basic validity and credibility of a digital source in under 60 seconds. They code when they’re bored - that’s where these psychopaths are at now. Mario Kart just isn’t enough for them. They also understand the power of information and the value of privately owned media. My nephew was at primary school a year ago but he can tell you who owns every major newspaper while my parents would struggle to get past Murdoch. They are more advanced than I was at their age, let alone the generation before me, and I’ve always been a jumped up smart a**e. Your average 14 year old is probably as street smart as their grandparents were at 30. The world has sped up astronomically. “Life experience” means less and less in a world that doesn’t resemble anything close to what many people grew up in.

“Older people” are infinitely more gullible and far more easily conned than school children these days, in many scenarios. The latter have been raised with advanced technology and information flying at them at a hundred miles per hour from all angles; the former remember when having a television made you posh. Some have kept up well and are tech savvy, obviously, but others can’t even attach a PDF or use a printer. It’s why so many of those over a certain age are so angry - they’re hopelessly clinging on to their last crumbs of relevance and authority while kids at primary school run rings around them. Anger comes from fear. It’s perfectly normal to be upset and start to trash everything when you realise you’re on the verge of extinction.

It’ll come, sooner or later. See you down the sex dungeon pub. Don’t forget your covid pass! 😉
Yeah up to a point, but it looks like most of the real conspiracy nutters are fairly young or middle aged. Some of them might get a bit more worldly wise when they get older, some will get more and more into the wormhole.
 

MarkG

Well-known member
Joined
11 Dec 2017
Messages
1,846
The assessment for Gillick competence can`t be applied to voting in the same way.
I`ve highlighted a couple of stumbling blocks.
Source: https://learning.nspcc.org.uk/child...lick-competence-fraser-guidelines#heading-top

Professionals need to consider several things when assessing a child's capacity to consent, including:

the child's age, maturity and mental capacity
their understanding of the issue and what it involves - including advantages, disadvantages and potential long-term impact
their understanding of the risks, implications and consequences that may arise from their decision
how well they understand any advice or information they have been given
their understanding of any alternative options, if available
their ability to explain a rationale around their reasoning and decision making.
Remember that consent is not valid if a young person is being pressured or influenced by someone else.

Professionals able to assess competence wouldn`t include the volunteers at a polling station.
Voting is politicians influencing someone almost by default.

Mind you there are plenty of people, over 18, who shouldn`t be allowed near a ballot paper... :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:

*shemima begum.
 
  • Like
Reactions: QR

Similar threads


Top Bottom